Voting By The Numbers

I've been having an ongoing verbal argument with a friend for several years about voting. He thinks that not voting or voting for a third party candidate (i.e. NOT a Republican) is the same as voting for the Democrat. I realize it's not election season but we were talking about this again the other day and I finally had to put it all down in writing. Thanks to Vox for providing the math lesson on this one, I've adapted his examples.

Submitted for your amusement, here is the email I sent to my friend:

I just wanted to clear this up, we've talked about it off and on for a long time but I wanted this in print so you can see it.

Candidate A is a Democrat
Candidate B is a Republican
Candidate C is a third party candidate.

Candidate A has 99 votes
Candidate B has 99 votes.

The next voter votes for Candidate C.

How many votes does Candidate A have?

1) 100
2) 99
3) 5

Let's put it this another way:

I live in a small town with 101 people.
50 people vote for the Democrat
50 people vote for the Republican
I decline to vote. Who wins? Did I vote for the Democrat by not voting as you contend? Please explain.

Same small town scenario with 100 people.
50 people vote Democrat
49 people vote Republican
I decline to vote or write in some other candidate. The Dem wins but did I vote for the Democrat by not voting? Please explain.

Not voting for one party is not a vote for another party. The math doesn't work that way. If I find the Candidate A and Candidate B both so abhorrent that I cannot ENDORSE, VOTE, SUPPORT, GET BEHIND, CHOOSE, SUGGEST, or RECOMMEND how is not voting for either of those choices a vote for the person who is furthest from my views? It does not give them an extra vote as the examples above demonstrate. Not voting for someone means not voting for someone. Why is this so hard to understand? You're supposed to be much better at math than me, remember?

When you VOTE for someone, you are making a pronouncement that you want that person representing you. I didn't want McCain or Obama representing me. I didn't want Schwarzenegger or Bustamante representing me either. I knew one of them was going to win but it's absolutely impossible that by NOT voting for McCain and Schwarzenegger that I voted for Obama and Bustamante. They received NO extra votes because they didn't get mine. 1+1= 2. By your logic, 1+0 =2 because if the Republican didn't get that extra vote, then my non-vote goes to the Democrat which would be 1+0=2.

I got so tired of hearing... "But a third party person won't win!" Ron Paul is a Republican. Tom McClintock is a Republican. They aren't third party candidates. What bothers me most is the people saying that people like McClintock and Paul are spoilers when really, they are the ones upholding the ideals of liberty and conservative government. You voted for McCain and you voted for Schwarzenegger TWICE! You voted for that NON Republican TWICE! That means you gave your consent to be governed by a non-Republican, gay marriage, pro abortion, anti-gun, big government supporter who just so happens to have aligned himself with the Republican party just because he's a member of the Republican party. It can almost be excused that you voted for him the first time, but the state was already in chaos when you voted for him the second time yet you SUPPORTED him again knowing he was doing further damage to this state. Why would you do that?

Why would you vote for McCain who admitted he doesn't even really understand economics to represent you as the leader of the country in a time of economic trouble? Sure, he could surround himself with advisors who know economics, but how would he choose them if he doesn't understand it enough to begin with. He voted for the bailout. I don't care if he regretted it later, he voted for it as a United States Senator. SHAME ON HIM. Had I been supporting him up to that point, I would have withdrawn my support right there because it's clear he doesn't understand economics OR the Constitution of the United States of America which he is already sworn to uphold. Clearly he's a failure at his sworn duty, why would you vote for him for president? Because Obama is worse? How much worse and in what way? No doubt Obama is out to destroy this country but he didn't get my vote. I didn't support him. I didn't walk in to a voting booth and cast a ballot in favor of him. In the California and Federal elections, I voted for the person who I could actually support the policies of. I voted my principles. I voted my conscience. I voted for what I believed was right. Furthermore, both Ron Paul and Tom McClintock are committed, demonstrable Christians. Schwarzenegger clearly is no such thing and McCain seems to take a stab at it but I haven't seen much evidence of a deep, abiding faith.

You continually tell me I'm STUPID for voting the way I do yet I was right about Schwarzeneggar and I know I would have been right about McCain. The things Ron Paul was saying in the primaries are now coming to pass but no one wanted to listen to him because they didn't want to believe him. They wanted to (as you always say) BELIEVE THE BIGGER LIE. That's what you did by voting for McCain and Schwarzenegger (twice). You believed the bigger lie that somehow they could turn things around. Our governor has certainly made things worse.

I haven't even talked about you voting for George Bush twice. He was never a conservative. He hardly ever did one thing in office that is in line with conservative values. He could have done a lot more against abortion than he did. He could have used the bull pulpit. He could have done more for gun rights (he supported a continuation of the "assault weapons ban") and he approved budgets that were the largest non-military domestic expenditures this country has ever seen! Other than his initial reaction to 9/11, I can't say there are too many things that Bush did that I ever agreed with. I voted for him the first time; that was my mistake. I did not vote for him the second time. I saw my error.

In short, I cannot and will not give my support through voting to people who are bent on destroying this country through bad economic policy and stripping away our liberties by interfering more and more in our lives every day, growing government to outrageous levels and making us and future generations pay for it by continually loading us with more and more debt. If you want to continue to think that my lack of support for Republican candidates who do those things is a vote for the Democrats who do it more then there is nothing I can do to prevent that, but whatever you decide to think, it would be dishonest of you to continue to say that I really haven't thought it through and I don't know what I'm talking about. You can continue to disagree with me on this subject but you aren't going to change my mind, you can't change the rules of math and you can't change the fact that both parties are running us down the road to destruction.

A Loss Of Respect

My respect for Ann Coulter has taken a bit of hit. In her column today, she endored Mitt Romney for President.

Ugh. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. Despite her rantings against the Bush administration, she is, in essence an establishment Republican.

Oh well.

An Unlikely Scenario

Barak Osama Obama is in a statistical dead heat with Hillary Clinton in a recent Iowa poll.

For the sake of clarity, I don't believe the poll numbers for Obama right now anymore than I do the number for Ron Paul polling at very low numbers. I believe the media is overstating the Obama threat for the sake of excitement and so it doesn't look like Hillary has already been crowned the nominee.

That being said, I want to explore the idea of a contest between Barak Obama and Ron Paul if both should win their respective nominations.

This would be a landslide election for Ron Paul for a number of reasons:

1. America is barely ready for a female President, a black President is highly unlikely at this point. You'd have a lot of Southern Democrats in particular voting for Ron Paul. A lot of white moderates would also turn on the DNC in favor Ron Paul. The Hispanic vote for a black President would be nearly non-existent insofar as the Hispanic voting block is fairly weak anyway.
2. There are trust issues. Barak Obama is an unknown quantity. He has no record to back him up, no notable achievements, no great political legacy. Ron Paul on the other hand has a consistent track record of espousing the same views for 30 years.
3. Low voter turnout would be another issue. Let's face it, the Democrat base isn't going to get really excited about Obama and the typical die hard Republican who thought Giuliani was just fine isn't going to get real excited about a contest with a loser Democrat. Ron Paul supporters will be the heaviest turnout there is. They'll be knocking on doors and working the phones, etc.

A Ron Paul/Barak Obama contest is unlikely. Hillary has already been crowned by her party and Obama is just along for the ride. Don't forget to Register Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the Primary.

Ron Paul In The Polls

It appears that Ron Paul is gaining some significant momentum in the early primary states.

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is gaining momentum in New Hampshire and Iowa, according to a poll released Tuesday by CBS News and the New York Times. The Texas congressman has garnered an estimated 8 percent in New Hampshire, surpassing former GOP front-runner Fred Thompson, and is now tied with John McCain in Iowa.

Polls released over the weekend by the Boston Globe in association with the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, and the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, both confirmed Congressman Paul’s support to be higher than Thompson’s as well.

“The polls confirm what we already know: Congressman Paul is catching on in the early primary states,” said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. “His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is resonating strongly with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and we’re rapidly gaining support nationwide.”

The CBS-New York Times poll was conducted November 2-12. On November 5, the Ron Paul campaign brought in a record-breaking $4.2 million online, and an additional $1 million to end the week.

And these were probably, as most of them are, phone polls to land lines which don't include the growing segment of people like me who only have a cell phone. The undercurrent of support out there not being reached by the pollsters is much bigger than anyone in the media want to let on. A good showing in any of the early primary states will propel him on the the national stage in a media sense. What happens from there is anyone's guess but if the media is forced to acknowledge him, things can only get better.

Hillary Helped Ron Paul

This is 2nd hand information but I was told that Rusty Humphries said on his show today that Ron Paul's record setting fund raising day had help from Hillary Clinton's campaign. The person who told me agreed that it's probably true because he thinks that if Ron Paul can raise enough money and then doesn't get the Republican nomination that he'll run as 3rd party candidate.

If I've erred in my misrepresentation of what Humphries said, I'm open to correction but I want to quash this notion before it catches any traction. This has to be an absolutely false notion for several reasons:

• Ron Paul raised $4.2 million by 37,000 donors. That's an average of $113.51 per donor. I'm sure that some donated more and some donated less. It would take a "vast conspiracy" to get Hillary supporters to donate that much to the Ron Paul campaign. Word would get out. The person who told me about this said, "Well, maybe a lot of people only gave a little but someone with a lot of money like George Soros came in with a big check for the rest." BZZZZZ try again. There are contribution limits and in order for someone to write a big check, it would have had to be to the Republican party not directly to the campaign. Those funds surely wouldn't go to Ron Paul.
• Hillary is too arrogant to think she can lose. She would never resort to helping the one man that she knows could defeat her if he got the nomination. Of course the Republicans that blindly follow the non-conservative candidates think Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance but there's no convincing them. If he gets the nomination, they'll have a lot of back-peddling to do.
• I can't speak for the good doctor, but I don't think that he'd turn around and run as an independent. He'd never make it on the ballot in time in most states. He's more realistic than that and wouldn't run just to be vindictive.
  

The Poll You Didn't Hear About

You're not likely to see the results of this poll on a Fox News Special Report.

It looks like the polling data shows that Ron Paul could beat Hillary Clinton in an election.

The data provided is still very much open to interpretation and more research needs to be done but go take a look for yourself.

There is hope my friends, there is hope.

POLLING DATA HERE

Primaries Coming Up Fast

It's VERY important for you to vote in the Primary elections. Here is a list of the Primary election dates for each state.

I know MOST of you know this already but for those that don't, Primary elections are held in each state and those elections help each party determine who their main candidate is. The Primaries are held in various states starting as early as January 19, 2008 of this year and running as late as June 3rd. The Republican National Convention which will held from September 1-4, 2008 in Minneapolis, MN is where the GOP will officially decide it's nominee although the choice should be clear long before that. The Democrat National Convention will be held in Denver, CO from August 25-28 2008. Unless there is a huge surprise, it should already be known that Hillary will get the nod from the DNC.

Voters are fairly apathetic about the Primaries. Democrats are going to largely stay home from the Primaries because Hillary has practically been crowned already. Republicans that support the mainstream candidates are going to stay home from the primaries as well simply because they're not excited about their Dole-ish candidates. If Ron Paul supporter can really get on the ball the rest of this year and recruit more people, he actually has a chance to be the nominee.

The conservative media seem to be against Ron Paul. Why? Because they love their cozy relationship with the government as much as the liberals do; just for different reasons.

Vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries. If for no other reason, do it to protest the horse-whipping you've been taking by the GOP since King George George Bush Sr. got elected and betrayed his Conservative base.

Ron Paul For President

Ron Paul is one of the very few principled men left in the Republican party and it seems he's going to run for President.

Paul served nine terms in Congress as a Republican even though he is a staunch libertarian who advocates smaller government and minimal taxation.

I've been railing against the GOP for years now. I will, for the first time in 10 years register as a Republican in order to vote for him in the primaries.

What are his changes of winning? I don't want to speculate and I'd like to remain optimistic. But I'm willing to be a Republican again for a season in order to bolster his campaign.

Do some searches on the internet and research the platform this principled man stands for. I think you will be pleased.

Battered Voter Syndrome

"Battered Woman Syndrome" is when women stay in a relationship despite sometimes severe abuse. They threaten to leave but they always come back and the cycle continues. They make excuses. "I know he really loves me, he's just having a hard time right now," or "I know I can change him, I just need more time." Then there is the biggest lie they tell themselves, "I have no where else to go."

Wake up Republicans! You people that continue to vote for Republican candidates are like women that stay in abusive relationships. Your party has viciously abused you and you keep going back because you think you have no alternative.

• Non-Military Spending - Congress proposes and Bush approves higher spending than any other president *SMACK*
• There is no small number of high-profile pro-abortion Republicans like Rudi Guiliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Pataki and Mitt Romney among others. *PUNCH*
• Illegal immigration is an issue the GOP just isn't dealing with the way a 'conservative' party should. *SLAP*

I could go on and on and on but I think you get my drift. There are many battered voter shelters out there such as the Libertarian or Constitution party for those that actually believe in liberty and want to stand up for themselves. Until a sufficient number of Republicans stand up for what they really believe in and abandon their abusers, the GOP has no reason at all to change their tactics. Even a majority loss this November won't make much of a difference in terms of their long-term behavior. "Oh, baby come on back, I've changed, I promise." We all know what happens after that.