Romney wins the battle for Pentagon brass

Is this serious? Does nobody in the mainstream media pay attention to Gary Johnson at ALL? I have yet to see the media acknowledge his existence.
 
Third party candidates usually don`t get a whole lot of media coverage unless they`re predicted to make a huge difference. Nonetheless, there has been plenty mention of Johnson, and other third party candidates. For example, here`s an interesting article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...dential-bid-a-real-factor-or-just-a-footnote/

This was something that caught my eye:

Chris Barron, a co-founder of GOProud, a conservative gay rights organization, endorsed Johnson last year, but recently announced that he’s decided to vote for Romney. Barron’s decision was rooted in pragmatism; he realized Johnson wouldn’t win, and decided that Romney would be a better choice than Obama.

I think that`s why sometimes third party candidates don`t have a huge impact. Everyone realizes they won`t win, so while they think the third party candidate is the better candidate than the Democrat and Republican candidates, they see that their vote needs to count for something, and they decide to vote for who they think is the 2nd best candidate. I`m not saying this is good or bad, but I think this is very common. But yet, if everyone thinks that the third party candidate won`t win, and they decide to vote for the 2nd best candidate, then of course the third party candidate won`t win. It`s a catch-22 situation.

http://www.examiner.com/article/romn...pentagon-brass


Ad that will run in the Washington Times has 500 flag endorsements for Romney. Is this a "I'll see you're 4 star Powell and raise you 500?"

I see a few Coast Guard admirals I was able to meet while I was still in.

That`s quite the list of Generals and Admirals. Only 5 endorsed Obama, 1 Major, 2 Generals, and 2 Admirals. I can`t say I`m surprised most endorsed Romney, but I would have thought Obama would have had a few more endorse him. I wonder if this will make much of a difference or not.
 
Last edited:
I think that`s why sometimes third party candidates don`t have a huge impact. Everyone realizes they won`t win, so while they think the third party candidate is the better candidate than the Democrat and Republican candidates, they see that their vote needs to count for something, and they decide to vote for who they think is the 2nd best candidate. I`m not saying this is good or bad, but I think this is very common. But yet, if everyone thinks that the third party candidate won`t win, and they decide to vote for the 2nd best candidate, then of course the third party candidate won`t win. It`s a catch-22 situation.

Some countries allow for two votes on a ballot for this very reason, so if you have three parties and A and B are very similar their vote may be split allowing C who represent a less popular political position to win. Merging the two parties makes sense pragmatically but may be politically problematic if the small differences they have are of fundamental importance to their supporters. A two vote ballot counts all the first choices, discards the last placed party and assigns the second place votes of all their voters to the remaining parties. So a person could vote 1. Green 2. Democrat. A run off between the two largest parties/candidates achieves the same result but also involves organizing two whole elections which is expensive and time consuming...
 
Third party candidates usually don`t get a whole lot of media coverage unless they`re predicted to make a huge difference. Nonetheless, there has been plenty mention of Johnson, and other third party candidates. For example, here`s an interesting article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...dential-bid-a-real-factor-or-just-a-footnote/

This was something that caught my eye:



I think that`s why sometimes third party candidates don`t have a huge impact. Everyone realizes they won`t win, so while they think the third party candidate is the better candidate than the Democrat and Republican candidates, they see that their vote needs to count for something, and they decide to vote for who they think is the 2nd best candidate. I`m not saying this is good or bad, but I think this is very common. But yet, if everyone thinks that the third party candidate won`t win, and they decide to vote for the 2nd best candidate, then of course the third party candidate won`t win. It`s a catch-22 situation.



That`s quite the list of Generals and Admirals. Only 5 endorsed Obama, 1 Major, 2 Generals, and 2 Admirals. I can`t say I`m surprised most endorsed Romney, but I would have thought Obama would have had a few more endorse him. I wonder if this will make much of a difference or not.

Remember that this is a newspaper ad, not a systematic polling of retired flag rank officers. (When you scroll through it, for example, you see more from USAF than other services, and very few women.) The current and recent officer corps is much more Republican-leaning than the general U.S. population, but not 99% to 1%. The Washington Times ad was nevertheless a smart way to respond to the Colin Powell endorsement for President Obama.
 
You could palpably sense the turn in momentum during the second debate when Romney promised the Navy more ships and Obama refused to offer the Army more horses.
 
Ask John Q. Public to name a general on that list..."Um, Colin Powell".

Oh wait.

Re: 3rd part candidates. Some states/localities are considering a automatic runnoff system where you rank you choices. If one candidate doesn't get 50% of the votes then the lowest vote getter is eliminated and the results are recounted.

Example:

Voter 1: A, B, C
Voter 2: B, A, C
Voter 3: C, B, A

Say that C is eliminated resulting in: A/B, B/A, B/A so B wins.

And those who voted for C had their voices heard.
 
Remember that this is a newspaper ad, not a systematic polling of retired flag rank officers. (When you scroll through it, for example, you see more from USAF than other services, and very few women.) The current and recent officer corps is much more Republican-leaning than the general U.S. population, but not 99% to 1%. The Washington Times ad was nevertheless a smart way to respond to the Colin Powell endorsement for President Obama.

Yes, very true.
 
Back
Top