[Colofornian]

For instance, you are asking Christians to vote third party in places like NJ, CT, and Minnesota. Those are three rare blue states where Catholics actually voted against Obama in 2008, and will probably vote againsts him by more this time. It might not mak a difference, but with the third party for sure it won’t, in my opinion.

There's no "might" about it: There's no way Romney will take NJ, CT, or even Minnesota.

This is no different, btw, than those who accuse Virgil Goode/third party voters of "wishful thinking" -- that it would somehow "make a difference."

You are indeed engaging in "wishful thinking" if you think Romney could somehow take one of those three states.

This isn't only opinion-polling, but the actual votes brought to bear on POTUS elections in 2008, 2004, 2000, and the 20th century.

[Ransomed]

Hey, I reckon we will see. All I know is I am not going to vote based on how a majority says they are going to when asked by a stranger over the phone. I don’t think I would vote based on the voting history of my state, either.

I get the strategy, the only choice in my state was between Romney and Paul. I just think it would be too easily manipulated. If an opinion poll is wrong—either over/under predicting dem OR pub, triggering a conservative 3rd party vote seems too risky to me.

Freegards