-=> Quoting John Perz to Steve Gunhouse on 06 Aug 96  19:29 <=-
 Re: We? 
 -> But given that there is no difference between Dole and Clinton from
 -> our perspective, you have nothing to lose by voting for a third
 -> party.
 JP> Well, yeah.  **IF** we accept your assumption, that there is **NO**
 JP> difference between Clinton & Dole, then your conclusion is valid.
 JP> IF, however, we think that Dole's Supreme Court nominees would be much
 JP> better than Clintons, then your conclusion is invalid.
I think that depends on who we get into the Senate (which approves 
nominees) more than either Dole or Clinton. Dole *might* be better, or he 
might not. Harry WIILL be better.
 JP> Obviously, the base assumption is gonna be a judgement call.
 JP> But let me add another thought.
 JP> Clinton & Dole are gonna run.  Harry Browne is gonna run.  Perot is
 JP> gonna run.  IF Buchanan runs **TOO* and **IF** the far left is
 JP> sufficiently pissed at Clinton for signing the welfare reform bill
 JP> that a significant part of them bolt to Nader & the Green Party,
 JP> **THEN** we're gonna have a whole new ball game.
 JP> If all of the above happen, then Browne would actually become
 JP> electable, and I **WILL** vote for him then.
 JP> Clinton won with 43% of the vote, last time.  In the above scenario,
 JP> the next president might well win with only 25% of the vote.
 JP> This campaign could still get right interesting.
What do you mean "get"? It already is. Unfortunately, the Greens will not 
be on that many ballots yet. But if we did have all those options, we 
might actually get more voters to show up.
My original point is still the same. A vote for Dole is a wasted vote, as
well as potentially more dangerous than a vote for Clinton. 
Steve
... Freedom smells sweeter now than ever before.
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------