Mrs. Romney and Governor Christie....

[Andrew D]

But again, Romney is not running against the ideal....

He is running on a platform that requires the unemployment of tens of millions more Americans than are already unemployed.

[Lord Jim]

When I can't see a candidate I want to vote for I usually check out the third party candidates and see which one I most agree with

I have two problems with that...

First, as unsatisfying as I find the two major party nominees this time around, of every existing third party that I am aware of, (and I'm a aware of quite a few) not one of them is fielding a candidate for the Presidency that is even remotely qualified for the job. Serious minded, qualified people simply do not find themselves attracted to making third party Presidential bids.

I guess the closest to come to it this year would be the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson; at least he's served as a Governor...but that brings me to my second problem....

The fact that all the current third parties (from the Constitution Party on the right to the Socialist Workers Party on the left) tend to be somewhat kooky in their outlook, and even more ideological and uncompromising in their philosophies than the two major parties.

If you look at US history and see where a third party has actually succeeded in becoming a major party, (like the Republicans in 1856) or where they have done well enough to have a real impact on the process, they haven't come into existence from the kooky fringe....

They've been parties that made a central thrust of their appeal a willingness to take on some issue of great importance and interest to the American people that neither major party was willing to address. And the bulk of their candidates and supporters were drawn, not from ideologically narrow third party activists, or but from the ranks of people who had supported the existing major parties, but became frustrated with them.

I believe the kind of third party that could have broad popular appeal and actually make a run at becoming a serious player is a party very different from any of the current ones. A party that is less interested in pushing ideology and more interested in pragmatic solutions, and hammering out compromises so that the system becomes less dysfunctional. This again, is similar to the original premise of The Reform Party, but it's almost the complete opposite of all existing third parties, that tend by their very nature to have narrow, myopic ideological approaches.

[Gob]

Isn't part of the problem that in the USA to have any chance of being noticed, let alone winning, you need $$$$$ millions behind you? Isn't that why your third party contenders tend to be loony millionaires?

[Big RR]

Jim--I generally agree that most of the third party candidates are not really viable presidents, but then, even with my vote, they have no chance of winning. What my vote does do, however, is to show to those in the 'major" parties who care that I (and many who voted the same way) are disillusioned and would like some of the issues the third party embraces taken seriously; from the Greens, to the Reform Party, to the libertarians this is one of the few ways the viewpoint can be heard (the other is to hijack the primaries like the Tea Party did--I don't agree with their agenda, but they were heard and made a difference--but party rules have made this harder and harder). IMHO voting for a third party candidate this is marginally better than voting for the lesser of two evils again and again and just taking what we're dished out. The parties won't change until we demand it, and they won't hear us unless we hit them where it counts--in the vote totals.

[oldr_n_wsr]

What Big RR said.
Local races like, Bishop vs Altschuler for Congress Rep. and Gillibrand vs Long for Senate and all the other "more local" seats up for grabs are getting most of my attention.
I did like Gillibrand when she was first "chosen" for the senate seat when Hillary got tapped, but as far as I can see, she has become the person in the picture behind Chucky S.