No, not at all, it's more math based.
Ah, you're going to make this easy for me then
No, actually, you made it easy for me. Here in liberal/welfare Maine, it worked in our favor. Our Republican governor won with 38% of the vote against a weak RAT and a whining "independent".
If the "independent" RAT hadn't pulled votes from the weak RAT, the weak RAT would have won. Or if the weak RAT had dropped out, the "independent" RAT would have won.
Applied to the last national election, if conservative knotheads hadn't been all over the map, or even worse, not on the map at all...
We could be beating up on Romney!
Applied to the last national election, if conservative knotheads hadn’t been all over the map, or even worse, not on the map at all...
We could be beating up on Romney!
**************
You make a good point. But I prefer to think the “knotheads” were the two candidates at the top of the Democratic and Republican tickets. JMO.
No; you are wrong -- you explicitly stated that a vote for some other candidate was a vote for Obama [because it wasn't for Romney] -- this means that you think that all votes not for Romney or Obama simply don't count. IOW, you are asserting that those votes simply don't matter. If you say that the reason they don't matter is because that other-candidate couldn't win, then to be consistent your own vote didn't matter because Romney lost, and the past being unchangeable, couldn't have won.
There's no math involved in what you are saying, you are merely using math as a rationalization to assert that other people's votes don't count.