Let's use your own logic, GSC. You live in Massachusetts. There isn't a snowball's chance that Romney will win in Massachusetts in a presidential election. Rasmussen lists Massachusetts as one of the bluest of blue states. He says that Obama has a 56-35 lead over Mitt, and that even though Romney was governor there, he is doing very poorly. Rasmussen, of course, uses likely voters, and a realistic party affiliation weighting. His numbers in Massachusetts are probably right on the money.
Therefore, you are throwing your vote away voting for Romney in Massachusetts. You know I'm right.
So, if you are suggesting that conservatives who vote for 3rd party candidates are throwing their vote away, then why are you pushing a candidate in Massachusetts who does not have a chance, who amounts to your throwing your vote away?
Your best bet, since Romney has zero chance in your state, is to vote your conservative principles for a real conservative. That way you would AT LEAST have some benefit come from your vote. You would send a message to the GOP-E that you want no more liberal candidates.
You sarcastically called yourself "Gay State Conservative". We both know that folks like Barney Frank AND Mitt Romney helped make the punchline of your joke make sense.
Don't throw away your Massachusetts vote. Vote for the most conservative candidate who makes your Massachusetts ballot. The BEST a Massachusetts conservative could hope for is to send a message.
The message of a vote for Romney would be: I think Romney and liberal Rinos are fine and dandy.
The message of a vote for a 3rd party would be: I insist on conservatives and will vote my conservative principles.
So, which will it be?
I would agree. If you aren’t happy with the republican candidate, and you live in a state where Romney is a sure bet, or Obama is a sure bet, and there’s a serious 3rd-party candidate who you actually think is ready to be President, vote for them.
However, I do think that some people who call for the 3rd-party vote suggest supporting whatever candidate gets the nomination from the “conservative” party they choose, whether or not that candidate has any experience at all running anything.
For example, Virgil Goode is excellent, on at least some conservative issues (judge for yourself — see his website). But I’m not sure I’d want to take the chance of making him President, without knowing a lot more about what his skills at running large organizations are. Not sure being a congressman is enough.
But some of the other 3rd-party candidates don’t even have that. Not that you need an elected office first, but certainly we’d be looking for more than “ran the HOA, served on the PTA, or were the chair of a state republican party” (not sure if any of the candidates have any of those on the resume, just using them as examples).
Herman Cain had been the president and CEO of a fairly large company, and had a lot of public speaking experience. I argued that he wasn’t very qualified from an experience perspective, but I’d expect a 3rd-party candidate to at least have that type of experience.
I think the problem is that if you really have the leadership capability to run this country, you probably would end up being a major party candidate.