Jude 2

There are others I think I might consider if I did not feel I would be 'throwing away' my vote.

I'm not picking on the member that said this but it does beg the question.... If the right to vote is so wonderful, and I think it is (both the right to and not to vote) then why is it ever considered throwing away your vote?

Are we so hung up on being on the winning side that we don't have real convictions any more?

Because we have a two party system in America, and history teaches us that 3rd party "principle" candidates (See: Ross Perot) only serve as spoilers, handing the race to the least desirable candidate and splitting the vote of the people of principle.

Politics is a game of compromise and expediency. Voters often are not voting for "the most ideal candidate" but for the most electable candidate who can prevent the most feared candidate from being elected.

So, in the case if this year: If the thought of "President Hillary" strikes fear into your heart (and it should) it is expedient that you select any candidate better than her, that has a prayer of beating her, and skip the "I will vote for this fine man even though only 2% of Americans will" stuff. If Hillary wins by 1% it will be the responsibility of the people who voted for a wonderful, principled, unelectable loser.

I know you aren't picking on me... But I would still like to say that PG has exactly captured what I meant...

Do you vote for an idealogy that will never be positioned in the White House and, therefore, will never truly effect change?

Or, do you vote for a candidate that, though flawed, will bring out some change? Then you are at least keeping the opposing idealogy from winning.

Do you use you vote to feel good about yourself at night or do you use your vote to stop someone from winning that would truly be horrible for our country?

Pastor Gary wrote:Because we have a two party system in America, and history teaches us that 3rd party "principle" candidates (See: Ross Perot) only serve as spoilers

Absolutely correct.. and Full Quiver knows this principle well. His objective is apparently for this very thing to happen. If not, I stand corrected.

MacUser, If you are suggesting that I am a Hillary fan and or supporter then yes you are wrong.

Pastor Gary wrote:Because we have a two party system in America, and history teaches us that 3rd party "principle" candidates (See: Ross Perot) only serve as spoilers

That's what scares me about this Ron Paul character. A) He has a really committed fringe group of supporters. B) He really is not a Republican. He's a libertarian, who runs as a Republican, so as to be more electable. Thus, he's not really going to feel too much loyalty to the GOP.

Thus..., I think when he loses in the GOP primary, he'll start a 3rd party campaign. If that happens, "Hello Madame President Hillary". It'll be Ross Perot all over again, and she'll get into office the same way her hubby did. Paul will draw off just enough voters from the GOP candidate to get her elected.

Full Quiver wrote:MacUser, If you are suggesting that I am a Hillary fan and or supporter then yes you are wrong.

Yes, Danny -- I am sure that is not your intent (Hillary's election) but if you know your actions will inevitably lead to that, it makes no sense to head down that path.

Here's a hard, inconvenient piece of political pragmatism: I am not real excited about any of the Republican candidates right now. I like a point here, an idea there, but there's no single candidate in this race that is:
(a) perfect
(b) has enough appeal to the general electorate to have a chance of winning
(c) excites the general electorate

...so the task we face is to find the one who doesn't make us gag when we say his name, and can draw enough undecided voters to beat Hillary.

That person will rise from the pack eventually, and I will vote for him If I can -- if WE can -- persuade enough people to not get distracted by the unelectable guys who will split the vote, a win is possible.

DaJudge wrote:

Pastor Gary wrote:Because we have a two party system in America, and history teaches us that 3rd party "principle" candidates (See: Ross Perot) only serve as spoilers

That's what scares me about this Ron Paul character. A) He has a really committed fringe group of supporters. B) He really is not a Republican. He's a libertarian, who runs as a Republican, so as to be more electable. Thus, he's not really going to feel too much loyalty to the GOP.

Thus..., I think when he loses in the GOP primary, he'll start a 3rd party campaign. If that happens, "Hello Madame President Hillary". It'll be Ross Perot all over again, and she'll get into office the same way her hubby did. Paul will draw off just enough voters from the GOP candidate to get her elected.

The only key issue that I differ with you on is that the Ron Paul character is not going to be pulling from the traditional GOP support base imho.. but from the liberal leaning groups that just can't bring themselves to vote for the Democrats any longer.

Pelosi and her group have failed to deliver the Iraq pullout as promised and these extreme groups are super mad and are voting single issue. This is where the Ron Paul supporters are coming from imho... but only time will tell.

MacUser wrote:
The only key issue that I differ with you on is that the Ron Paul character is not going to be pulling from the traditional GOP support base imho.. but from the liberal leaning groups that just can't bring themselves to vote for the Democrats any longer.

Pelosi and her group have failed to deliver the Iraq pullout as promised and these extreme groups are super mad and are voting single issue. This is where the Ron Paul supporters are coming from imho... but only time will tell.

Liberals will vote for Hillary. Period. Paul will pull voters who are fiscally conservative (want less big government), yet disagree with the war. These are folks who probably would vote for the Republican as a lesser of two evils, given no other choice, but Paul could siphon off their votes.

DaJudge wrote:
Liberals will vote for Hillary. Period.

Wrong imho. Hilary voted FOR the War ( huge No, no) and hasn't ruled out going after Iran. She's not the pick for the single issue anti-war voters.

Paul may get some votes that would normally stay home. People have been burnt by Bush and by the Dems.

I have said I am a Thompson guy right now so I don't know why you guys are assuming I am voting 3rd party.

Guiliani is not a conservative. He is a Republican but not a conservative. In fact he is an adulterer in much the same way bill Clinton was/is. Anyone that casts a vote for him should never mention Bill/Monica again. There are great possibilities that Rudi cannot beat Hillary. With that said why even consider him? He needs to be eliminated from candidacy now.

Full Quiver wrote:There are great possibilities that Rudi cannot beat Hillary. With that said why even consider him? He needs to be eliminated from candidacy now.

I am not sure why you think Rudi could beat Hillary. I don't know of anyone who supports him or plans to vote for him, and I mean NOBODY.

MacUser wrote:
Wrong imho. Hilary voted FOR the War ( huge No, no) and hasn't ruled out going after Iran. She's not the pick for the single issue anti-war voters.

Liberals know that Hillary only voted for the war for political purposes. They also know that deep down she's one of them. She's a liberal's nocturnal emission come true.

I am not sure why you think Rudi could beat Hillary. I don't know of anyone who supports him or plans to vote for him, and I mean NOBODY.

I don't think he can beat her. In fact I think the base will stay home thus the same as voting 3rd party according to the message portrayed here. If Guiliani is the GOP nominee won't you vote for him?

Full Quiver wrote:

I am not sure why you think Rudi could beat Hillary. I don't know of anyone who supports him or plans to vote for him, and I mean NOBODY.

I don't think he can beat her. In fact I think the base will stay home thus the same as voting 3rd party according to the message portrayed here. If Guiliani is the GOP nominee won't you vote for him?

That's a tough one... I probably would vote for anyone running against Hillary, even if I had to vomit afterward. As much as I don't support Rudy, and don't agree with him on most issues, it may come down to a choice between Devil #1 and She-Devil #2. If so, it's Devil #1.