A Danger of the Viability Argument

M

Matt VDW

New member
It's often said here that we should unite behind the Republican presidential candidate (Bush) to avoid the disaster of a Gore victory. The argument, which has obvious merits, is that no other candidate can win, therefore "A vote for [a non-Bush candidate] is a vote for Gore" and a futile gesture.

But let's suppose it's October, and the polls show the following preferences amongst likely voters in your state (we can ignore the national polls due to the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College):

Gore - 46%

Bush - 39%

Other (Reform, Libertarian, etc.) - 7%

Undecided - 8%

At this point, where Bush has to win over ALL the undecideds to pull ahead, doesn't he become, as a practical matter, just as "non-viable" as a third party candidate? And if he is headed for defeat, or at least appears that way, doesn't that kill the motivation of all the would-be Bush voters with a "victory or nothing" mindset?

I'm concerned that the "political realists" might be steering us towards another losing effort, as in 1992 and 1996, without at least the benefit of having sent some sort of message. It seems to me that the "good guys" are losing at least as many votes to despair, cynicism and apathy as they are to third parties.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do believe that getting out and casting a vote for SOMEONE on the pro-RKBA side is better than sitting at home because the poll numbers don't look good.
 
If we really wanted a pro-gun Republican in the Whitehouse, we would have put our support behind McCain. McCain would beat Gore flat out. Instead, we chose another inarticulate man w/o a message, just as we did in 1992 and 1996.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt VDW:
At this point, where Bush has to win over ALL the undecideds to pull ahead, doesn't he become, as a practical matter, just as "non-viable" as a third party candidate? And if he is headed for defeat, or at least appears that way, doesn't that kill the motivation of all the would-be Bush voters with a "victory or nothing" mindset? [/quote]

It's not over until all the votes are counted - no matter what the preliminary polls say.
 
> Minnesota elections ended up with projections of #1-3 reversed...

Was that the gubernatorial election that Jesse Ventura won?
 
Allen: Great; We elect McCain, who appoints Supreme Court justices who use the First amendment to wipe their boots on, and four years later it's a felony for the NRA to tell us how a Congressman voted. THAT will really boost our political clout, won't it?

Then there's the little matter of the fact that McCain didn't really get obsessive about censoring issue advocacy groups, (That's what the NRA is, you know.) until AFTER the '94 election. And McCain was one of the few Republicans to publicly admit that WE pulled that off. Curious, don't you think, that his response to our greatest political victory was to try to pass a law which would make it impossible for us to ever do that again...

I think McCain's one of those Republicans who's from a pro-gun district, so he has no choice but to be seen voting pro-gun. But who would just as soon be on the losing side of those votes... A lot of that sort got exposed in '94; They're why that earth shattering election didn't result in even one vote to repeal a gun law, didn't even slow them down for long.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Both of these men will point in the direction that the political winds are blowing. Neither is different! Think for a moment. What do we really gain by a Republican? Two years, maybe? Both houses of congress have been loyal to our cause. Not just in terms of the 2nd, but all freedoms. If Bush does win this election, Republicans WILL lose both houses of congress come the mid term in 2002.

Look, the good times is almost over. As we can see, the economic climate is about to change. May it happen under their (Democrats) watch. If Gore wins this election, the Republicans continue to control both houses.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. If Bush and the Republicans do not come up with a viable plan that makes it worth losing the congress in the mid term, I will not vote for him.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice a battle to win a war. Keep your eyes on the big picture.

Robert

[This message has been edited by Robert the41MagFan (edited March 16, 2000).]
 
Matt, at that point I think the best choice would be to convince every independent party supporter or undecided just what the consequences of a Gore presidency would be.
Gore's no Clinton, with a spigot behind his eye to turn on the tears, but he could advance an anti agenda and use the same tactics to get congress to knuckle under.

Anybody but Gore, please!

Dick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top