“Well, it’s not 100% about opinion-polling.”
Fair enough, but it seems to me it is only 100% not about opinion polling in a very few states, either totally blue or totally red. In some other states, even those that have gone blue for a while, one is taking a risk by trusting opinion polling before the fact over all other factors, such as last election’s exit polling.
For instance, you are asking Christians to vote third party in places like NJ, CT, and Minnesota. Those are three rare blue states where Catholics actually voted against Obama in 2008, and will probably vote againsts him by more this time. It might not mak a difference, but with the third party for sure it won’t, in my opinion.
This strategy, at least for me, relies too much on opinion polling before the fact. All it would take is skewed or biased opinion polling in moderately safe blue or red states and the third party voting would become important in the election, which defeats the purpose of the voting strategy, at least to my understanding.
Freegards
There's no "might" about it: There's no way Romney will take NJ, CT, or even Minnesota.
This is no different, btw, than those who accuse Virgil Goode/third party voters of "wishful thinking" -- that it would somehow "make a difference."
You are indeed engaging in "wishful thinking" if you think Romney could somehow take one of those three states.
This isn't only opinion-polling, but the actual votes brought to bear on POTUS elections in 2008, 2004, 2000, and the 20th century.