Christie

[Solus]

Based on what I read here I would say that the main reason Conservatives lose and have LET the Republican Party go to the left is because they don't deserve to win.
The Democrats Know what they are doing.
They have a set goal, they have a carefully planned, PROVEN, program for getting there, and they know how to win elections.
Nothing at all like the Conservatives.

You are right Tom....and that is disturbing, not because you are right but because of what you are right about and all that it implies.

[tombogan03884]

You can also verify that the Dems have had a long term relationship with both organized crime, and Unions.
When "hope and change" don't work they are perfectly capable of using thuggery.

[jaybet]

Agreed, Tom. Communist Party-like.
The Republicans don't seem to have a cause anymore.

[tombogan03884]

It is also blindingly obvious that the MSM is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the leftist democrats.
Correct ?

[santahog]

The GOP doesn't represent my views. Individual GOP candidates may, but "the Party" doesn't, anymore. Maybe it never did. I don't know at this point.
Cuccinelli was a good candidate. I supported him, but it's not my State.
Perhaps for the sake of equal representation, northern VA should secede..

[Sponsor]

[billt]

Here is the way I approach, and look at voting. Most people make this way more complicated than it really is. Looking at the last several Presidential elections as examples, we have TWO people we KNOW (without a doubt) that ONE of them WILL become President. These two people are going to receive 80 percent of the votes presented. The rest of the votes are divided between 5 other contestants that have zero chance in hell of winning. Even Ross Perot who spent big bucks couldn't make much of a dent in the two main competitors when he attempted to run for President.

Now lets apply the two different approaches of voting.

Thought 1.) Voting for someone who doesn't even make the news, Doesn't even stand a chance in hell, is just a name on a ballet with fictitious backing that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

A.) The voter casts his vote for this guy because he believes in him. The voter is happy that his vote counted for the "BEST" guy there is. (And it IS the best guy!!). But this guy will NEVER be elected, his running mates have him outclassed beyond even being seen. In other words he is skunked so bad that his running is a joke. But your vote COUNTED for an individual that is extremely well fit for the job.

Thought 2.) Voting for the someone who has a chance to stop someone like Obama. Or the other side of the ilk.

A.) When voting for someone who HAS a chance, your vote is Guaranteed to go towards someone who WILL be elected. It may not be someone you think is qualified, someone you like, or someone you think will do a good job, but this someone is MUCH BETTER than the alternative.

When voting thought 2, one thing is for certain, Voting against the worse of the two evils and not voting for the worthless competitors, guarantees your vote will NOT help that person (like Obama) get elected. Your vote is cast upon someone you *know* will have a chance of being in office, and will be against the person you do not like.

When voting thought 1, One thing is for certain, Your vote that could have helped the worse of two evils get elected, has gone for a candidate that doesn't stand a chance in hell of even being looked at. The result? You are actually helping the person you despise the most.

Is it better to cast a vote for a person who will NEVER get elected, but is qualified to the hilt.

Or.........

Is it better to cast a vote for a person whom you KNOW will be elected, is closest to your ideals, and will be much better than someone you despise. ..like Obama.

[Solus]

Here is the way I approach, and look at voting. Most people make this way more complicated than it really is. Looking at the last several Presidential elections as examples, we have TWO people we KNOW (without a doubt) that ONE of them WILL become President. These two people are going to receive 80 percent of the votes presented. The rest of the votes are divided between 5 other contestants that have zero chance in hell of winning. Even Ross Perot who spent big bucks couldn't make much of a dent in the two main competitors when he attempted to run for President.

Now lets apply the two different approaches of voting.

Thought 1.) Voting for someone who doesn't even make the news, Doesn't even stand a chance in hell, is just a name on a ballet with fictitious backing that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

A.) The voter casts his vote for this guy because he believes in him. The voter is happy that his vote counted for the "BEST" guy there is. (And it IS the best guy!!). But this guy will NEVER be elected, his running mates have him outclassed beyond even being seen. In other words he is skunked so bad that his running is a joke. But your vote COUNTED for an individual that is extremely well fit for the job.

Thought 2.) Voting for the someone who has a chance to stop someone like Obama. Or the other side of the ilk.

A.) When voting for someone who HAS a chance, your vote is Guaranteed to go towards someone who WILL be elected. It may not be someone you think is qualified, someone you like, or someone you think will do a good job, but this someone is MUCH BETTER than the alternative.

When voting thought 2, one thing is for certain, Voting against the worse of the two evils and not voting for the worthless competitors, guarantees your vote will NOT help that person (like Obama) get elected. Your vote is cast upon someone you *know* will have a chance of being in office, and will be against the person you do not like.

When voting thought 1, One thing is for certain, Your vote that could have helped the worse of two evils get elected, has gone for a candidate that doesn't stand a chance in hell of even being looked at. The result? You are actually helping the person you despise the most.

Is it better to cast a vote for a person who will NEVER get elected, but is qualified to the hilt.

Or.........

Is it better to cast a vote for a person whom you KNOW will be elected, is closest to your ideals, and will be much better than someone you despise. ..like Obama.

I agree that this is all correct....as long as you limit your goal to the current election and do not care about any long term benefit.

I voted against Obama in the last two elections, going with the Republican candidate, and, in hindsight, I feel my votes were wasted.  Because I saw, and still see, BO as such a destructive force for our country, I made those votes in a desperate attempt to avoid him being elected, even though I was not at all fond of his opponents.

My position is that the vote for a good 3rd party candidate is a possible way to effect the outcome of future elections, but it takes voters who are willing to look beyond the current election.

Should enough citizens vote their dissatisfaction with the operations of the Democrats and Republicans, the future might be changed in two ways.

One, as the vote for the 3rd party grows, more voters would be attracted to vote that 3rd party.

Two, as that vote grows the major parties would consider altering their positions to gain those votes.
I know none of this is certain, but voting for Republican in past two elections was not casting "a vote for a person whom you KNOW will be elected".

As to the 3rd party not being generally known, look to the MSN and the 2 parties in power for much of that.

Even candidates who have achieved ballot access in all 57 (is it?) states is not included in the debates.  That is where the differences in the candidates would become evident.  Watch the Republicans and Democrats to their usual Song and Dance routines around the issues and see if the 3rd party candidate gives details.

The parties in power do very much to restrict ballot access to any 3rd party candidate also. 

The normal voter's access to knowledge of the 3rd party candidate is very much controlled by the MSM and the 2 parties in power.  Even knowledgeable voters respond to their efforts to remove the choice in candidates by refusing to vote for candidates who haven't been given the publicity and afforded financial benefits afforded the 2 parties in power.

Of course if either the Democrats or Republicans are running the show as you wish it to be run, continue voting for them since they make you  happy.

[jaybet]

I still don't see it Solus. I mean, I UNDERSTAND what you are saying and I agree with it, but if you vote that way for 3 or 4 voting cycles, looking at the long run and in doing so you ensure that the Obama-types are elected, you will not win either. First, by getting back in EACH time because anti-votes are wasted on the third party, the Obamas of the world will continue to undermine the constitution and the slant of the playing field. You allow that to happen for 10, 15, 20 ,more years, there's a good chance you won't even have the RIGHT to VOTE by then.

These people are a repackaged version of communists and socialists...with a much more refined ability to manipulate the media and the message, and a HUGE voting mass on the dole. Voting against them is the only way to hope to hold off the destruction of our nation.

Vote that way and have the fight within the Republican party or form a strong third party or whatever...but don't think you will stop the Democrats by voting for wanna-bes, even if they are the best candidate.

[billt]

The problem with all of this 3rd party banter, is the fact you already have an over 50% majority that wants the socialist in power so they can get free stuff. Everything else be damned. Now how can you possibly attract enough minorities away from the free bandwagon, and get them to vote for lesser government and better jobs through more capitalism? It's all but impossible.

Most who voted for Hussein want hand outs, pure and simple. They're not interested in jobs, and or self reliance. If they were Romney would have won in a landslide. He offered no hand outs, as a result he got nowhere near enough votes. Yes, a lot of Republicans stayed home, and that hurt him badly. But chalk it all up with apathetic voters, minorities who want hand outs, blacks who vote only on skin color regardless of poor performance, (blacks still have a 85% favorability rating on Obama), and a third party candidate has zero chance of winning. It's looking more and more like Hillary won't win, but the Republicans will lose yet again......Especially if they run Christy.

[kmitch200]

The problem with all of this 3rd party banter, is the fact you already have an over 50% majority that wants the socialist in power so they can get free stuff. Everything else be damned. Now how can you possibly attract enough minorities away from the free bandwagon, and get them to vote for lesser government and better jobs through more capitalism? It's all but impossible.

Quite the rub isn't it?
The losers who won't work, want everything handed to them for free and demand more and more from every productive American, have proved themselves the biggest, most motivated voting block in the country. And they outnumber us.
Friggin' disgusting.