http://OsiSpeaks.com

At least in the Electoral College, I would expect this to be more along the lines of the past 4 elections 1992-2004 than anything like 1984 or 1988.

As for 3rd party candidates, I guess we shall see.

Personally, I’m hoping we top off a year in which we will have a brokered Democratic Convention with an election in which no candidate gets the majority of Electoral College votes and the election gets thrown in to the House.

But, then, I’m a political junkie.

I’m confused. Is this going to be a close election in the winner (whoever it is) will need every vote, and 3rd party candidates (such as Barr or Nader) can torpedo their closest major party by pulling much-needed votes away?

-or-

Is this going to be such a blowout (in either direction) that the GOP doesn’t need the votes of the Libertarian wing?

The easiest (and most honorable) way for the LP to do what you are suggesting is to continue to push candidates like Ron Paul.

Our efforts lead to a kind of blowback that makes the GOP and the DEMs elect the very kind of politicians you are talking about (look at McCain as a prime example)

Stop engaging in fantasies. McCain is the nominee, it’s over.

And, sadly, I think you are wrong that the GOP needs the libertarians to win. The last two Presidential elections have proven otherwise.

I didn’t say the polls were conclusive. I said they were evidence that McCain is not as weak a candidate as conventional wisdom might have thought.

This is not going to be a blowout election on either side like 1984 or 1972. Like the last two elections, its going to be fought in close states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. If McCain can win one or two of those, he could pull off a close Electoral College victory.

Ignore me if you wish, but the evidence is there.

If the GOP abandons the libertarian wing, they die, period. We know it, and they know it but don’t want to admit it.

A GOP without limited government is the Democratic Party gone theocratic-crazy.

I’m with Bush on that one….

I’m afraid of “isms” too.

militarism
fascism
statism
corproratism
…

oh wait… Those weren’t the “isms” he was talking about?

I’ve read several times conservatives saying that if only Ron Paul wasn’t wrong about Islamo-fascism they would support him. The US stepping away from the perceived war of civilizations is a no go for many Republicans at the moment.

Bush recently said he was afraid of isms like isolationism. This fear is prevalent everywhere in the mainstream media and political parties. Ron Paul committed thought crime by advocating a non-interventionist foreign policy.

If you recall, Romney was always personally pro-life, but did not wish to foist that upon people who believed differently. His abortion position was actually the same as Ron Pauls: it is a state issue.

He was similar on gay rights. He did not personally condone homosexuality but believed they deserved every right in the workplace. So he was assaulted for being both pro and anti-gay.

I’m not sure if he was advocating corporate welfare to rescue Michigan, or just his usual skill at turning imploding businesses around.

Romney is an incredibly frugal individual, which many would not assume of someone with his wealth. I don’t think he would have spent America into the ground.

I can’t defend him on the Fed though. And his snickers at Ron Paul infuriated me.

I was planning on writing-in Ron Paul’s name as well, but if I understand this correctly, I don’t think it will even be counted to his credit. It is just a “spoiled ballot.”

We need to check on this and consider voting for the Libertarian instead.