Let's Talk 3rd Party

**Borey the Bald** · 08-11-2011, 08:22 PM

Is there an opening for a third party candidate in 2012?

I am a disaffected Republican. I think the party has gone off the deep end; it is not the party of conservative principles. This year it can best be described as weak. The Democrats, under Obama, have been totally discredited. Over 50% disapprove of the job Obama is doing.

73% believe the country is on the wrong track.

Fully 27% of the US see the Tea Party as a positive. Another 32% support the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

In a 3-way race between Obama, Romney, and Paul, Obama gets 44%, Romney 32%, and Paul 18%.

Disaffection with both major parties is real, but is it real enough to allow a strong 3rd party populist candidate showing next year?

[Poll data from NBC/Wall Street Journal, Nov 7, 2011]

**Borey the Bald** · 09-11-2011, 08:44 PM

In 1998, my home state of Minnesota elected a 3rd party governor, Jesse Ventura. He ran on a slogan of “Don't vote for politics as usual”. He won by a narrow margin, even though the major media portrayed him as a joke with no chance of winning. He ended up being a reasonably good governor.

I believe the national mood this election period is similar to that of Minnesota in 1998. Both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movements are populist anti “politics as usual” groups.

While it is true that the puppet masters behind the Tea Party are GOP leaders, an October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 87% saying "dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican Party leaders" was "an important factor in the support the group has received so far".

OWS originally started with "one simple demand—a presidential commission to separate money from politics—we start setting the agenda for a new America." According to a survey of Zucotti Park protesters by the Baruch College School of Public Affairs published on October 19, 70% of the OWS protesters called themselves independents.

I think that a good politician, a Ron Paul type, could combine those two disparate groups with a single populist message against “politics as usual” and stand a chance (slim) of winning at the poles. Obama or the current crop of Republican candidates will, if elected, do nothing to improve the situation in the US.

**Butterfly** · 09-11-2011, 08:48 PM

there is no good candidate anywhere these days,

Ron Paul is a dangerous nutter, like the others

looks like we are stuck for bendover Obama for another 4 years,

**barbaro** · 09-11-2011, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Borey the Bald

Is there an opening for a third party candidate in 2012?

I too, don't like the two parties - which in reality are a monopoly and often collude.

But a 3rd party in he US?

Not viable . Never has been.

Why?

Because the American electoral system is specifically designed to shut out and exclude 3rd parties.

Rules, laws, regulations on matching funds.

There have been third parties for many decades and in the previous century. And today, none will be able to compete for real power because of how the system is set up.

**Borey the Bald** · 09-12-2011, 11:14 PM

One of the talking heads on TV today stated that George Will is preparing a report that Ron Paul is reinforcing his campaign staffs in several states in order to run as a 3rd party candidate (if he does not get on the Republican ticket).

They also stated that while a 3rd party candidate could, theoretically win the popular vote, there is no way he could win the electoral vote.

**sabang** · 10-12-2011, 03:31 AM

Even if an independent or third party President were to be elected, he would be in an instant quagmire with the Houses of Congress and the vested interests Congressmen and Senators actually represent (which, unfortunately, is not the people of the State that elected them). His or her agenda would be tied up in procedural nonsense and partisan bickering, much in the same way that Obama's has been. In several ways a Democrat Presidency resembles an Independent anyway, because I have yet to see Democrats truly united as a party behind a particular agenda- an obvious example being the 'Blue Dogs'. So the Potus is engaged in not just dealing with the opposition, but tied up with factional bickering within his own party too.

The problem really lies within the Houses of Congress rather than the Presidential office- but then again, if you have a Potus that routinely overrules or circumvents Congress, this is a potential threat to democracy and proportional representation. Basically, the whole system seems designed to support a 'status quo' rather than allow for much in the way of change, and to in the main cater for existing and entrenched vested interests rather than 'popular' representation. This is most starkly exposed when the system itself comes under question, such as with the financial crisis of 2008 and it's aftermath, and attempts to introduce Health Care reform in the US. The response to both has been watered down to please existing interests as a first priority, rather than the voting population and it's needs and priorities.

I suppose the example of Israel is salient too, where you have so many small 'special interest' parties that any government able to be formed is a coalition, hostage to them and their demands. Given that these smaller parties are typically quite radical and will bring down a governing coalition at the drop of a hat if their demands are not acceded to, this is hardly an optimal democratic outcome.

If the US citizenry wants to incrementally take it's democracy back, the first thing they need to do is overturn that abysmal 'Citizens United' decision, probably via Constitutional amendment. The second thing they need to do is be a lot more activist and specific about their choice of individual Congressmen- just voting along party lines really achieves nothing except a continuation of the same old nonsense. The Tea Party, whilst I disagree with much of their agenda (but not their disgruntlement), has at least got this right. OWS in contrast is still involved in drum circles. A third party, well lets see- if the Teabaggers and Progressives were to split from their respective parties, when push came to shove they would still side with their 'mother party'. I doubt it would change much actually. I see a distinct lack of citizens referendum's in the US compared to the European democracies- and I think it would be a good idea to have more of these, so the actual people can have their collective voice heard within a system designed to suppress it. I think that would be more effective than another party which would be soon enough hijacked by special interests ('business as usual'), or a de facto proxy for another, larger party.

**robuzo** · 10-12-2011, 05:25 AM

Hey, Borey, how about Rocky Anderson?
Rocky Anderson forms Justice Party, plans to run for president | Deseret News

**Boon Mee** · 10-12-2011, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

there is no good candidate anywhere these days,

Ron Paul is a dangerous nutter, like the others

looks like we are stuck for bendover Obama for another 4 years,

A third party run would mean certain win for the Obama POS...

**Borey the Bald** · 10-12-2011, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

....Basically, the whole system seems designed to support a 'status quo' rather than allow for much in the way of change, and to in the main cater for existing and entrenched vested interests rather than 'popular' representation. This is most starkly exposed when the system itself comes under question, such as with the financial crisis of 2008 and it's aftermath, and attempts to introduce Health Care reform in the US. The response to both has been watered down to please existing interests as a first priority, rather than the voting population and it's needs and priorities....

If the US citizenry wants to incrementally take it's democracy back, the first thing they need to do is overturn that abysmal 'Citizens United' decision, probably via Constitutional amendment. The second thing they need to do is be a lot more activist and specific about their choice of individual Congressmen- just voting along party lines really achieves nothing except a continuation of the same old nonsense.

I certainly agree that the huge amounts of money floating around Washington and being used in the elections exemplified by the "Citizens United" decision, is the root cause of many of the problems with the political process today. Unfortunately, you are also correct that "the whole system seems designed to support a 'status quo'", so I do not expect to see any real reform in my lifetime.

**Borey the Bald** · 10-12-2011, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by robuzo

Hey, Borey, how about Rocky Anderson?
Rocky Anderson forms Justice Party, plans to run for president | Deseret News

I certainly agree with some of his sentiments: "They want to see an alternative party. They recognize that these two militarist, corporatist parties have brought us to this disastrous place to where we are today."

Regardless of the viability of a 3rd party winning in the US, I believe they are important in that they encourage more citizen involvement in our political process. That is always a good thing, whether you agree with their views or not. That is the essence of democracy.

**Cujo** · 10-12-2011, 11:38 PM

The U.S.A.s fucked any way you look at it. We are witnessing the dying gasps so who gives a fuck.

**barbaro** · 11-12-2011, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Borey the Bald

One of the talking heads on TV today stated that George Will is preparing a report that Ron Paul is reinforcing his campaign staffs in several states in order to run as a 3rd party candidate (if he does not get on the Republican ticket).

They also stated that while a 3rd party candidate could, theoretically win the popular vote, there is no way he could win the electoral vote.

You're wasting you're time.

Study more about politics.

Learn how the system works, and how it is structured.

**Borey the Bald** · 11-12-2011, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by barbaro

Originally Posted by Borey the Bald

One of the talking heads on TV today stated that George Will is preparing a report that Ron Paul is reinforcing his campaign staffs in several states in order to run as a 3rd party candidate (if he does not get on the Republican ticket).

They also stated that while a 3rd party candidate could, theoretically win the popular vote, there is no way he could win the electoral vote.

You're wasting you're time.

Study more about politics.

Learn how the system works, and how it is structured.

My quote from post #10 above:

"Regardless of the viability of a 3rd party winning in the US, I believe they are important in that they encourage more citizen involvement in our political process. That is always a good thing, whether you agree with their views or not. That is the essence of democracy."

While it might be futile, I do not believe that involvement in the political process is a waste of time.

Just because you have virtually no chance of success, do you not try?

**barbaro** · 11-12-2011, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Borey the Bald

Just because you have virtually no chance of success, do you not try?

I'm not running.

**Borey the Bald** · 12-12-2011, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by barbaro

I'm not running.

Why not give it a try. You couldn't be any worse candidate than many of those trying for the Republican nomination now.

**barbaro** · 12-12-2011, 09:51 PM

Borey,

No offense intended towards you.

I too, would support a 3rd party, but the system is design to exclude it.

That said, yes we should keep trying.

**Borey the Bald** · 13-12-2011, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Borey the Bald

While it might be futile, I do not believe that involvement in the political process is a waste of time.

Just because you have virtually no chance of success, do you not try?

Saw an interview this morning of Scott Farris, who was pushing his new book “Almost President – The Men Who Lost The Race But Changed The Nation”. In it, he makes the case that a dozen men who have run for the American presidency and lost have had a greater impact than many of the victors.

One of his examples was Barry Goldwater, who ran in 1964 and was soundly defeated, but who, Farris says, fundamentally changed the Republican Party and paved the way for Reagan's victory in 1980.

Thread: Let's Talk 3rd Party

Thread Tools

Display

Let's Talk 3rd Party

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions