Probably the headline most American Maverick readers do not want to see as a reality on November 6. With the extremely close margins between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in key battleground states, the combined effect of third party results could very well determine Obama's re-election.
Would you agree the main goal for this crucial Presidential election is to assure the defeat of Barack Obama? Whether you are a conservative, libertarian, or other right leaning ideology, I would assume you do not want to have four more years of rule by Obama. Especially considering his record of debt and Constitutional breech over the past four years.
In previous Presidential elections, the third party impact has been minimal upon the margin of victory for the Democrat or Republican candidates. Except for one major Presidential election between Republican George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and third party candidate, Ross Perot. In the 1992 election, Perot obtained 18% of the popular vote. His margin was enough to defeat President H.W. Bush and to elect Bill Clinton. If Perot had not received such a significant vote percent, Bush would have been re-elected. In this instance Perot consistently maintained 15-19% of the vote in polling preceding the election. Thus, Perot as an independent candidate had real backing of the American voter to make a run for the Presidency.
That was in 1992 with a sole independent pulling 18% of the vote. Now, this is 2012 where all third party candidates combined are pulling only 1-2% of the vote in most all key battleground states. Clearly not the same role for third party candidates in 2012.
How could such a slim margin of votes to third party candidates re-elect Barack Obama? The fact is most of third party candidates have a right leaning ideology. Whereas in general, they tend to splinter off votes from the Republican candidate. These votes that would normally side with the Republican, then work against the Republican state by state for the race to take the popular vote. Thereby giving Democrat Barack Obama the edge for popular votes.
Why would just 1-2% of the vote from third party candidates matter? In 2012, that margin is the difference between victory in over 8 battleground states. Currently, most battleground states are tied or within the margin of error between Obama and Romney. For this year's Presidential election that third party margin could be the difference between Obama or Romney winning the state.
Here's an example. Polling averages for Virginia currently has the state tied between Obama and Romney. Independent party candidate Gary Johnson could carry 1% of the vote. Native Virginian and former Congressman from Virginia's 5th district, Virgil Goode, is running as the Presidential candidate for the Constitution party. Goode could potentially take up to 1% of Virginia's votes. The combination of Goode and Johnson's percentage (2%) could shave enough from Romney and give the state to Obama. Not the scenario most conservatives in the Commonwealth want to hear.
|OBAMA'S INFAMOUS MEETING|
Bottom line: Of course your vote is your vote. You are a citizen of this great Republic and have that right by law and providence. With the overall premise to defeat Barack Obama in mind. Now consider the ramifications of voting for a third party candidate on principle alone in 2012. Perhaps recognizing the close margins in key battleground states, you will reconsider tossing the election for another four years of President Barack Obama. Remember, he has told the Russians he will have 'greater flexibility' after the election.