Originally Posted by whoflungdo
I get number 2 and have seriously considered it myself. However, how can ANYONE that wants limited/less/smaller government/Liberty vote for Obama and claim it's pragmatic?
Ive seen the argument before and there is a pragmatic strategy if one chooses to exercise it, depending on individual ideology.
Obama is only guaranteed 4 more years if elected. Republicans continue to fiercely counter his agenda and resist sliding further to the left. Then, a more conservative and hopefully a liberty minded Republican can then run in 2016, such as Rand Paul or another up-and-comer.
If Romney wins then it's 4 years of him likely pushing a similar agenda to Obama's (on large scale issues), moving the party itself further to the left and still have no primary challenge in 2016, even if Romney turns out be horrible. You'll still be expected to fall in line behind him in 2016. The Dems can put up their terrible "anybody but Romney" candidate (Hillary?) and possibly win. If Romney wins a second term despite this, liberty minded Republicans are left to wait until 2020(!) to try to field another candidate. By then, who knows how much of this country will even be left intact to fight over. Will conservatism even exist by 2020 with guys like Romney and Obama as the choices in 2012?
In this context, a vote for Obama can be a strategic vote for anyone that's tired of the current status quo of bad nominees with little differences and little respect for the Constitution. It's not the strategy I'm following but it is a strategy worth understanding, particularly if you're not happy with either party.