A Third Party Candidate on the Rise in 2016?

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Articles: A Third-Party Candidate on the Rise in 2016?

Interesting graphs of the results of the presidential candidates of the other than the major 2 parties. One of the assertions made is that it is dissatisfaction in one party or the other that tends to produce the larger spikes in the non-big two turn outs. It would seem to me that if that is true, this next election may be the year.

 

[jwh20]

I've always thought (and said) that Ross Perot's presidential run gave Bill Clinton the presidency over the incumbent George H.W. Bush. It's inconceivable to me that significant numbers of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton since Perot ran as a candidate "RIGHT OF" Bush and even MORE RIGHT of Clinton's "moderate" stance.

One thing about the Democrats that you can't fault. They do know how to keep their "coalition" intact. So while we might see another 3rd party candidate for 2016, I think it's much more likely to be someone running as more conservative than the establishment Republican candidate. For example it that disgusting RINO Chris Christie is the Republican candidate (and it's a Democratic dream opponent in my view) then there will almost certainly be a call for a true conservative instead of a NJ A-H like Christie who is now Obama's BFF.

 

[hornadylnl]

Articles: A Third-Party Candidate on the Rise in 2016?

Interesting graphs of the results of the presidential candidates of the other than the major 2 parties. One of the assertions made is that it is dissatisfaction in one party or the other that tends to produce the larger spikes in the non-big two turn outs. It would seem to me that if that is true, this next election may be the year.

It'll have to wait til 2020. The 2016 election is too important. It's the most important election in our lifetime. WE HAVE TO BEAT HILLARY!!!!.!1!!!!

 

[Bapak2ja]

We need a conservative candidate. If the Republican Party runs another fake conservative, the conservatives will stay home again. If the choice is between Hillary and Christie, for example, there is no reason to go to the polls. We lose matter what we do.

We may be able to take the Republican Party to the right if our conservative candidates will agree to run only one conservative. It would require a conservative agreement, in advance of the primary campaigns, that only one conservative will seek the nomination. Then all the others will have to put their full energy into getting the nomination for that conservative candidate. If we do this, we have a chance. If we run multiple candidates again, the RINO will win the nomination. Welcome to Christie (or the RINO of the day) v. Hillary.

When that happens, again, the conservatives just stay home. Pointless to vote because they lose either way.

 

[Que]

It'll have to wait til 2020. The 2016 election is too important. It's the most important election in our lifetime. WE HAVE TO BEAT HILLARY!!!!.!1!!!!

I'm with you. If for nothing else, to change the conversation on INGO. Well, even if that did happen, I'm sure the winner will not be the guy that most conservatives wanted.

 

[MisterChester]

If a tea party candidate got as many votes as Perot did, you might as well hand the victory to the dem on a silver platter. History repeats itself if we do not learn its lessons.

 

[jwh20]

We need a conservative candidate. If the Republican Party runs another fake conservative, the conservatives will stay home again. If the choice is between Hillary and Christie, for example, there is no reason to go to the polls. We lose matter what we do.

We may be able to take the Republican Party to the right if our conservative candidates will agree to run only one conservative. It would require a conservative agreement, in advance of the primary campaigns, that only one conservative will seek the nomination. Then all the others will have to put their full energy into getting the nomination for that conservative candidate. If we do this, we have a chance. If we run multiple candidates again, the RINO will win the nomination. Welcome to Christie (or the RINO of the day) v. Hillary.

When that happens, again, the conservatives just stay home. Pointless to vote because they lose either way.

I'm with you on the first point, a Hillary vs. Christie is a Democratic dream scenario. Conservatives won't vote for Christie because he's a proven RINO. Democrats won't vote for him because he's a Republican, INO or otherwise, doesn't matter to them.

I'm hoping to see a Ted Cruz run since from all I've seen, this guy is a true conservative and is willing to put himself in the crossfire for what he believes is right. I also find it interesting how many "experts" are shouting out dire warnings to the Republican party that if Cruz (or another true conservative) runs, that the party is finished. I DO NOT put any stock in advice the liberal-media or liberal-politicos give to Republicans. That's like Chuck Pagano taking play calling advice from the other sideline! Why would the Democrats (or just this week Colin Powell) give the Republicans advice to HELP their opponents? Makes no sense to me either!!

I'd also like to see a Cruz candidacy due to the so-called impossibility of the Hispanic voters to support a Republican. Cruz is is Hispanic but is not viewed as such by the liberal-media because he doesn't "think" like a Hispanic. Just like Clarence Thomas is not a black man because it's incomprehensible that a black man could actually be conservative in his beliefs.

 

[tetsujin79]

The left goes farther left, dragging the right to the left to get votes.



Just wait it out until the left implodes when all their voters disappear since they forgot to reproduce since they were too busy changing their gender, aborting their babies, or adopting children from a third world country...



Of course by then, the right will be the left and dogs and cats will be living together...

 

[jamil]

The left goes farther left, dragging the right to the left to get votes.



Just wait it out until the left implodes when all their voters disappear since they forgot to reproduce since they were too busy changing their gender, aborting their babies, or adopting children from a third world country...



Of course by then, the right will be the left and dogs and cats will be living together...

I think you've ignored some important Democratic strategies. Welfare babies and newly legalized illegal immigrants perpetually fill the voter roles. Also, vote early, vote often is another effective strategy.

 

[netsecurity]

It'll have to wait til 2020. The 2016 election is too important. It's the most important election in our lifetime. WE HAVE TO BEAT HILLARY!!!!.!1!!!!

Does tour sarcasm apply if the Republican candidate is Rand Paul (or Ted Cruz), or do you hate him for running as a Republican, even though he is a real conservative and "classic liberal"?

 

[hornadylnl]

Does tour sarcasm apply if the Republican candidate is Rand Paul, or do you hate him for running as a Republican, even though he is a real conservative and "classic liberal"?

First of all, I don't think Rand will win the nomination. Second, from what I know about him, he'll most likely not get my vote. Those who loathed Ron love Rand and tell us he's his father. Either those who hated Ron are hypocrites or Rand is not his father. Take your pick.

 

[tetsujin79]

I think you've ignored some important Democratic strategies. Welfare babies and newly legalized illegal immigrants perpetually fill the voter roles. Also, vote early, vote often is another effective strategy.

But won't the illegals end up mucking up their plans? Last time I checked, southern americans and eastern euros aren't exactly screaming for more collectivism...

They're more likely screaming FROM it...

 

[jamil]

But won't the illegals end up mucking up their plans? Last time I checked, southern americans and eastern euros aren't exactly screaming for more collectivism...

They're more likely screaming FROM it...

<chuckle/> that's good.

First of all, I don't think Rand will win the nomination. Second, from what I know about him, he'll most likely not get my vote. Those who loathed Ron love Rand and tell us he's his father. Either those who hated Ron are hypocrites or Rand is not his father. Take your pick.

First of all, [strike]I hope you're channeling Nostradamous (not that I believe in hokus pokus)[/strike]. I'd like to see Rand win the nomination. ETA: Before rereading your comment with my byfocals on I thought you said "do think".

Second of all, I sometimes suspect, from ever so faint sensory queues, that you might be playing both ends against the middle. Nah, must be allergies.

I've promised I wouldn't post in these kinds of discussions, because I'd rather we could agree on what we agree on. But today I lack the emotional self control that would cause me to skip this.

I've seen a few threads featuring many of the Ron haters who like Rand. Is the "Rand is Ron" sentiment among this INGO demographic really all that prevalent? I can speak as one of those who you might say, "loathed Ron love Rand", but Rand is not Ron. I see Rand as a saner, more political savvy version of his father, who knows when it's time to be practical.

So, then, if you won't vote for Rand is it because he's not presenting himself as the pristine, rigid black/white, us/them, this/that, my way/no way, always idealistic, rarely pragmatic, libertarian that his father is?

 

[hornadylnl]

<chuckle/> that's good.



First of all, [strike]I hope you're channeling Nostradamous (not that I believe in hokus pokus)[/strike]. I'd like to see Rand win the nomination. ETA: Before rereading your comment with my byfocals on I thought you said "do think".

Second of all, I sometimes suspect, from ever so faint sensory queues, that you might be playing both ends against the middle. Nah, must be allergies.

I've promised I wouldn't post in these kinds of discussions, because I'd rather we could agree on what we agree on. But today I lack the emotional self control that would cause me to skip this.

I've seen a few threads featuring many of the Ron haters who like Rand. Is the "Rand is Ron" sentiment among this INGO demographic really all that prevalent? I can speak as one of those who you might say, "loathed Ron love Rand", but Rand is not Ron. I see Rand as a saner, more political savvy version of his father, who knows when it's time to be practical.

So, then, if you won't vote for Rand is it because he's not presenting himself as the pristine, rigid black/white, us/them, this/that, my way/no way, always idealistic, rarely pragmatic, libertarian that his father is?

I think the differences in the two are just as much philosophical as is there methods of achieving their desired positions.

The practical approach to winning elections would be for many of the conservative agenda items to go by the wayside. Such as the abortion issue and the gay marriage issue just to name a few. Would it be pragmatic for the Republican Party to dump those issues or are those issues that the party as a whole just will not compromise on? If the Republican Party is allowed to be non pragmatic on those issues, then why is Ron not afforded the same?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think the differences in the two are just as much philosophical as is there methods of achieving their desired positions.

The practical approach to winning elections would be for many of the conservative agenda items to go by the wayside. Such as the abortion issue and the gay marriage issue just to name a few. Would it be pragmatic for the Republican Party to dump those issues or are those issues that the party as a whole just will not compromise on? If the Republican Party is allowed to be non pragmatic on those issues, then why is Ron not afforded the same?

If this pragmatism to which you refer were the answer, why did the party you support still garner less than 1% last time? This approach only seems to be working for one party. It's hard to beat Santa Claus when he gives you the rewards of other peoples' labors and won't hold you responsible for your own actions.

 

[hornadylnl]

If this pragmatism to which you refer were the answer, why did the party you support still garner less than 1% last time? This approach only seems to be working for one party. It's hard to beat Santa Claus when he gives you the rewards of other peoples' labors and won't hold you responsible for your own actions.

Would you vote for a republican candidate who was pragmatic about abortion or gay marriage and was for it or said that they will not work against it? We all know millions of repubs are pragmatic about gun rights because they voted for Romney.

I'm pragmatic in the fact that I know voting is a waste of time.

 

[jamil]

I think the differences in the two are just as much philosophical as is there methods of achieving their desired positions.

The practical approach to winning elections would be for many of the conservative agenda items to go by the wayside. Such as the abortion issue and the gay marriage issue just to name a few. Would it be pragmatic for the Republican Party to dump those issues or are those issues that the party as a whole just will not compromise on? If the Republican Party is allowed to be non pragmatic on those issues, then why is Ron not afforded the same?

So you're saying the pragmatic approach is for the larger group to give up EVERYTHING it wants, so the libertarians can remain pure? The real pragmatic approach would be a proportional compromise between the two. You can't build a political coalition when the majority must give up the most. What's in it for them? The compromise must allow for some core social values to remain in the platform.

If this pragmatism to which you refer were the answer, why did the party you support still garner less than 1% last time? This approach only seems to be working for one party. It's hard to beat Santa Claus when he gives you the rewards of other peoples' labors and won't hold you responsible for your own actions.

Works for him. It's a one-sided pragmatism.

Would you vote for a republican candidate who was pragmatic about abortion or gay marriage and was for it or said that they will not work against it? We all know millions of repubs are pragmatic about gun rights because they voted for Romney.

I'm pragmatic in the fact that I know voting is a waste of time.

First, given the choice between Romney and Obama, Romney was the more pragmatic choice. Unless you're one of the loonies who think an "I don't care either way" attitude would have gotten more gun control passed than mounting a propaganda campaign to marginalize gun owners and shame politicians into caving, and sicking his VP on the gun industry. Really, REALLY, you guys need to give that up. It didn't really fly all that well before Sandy Hook, but now it just makes you look silly.

Second, repeating the above, you're asking someone who outnumbers you to do all the compromise. I'm not much of a social conservative, but I understand that those things are important to them.

Voting is a waste of time? Yeah, I can see that. 0% is very close to 1%.

 

[hornadylnl]

So you're saying the pragmatic approach is for the larger group to give up EVERYTHING it wants, so the libertarians can remain pure? The real pragmatic approach would be a proportional compromise between the two. You can't build a political coalition when the majority must give up the most. What's in it for them? The compromise must allow for some core social values to remain in the platform.



Works for him. It's a one-sided pragmatism.



First, given the choice between Romney and Obama, Romney was the more pragmatic choice. Unless you're one of the loonies who think an "I don't care either way" attitude would have gotten more gun control passed than mounting a propaganda campaign to marginalize gun owners and shame politicians into caving, and sicking his VP on the gun industry. Really, REALLY, you guys need to give that up. It didn't really fly all that well before Sandy Hook, but now it just makes you look silly.

Second, repeating the above, you're asking someone who outnumbers you to do all the compromise. I'm not much of a social conservative, but I understand that those things are important to them.

Voting is a waste of time? Yeah, I can see that. 0% is very close to 1%.

What is the repub party giving libertarians in compromise? Nothing. They just demand their votes.

In the 2 major party candidates last election, or was a choice between aids and cancer. Some compromise offered.

 

[hornadylnl]

I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics used to explain that Christie is the pragmatic choice over Hillary.

 

[netsecurity]

I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics used to explain that Christie is the pragmatic choice over Hillary.

Hornady, if Christie gets the nomination then you should be elated, because that will mark the death of the Republican party. They will have become the second Democrat party (I know, I know, you think this happened when Romney was nominated). Well, no, maybe it would be more accurate to say that the Democrat party became the Socialist party, and the Republicans have become the Democrat paety eh? Either way, every conservative voter would finally become a Libertarian over night. Isn't that what you want? It could turn out to be a good thing long term, another step towards the breaking point, and the demolition of both parties.

Now see, you have me being sarcastic. I actually don't want tragedies to occur in order for my favorite party to benefit from it. I want Rand Paul. I don't care what party he represents. He believes the same things I do, and that is what matters to me.