OK, only if you can demonstrate for me that Romney can win ANY of those 15 states I listed...
Because if things take a turn for the worse in Oregon and many voters decide they want to change course, who do you think those voters will vote for? Goode? Hoefling?
You don't know Oregon very well, do you?
It wouldn't be Romney...About 1 in 7 Oregon residents is either an atheist or agnostic.
Most would vote the Green Party or Libertarian Party (Gary Johnson) before ever thinking of Romney, Goode or some conservative...
Romney has a chance of winning the election
Again, allow me to give you a primer: THERE IS NO POPULAR-VOTE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE...
Instead, it's like 51 distinct mini-races...the 50 states (+ DC)
Romney has a chance of winning 35 of those mini-races...HE HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING THE REST!
My question to you: Were you a betting person -- and they told you: "I'll wager you $10,000 that Romney won't win EVEN ONE of those 15 states or D.C...All you have to do is have Romney win ONE of those states...and you win the bet." Would you do it?
Would your "turn for the worse" grand illusion be enough to wager $10,000?
OK, only if you can demonstrate for me that Romney can win ANY of those 15 states I listed...
Absolute nonsense. Neither Goode nor Hoefling can win in ANY state, and everyone knows it.
(My original) Because if things take a turn for the worse in Oregon and many voters decide they want to change course, who do you think those voters will vote for? Goode? Hoefling?
You don't know Oregon very well, do you? It wouldn't be Romney...About 1 in 7 Oregon residents is either an atheist or agnostic. Most would vote the Green Party or Libertarian Party (Gary Johnson) before ever thinking of Romney, Goode or some conservative...
Based on the numbers you just gave, if all of those voters become disillusioned with Obama and vote third party, then Romney could win. He would still stand a better chance of winning than either Goode or Hoefling.
(My original) Romney has a chance of winning the election
Again, allow me to give you a primer: THERE IS NO POPULAR-VOTE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE...Instead, it's like 51 distinct mini-races...the 50 states (+ DC) Romney has a chance of winning 35 of those mini-races...HE HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING THE REST!
Everyone here including myself is aware of how the electoral vote works. Trying to evade the FACT that, barring something unforeseen, our next President will either be Romney or Obama by repeating that won't work.
My question to you: Were you a betting person -- and they told you: "I'll wager you $10,000 that Romney won't win EVEN ONE of those 15 states or D.C...All you have to do is have Romney win ONE of those states...and you win the bet." Would you do it? Would your "turn for the worse" grand illusion be enough to wager $10,000?
What a stupid question. I wouldn't have bet on McCain winning in 2008, but that doesn't mean I was going to just give up and vote for a third party candidate with no chance of winning, especially given what the only alternative was. And it doesn't mean we should give up on those states you listed, especially if things get so bad that they do become "too close to call" states.
Your response will probably be something to the effect that I'm being inconsistant because I just admitted that I voted for McCain even though I wasn't sure he could win. However, there's a big difference between voting for someone whom you're not sure will win, and one who has no chance of winning and who will take Conservative votes from the only candidate who has a chance to beat Obama.
BTW, I voted for Palin, not McCain.
Our next President in 2008 was going to be either Obama or McCain. Third party voters didn't prevent Obama in 2008, and you won't by voting third party in 2012. Out next President WILL be Romney or Obama. Make your choice.t mean I was going to just give up and vote for a third party candidate with no chance of winning, especially given what the only alternative was. And it doesn