[fml]

It is the way to look at it, an agenda-ized perspective, to compensate for the fact that in voting for Romney, you're voting for a liberal. A more complete way to look at it is that by casting your vote for someone other than Obama OR Romney in the General, neutral between those two, you are using your vote to weaken either liberal victory.

Not so, no compensation needed. We all know who and what he is. Putting the needs of us all above the wants of a few is the bigger picture. If you chose not to participate that way, thats fair and I can respect that.

No victory is weakened, that's political doubletalk and is meaningless. It may make a bunch of you who cast vote knowing you will lose feel good, but what is that really worth?

[Finny]

No victory is weakened, that's political doubletalk and is meaningless.

So ... are you saying that if Clinton had won with a 53% majority instead of a pathetic 43% plurality in 1992, that in 1994, the Republican Revolution in Congress would still have happened?

Political doubletalk? Really?

Or paralyzing panic? Fear is, after all, the ONLY argument presented anywhere to vote for statist Romney.