Republican voters who refuse to vote hurt everyone else

[roamer_1]

The entire 1st page of posts is laughable! 

There aren't anymore Democrats or Republicans. 

You're either a Patriotic Constitutionalist or a Fk'n Commie when it comes to today's choices and/or differences in the Parties.

Well that's pure horsecrap right there.

[roamer_1]

I don't want flip-flopping watered down Republicans.

In 2008, I voted for Obama because McCain was not Republican enough to differentiate himself from being a Dem.  Why the hell would I want to vote for an open-border Republican?

In 2012, I voted for Obama because Romney was ... well, Romney.

The GOP establishment is ignoring the base and the grassroots.  Hence, the rise of the Tea Party Movement, the Freedom Caucus, and the subsequent America First movement.

Too few Globalist, Internationalist, Chamber of Commerce Republicans have too much influence in DC.

The GOP Establishment does not want to change, and will not change.  The only remedy is to vote them out of office.

That's right... Except the voting *for* democrats part... But not near enough emphasis.

[roamer_1]

When you do your research for an election, for the positions you just can't find a candidate to vote for, then pick out the candidate you would really hate to see win that position. Then choose a candidate to vote for from the opposition. Thus you are voting against and not for.

That is literally impossible. Your vote is your approval. You can only vote *FOR*.

[roamer_1]

This is a good example of the problem. They figure you have to vote for them no matter what they do, simply because voting for the alternative is worse. So as long as they are slightly less corrupt than the alternative, they own your vote.

Your reward for voting for the lesser evil is the continued slide into the abyss.

In short, until enough people have the courage to refuse to vote for these fools the fools will remain in charge.

There it is, right there.

[libertybele]

In 2008/12, there were other alternatives than voting for Obama.  Why not vote for someone named Baldwin, or Goode, or Johnson, or Barr?

Unless a 3rd party can qualify in all 50 states, there is no chance of them winning, first of all, so voting for them is senseless.

As I mentioned previously, we have a real problem when no conservative candidate is even bothering to challenge the GOP incumbent such as in Rubio's case.  So again my options during the primary were to vote for Rubio or not vote for him.  I opted not to vote for him.

Why oh why, should I then vote for him in the mid terms because he's the lesser evil??  No, I don't want Demmings seated either, but Rubio votes often along with the DEMS anyways, so, I'm not about to give him my vote.  He hasn't earned it. 

[Hoodat]

Unless a 3rd party can qualify in all 50 states, there is no chance of them winning, first of all, so voting for them is senseless.

So in 2012, it was better to vote for Obama than to vote for Virgil Goode because Goode had no chance of winning?  Bah!

A vote for Goode was a vote against both Romney and Obama.

[roamer_1]

Unless a 3rd party can qualify in all 50 states, there is no chance of them winning, first of all, so voting for them is senseless.

That's a narrow view. Without gaining support, the fledgling party will never get to the point of being able to qualify in 50 states.

And secondly, they need not qualify in 50. They need to qualify in the states they are likely to win - the CP, as an instance, trying to qualify in New York would be an utter waste of time and money.

[roamer_1]

So in 2012, it was better to vote for Obama than to vote for Virgil Goode because Goode had no chance of winning?  Bah!

A vote for Goode was a vote against both Romney and Obama.

That's right.

[libertybele]

That's a narrow view. Without gaining support, the fledgling party will never get to the point of being able to qualify in 50 states.

And secondly, they need not qualify in 50. They need to qualify in the states they are likely to win - the CP, as an instance, trying to qualify in New York would be an utter waste of time and money.

I see your point sort of, but the CP has never, every qualified in all 50 states.  Never. Obviously they need to at least be able to qualify in states with the largest number of electoral votes and be able to win those states.

They'll never be able to win a state if they aren't on the ballot in that state.

[roamer_1]

I see your point sort of, but the CP has never, every qualified in all 50 states.  Never.

Again, that ain't the point. Who cares if they qualify in New York, Massivetwoshitts, or Californica.
They ain't gonna win there anyway.

Obviously they need to at least be able to qualify in states with the largest number of electoral votes and be able to win those states.

They'll never be able to win a state if they aren't on the ballot in that state.

No, all the large electoral states with the exception of Texas and Florida are liberal states that vote blue. What they need is enough states to pose an electoral challenge with a path to victory. How they get there doesn't matter.