Are you Registered To Vote?

[RobertNashville]

Amen. Far more important than who wins the nomination is keeping Obummer out of a second term exactly because the next Pres will get to appoint two or more sc justices and many more to lower courts...we can kiss the republic goodby if that happens.

A vote for a third party IS a vote for Obummer and for the death of the Republic.

[kieefer]

Early voting has started and the election is March 6th. Here's the ballot that you should get in the mail.

http://www.nashville.gov/vote/docs/ballots/pdf/120306_PresPrimary.pdf

Anybody know why and what good is it to vote for these delegates? I've emailed some of them since they are supporting Perry and Huntsman and asked this same question without a response so far.

Also would like to know if they are still supporting they candidate under their name.

[kieefer]

I'm voting for Ron Paul in Primary. If he fails to get the nomination for the Republican party, then I will probably vote 3rd party (Libertarian party).

I wish we could change your mind and others like you on this, it's to important of an election to let principles get in the way. It will discourage me too but we have to get this man out of office.

ABO in the General.

Edited February 19, 2012 by kieefer

[daddyo]

I'm gonna vote how I want. It is MY vote, you see, and no one else's.

[RobertNashville]

I'm gonna vote how I want. It is MY vote, you see, and no one else's.

No one is saying people don't have a right to vote how they want. People should vote their conscious in the primary. But, voting for anyone other then the Republican candidate in November will return the socialist in chief to office.

[Oh Shoot]

No one is saying people don't have a right to vote how they want. People should vote their conscious in the primary. But, voting for anyone other then the Republican candidate in November will return the socialist in chief to office.

Well, not necessarily, to be objective. Depends state by state. TN would have to have gone for Obama, with enough 3rd party votes to have swung it the other way. And of course no way to prove that there weren't as many disgruntled Dems as GOP in the mix (although this election I think it's safe to say that the majority of 3rd Party votes won't be left leaning).

There WERE enough 3rd party votes in TN in 1996 to have swung it for Dole instead of Clinton, had most of them been cast for Dole.

But like you, I'm damn near terrified it could happen this time around, too; and as inevitable as our downward spiral may be, there's no sense speeding it up, plus adding additional long term (if we have that) Orwellian overtones to it by letting O keep the presidency.

- OS

Edited February 19, 2012 by OhShoot

[daddyo]

No one is saying people don't have a right to vote how they want. People should vote their conscious in the primary. But, voting for anyone other then the Republican candidate in November will return the socialist in chief to office.

I guess we'll see, won't we?

[RobertNashville]

I guess we'll see, won't we?

We've already seen what happens when enough people vote third party; Bush 1 losing to Clinton and Gore losing to Bush 2.

I really don't want or need to "see" a third time in as many decades.

[Oh Shoot]

We've already seen what happens when enough people vote third party; Bush 1 losing to Clinton and Gore losing to Bush 2.

I don't think there's real data to indicate that either of those were swung because of 3rd party voting.

- OS

[eapking]

Some people just wont understand how important it is not to get O reelected. He will have the opportunity to swing the SCOTUS to the left. That will screw us for a very long time. I'm not saying Romney won't do the same, but with O it's a guarantee. Just think of those landmark 2nd Amendment cases that have been won recently. That ain't gonna happen again if Obama gets the chance.

This is exactly my fear. If we lose just one of our "friendly five", you can guarantee another liberal anti-2A appointment by Barry that we will live with well past his departure. The 2A is in exterme peril under Barry. Romney is a maybe. Barry is "bank on it".

[kieefer]

What about you OhShoot, you know why there are delegates on the ballot and what for?

[eapking]

I guess we'll see, won't we?

Nothing to see really, other than my theory will be proven. Stay home in November, or vote for some 3rd party spoiler. Barry will thank you.

Vote for Ron Paul in the primary, I will. But I know I will vote for whomever the Repub is in November. We cannot have 4 more years of Obama.

[RobertNashville]

I don't think there's real data to indicate that either of those were swung because of 3rd party voting.

- OS

I think there are although I don't have time tongiht to look ou references.

That said, third grade math can shed some light...if you look at the percentage of votes pulled by third party candidates in the elections I mentioned above, those same votes going to the cancidate they most likely pulled votes from would have given the election a completley different outcome.

I do know that Nader, running to the left of Algore, got 97,488 popular votes in Florida - GWB won by just 537 votes. It's unlikely that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Bush if Nader hadn't run and Algore would have been President and despite his faults, I'll never regret my vote for GWB both times...he is also the president that GAVE us our VERY slim conservative majority on the supreme cout; a majority we will most certainly not enjoy if Obummer wins a second term.

Edited February 20, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

I think there are although I don't have time tongiht to look op references.

I believe the only real stats that could be gleaned would be from exit polling, and that doesn't take into account who they might have voted for had there been no independent candidates.

That said, third gradt math can shed some light...if you look at the percentage of votes pulled by third party candidates in the elections I mentioned above, those same votes going to the cancidated they most likely pulled votes from would have given the election a completley different outcome; especially with regards to Bush/Clinton.

No, again, that's just not valid. "Most likely pulled from" assumes you somehow know their proclivities. Had there been no third party candidate, who knows how many wouldn't have voted at all. Also, the fact that you cite a case that went Dem and a case that went GOP only 8 years apart, if it those results could be shown to have swung those elections, would indicate that third party votes don't tend to lean toward one party than the other.

What cannot be refuted is that under our system, any vote not cast for the person most likely to beat Obummer (in this case, whoever the R candidated is) has the same effect as if it was cast for Obummer.

No, it just doesn't. If the disenchanted pull roughly from both sides, those votes are the same as no votes at all.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

What about you OhShoot, you know why there are delegates on the ballot and what for?

To my knowledge it only in reality equivocates to the delegate's political influence in helping to garner votes for the candidate they are supporting, actually a form of campaigning for their candidate -- they're using their relative renown to persuade voting for their candidate of choice without having to pay for ads . TN has an extremely complicated system for delegate selection, and it all somehow harkens back to getting something out of the bargain when your candidate is elected (and in an extended sense, still does).

Once the delegates reach the convention, I suppose it could somewhat influence the planks of the party platform, even from the delegates who are supporting the winner, but more importantly, those delegates who don't: that's pretty much what RP is realistically trying to do by staying in to the convention. I reckon also to the nth degree, should there be a brokered convention, the most influential delegates from the various states might have more behind the scenes pull in getting votes to come over to their side, sort of "all delegates are equal, but the more powerful ones back home are more equal than the others" sort of thing.

But ultimately, as I understand (or don't) the practical implications is that it's more simply tradition than anything else; that and simply wanting to go to the convention and also keeping their names somewhat more prominent along the way.

- OS

[Sidinman]

[kieefer]

To my knowledge it only in reality equivocates to the delegate's political influence in helping to garner votes for the candidate they are supporting, actually a form of campaigning for their candidate -- they're using their relative renown to persuade voting for their candidate of choice without having to pay for ads . TN has an extremely complicated system for delegate selection, and it all somehow harkens back to getting something out of the bargain when your candidate is elected (and in an extended sense, still does).

Once the delegates reach the convention, I suppose it could somewhat influence the planks of the party platform, even from the delegates who are supporting the winner, but more importantly, those delegates who don't: that's pretty much what RP is realistically trying to do by staying in to the convention. I reckon also to the nth degree, should there be a brokered convention, the most influential delegates from the various states might have more behind the scenes pull in getting votes to come over to their side, sort of "all delegates are equal, but the more powerful ones back home are more equal than the others" sort of thing.

But ultimately, as I understand (or don't) the practical implications is that it's more simply tradition than anything else; that and simply wanting to go to the convention and also keeping their names somewhat more prominent along the way.

- OS

Thanks, I thought the most intelligent among us would know something about it.

I hate to vote for an unknown but my intention was to go with the RP delegates since these are local fellows and may have an input on fiscal policy and less influence on foreign policy. Assuming they would be worth voting for.

A news bite on the brokered convention idea; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/19/clearing-field-unlikely-as-talk-contested-convention-brings-out-more-gop-names/

[Oh Shoot]

Thanks, I thought the most intelligent among us would know something about it.

Well, you didn't ask them, only me.

- OS

[kieefer]

Well, you didn't ask them, only me.

- OS

Put your glasses on Pop and re-read #27

[RobertNashville]

I believe the only real stats that could be gleaned would be from exit polling, and that doesn't take into account who they might have voted for had there been no independent candidates.

No, again, that's just not valid. "Most likely pulled from" assumes you somehow know their proclivities. Had there been no third party candidate, who knows how many wouldn't have voted at all. Also, the fact that you cite a case that went Dem and a case that went GOP only 8 years apart, if it those results could be shown to have swung those elections, would indicate that third party votes don't tend to lean toward one party than the other.

No, it just doesn't. If the disenchanted pull roughly from both sides, those votes are the same as no votes at all.

- OS

If you truly believe that Nader voters would NOT have voted for Gore then I suggest that you are making a pretty wild assertion and one not supported by common sense.

P.S.

More to the point, perhaps...for those who don't belive that third-party candidates don't swing elections, are you truly willing to risk Obummer having a second term? Do you truly not see just how absoultely destructive that will be to the very perople who claim to be concerned about our "rights"? He's already shown, in an election year no less, that he is willing to completley trample on our first amendment right to freedom of religion; what they hell do you think he'll do to the rest, including our belived "second amendment" rights in a second term?

Edited February 20, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

Put your glasses on Pop and re-read #27

I quoted your post #36, whippersnapper!

[Oh Shoot]

If you truly believe that Nader voters would have voted for Gore then I suggest that you are making a pretty wild assertion and one not supported by common sense.

You're the one gone delusional. Most of the Nader Raider base was overwhelmingly left. Ya know, like there's a reason he was the Green Party candidate and all? Wow.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

You're the one gone delusional. Most of the Nader Raider base was overwhelmingly left. Ya know, like there's a reason he was the Green Party candidate and all? Wow.

- OS

Of course they were "left" (I even said so above) which is precisely why Nader voters would NOT have voted for GWB and why your assertino makes no sense.

The problem is that I left out one important word in my post which I've now corrected.

[Oh Shoot]

Of course they were "left" (I even said so above) which is precisely why Nader voters would NOT have voted for GWB and why your assertino makes no sense.

That isn't what you said. "If you truly believe that Nader voters would have voted for Gore..."

edit: oh, okay. I see your edit.

If Nader swung the election, thank God. As bad as Dubya was, can you imagine Gore's term? He would have slipped in before we truly understood the degree of his lunacy.

- OS

Edited February 20, 2012 by OhShoot

[RobertNashville]

That isn't what you said. "If you truly believe that Nader voters would have voted for Gore..."

edit: oh, okay. I see your edit.

If Nader swung the election, thank God. As bad as Dubya was, can you imagine Gore's term? He would have slipped in before we truly understood his lunacy.

- OS

Maybe I should have highlighted the change!

GWB had some bad points to be sure; especially with regards to his spending but he had his good points...I truly believe that he loved and respected the military and the men and women who serve. He did appoint justices that have helped us a lot. I also believe that, even when I didn't like what he said, he was speaking from his heart...what he truly believed. I don't even want to imagine a Gore presidency.

Edited February 20, 2012 by RobertNashville