Sure they are, Obama is ahead in most of the swing/close states. His supporters aren't voting 3rd party.
You've never heard of the Green Party, I presume? A whole lot of liberals, most of whom are registered Democrats, are very disgusted with Obama's corporatism and various police actions. And they're getting hit with the same kind of rhetoric you've been barraged with--you don't dare vote your conscience, vote for sanity, because it will hand the election to Romney.
A vote against someone is a big temptation because people feel twice as powerful when they do it. A vote against generally gets cast for that candidate's leading foe. So, it deprives one of the vote, and adds it to the other. It feels like two votes. But it isn't.
Meanwhile, a vote against the status quo deprives the status quo of legitimately, and it stands out because it's a complete rejection of the powers that be. It's a strong statement that what they're doing is so bad that people will drop out of their system completely. And it's the only way we're going to get back to a
two party system, because there's no difference between the Demopublicans and Republicrats any more.
Romney promises war; Obama promises peace but delivers war. Obama promises big spending; Romney promises small government but delivers corrupt and substandard projects like the Big Dig. People vote knowing that they'll get the same thing either way, but they vote for the prettier lies to make their voices heard as if those voices still make a difference in this so-called 'republic'. It's just going through the old, familiar motions. It's also insanity.
The government isn't sustainable. The debt isn't sustainable. You worry about minimizing the damage over the next four years, but Romney's
twenty-eight year plan isn't something he can see through and enforce for the duration, is back-loaded so he doesn't have to cut spending until near the end of the eight years he's dreaming of, and assumes that the government-finance house of cards can last 28 years when anyone can see it can't.
Either way, it leads to a world currency and a loss of national sovereignty. Unless we entice people into trading with silver and gold, which would lead to personal sovereignty. Here we are on page 36 of a thread arguing over a vote--a vote which could be a drop in the bucket for the crash, or a little more weight to a sane policy which is currently a pipe dream. Better we should be planning for the crash. What we do then could actually mean something.
