The W
Views: 98929776
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.9.14 0442
The W - Current Events & Politics - Question for both Dems and Republicans
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.31
Pages: 1
(207 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (12 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
If a third party emerged, much like it did when Ross Perot ran for President, that was not beholden to special interests, would you support it and help make it viable?

I ask because it seems like a lot of the "center" is being ignored by both sides.

I know if I could find a party that shared my views on National Security, adherence to the Constitution, and was somewhat liberal on social issues, I'd be more than happy to give them my vote come 2012.

Promote this thread!
Dexley's Midnight Jogger
Pepperoni
Moderator








Since: 10.10.02
From: New Hampshire

Since last post: 225 days
Last activity: 139 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.46
I usually do vote for a third party, after researching their stance. This has brought me a lot of harrassment from others for "wasting" my vote. But if they didn't appeal to me, then no, I would not support them just to get them on the ticket.

When there was no choice that I saw that I liked, I have written in people who I thought would do best.
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 8 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.79
    Originally posted by StaggerLee

    I know if I could find a party that shared my views on National Security, adherence to the Constitution, and was somewhat liberal on social issues, I'd be more than happy to give them my vote come 2012.


As a Democrat, I heartily agree. Of course, my definition of "liberal on social issues" may be a bit more strict than yours, as I'm related to two Socialist [former] mayors. (one was even the Socialist presidential candidate in 1976!)

Living in IL, I knew that a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, along with a Democrat Head of State would not guarantee smooth sailing, like the more extreme people at DailyKos would have liked. It's nice to know that people are actually discussing and debating major issues in Congress, rather than doing everything the President (or Vice President) tells them to.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 442 days
Last activity: 442 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.85
I could, but I'm in a state where if Bozo D Clown was the Democratic nominee for President he'd get 70% of the vote. Whether I would in a close state is another matter.
As for whether one could win, it's extremely difficult to get to 270 in a close 3 way race for anyone, and the tie-breaking procedure pretty much eliminates hope for a 3rd party candidate.
Better question is would you vote for a 3rd party with a realistic chance for the House or Senate? A party would have to make in-roads there for it to eventually to have a realistic shot at the White House.

(edited by redsoxnation on 8.9.09 2139)
Sec19Row53
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.94
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    If a third party emerged, much like it did when Ross Perot ran for President, that was not beholden to special interests, would you support it and help make it viable?

I disagree with your assessment that a third party emerged when Perot ran. It was more of a one-man show. However, I would definitely vote third party, and have in previous presidential elections when I wasn't thrilled with either of the major party candidates.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.63
I would be unlikely to. A candidate with a chance of winning would be better served to select one of the parties and change it from within. Reagan did that to the Republican party years ago - no one was with him, they were in the very moderate republican branch aligned with Ford, Nixon, Rockefeller, Reagan and Goldwater and others were rare then. I mean, Reagan's VP was very much in the moderate republican theme, and Bush Uno was pretty much the constructionist, fiscally responsible and fairly liberal (bush 1 was pro choice, for example).

same thing happened in the Dems. Truman and Kennedy were pretty conservative, far to the right of Clinton, but Johnson wasn't, and Neither was Humphrey, but those guys were atilla the hun compared to McGovern. His movement eventually spawned Obama. In fact, much of the democrat movement today is closer to McGovern than another Dem of the same time, Scoop Jackson. Some of the so called Blue dogs are like him.

so, I'd rather see the candidate come in and move the party.

But you liberals, I highly suggest you vote for whatever third party pops up. Maybe Nader will run again.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.75
As someone who lives in a country with a third, fourth and even fifth party, I've never voted for any party besides the Liberals. Obviously I can't vote Bloc living in Ontario and would have no reason to....the Green Party, if actually elected, wouldn't be able to get much done....and as for the NDP, I've had nothing but a stream of incompetents running for MP under the NDP banner in my riding, so I couldn't vote for them though I support a lot of NDP ideas.

In regards to your hypothetical situation about the American system, I doubt any third party would be free of obligations to special interests, so it's a moot point. Also, a third-party president would be able to get exactly jack-all done in terms of really major legislation given that they'd be facing an almost entirely hostile Congress.



Kirk, crackers are a family food. Happy families. Maybe single people eat crackers, we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 414 days
Last activity: 375 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.30
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Also, a third-party president would be able to get exactly jack-all done in terms of really major legislation given that they'd be facing an almost entirely hostile Congress.

I don't see why that would necessarily be the case. With an moderate independent President supporting whatever legislation they wanted to, that might be the only chance to see some true bipartisanship from moderates from both sides. Whether there would be enough moderates to pass anything would remain to be seen, but I don't think it would be an almost entirely hostile Congress.

As to the greater question, I have voted for and will continue to vote for minor party candidates, but I think the question is moot because any person capable of getting themselves elected as a 3rd party / Independent candidate would find either party willing to support them (the two parties want to be on the winning side more than anything). The candidate in turn would I think see the obvious benefits that being on a major party ticket can provide. In other words, all running as a 3rd party does is make it much harder to win, and they don't grade your presidential run on a degree of difficulty.

But if it were to happen, you'd definitely need a candidate with deep pockets to combat the large infrastructure already in place. It would have to be someone willing to spend probably a couple hundred million dollars on the campaign.
DrewDewce
Bratwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Derby City

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 6 days
Y!:
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.66
I have and always will vote for whomever I think will be the best person for the job at hand, be it man, woman, black, white, Republican, Democrat, 3rd Party, whatever. I have no loyalty to my declared party at all when it comes to my vote, as I only declared to be one of the "big two" so as to be able to better participate in the primaries to do my part to ensure that the best possible person from that party makes it to the ticket for the main elections.

To your cited example, I was very much prepared to vote for Perot the first time around until that 60 Minutes interview came out a few weeks before the election that rightly or wrongly painted him as somewhat of a lunatic in my mind at least.



"You are going to get a certain amount of snarkiness on the Internet no matter what, and my rule is that you don't post anything that you wouldn't say to someone's face."
Marc Andreyko (Writer of DC Comic's "Manhunter")
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 187 days
Last activity: 24 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.91
I think that before a viable 3rd party candidate is able to emerge at the presidential level, the party would have to establish itself at the lower levels of power first (city council member, mayor, congressman, senator, etc...).

For someone to run on a national stage without a party base at the local and congressional levels first, I doubt the 3rd party presidential candidate would be able to gain any significant traction in a national election.

Having said that, it would be nice to actually believe in a candidate enough to actually be able to vote FOR someone for a change, as opposed to always seeming to have to choose between the lesser of the two evils placed before me...
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 442 days
Last activity: 442 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.85
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
      Originally posted by Big Bad
      Also, a third-party president would be able to get exactly jack-all done in terms of really major legislation given that they'd be facing an almost entirely hostile Congress.

    I don't see why that would necessarily be the case. With an moderate independent President supporting whatever legislation they wanted to, that might be the only chance to see some true bipartisanship from moderates from both sides. Whether there would be enough moderates to pass anything would remain to be seen, but I don't think it would be an almost entirely hostile Congress.








Only true bipartisanship you would see in that situation would be in figuring out how to weaken the executive branch and strengthen the legislative branch.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 47 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
I've only once voted for a major party candidate for POTUS, so I would gladly vote for one who I agreed with. I really would like to see some sort of party emerge in the center between the two parties, so that the Blue Dogs and the McCain's can have a party, and the other two parties can be more representative of their bases and clearer in their message.



2007 and 2008 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
Thread rated: 5.31
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: CA Assemblyman steps down
Next thread: What's the hub bub?
Previous thread: NBC Hires Jenna Bush Hager
(207 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
It would be career suicide by Estrada. Even with the controversy, he probably still has very little name recognition among the average voter. However, Chucky is vulnerable against the right opponent.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Question for both Dems and RepublicansRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.117 seconds.