Election Strategy for Conservatives

Free Republic Exclusive! | 5-1-12 | Antoninus

[Antoninus]

Let's face it. The second Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee for president, conservatives have lost the 2012 election. The time has come to attempt to make the best of a bad situation.

Please allow me to present my analysis of our current political situation and my worst- and best-case scenarios.

Worst outcome: Obama wins, Democrats Take Control of the Congress.
If that happens, conservatives have lost everything for the next generation at least. Nothing short of divine intervention could save us from socialism at that point.

Second worst outcome: Romney wins
If Romney wins, it doesn't matter who controls the Congress. Socialism will progress, and fast. Romney will have no opposition from Republicans and Democrats will only oppose to push him even further to the left. And he will acquiesce. That's his MO. Worse, Republicans will rightly get the blame for every piece of socialist legislation that Romney signs, resulting in catastrophic defeats in 2014 and a loss of the presidency in 2016 to an even more radical Democrat commanding even more insuperable majorities in Congress than Obama did in 2008.

Least bad outcome: Obama wins with less than 50% of the vote, Republicans control Congress with solid majorities in each house.
This could happen with the emergence of a strong conservative third party candidate that bleeds votes from Romney, giving Obama a Clinton-style non-mandate victory. A strong conservative third party would also have the effect of energizing otherwise apathetic conservatives to come out and vote for conservative Republicans down-ticket, even while voting against Liberal Mitt on the top line. The resulting government produces only gridlock which keeps us in the fight with momentum leading into 2014 and 2016.

Given this, I have decided, for the first time in my life, to vote for a Third Party candidate for president in November. If no one with more national name recognition emerges, Virgil Goode will be getting my vote. I encourage others to think about it and do likewise.

Conversely, you could delude yourself into thinking that Romney isn't as bad as his record clearly shows him to be and spend your time, treasure and energy helping to elect an admitted "progressive" to the presidency. If you decide to do that, God bless you. But don't claim you weren't warned.

[Graybeard58]

You DON'T register as a party member in Texas. You vote in the primary. That's how you declare what party you are registered with - by voting. If you vote in the Republican primary, you're a Republican. If you vote in the Democrat primary, you're a Democrat.

Exactly the way it is in Illinois. You walk in to the polling place on primary day and they ask you which ballot you want - there's no registration by political party whatsoever.

I have heard my Pastor comment more than once that he's "a registered democrat, yet always votes republican". I'm going to call him on it some day. That kind of willful ignorance is inexcusable.

By the way in more than 40 years of voting here, I've never been asked for any identification.

[magglepuss]

Well hey! I have a loquat tree in my front yard which produces much sweeter fruit than your antagonistic rant\attacks will ever bear. Come down off the hill you pompous condescending prick!

[freedumb2003]

>>No, you’re a Romney supporter because you’re a whiny baby who can’t take criticism without flying into a sanctimonious hissy fit. That’s how Romney supporters operate. <<

Hey Tex — isn’t is always a pleasure to see pure analysis from someone who can defend her argumentative position? Particularly someone who is defending the current administration and wants to see it grow and flourish for another 4 years?

Solid unemotional argumentation — it is great to see it here! I must assume you agree Tex!

[Marcella]

OrangeHoof you are correct about Texas elections.

1. Recently, Texans registered to vote, got a voter card.
2. Those who vote in the Republican primary will become
Republicans and their voter card will be stamped “Republican”. Those who vote in the Democrat primary will have their cards stamped “Democrat”.
3. For the run-off election, the voter must vote in the run-off of the party primary in which he;she voted.

There is no Independent designation for voters. If you don't vote in either primary, you may call yourself an Independent but it is not noted anywhere.

I have a Texas ballot for this primary - there is no write-in line and hasn't been for a number of years when write-ins for anyone were stopped for primary elections. The only way now to become a write-in candidate now is to declare as a write-in candidate by a certain date before the general election (not the primary). If there are declared write-ins for the general election, a list of these declared write-ins will be posted in every voting booth.

This Texas ballot for the Republican primary lists all of the Republicans who were candidates for president. They are all there - you may vote for Perry or Newt or Bachman or Santorum or Romney or Huntsman or John Davis, or Charles Roemer or Ron Paul or vote “Uncommitted”.

Voting for a candidate who has dropped out does you no good except for your conscience and I plan to vote for Newt.

[Antoninus]

Antoninus is a long-time freeper. I think having to read and manage this thread may be sufficient penance - provided he repents of course.

LOL.

I have this nagging premonition of posting on a FR thread in November 2014 after President Romney has "fixed" Obamacare and set it in stone, acquiesced to judicial fiat on homosexual marriage, convinced the country that a bail-out of bad student loans is urgently needed, signed an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants, kept conservatives out of high positions in his administration, and nominated a whole slew of judges to the courts with unknown records on key issues.

The title of the thread is: "Dems sweep to victory: Gain 90 seats in the House, 8 in the Senate."

[Tex-Con-Man]

This is too stupid to waste any more time on...sheeesh.

[Antoninus]

Be a man and stand behind your stance.

Yawn.

[Psalm 144]

“I have yet to see one FReeper posting that their mind was changed because another Freeper convinced them that their position was wrong. Just my two cents...”

I’ve seen two. Ionically, they cancel each other’s vote, lol.

[Psalm 144]

Ironically, even.

Time for bed.

[Antoninus]

Describing it as the "least bad outcome" sure sounds like you're "OK" with it to me.

Sure. If words didn't have any meaning, what you wrote would make perfect sense.

Here's what it comes down to: You want me to vote for a leftist creep because he's supposedly a better option than the leftist creep being offered by the other party.

You can stuff your leftist creep where the sun don't shine. I'm voting for a conservative.

[freedumb2003]

>>Shut up and vote however the hell you want, but don’t expect your emotional outburst vanity post to change anyones mind.<<

I am thinking this is cathartic for all of us who feel we are forced into McCain 2.0 — it sucked last time and it sucks even more this time. It actually HURTS this time (in my gut anyway).

So, we have to throw the spaghetti onto the roof — look at barry as POTUS or ANYONE ELSE as POTUS and ANYONE ELSE wins if we love our country and don’t want to spend the next 25 or 30 years undoing the damage obozo and wife will create (I think we can clean the current mess up in about 10 years).

The idea that it is patriotic to vote FOR obozo by voting for someone meaningless (or write in Tex’s dog) is absurd — a “message” vote is, in real terms, a vote to retain the current administration.

We all hate this — we know Romney is the most liberal republican perhaps ever.

But we need to apply the Buckley rule — the worst righty is better than the best lefty.

But it hurts and gets our dander up when children say we should vote for bucky dent when we know that would destroy us.

Give me a chance to vent my pain and you have a taker!!

[SoConPubbie]

I’ve seen two. Ionically, they cancel each other’s vote, lol.

Ha!

[llandres]

“if you had a choice of leaders between a lazy, ineffective, pampered marxist and a driven, efficient, amoral socialist with a vendetta against conservatives, which would you choose? “

a) BHO has NOT been ineffective - he’s been able to nearly destroy us, our alliances, the free practice/speech of any religion except Islam, and make us the laughing stock of the world (particularly to our enemies) in just three short years. But he’d finish these things with a horrific flourish, if re-elected.

b) BHO has a vendetta against America and her friends.

So, which would I choose? Any candidate running against The Wan.

[freedumb2003]

>>Well hey! I have a loquat tree in my front yard which produces much sweeter fruit than your antagonistic rant\attacks will ever bear. Come down off the hill you pompous condescending prick!<<

You engage me, I answer you, YOU condescend and then because I *DARE* answer you at another level you call me condescending?

It is to laugh. You should take your show on the road to people at your intellectual level. DU and KOS are taking applications I think.

[Kickass Conservative]

Everyone here is pontificating about which way they will go, but I actually think that when faced with checking the Box on their November Ballot, minds will change.

Que Sera Sera...

[llandres]

“If you think a conservative Republican congress will be able to hinder or stop him from ruling as a dictator, you are dreaming.”

You’re right - this is the frightening reality.

[Antoninus]

What it comes down to is all this back and forth will not change a thing. I have yet to see one FReeper posting that their mind was changed because another Freeper convinced them that their position was wrong. Just my two cents...

That is not my experience on FR at all. People change their minds all the time regarding candidates to support. It's my contention that if Virgil Goode managed to get up around 10% in a national poll, a lot of people would give him a serious look. If you think that's out of reach, look how well Rick Santorum did in the GOP primaries with hardly any money at all. He went from 0.5% of the vote to winning the Iowa primary in about two months.

In my opinion, the absolute worst thing conservatives can do is knuckle under to Romney, Inc. and accept the liberal takeover of the GOP as a fait accompli. One of the ways we fight it is to make sure a destructive candidate like Romney loses. And if you think that's somehow disloyal, let me remind you--that's exactly what the GOP-e does to conservative Republicans in northeastern states who manage to win their primaries. Until we stop acting like sheep, nothing will change.

[EternalVigilance]

Whatever. I’ll almost certainly be on the ballot in California, and Goode almost certainly won’t.

And he’s going to have to explain a lot of votes he made as a Dem congressman, and deal with a whole bunch of CP baggage, especially on foreign policy.

You can go back to supporting the GOP’s pro-choice democrat now.

[Antoninus]

This is too stupid to waste any more time on...sheeesh.

That was exactly my sentiment with regard to your last post.

[freedumb2003]

>>Be a man and stand behind your stance.

Yawn.<<

You are defeated and pretty much admit it with that statement.

You should not have started this thread. Daddy didn’t come to your rescue as you imagined in your adolescent fantasy.

You had to hold your ground and you have been blasted from the battleground like fodder (and easily done, too).

Don’t waste your vote on jonny b. goode — just vote obama which is your real agenda here. Getting people to give up (and thus shift the win to obama) just doesn’t work with real patriots. Not those that can think for ourselves anyway.