A vote for a third party IS a vote for Obama if it causes you NOT to vote for the Republican candidate. This is how Clinton won in 1992 due to a large number of voters jumping to vote for Perot who would have otherwise voted for Bush. Perot won approximately 19% of the popular vote, which caused some of the states to end up giving the electoral votes to Clinton instead of Bush. Clinton ended up with 43% of the popular vote vs. Bush 37%. Had even a small portion of those that voted for Perot voted for Bush he would have won a second term.tacticool wrote:Great. Can the Republicans party loyalists stop saying a third party vote is a vote for Obama?Charles L. Cotton wrote:If Obama were to get a second term, and he will not
Not only is it insulting, it's wrong. Candidates and parties have a choice which voters they will court, which they will antagonize, and which they will ignore. If a candidate willfully ignores (or antagonizes) a voting block, and loses the election because of the voters they ignored, the fault lies with the candidate and not the voters. That's true no matter if the candidate is Ron Paul, Rick Perry or Barack Obama. That's true no matter if the voting block is Libertarians, Greens or Unions.
Bottom line, when it comes to the final election, people need to vote with the candidate that has the chance of winning that will do things in their best interest. If a large portion don't vote that way, then the wrong candidate has a very good chance of being your new leader.
![banghead :banghead:](./images/smilies/banghead.gif)