The Two Basic Types of Liberal

fear of the opposition winning. that is why 3rd party candidates don't succeed. It has absolutely nothing to do with not having 'mainstream' ideology or even common political principals. It is all about the party hardliners instilling fear in the bases about the other side winning because a 3rd party candidate will siphon votes.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
fear of the opposition winning. that is why 3rd party candidates don't succeed. It has absolutely nothing to do with not having 'mainstream' ideology or even common political principals. It is all about the party hardliners instilling fear in the bases about the other side winning because a 3rd party candidate will siphon votes.
Click to expand...


Great analysis, succinctly stated, STY.
 
Southern Man said:
He wasn't able to answer it so I will: Joe Lieberman.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me rephrase; what thrird party national candidate has ever won a primary election?

Wasn't Lieberman's win in the general election of his state, as he lost the democratic primary and ran as an independent in their general election?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Ok, let me rephrase; what thrird party national candidate has ever won a primary election?

Wasn't Lieberman's win in the general election of his state, as he lost the democratic primary and ran as an independent in their general election?
Click to expand...
A Primary? Most of them have, if that's how their party selects the candidates.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Ok, let me rephrase; what thrird party national candidate has ever won a primary election?

Wasn't Lieberman's win in the general election of his state, as he lost the democratic primary and ran as an independent in their general election?
Click to expand...
However, in election after election before that he had won many primaries.
 
Damocles said:
A Primary? Most of them have, if that's how their party selects the candidates.
Click to expand...

OK, rephrase number 3. What third party national candidate, i.e. president, has ever beat their democrat and republican counter-part (in numbers) during a primary?

To claim that voting for a third party in a general election is a smart thing to do and is not in essence giving your vote to someone you may totally disgree with, is just not true.

Nader, who I would never vote for, was the closest 3rd party candidate and I think the best he ever did was 2.5% of the vote?
 
This is really funny. Pinheads have once again diverted a thread off into a silly and pointless debate about third parties, and how they really really do have a shot! It's absolutely priceless, because it exposes one of the most profound flaws in liberals, they are consummate dreamers! I actually think this is an attribute they share with libertarians.

None of these pinheads can name a third party presidential candidate in recent history who has gotten more than 5% of the vote.... but that just proves how brainwashed we are, and if we could only open our minds to the possibilities... then we could prove Solitary's point is correct! This is the extreme they go to, in order to make a case for their silliness. IF wishes were made of candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas! IF a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he jumped! Liberals, both the "smart" and "dumb" types, live in this fantasy world of "IF" ...and it is the basis for all of what they hold near and dear.
 
Ross Perot is pretty recent. But that is beside the point. The Third Party candidates will never win as long as the two big parties hold the reigns of access to power. They deny candidates to even be allowed on ballots if they can, let alone the ability to collect donations and signatures.
 
Damocles said:
Ross Perot is pretty recent. But that is beside the point. The Third Party candidates will never win as long as the two big parties hold the reigns of access to power. They deny candidates to even be allowed on ballots if they can, let alone the ability to collect donations and signatures.
Click to expand...

Ross Perot beat out the democrat and republican candidate in the primary? (speaking by the numbers here)
 
Ice Dancer said:
Ok, let me rephrase; what thrird party national candidate has ever won a primary election?

Wasn't Lieberman's win in the general election of his state, as he lost the democratic primary and ran as an independent in their general election?
Click to expand...
Yes you are correct and I was wrong. Lieberman lost the Democrat primary, then turned Independent and won the general.

I consider a race for US Senate to be a national ticket.
 
Damocles said:
Ross Perot is pretty recent. But that is beside the point. The Third Party candidates will never win as long as the two big parties hold the reigns of access to power. They deny candidates to even be allowed on ballots if they can, let alone the ability to collect donations and signatures.
Click to expand...

And did Ross have even the remotest chance of winning the general election?

Answer: NO!

And here is the kicker... even IF Ross has pulled off a miracle underdog win, he would have likely been ineffective at governing. He would have been working with a Democrat/Republican congress, neither of which would want him to succeed.
 
Perot likely could have won if he hadn't dropped out of the race and then re-entered, proving to the world that he was completely insane (although 19% isn't bad for a truly certifiable man). Also, the Congress would have been punished for screwing with him in the 1994 elections, much as really did happen when Newt and the GOP took over after Clinton's first two years.
 
Threedee said:
Perot likely could have won if he hadn't dropped out of the race and then re-entered, proving to the world that he was completely insane (although 19% isn't bad for a truly certifiable man). Also, the Congress would have been punished for screwing with him in the 1994 elections, much as really did happen when Newt and the GOP took over after Clinton's first two years.
Click to expand...

LOL... Three, you are the master at forming a 'convincing' argument based purely on what you THINK may have happened. There is actually no way for you to know Perot would have won the election, much less, what would have become of Congress in the aftermath. This is all speculative bullshit from you, and nothing more. I can argue that same way... Perot would have lost, Republicans would have won, and we would have never known Monica Lewenski! Later, Perot would get his own syndicated talk show, and Bill Clinton would be selling used cars in Arkansas. See how that works?
 
Dixie said:
And did Ross have even the remotest chance of winning the general election?

Answer: NO!

And here is the kicker... even IF Ross has pulled off a miracle underdog win, he would have likely been ineffective at governing. He would have been working with a Democrat/Republican congress, neither of which would want him to succeed.
Click to expand...
Before he dropped out he led in the polls. He had a legitimate chance at creating his own form of gridlock.
 
Damocles said:
Before he dropped out he led in the polls. He had a legitimate chance at creating his own form of gridlock.
Click to expand...

He barely led in the polls, and if I am not mistaken, that was before the D&R primaries, so it wasn't a "three-man" race. Gridlock is exactly what he would have created, and nothing he proposed would have come to pass. So what is the point in supporting a third-party candidate again?
 
Dixie said:
He barely led in the polls, and if I am not mistaken, that was before the D&R primaries, so it wasn't a "three-man" race. Gridlock is exactly what he would have created, and nothing he proposed would have come to pass. So what is the point in supporting a third-party candidate again?
Click to expand...
I vote that way because it sends a message to those I would normally vote for. You can vote however you like.

I pretty much subscribe to the idea that if you are oting for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.
 
Southern Man said:
I'll tell you what. You and your ilk can continue to vote for Ralph Nadar. Meanwhile I'll vote for the least liberal that has a chance of winning. Between these two tactics fewer Democrats will get elected, which can only be a good thing.

Your artificial deadline of 20 years is a mere blink in US history and therefore meaningless. You conveniently forgot to acknowledge that Bush 43 kept us safe. I m very doubtful that your man Obama will be able to do the same with his "talk nice" policy. When NYC goes nuclear it will be fun watching him fly above the country all safe inside Air Force One.
Click to expand...

Nader is one of my least favorite people on the planet.

You go ahead and accept the restrictions placed by the two parties wanting to stay in power. You go ahead and accept their claim that voting for a third party is a waste of a vote. And you go ahead and continue picking the lesser of two evils. It just shows the sheep-like mentality of those who follow the party line regardless.

20 year is 5 administrations. That is significant. And its hardly the blink of an eye in the history of a country that is only 233 years old.

And if you want to look at the entire history of the nation, look at what has happened to consolidate the power with a few since the two parties have been the only choices. Yeah, they have done wonders for us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top