Yes, Romney is worse...but not so much worse as to justify a vote for the more benevolent tyranny party.

A third option, be it Gary Johnson or a liberty lover of the left, won't win...this is true.  But that does not mean they can't win.  Whoever wins the most states wins...so anybody on enough ballots can win.  The sooner a third option wins one state, the sooner they win two, the sooner they win enough to end the two-party duopoly on the office of the president.

I am, frankly, tired of people telling me that if I vote third party - something I have actually never done - I am wasting my vote, or that if I don't choose one of the candidates at all, that I am helping the more evil candidate win.  My vote is my voice, and if I choose to vote for a third-party candidate, it will be because I have assessed that candidate and deemed him or her deserving of my vote.  If I choose not to vote the presidential ticket, as I did for the first time in 2008, it will be because I have assessed the candidates and deemed none of them worthy of my vote.

I don't play 11-dimensional chess, using my vote to strategically help or hinder someone's electoral chances; I don't protest vote, because there's nowhere on the ballot to express the reason why I would do that: a vote is a vote is a vote.  

I don't vote for someone because I think he or she can win - I do that at the race track, not in the voting booth - I vote for a candidate because I think he or she is the best person for the job - quaint, I know, but call me old-fashioned, I really don't care.

I don't disagree that [insert name of GOP candidate here] will be bad for the country, but I am also of the opinion that that doesn't make Obama good for the country.  He's talking the populist talk, but he did that in 2008, and then proceeded to govern from the right, and adopted and extended some truly hideous Bush policies, and established a few of his own on that foundation.  If Obama has an eight-year plan, I don't believe it includes doing an abrupt 180 at the four-year mark and starting to govern from the left - in my opinion, his rightward move will only pick up speed, and we will be, essentially in the same place the GOP wants to go.  Except it will be identified as Democratic policy and Democratic governance - and we can say goodbye, perhaps for a long, long time, to anything resembling liberal/progressive/left-oriented influence on our lives.

I can't vote for that.  And I will not be guilted, shamed, intimidated, ridiculed and belittled by the likes of the 2% less evil crowd into using my one and only vote on someone who will gladly take it, and then act against my interests and the best interests of the country as a whole.

If people like yourself would stop telling everyone to vote the lesser of two evils rather than the best person for the job, a third party might have a chance.  But the nitwit squads on both sides keep beating this drum, vote for us or suffer the wrath of the other.  Too stupid to realize just how similar they are; mirror images.  Both hell bent on winning at all costs, to hell with non-sense like integrity and principles, win then worry about the pesky details, or not.

Who cares about actual leadership, better to have your clown then a clown of the opposing party seems to be your "logical justification".  And you spend hours rationalizing this non-sense by popping in every time you come across some article that even remotely comes close to supporting your nonsensical justifications.  When anyone with a lick of sense knows Obama is not the best person for the job, unless of course you make millions leaching off the rest of the population, then he's been a wet dream.

If the goal is winning, then play your Rovian game theories, but to me it's more then that, it's about voting for the person I want leading the country, someone great. It's why Obama got my last vote.  I don't give a damn if they don't have a chance because I will sleep at night knowing I did my part to promote the best.

Call me naive, but if we could remove the problem, people like yourself who vigorously strive for mediocrity on both sides, we could get politicians at all levels who are what we as kids envisioned a politician should be.  Not these sorry sacks that can't be bothered with solving the problems of the people when corporations are calling.

Voting to keep someone out of office is beyond illogical, it's frighting.  And the fact that your brain has been so mismanaged to not only believe, but to publicly declare that's what a vote is for, is just plain sad.  Without your types holding these clowns in power, in one election cycle and each and every one of them could be replaced.  

I dont see an Omama demon yet.  Rocky?  I dont think so. Gary.  um, no.

this year all the demons are lining up for Obama and against whatever republican gets the nod.

I don't think you actually do understand that it is the principles that people believe in that cause them to cast principled votes; apparently, you just can't be bothered with the burden of principles, and just vote to be on the winning side, which says a lot about you, and not much of it particularly appealing.

As for the differences between Romney and Obama - here's a little experiment for you...

              is calling for a corporate tax overhaul, expanded domestic drilling and new regulatory reforms, a set of proposals unlikely to provide a quick fix for high unemployment or gain much traction in an election year.

A panel of business leaders advising         [...] will offer its latest job-creation prescriptions at a meeting with         on Tuesday. A draft of its report was obtained by Reuters [...]

The panel calls for lowering corporate tax rates to "internationally competitive levels" while broadening the corporate tax base by eliminating deductions and loopholes.

"             recommends expanding and expediting the domestic production of fossil fuels - including allowing more access to oil, gas, and coal opportunities on federal lands - while ensuring safe and responsible development of those sites," the report said.

In addition, the report called for a series of reforms to streamline government rules and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, which it said would enhance U.S. competitiveness.

Whose ideas are these?

No, not Romney.  Or Newt.   Paul Ryan?  Nope.

These are the ideas of the President's Jobs Council.  President Barack Obama's Jobs Council - which is, in ideology and philosophy, indistinguishable from the Heritage Foundation.  You remember them, don't you?  You should - they're the group whose health reform ideas were almost wholly incorporated into Obama's ACA.