TFred
Regular Member
Some won't like this and I don't really much care. I am well past the point of polite in listening to people sell the fantasy-land view that wasting a vote for their "better" third-party candidate will ever improve the political climate in the real world.
A post in the well respected "The Volokh Conspiracy" blog today provides a reasoned analysis of what happened in Colorado yesterday. Many good and very important points, well beyond the scope of gun-control and the Second Amendment. I highly recommend the read.
IMHO, this short, almost overlooked blurb is one of the most important points in the entire article:
"Morse barely won re-election in 2010, and might have lost if not for the presence of a Libertarian on the ballot."
Translation: If the utopians in Colorado had not wasted their votes on a third party candidate who did not have a chance to begin with, they never would have HAD to recall the gun-grabbing liberal who WON the election - and rammed these gun-control laws down the throats of the citizens of Colorado.
As I have always said, I am not against better candidates. It is useless to support them in the GENERAL election. It is folly to believe that ANYone is going to get some "message" based on single digit returns. The only message heard in the general election is who wins. The only way to create change in the political climate is to support the better candidates in the primaries*. The disaster of Colorado can and does happen whenever people waste votes on their "better" third-party candidates.
TFred
* Let's do the math... is it easier to win among half the electorate (a primary or convention) or among the entire electorate (a general election)?
A post in the well respected "The Volokh Conspiracy" blog today provides a reasoned analysis of what happened in Colorado yesterday. Many good and very important points, well beyond the scope of gun-control and the Second Amendment. I highly recommend the read.
IMHO, this short, almost overlooked blurb is one of the most important points in the entire article:
"Morse barely won re-election in 2010, and might have lost if not for the presence of a Libertarian on the ballot."
Translation: If the utopians in Colorado had not wasted their votes on a third party candidate who did not have a chance to begin with, they never would have HAD to recall the gun-grabbing liberal who WON the election - and rammed these gun-control laws down the throats of the citizens of Colorado.
As I have always said, I am not against better candidates. It is useless to support them in the GENERAL election. It is folly to believe that ANYone is going to get some "message" based on single digit returns. The only message heard in the general election is who wins. The only way to create change in the political climate is to support the better candidates in the primaries*. The disaster of Colorado can and does happen whenever people waste votes on their "better" third-party candidates.
TFred
* Let's do the math... is it easier to win among half the electorate (a primary or convention) or among the entire electorate (a general election)?