Herman Cain

[billt]

P.S.  If he ends up being the Republican candidate, does your statement that you cannot support him mean that you will vote for Obama?

Of course not. I'll be stuck voting for Cain the same as I was stuck voting for McCain the last time. It does no good to waste your vote, or stay home. So it only makes sense to vote for the guy who can beat Hussein, who is deplorable. Sometimes you have to take a defensive position in voting, just as you would in shooting. You have no other successful options open to you.

[Solus]

Of course not. I'll be stuck voting for Cain the same as I was stuck voting for McCain the last time. It does no good to waste your vote, or stay home. So it only makes sense to vote for the guy who can beat Hussein, who is deplorable. Sometimes you have to take a defensive position in voting, just as you would in shooting. You have no other successful options open to you.

   I didn't post that question directed to you, Bill, but I did think of it when I responded to your post on Cain.

I didn't bring it up because I knew your answer would be the above.  

Well, maybe I didn't "know" it...but I'd have been VERY surprised if it had not been.

[tombogan03884]

Bill has a valid point, this election is one case where the lesser of 2 evils may still be evil, but it is by far a lesser evil.
The #1 objective must be to get rid of BO, actually getting the "Best" person is secondary.
That being said I would still not vote for that POS Romney.

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-advisers-helped-white-house-draft-health-care-130122666.html

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama never met to discuss the federal health care law, but Romney's advisers did.  New records reviewed by NBC News's Michael Isikoff point out that "White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006."  One meeting, NBC News reports, "was in the Oval Office and presided over by Barack Obama."  Jon Gruber, one of the advisers who attended the Obama meeting, said that the White House "really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model." Especially in light of Perry's recent "Romney Remedy" ad, Romney is distancing himself from Gruber like an embarrassing ex, as aides have tried to suggest Gruber wasn't a really an adviser to Romney. However, as Isikoff writes, Gruber was "personally recognized by Romney when the governor signed the health-care bill into law" as well as "appointed by Romney as a board member to the Connector Authority."  Gruber himself has a few, possibly damaging, words for Romney:

    I think he is the single person most responsible for health care reform in the United States. … I’m not trying to make a political position or a political statement, I honestly feel that way. If Mitt Romney had not stood up for this reform in Massachusetts … I don’t think it would have happened nationally. So I think he really is the guy with whom it all starts.”

We should decide in advance who to write in  in case he does get the nomination.
While I don't think he can win, and I think some of his positions are poorly thought out, I would suggest Ron Paul as the default protest vote.

[Solus]

You can always vote for the Libertarian candidate.

That would make it easier for the Libertarian candidates to be included on ballots in the  next election cycle and might influence some politicians to take a more Libertarian lean to their position.

I know some don't like parts of the Libertarian platform, but it does strongly support the Constitution and individual rights and responsibilities, both of which would be a welcome addition to or desirable to be strengthened in any candidate.

[Timothy]

So, have we written off Perry for the most part?

So far, he's been rather lackluster and less than impressive.

I think we've proven again why Senators and Congress persons are less than desirable as Presidential candidates.  Give me a Governor or an Executive who's got a proven track record of one or the other and see what happens.

I'm still far more focused on the Senate and the House but I'll yank the big R lever regardless of whomever is the candidate as I've stated before.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

You can always vote for the Libertarian candidate.

That would make it easier for the Libertarian candidates to be included on ballots in the  next election cycle and might influence some politicians to take a more Libertarian lean to their position.

I know some don't like parts of the Libertarian platform, but it does strongly support the Constitution and individual rights are responsibilities, both of which would be a welcome addition to or desirable to be strengthened in any candidate.

The reason I did not suggest the Libertarian candidate is because RP has such a large cult following, and name recognition that a wide spread rejection of Romney as the SOSO candidate might actually put him in office.
That was my thinking any way,others may or may not agree.
My preference would be Perry or Cain.

[Magoo541]

The reason I did not suggest the Libertarian candidate is because RP has such a large cult following, and name recognition that a wide spread rejection of Romney as the SOSO candidate might actually put him in office.
That was my thinking any way,others may or may not agree.
My preference would be Perry or Cain.

Since we are writing in someone why not Sarah?   

[billt]

The fact of voting is if you don't select a candidate who can muster up the 270 necessary Electoral Votes, you've wasted your time and vote on what amounts to nothing. No matter how much you like a candidate or his platform, if they have no chance of winning you've accomplished as much voting for them as they have running. A complete waste of time, money, and effort.

Ron Paul is a good example of this. He has zero chance of winning. I don't care how many skewed "Straw Polls" he wins, or how much his small, narrow band of supporters cheer him on everywhere he goes, he has no chance. Soon he'll do what he's done the last 2 times he has run for President. He will fold up his tent and go home. This time a 3 time loser.

Everything everyone did for him will be a total waste, period. You can't say that about many of the other candidates, even Cain. At least at this point in time. Romney, Perry, and Cain all have a legitimate shot at it. Down the road the field will be narrowed to just a couple. Then you must vote for whoever it may be if you want rid of Hussein. It's just that simple. Ron Paul doesn't figure into the equation, and never has. That's right, never has because he has continually polled in the single digits, and always will.

Wasting time on him is a bit like someone trying to qualify a Ford F-150 into the Indy 500. They'd have every redneck in the joint cheering for them on every lap. It wouldn't matter because it would be all but guaranteed it would finish dead last, if it even made the field, which of course it wouldn't.

[tombogan03884]

Since we are writing in someone why not Sarah?   

Opinion is to polarized about Palin, it's either love her or hate her, no middle ground.
If she did win, the same demo tactics of continuous lawsuits that led her to resign as Gov would prevent her from getting anything done as Pres.
RP on the other hand would come as such a shock to both party's he would have some leeway while they figured out"WTF just happened ? "   

[Solus]

The fact of voting is if you don't select a candidate who can muster up the 270 necessary Electoral Votes, you've wasted your time and vote on what amounts to nothing. No matter how much you like a candidate or his platform, if they have no chance of winning you've accomplished as much voting for them as they have running. A complete waste of time, money, and effort.

Ron Paul is a good example of this. He has zero chance of winning. I don't care how many skewed "Straw Polls" he wins, or how much his small, narrow band of supporters cheer him on everywhere he goes, he has no chance. Soon he'll do what he's done the last 2 times he has run for President. He will fold up his tent and go home. This time a 3 time loser.

Everything everyone did for him will be a total waste, period. You can't say that about many of the other candidates, even Cain. At least at this point in time. Romney, Perry, and Cain all have a legitimate shot at it. Down the road the field will be narrowed to just a couple. Then you must vote for whoever it may be if you want rid of Hussein. It's just that simple. Ron Paul doesn't figure into the equation, and never has. That's right, never has because he has continually polled in the single digits, and always will.

Wasting time on him is a bit like someone trying to qualify a Ford F-150 into the Indy 500. They'd have every redneck in the joint cheering for them on every lap. It wouldn't matter because it would be all but guaranteed it would finish dead last, if it even made the field, which of course it wouldn't.

This is not true of 3rd party candidates. 

Around 50% of the Libertarian campaign budgets go to getting signatures on petitions for ballot access.  The number of signatures required is based upon the percentage of votes the party candidate received in a previous election. 

So, if you support a 3rd parties platform, you can make them more competitive financially in the next election cycle by voting for their candidate even if it is a no-win possibility. Most Libertarian candidates to not accept the matching government funds.