TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:I don't know where you are getting your information but all polls indicate that McCain has Texas in the bag. The latest poll Shows McCain at 57% and Obama at 38%. I concider 20% margin 3 weeks before the election "in the bag" Any suggestion that McCain could lose Texas because a few voters actually vote Libertarian or Constitution party is pure nonsense. We, the believers in real freedom, deserve to be heard . The Republican party doesn't represent us anymore and they need to understand that some of us have had enough and that when they give us Guys like John McCain we will no longer support them. They will just continue to feed as garbage as long as we continue and accept their garbage.

Aside from agreeing with you, let me just say that if McCain doesn't have Texas in the bag, then he's so totally hosed in the rest of the country that Texas won't matter.

Heck, even if it's just a close race in Texas, he's done for.

Skiprr wrote:You're absolutely correct, Kevin, that on an individual basis "a vote for Barr is a vote for Obama" is not true.

My point, however, was that we have a two-party race. That's simply the way it is.

A vote for Barr or Paul is asinine. If you do so, you're casting your valuable Second Amendment vote into the wind.

I like the way another candidate put it:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/c ... 81010.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But, back to the "he cannot win" argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.

With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of Michigan. In other key battleground states, McCain is slipping fast. He was ahead in Missouri; now it is a toss-up or leaning to Obama. A couple of weeks ago, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida were all leaning towards McCain, or at least toss-up states. Now, they are all leaning to Obama. Even the longtime GOP bellwether state of Indiana is moving toward Obama. In addition, new voter registrations are at an all-time high, and few of them are registering as Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party now claims only around 25% of the electorate, and Independents are increasingly leaning toward Obama.

Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.

I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!

So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle!
...
As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."




A vote based on who can win is "wasted" on anyone except the winner. Second place is the first among losers. A vote for the second loser, or third loser, is no more "wasted" than a vote for the first loser.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Barr is the nominee of the Libertarian Party. The LP membership comes slightly more from a Democrat background, than Republican.

It's absolutely incorrect to say that no one will be voting for Barr instead of Obama; I know quite a few people who would vote for Obama (or against McCain) if there was no LP candidate.

Are you telling us that Libertarians support Obama?

No.

I said that more LPers come from a "liberal" viewpoint (in today's terminology) than from conservatism, and would vote for Obama instead of McCain if those were the only two choices.

I am not one of those, but I recognize the trend.

Say what you wish, but I'm not buying it. I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. I haven't heard one Obama supporter saying they're switched their votes to Barr, but I've heard a few conservatives saying just that.

Today's most prominent and popular libertarian blogger is Radley Balko. By his own admission, he comes to libertarianism from the liberal end of the spectrum. In a column just today, he explained his biases, and explained why he will be voting for Barr, but would never vote for McCain.

(Mild profanity warning):
http://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/06/h ... my-biases/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You don't have to "buy" anything I have to say, but I am pretty involved and in tune with the political spectrum ranging from libertarianism to anarcho-capitalism, agorism, and voluntaryism.

Kevin

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Obama supporters aren't about to vote for Bob Barr! The only people who will vote for Bob Barr are strong conservatives.

Barr is the nominee of the Libertarian Party. The LP membership comes slightly more from a Democrat background, than Republican.

It's absolutely incorrect to say that no one will be voting for Barr instead of Obama; I know quite a few people who would vote for Obama (or against McCain) if there was no LP candidate.

Skiprr wrote:A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama.

This is simply not true, unless the voter would have voted for McCain instead of Barr.

If the voter would not have voted for McCain anyway, a 3rd party vote doesn't affect the race between McCain and Obama.

If the voter would have voted for Obama but opts for a 3rd party instead, then that is a vote against Obama.

And of course if a voter would have otherwise stayed home, a 3rd party vote neither helps nor hurts either major candidate.

A lot of Republicans still blame Ross Perot for Bill Clinton being elected, but research and polls showed that he drew equally from both parties.