Steve Billnitzer writes…
Not sure exactly why you're pointing out, however accurately, that Ron Paul and the other so-called "second tier" presidential candidates won't carry a single state in the 2008 presidential elections. Is the message that we should switch our support from someone who may represent our positions but has no chance of winning to a candidate with good odds but whose positions we deplore?
Though I'm aware of the (let's call it) "Ralph Nader effect" on the 2000 elections, I could never sanction with my vote or otherwise any candidate who opposes civil rights to the extent of the Republicans or property rights to the extent of the Democrats, even if it means the greater of two evils winds up in the White House, a la the current occupant. Morally, I believe it's worse to vote strategically than to vote your conscience.
Still curious, though: What prompted the unreferenced item?
Just watching a story on MSNBC (I think it was) that showed Ron Paul mobbed by supporters and made it sound like he has a huge groundswell of support. The guy's still polling at around 2% in polls with a margin of error of 3% so I thought the piece was misleading. One of the many downsides of this long, long primary season is that reporters have to gin up a lot of stories where there aren't any. In Paul's case, I think it's great that he's out there, saying things that will never pass the lips of anyone who thinks they have a shot at getting elected. But let's not pretend he's going anywhere. What little support he has is mostly for representing "None of the above."
I would never suggest anyone vote for a candidate whose positions they deplored. On the other hand, there's something to be said for the lesser of two evils. There'd better be because that seems to be all I can do. I'd love to vote my conscience but I haven't seen it on any ballot. Maybe I should put it down as a write-in vote.