Seriously? Perhaps you should re-read the post. The speaker has an actual in the office record. Mitt doesn't have any time in the presidential office. Thus your comment about my reasoning is incorrect. The issue we are considering is whether Mitt would be a better president for America than 0. And that a vote for Mitt was better than not voting. You don't think so based upon his record as gov of Mass. I believe Mitts record in Mass is not necessarily informative as to Mitts probable positions and actions in office as president. I believe Mitt did what he had to do in Mass to get elected. He had to get elected to have a foundation upon which to run for national office. You justify your non-participation by constantly regurgitating Mitts record in Mass. I can only conclude that you think Mitt would have governed the nation the way he governed Mass. I honestly believe your position is incorrect. You can choose not to vote as is your right. But justifying that position by stating Mitt would be as bad a president as 0 is self deceptive. Neither principled nor noble. Just your decision.
The speaker has an actual in the office record. Mitt doesn't have any time in the presidential office. Good grief. Are you so dense that you fail to see that Mitt has a record as chief executive of a U.S. state - which is much the same job as president, but on a smaller scale?
He was a Governor. He governed, i.e., we can draw forecasts as to how he would have governed, had he been elected to be the chief executive of the United States, based upon his prior record of governing.
If this is all over your head, please stop wasting your time attempting to engage in adult conversation on this site. Enough, already.