“You know that’s not what TBBT meant.”
Uh, two people said he meant exactly that. I stand by my interpretation. If you support anyone other than Newt you are supporting Romney.
“It’s not rocket science. It’s pretty simple arithmetic.”
K, let me explain something to you. You’re arguing that we should always support the candidate with the best chance of winning correct?
What happens if we were to universalize that principle?
I’m arguing that people should support the candidate that best represents them. This way, if everyone were to do this, that you would get the representation that actually represents the people.
“Santorum simply does not have enough support to beat Romney in South Carolina.”
I reject that premise. Ergo, your entire ‘strategic voting argument’ falls apart.
I think he does have enough of a base of support to win. I am assuming that he gets 50 percent of Thompson voters and 80 percent of Huckabee voters in South Carolina.
That is enough. He got close to that in Iowa, and I think he can get that in South Carolina.
“Newt, on the other hand, is running between 3 and 10 points behind Mitt”
What that tells me is that even with strategic voting, he’s not got enough to win. If we back him and he loses, then what have we gained that we didn’t gain by supporting the candidate that best represents us?
See what I’m saying?
Is there a guarantee that if we all get behind Newt that he’s going to be able to win? No. So until that guarantee is there, I’m going to support Santorum and let the chips fall where they may.
“ergo, any vote for the guy who can’t catch Romney, is a vote taken from the guy who can.”
Nonsense. You are assuming two things. One, that Newt will get more support, and two, that Newt and Santorum together will be sufficient to win.
You aren’t taking into account the fact that Santorum supporters will go to Paul and yes, some will go to Romney rather than support Newt.
This is fatal to your argument. If Santorum supporters are actually sticking with him rather than going to Paul or Romney, then they are actually helping Newt by staying in, rather then getting out.
“you really ought to quit trying to convince everyone that the numbers don’t say what they do”
Why should I? You aren’t going to stop trying to convince people to support Newt. You support Newt, fine. You lobby for Newt, fine.
But don’t tell me what I can and can’t do. I don’t tell you to stop lobbying for Newt.
And yes, I have actual facts to back my arguments, inconvenient as they may be. If you want to actually address them, I’ll be happy to debate their merits.
“He just doesn’t”
Absolutely he does.
I haven't been lobbying for Newt. I simply express my support for him in various responses on election threads. You, on the other hand, have been working like a paid campaign worker on this website, on behalf of Rick Santorum. I think you're now personally responsible for 15% of the comments on EVERY election related thread, and it's ALL non-stop cheer leading for Santo.
And yes, I have actual facts to back my arguments, inconvenient as they may be. If you want to actually address them, I’ll be happy to debate their merits.
Sure you will. You're completely impervious to simple logic, as demonstrated on dozens and dozens of threads, over the last week or two. No matter what the polls say, or how many goofs your guy makes, you're convinced that Santorum is winning this thing.
I've got to hand it to you. Even though you get very few people agreeing with your posts, and are battling a virtual flood of disagreement, you doggedly soldier on. We'll see what happens to your stamina after the SC vote. Good luck.