I came across an editorial from an Oklahoma newspaper telling Oklahomans not to vote for any candidate who is no longer in the campaign. For instance, Fred got 22,288 votes in the Florida primary on Tuesday when he had already pulled out of the campaign.
So is a vote for Fred a protest vote? How about a vote for any candidate who "doesn't have a chance" to win? Let me use Ron Paul as an example. If you have read much of my blog, you know that I have a lot of disdain for Paul--and a lot of his followers. Ron Paul does not have an iota of a chance of winning the Republican nomination. This has been the case since before the first vote was cast in Iowa. So is a vote for Ron Paul a protest vote, even though he is in the campaign?
Not necessarily. Search your motives as your primary election nears. If you want to vote for Fred to "send a message" to the party then you are casting a protest vote. If you want to vote for Fred because he is the only candidate that you can support for the Republican nomination then you are not protesting anything.
And if you think that Ron Paul would lead us in the right direction go ahead and vote for him. (But please start reading some things so that you can get over this guys weird ideas)
Cast away.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment