First of all, what I propose risks re-electing Obama; it hardly ensures it, especially as Obama is in serious trouble with his own supporters, as indicated in polls, news stories, and opinions expressed both on MSM discussion forums and in casual conversations overheard, by folks who voted for him last time. Obama's support is WEAK.
When I vote third-party, when a Green Weenie Tree Hugger votes third-party, when a Ron Paul type votes third-party, when an Independent votes third-party, when a disillusioned Democrat votes third-party, and when a committed Libertarian votes third-party, each one of those votes will favor neither Obama nor Romney. Those votes will be neutral with regard to the outcome of O v R. IT'S MATH.
However, every one of those third-party votes, no matter who cast them, will count toward reducing the popular mandate of whichver guy wins, Obama or Romney. Both Obama and Romney are statists. I will vote third-party if only to prevent Romney from getting a disastrous landslide, because I know (and you do, too, in your heart) that Romney and moderates and the MSM and Democrats would spin what was actually a referendum against Obama, as a resounding popular mandate FOR Romney's "progressive style of governing -- see, the People voted for it in droves!"
Arrogant elitist liberal Romney with a "popular mandate" and the numbers to back up his claims, would marginalize conservative Republicans and tell them to sit down and be quiet like good little children because HE is the one who won, not them. A Romney landslide would be as bad as an Obama landslide; the difference is that there's virtually zero chance of an Obama landslide, but a very real danger of a Romney one.
Now, if you would be so kind, please explain to me precisely how voting for a statist, as Romney's record wholly confirms him to be, strikes a blow against statism.
Explain to me how electing -- and risking a popular-mandate landslide for -- a guy who is on record as supporting the homosexual agenda, supporting state-run health care, supporting the global warming agenda, and whose political past is replete with appointing liberal activist judges and creating tax-funded abortion on demand -- explain to me precisely how electing that guy as the defacto head of the Republican party, strikes a blow against statism.
Please proceed.
>> please explain to me precisely how voting for a statist, as Romney’s record wholly confirms him to be, strikes a blow against statism.
I don’t think electing Romney will strike a blow AGAINST statism, but I do believe it will strike less of a blow FOR statism than will electing the statist Obama with a proven record not only of statism but of actually hating America’s role in world leadership, and wishing to diminish it. In other words, Obama is a globalist statist with a marxist streak. Bad juju. KNOWN bad juju.
But let’s look at this election a different way.
You (circumstances) have forced me (the conservative voter) into a game of russian roulette (the election). I must use one of two revolvers (the two candidates). One revolver (Obama) has six rounds chambered. The other (Romney) has a single round chambered.
If I refuse to choose a revolver (refuse to vote, or vote third party) then you will just pick up the Obama revolver, point it at me, and pull the trigger and I will surely die (Obama will win).
What should I do? Well, as unhappy with my choice as I may be, the only one that makes any sense at all is to pick up the revolver that HAS A CHANCE of not killing me, yes?
That’s how I see this election. You do what you want; I’m going to do what is clearly in the best interest of my country and me personally.
No, it will favor the incumbent.
It's Math.