Yep. Just trying to decide if I want to go libertarian this year or write in Rand Paul.

I figured one of these times I ought to go ahead and run myself. I've already got my campaign slogan picked out: "How can it hurt?"

38% say they're not satisfied with the GOP field and want someone else to run.

Unfortunately, it's too late for that. Most states, a newcomer wouldn't be able to get on the ballot (heck, Newt failed to get on the ballot in his home state of Virginia. Whoops.). Romney is the nominee, barring some incredible, unforeseeable event.

38% say they're not satisfied with the GOP field and want someone else to run

Unfortunately, there's a big difference between "someone else" and "someone in particular," hence the problem.

Josephine, I'd recommend voting libertarian. Gary Johnson is a guy who has solid credentials (successful former governor) and sensible policy positions. He is not super charismatic, but he is the best candidate the libertarians have had.

I am majorly depressed by the result in Florida.

The inevitable, electable, and really ready for Prime Time Mitt The Wonder Candidate just announced that, “I’m not concerned about the very poor.", on CNN.

Seriously folks, this is the best we can do?

We had a free shot at the Presidency and blew it.

He better pray Obama steps down in October leaving Biden to head the ticket. Otherwise, it's ...

Four More Years!

My plan is to drink myself to death before the food riots start in earnest.

Unfortunately, there's a big difference between "someone else" and "someone in particular," hence the problem.

Exactly.

I have a feeling that in almost every election, dissatisfaction that one's own preference is not running fuels a dissatisfaction with the entire field.

People want to feel about a presidential candidate the way they feel about a sports team and become emotionally invested. That's how Obama got elected. People forget they're hiring someone for a job and need to be rational about it.

I'd recommend voting libertarian. Gary Johnson is a guy who has solid credentials (successful former governor) and sensible policy positions.

In this case, a vote for the Libertarians may be a vote for Obama.

Unless you live in a state in which his victory is a foregone conclusion (New York, California, etc.). In that case, any vote against Obama keeps his margin of victory down.

He is not super charismatic, but he is the best candidate the libertarians have had.

Sadly, he is.

The Libertarians have a bad habit of nominating fringe figures, failed major party candidates, and inexperienced gadflies.

Ideological purity was emphasized over widespread electability (an argument the Republicans have been having for the past few elections).

Voters often voted Libertarian for the party, not the candidate - or in protest against the major party candidates.

Gary Johnson represents the first Libertarian presidential candidate with executive experience (public and private), business experience, and government experience. He has a solid record as governor of New Mexico with balanced budgets and no tax increases. He grew his own business from a single employee (himself) to a multi-million dollar construction firm.

Unfortunately, he's running in an election in which it is vital to unseat the incumbent and he can only take votes away from that effort.

In this case, a vote for the Libertarians may be a vote for Obama.

May be?

Anything other than a vote for the GOP candidate will be a vote for Obama.

Mitt may be one more loser from Establishment RINO Central Casting, but he is our loser, and we have no choice but to vote for him.

I will go vote GOP if I am alive, even if it is Romney.

Luckily I have a left over barf bag from my last flight. I plan to take it with me to the polls.

hold your nose and vote, but remember to the downticket stuff... that may be mor eimportant than you realize.

Anything other than a vote for the GOP candidate will be a vote for Obama.

In liberal, solidly blue, states like California and New York, Obama is going to win all the electors anyway.

So, a vote for the Libertarians won't cost the Republicans the state's electors.

In states like those, a vote for anyone but Obama will still help to take away from Obama's "mandate" in the popular vote - no matter which non-Obama is voted for.

Forgot the blockquotes.

Anything other than a vote for the GOP candidate will be a vote for Obama.

Romney is our next president. More of the same!

There seems to be some confusion about what a vote in a US presidential election actually does.

American presidential elections are decided in the Electoral College, not by the popular vote.

Voters vote for the candidate of their choice ... and state legislatures send electors pledged to the winning candidate to the Electoral College. Even then, the electors are free to change their minds.

Each state has as many electors as it has Congressional representatives (House and Senate).

Most states award all of their electors to the winner of the popular vote in that state. New Mexico awards the electors based on Congressional district and the two electors for their Senators to the statewide popular vote winner. I believe Maine does the same thing.

There is a movement afoot to have state legislatures pledge to award their electors to the national popular vote winner. Several state legislatures have agreed to this, but we'll see how that works out when the national popular vote winner is not the statewide popular vote winner.

Real Clear Politics estimates that Obama already has 229 electors locked up (California, New York, Washington, Massachusetts, etc.) and the Republicans have only 191 electors locked up (Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, etc.). That leaves 118 electors from "toss-up" states.

By RCP's math, Obama needs to capture 41 electors from the toss-up states. That means he only needs two or three of the bigger toss-up states and the election is his - some combination of Florida [29], Viriginia [15], North Carolina [13], Pennsylvania [20], Wisconsin [10], and Ohio [18]. If he wins Florida, he only needs one of the bigger toss-ups.

The Republican candidate, on the other hand, needs to capture 79 electors from the toss-up states. That means the Republicans need at least four of the bigger toss-up states - some combination of Florida [29], Viriginia [15], North Carolina [13], Pennsylvania [20], Wisconsin [10], and Ohio [18].

==============================

Despite widespread dissatisfaction with Obama, his reelection is not an uphill battle, unseating him is - no matter who the Republican nominee is.

That's why the Republican establishment is backing Romney.

He's not very exciting, but his more moderate image polls better across diverse demographic groups (oldsters, minorities, women, registered independents, etc.) than any other Republican in the race.

Whether that's the right way to go about unseating Obama remains to be seen.

==============================

In one respect, Romney's Mormonism might make this an interesting election here in the Golden State. California's 750,000+ Mormons might make the state a viable campaign stop for him, whereas it wouldn't be for Gingrich.

That's why the Republican establishment is backing Romney.

That, and a lot of them remember Gingrich from his time as Speaker.

I think many of the Republicans (the party people - not the locals) figure the economy will continue to sputter and don't want to be in the POTUS and get the blame for that.

I think many of the Republicans (the party people - not the locals) figure the economy will continue to sputter and don't want to be in the POTUS and get the blame for that.

You think they're backing a candidate they think is a loser, against a vulnerable incumbent, when Republicans have a majority in the House (and a good chance of winning the Senate) because there is a chance the Republicans might hold the presidency in an anemic economy? Really? When a Republican president might be able to cement a conservative majority Supreme Court for decades, repeal Obamacare, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and go to war with Iran to prove that the Iraq war was a good idea? And the alternative is a president many Republicans think is a socialist terrorist sympathizer who hates America. I don't think so.

The stakes are really high, and Republicans are desperate to win; their bench just isn't great right now. They are not playing to lose.

Christopher -

If they aren't playing to lose, then why are they pushing a guy that can't break 50% in the primaries? The next 2 candidates together are getting more votes than he is, so obviously "Not Mitt" polls better than "Mitt"

Mitt is a northeastern liberal. The difference between him and Obama is miniscule at best. Which is why a Mitt candidacy is what the leftist media want -- he's written their ads for them.

"Romney's just like Obama, so if you vote for Romney, you must be a racist. You don't want to be a racist, do you? Obama 2012."

Two reasons, Brian, maybe three:

1. They know the general electorate is not the same thing as the primary voters. Romney can appeal to the center in a way his opponents cannot.

2. No one more broadly appealing threw his or her hat in and proved viable. Pawlenty bailed early because he couldn't raise money. Huntsman pissed off the base. Perry proved himself unready for prime time and flamed out. The Bush name is tainted right now, so it's too early for Jeb. Christie decided to sit this one out, and might not have gotten much traction once some of his moderate beliefs became more well-known.

3. (maybe) They think Obama is so weak, they don't need their A game.

Christopher -

1) That's as may be, but Ronald Reagan won 49 states against a doctrinaire progressive in 1984.

2) Every time one does, the establishment (GOP leadership in DC) scuttles them or they step on their own dick. Every time one gained traction against Romney, the GOP brought out the long knives.

3) Definitely. And pride goeth before a fall.

I fear that in a Romney v. Obama battle that the general public won't see an inch of daylight between the two and stick with the devil they know.

This scares me more than anything has ever scared be before, because even if the R's take the senate with a filibuster-proof majority Obama's already shown that he's willing to subvert the Constitution and just go around them and they haven't the balls to stop him.

1) Reagan was a charismatic, popular incumbent, running for reelection. There's no Reagan running this time; at least not the 1984 version (perhaps, the failed 1976 version?). A true conservative can win, if he's a good politician; there's not one in this race.

2) I think the establishment doesn't want to be embarrassed. The would get behind someone who is conservative and credible (note how long it took for Romney to garner major endorsements), but none has emerged.

3) The public will definitely see Romney and Obama as different. Hard core conservatives might be uncomfortable with Romney's liberal past, but if elected, he's likely to govern as he campaigns. That's what people generally do.