Convince me not to vote for Ron Paul

[Exiled Man]

I am a New Hampshire voter, and I will definitely be voting in the primary. As of this moment, I intend to vote for Ron Paul, even though I know he has no chance of being the Republican nominee. This is because I view a vote more as a statement of political preference than an action by which I am helping to choose which person will actually win and get to govern.

However, I reserve the right to change my mind, and might be pursuaded to instead vote for the candidate I prefer from among the group of viable candidates. (I'm not saying who that is, and if you think you know who it is, you're probably wrong.)

Don't try to sell me on your particular candidate. I have already narrowed the field down to two and only two options. One is the unelectable Ron Paul and the other is the electable Candidate B. Convince me, in general terms, that a person should (or should not) only vote for a candidate who might win.

[SamTheEagle]

If I guess who candidate B is on the first attempt, will you confirm that it is right?

[Uncle Howie]

Is it Edwards?

[Uncle Howie]

No wait, Putin? For Prime Minister?

[raskol]

I would vote for Ron Paul. I believe a vote for someone who represents a substantial positive departure from politics as usual is not wasted. Votes for Paul demonstrate that people are tired of fiscal irresponsibility, tired of big government, and tired of dumb laws with no constitutional basis. I believe these votes will be seen in the light of his utterly impossible candidacy, and appraised as stronger representations because of it.

[Exiled Man]

Originally Posted by SamTheEagle

If I guess who candidate B is on the first attempt, will you confirm that it is right?

No. But if I am pursuaded not to vote for Paul, then I'll tell you who candidate B is.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Originally Posted by Exiled Man

Convince me, in general terms, that a person should (or should not) only vote for a candidate who might win.

I can't. Vote for whoever you think is the best candidate. If your candidate doesn't win the nomination, you are free to criticize the actions of the winners.

If you are a staunch Republican, then you should vote for the candidate who is most likely to beat the Democratic candidate. (This strategy works for Dems, too.) And you shouldn't care who that person is. The people behind the scenes will do most of the "work" to get that candidate to win the nomination, anyways, by revealing the skeletons of the other candidates at the optimally opportune times.

[Prince William]

In a primary, you should vote for Ron Paul. Otherwise I will personally blame you for the result.

[Feif]

Ron Paul is NOT candidate B. Therefore, you should not vote for Ron Paul. That is all.

[Levin]

1. I think I've divulged before that I have "wasted votes" twice in my life. Once it was truly a wasted vote, in that the candidate did not win. But he sowed seeds in that campaign that, I think, brought fruit later. My second "wasted vote" (and that of many others) went to the eventual winner.

Don't vote for Ron Paul because you think he will win. Vote for him so that people like Ron Paul will continue to run and eventually succeed.

2. The marginal benefit of your vote to the cause of libertarianism/small govt/whatever is much greater than the marginal benefit to the vote tally of electable Candidate B, whoever it is. Like by a factor of 10 or something.