Full Version: 3rd party Candidate
Alright. I have asked whether or not the disparate parties and factions could join together to at least elect a candidate who will get us a small"wish" list.
Lee asked what would it take to get and Independant candidate elected.
DREAMpipEr(not the other one
mind you) asked if it is worth joining one of the 2 parties to help select their candidate
AuthorMusician had this to say in a recent post
and the ever passionate Artemise of course offered
Now there is talk of Ventura maybe running, but other than that i can see no candidate possibility who has anywhere near the needed charisma to actually build any buzz that might start a real drive.
I have even thought maybe a Manchurian candidate style idea might work. Find a pretty boy and coach him on what to say
While not a pretty boy it worked for Karl Rove
No No this is a serious post
the reality of third parties is that they are full of the "Argue the fine points of Constitutional Law till your ears bleed" types but short on any actual personality or ideas that translate to the majority of American citizens.
Reality check for some of you They want to hear what YOU will do for THEM.
Lectures on classic civil responsibility will only make them break eye contact and back away slowly.
How will you make life better for the average American
How will you make life safer for the average American
do you have any examples they can visualize?
can you make them clearly see why you are right.
Can you create any jobs, can you show any that have been created?
Or can you just talk talk talk.
The question(s) is
Should the various factions unite to offer a candidate NOW. Build that candidate for 2008 now.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your political wants if the candidate were from another beleif system? Say its a Libertarian and you are a Green. If getting this person elected would offer a real shot of establishing the third party Idea in mainstream America-- Get more of them actually EXCITED about the possibility-- would you bite your tounge and get them elected?
Lee asked what would it take to get and Independant candidate elected.
DREAMpipEr(not the other one
mind you) asked if it is worth joining one of the 2 parties to help select their candidateAuthorMusician had this to say in a recent post
QUOTE
Third parties should realize that the Demos have no monopoly on the Internet or meetups. Knock, knock, hellooooo? Anybody home?
and the ever passionate Artemise of course offered
QUOTE
WHERE is the Libertarian or Green candidate? The third parties talk a bunch of talk but come up with NOTHING and NOBODY time after time.
Now there is talk of Ventura maybe running, but other than that i can see no candidate possibility who has anywhere near the needed charisma to actually build any buzz that might start a real drive.
I have even thought maybe a Manchurian candidate style idea might work. Find a pretty boy and coach him on what to say
While not a pretty boy it worked for Karl Rove
No No this is a serious post
the reality of third parties is that they are full of the "Argue the fine points of Constitutional Law till your ears bleed" types but short on any actual personality or ideas that translate to the majority of American citizens.
Reality check for some of you They want to hear what YOU will do for THEM.
Lectures on classic civil responsibility will only make them break eye contact and back away slowly.
How will you make life better for the average American
How will you make life safer for the average American
do you have any examples they can visualize?
can you make them clearly see why you are right.
Can you create any jobs, can you show any that have been created?
Or can you just talk talk talk.
The question(s) is
Should the various factions unite to offer a candidate NOW. Build that candidate for 2008 now.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your political wants if the candidate were from another beleif system? Say its a Libertarian and you are a Green. If getting this person elected would offer a real shot of establishing the third party Idea in mainstream America-- Get more of them actually EXCITED about the possibility-- would you bite your tounge and get them elected?
I think that the best bet for promoting a greater vote for the third party would be placing many different 3rd party leaders onto one ticket. Such as Nader Pres. Orejo VP, Green Party Sec. of Energy etc.
Doing it this way would bring many more votes because you would attract many more voters, voting for their person with a cabinet position.
just a thought
Doing it this way would bring many more votes because you would attract many more voters, voting for their person with a cabinet position.
just a thought
i think it will be a long long time before a third party gets a good shot at the whitehouse. it takes a lot of resources and even more money to get your name out there enough to win an election. i believe perot would have had a good chance if he didnt drop out of the election and then get back in.
QUOTE
I think that the best bet for promoting a greater vote for the third party would be placing many different 3rd party leaders onto one ticket. Such as Nader Pres. Orejo VP, Green Party Sec. of Energy etc.
Doing it this way would bring many more votes because you would attract many more voters, voting for their person with a cabinet position.
Doing it this way would bring many more votes because you would attract many more voters, voting for their person with a cabinet position.
The problem is we have this system now. What few people financially support, let alone vote for third parties are so divided between those parties they can never hope to win.
I agree, we need to focus of the reform of the system. Getting third party candidates elected is a huge step towards reform.
It shows Americans that they can win and that there are alternatives to the Republicrats., And it shows the Republicrats that we are willing to elect third parties when our needs are ignored.
It's difficult even to type
However, I would vote for a socialist candidate if they had a real enough campaign to win office, just to show the big two that they need to return to focusing on our needs in practice, not just sound bites.The biggest problem with the Third parties is that they see compromise as a terrible sin. Sometimes, you have to give alittle to get alittle. And most third party members I have met in real life are so bent on their ideologies that they would probably disown any member who won office through any minor ideological compromise or concession. It seems to me, that many third party members are members because their parties inability to win. It allows them to keep some sort of moral high ground in regard to ideology. They can safely preach their views because their leadership will never bend or compromise because they will never be elected and have to negotiate with others to accomplish anything.
Should the various factions unite to offer a candidate NOW. Build that candidate for 2008 now.
I don't think that we could get the various factions to unite for a candidate but I think the various factions could unite to pool resources in trying to reform the unfair and partisan ballot access and debating rules. Perhaps if they joined forces in media advertisement (television and print) showing their candidates together and then outlining why it is difficult for the public to be aware of their positions. That this sort of reform needs to happen if we will ever see any change and encouraging the people to demand reform.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your political wants if the candidate were from another belief system?
I stated in another thread but will repeat here, if Badnarik does not get on my ballot I am prepared to throw my vote to Nader. Not because I support him but because of the current system. Now if their was a chance that Nader could get voted in I probably would rethink my vote.
It took the last few months for me to arrive at these decisions and I must say that you (Christopher) and Overland helped guide me to my current position. I am, though, open to reasonable reasons to change my vote and if Bush or Kerry can show me why I should vote them over my current selection, I am willing to change my mind. They haven't done it yet but anything can happen between now and November.
I don't think that we could get the various factions to unite for a candidate but I think the various factions could unite to pool resources in trying to reform the unfair and partisan ballot access and debating rules. Perhaps if they joined forces in media advertisement (television and print) showing their candidates together and then outlining why it is difficult for the public to be aware of their positions. That this sort of reform needs to happen if we will ever see any change and encouraging the people to demand reform.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your political wants if the candidate were from another belief system?
I stated in another thread but will repeat here, if Badnarik does not get on my ballot I am prepared to throw my vote to Nader. Not because I support him but because of the current system. Now if their was a chance that Nader could get voted in I probably would rethink my vote.
It took the last few months for me to arrive at these decisions and I must say that you (Christopher) and Overland helped guide me to my current position. I am, though, open to reasonable reasons to change my vote and if Bush or Kerry can show me why I should vote them over my current selection, I am willing to change my mind. They haven't done it yet but anything can happen between now and November.
Should the various factions unite to offer a candidate NOW. Build that candidate for 2008 now.
Yes, but unfortunately, it's not going to happen. Each 3rd party is way too ideological to compromise, which is unfortunate. I stand a better chance of electing a (mostly) libertarian Republican in Illinois than I do a 3rd party candidate, which is my own way of compromising I guess.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your political wants if the candidate were from another beleif system?
Yes, I surely would. I voted in the Libertarian primary in IL even though I had a stake in the Republican primary. But, I thought that it was more important to get each and every Libertarian vote on the record in Cook County, so I made sure to vote Libertarian. While I wouldn't vote Socialist or Green, I would back a 3rd party that made at least some of my criteria. Especially if IL isn't in play ... again.
Yes, but unfortunately, it's not going to happen. Each 3rd party is way too ideological to compromise, which is unfortunate. I stand a better chance of electing a (mostly) libertarian Republican in Illinois than I do a 3rd party candidate, which is my own way of compromising I guess.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your political wants if the candidate were from another beleif system?
Yes, I surely would. I voted in the Libertarian primary in IL even though I had a stake in the Republican primary. But, I thought that it was more important to get each and every Libertarian vote on the record in Cook County, so I made sure to vote Libertarian. While I wouldn't vote Socialist or Green, I would back a 3rd party that made at least some of my criteria. Especially if IL isn't in play ... again.
Should the various factions unite to offer a candidate NOW. Build that candidate for 2008 now.
The closest we could come to a united third party candidate would be, as I've suggested, a libertarian-leaning centrist Independent with name recognition and charisma. That need not be Ventura, but it'd have be someone with those similarities. Only a centrist candidate with the right combination of positions -- like Ventura, pro-gun and pro-choice, for example -- would be able to draw enough voters away from the two major parties, combine that with independents, and motivate enough habitual non-voters to turn out to be able to put together a winning coalition. I see no reason Ventura's winning formula in Minnesota couldn't be repeated nationally, given the right candidate and platform.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your political wants if the candidate were from another beleif system?
Up to a point. I regularly vote for Republicans over Democrats if that's my only choice, and I'd vote for an Independent such as I described above. I'd vote for the Constitution Party in a pinch. But no way I'd vote for Nader or a Green since they're even further from what I believe than the Democrats.
The closest we could come to a united third party candidate would be, as I've suggested, a libertarian-leaning centrist Independent with name recognition and charisma. That need not be Ventura, but it'd have be someone with those similarities. Only a centrist candidate with the right combination of positions -- like Ventura, pro-gun and pro-choice, for example -- would be able to draw enough voters away from the two major parties, combine that with independents, and motivate enough habitual non-voters to turn out to be able to put together a winning coalition. I see no reason Ventura's winning formula in Minnesota couldn't be repeated nationally, given the right candidate and platform.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your political wants if the candidate were from another beleif system?
Up to a point. I regularly vote for Republicans over Democrats if that's my only choice, and I'd vote for an Independent such as I described above. I'd vote for the Constitution Party in a pinch. But no way I'd vote for Nader or a Green since they're even further from what I believe than the Democrats.
Should the various factions unite to offer a candidate NOW. Build that candidate for 2008 now.
The chance of all the various factions uniting to offer one single candidate is very, very slim. Personally, I would be in favor of it. I have always been in support of a viable third party, if not just to give the American people more of a choice in electing their leader for the next 4 years. If it's going to happen, it should happen now, so as to gain support, because that will be a slow, grueling process with a third-party candidate.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your political wants if the candidate were from another beleif system?
It depends. As a conservative, I have certain beliefs about how the government should be run that are non-negotiable. However, if the candidate had a good balance on social issues, then I could see myself voting for them. Economic issues I would be a little more tight on.
The chance of all the various factions uniting to offer one single candidate is very, very slim. Personally, I would be in favor of it. I have always been in support of a viable third party, if not just to give the American people more of a choice in electing their leader for the next 4 years. If it's going to happen, it should happen now, so as to gain support, because that will be a slow, grueling process with a third-party candidate.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your political wants if the candidate were from another beleif system?
It depends. As a conservative, I have certain beliefs about how the government should be run that are non-negotiable. However, if the candidate had a good balance on social issues, then I could see myself voting for them. Economic issues I would be a little more tight on.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.