Romney chooses...

[Kaos]

I agree with you completely.

Although your average Democrat or Republican refuses to recognize the crack dividing the two parties as anything but a profound chasm.

And that is exactly why "the lesser of two evils", to me, is voting Libertarian to contribute to a third party being taken more seriously, at the risk of letting 1b make it into office instead of 1a.

 

This is the equivalent of a BCS voter putting Alcorn State number one and then bitching/pretending to be shocked/not caring when Alabama sneaks into the title game over a more deserving Oklahoma State by a few scant percentage points. 

"Principle" votes are as useless as wet toilet paper. 

[GH2001]

Ross Perot my fucking ass. 

Perot was a dipstick.  Bush was really the first US President almost completely defined by SNL.  Perot didn't cost him the election, but he definitely didn't help.

Actually most Perot voters polled said they would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been an option. Around 80% to be exact. It was enough that it would have made the election too close to call.

[Kaos]

Actually most Perot voters polled said they would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been an option. Around 80% to be exact. It was enough that it would have made the election too close to call.

Urban legend.


Gallup Poll from October 1992
Clinton - 52%
Bush - 37%
Perot - 9%

Final vote totals:

Clinton - 43%
Bush - 37%
Perot - 19%

Bush stayed steady, Perot stole Clinton votes.   Even if that 10% had gone to Bush he still loses. 

Bush said "no new taxes" and then reneged.  Clinton hammered that home and Bush was toast.

[GH2001]

Urban legend.


Gallup Poll from October 1992
Clinton - 52%
Bush - 37%
Perot - 9%

Final vote totals:

Clinton - 43%
Bush - 37%
Perot - 19%

Bush stayed steady, Perot stole Clinton votes.   Even if that 10% had gone to Bush he still loses. 

Bush said "no new taxes" and then reneged.  Clinton hammered that home and Bush was toast.

Try that with the electoral college.

Doesn't matter anyway. Truth is 14 of those 19% for Perot would go to Bush if you had made them decide. Not saying he would have won, but he was def a factor. Enough of one to matter. Perot was poked to run by the Dems who played off his ego. Just like Teddy was in 1912 by the Wilson camp. Just Wilson and Taft straight up would have went to Taft. Teddy fucked it all up.

Main point here being for me, I don't normally like 3rd party candidates who have no shot in hell. They just end of playing spoiler. And half of the time it ends up for the worse (1912).

[Tarheel]

I agree that we need more candidates and to get away from this "choose the lesser of two evils" partisanship bullshit we have now.

But it's not going to happen.  In fact, the two evils seem to be growing more and more alike.  I said before and I still think this - I'll see the two parties join into one within my lifetime.

I just don't understand this attitude, THS, and I mean no offense to you; read the party platforms; they are not alike.

I do, however, think that there's an evolution taking place in the Republican and Democrat parties and it may mean a divergence from within the Republican Party that is the Tea Party Movement, the social conservatives, and the fiscally-responsible realists.  The Dems are becoming Socialists and have been for years; some will splinter-off and maybe join the realists one of these days.

[Tarheel]

Maybe I'm just idealistic.

Ross Perot proved to me 20 years ago that a third party candidate can conceivably pull a huge chunk of the vote.

Since then, the major news networks have pushed to avoid a '92 election from happening again.

However, since then things like the Internet have increasingly made major news networks irrelevant. It's allowing people to be more educated about all of their options. It's allowing grass-roots movements to gain more traction than they would have been able to in '92.

It may take a perfect storm for another third party heavyweight to emerge, but one of those ingredients is for people to quit the "lesser of two evils" mentality and vote their true conscience.

Perhaps someday.

I mean no offense but as a rational challenge to this notion it seems to me that the Libertarians would be able to make some traction either within the Republican Party (Ron Paul) or without (with the Johnson candidacy).  Contrary to what the Libertarian Party seems to say over teh ebays it's clear to me that they are not resonating on a electoral level anyway e.g. few wins for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries.  I know he's got a fair amount of vocal delegates at the Republican Convention but he isn't going to win anything (other than maybe some tweaking to the party platform which we already see that in the movement to audit the Fed) and neither will Johnson for that matter; again, no offense just being realistic.

[AUTiger1]

Perhaps someday.

I mean no offense but as a rational challenge to this notion it seems to me that the Libertarians would be able to make some traction either within the Republican Party (Ron Paul) or without (with the Johnson candidacy).  Contrary to what the Libertarian Party seems to say over teh ebays it's clear to me that they are not resonating on a electoral level anyway e.g. few wins for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries.  I know he's got a fair amount of vocal delegates at the Republican Convention but he isn't going to win anything (other than maybe some tweaking to the party platform which we already see that in the movement to audit the Fed) and neither will Johnson for that matter; again, no offense just being realistic.

For the Libertarians to ever be taken seriously a few things will have to happen.  To me the Libertarians (which I lean towards a whole lot) are not unified.  There are too many factions or should I say there are too many that are hardcore on certain issues they will vilify anyone that disagrees with them on that certain policy.  No matter how closely they relate on others.  There is no compromise with most I have associated with. You have enough that are anarchist or miniarchist and they are so vocal it will turn people off to the Libertarian Party's platform. 

Also they will need to start an honest to god "grass roots" campaign and start getting candidates elected at the local levels of government and work their way up through our highest levels of government.  That is something that isn't going to be done in 4 years, a 16 year plan would honestly be more realistic and that would still mean a hell of a lot of hard work everyday or every year before an impact could be seen. 


EDIT:  As an example.  Lets take a look at the Ron Paul Revloution.  Tons of his supporters are self proclaimed Libertarians.  If you aren't full on retard for Ron Paul and even disagree with one of his stances, they will berate you and tell you how you are part of the problem of America going down the pisser, you big government loving un-American piece of shit or they come off tin-foil hat'ish.   It really turns people off.

[GH2001]

I just don't understand this attitude, THS, and I mean no offense to you; read the party platforms; they are not alike.

I do, however, think that there's an evolution taking place in the Republican and Democrat parties and it may mean a divergence from within the Republican Party that is the Tea Party Movement, the social conservatives, and the fiscally-responsible realists.  The Dems are becoming Socialists and have been for years; some will splinter-off and maybe join the realists one of these days.

I think THS may mean each party's establishment having a lot of the same tendencies of cronyism and taking lobbyist money, etc.

Each Party's platform however is very different. I won't blame the Republican Party just because Nixon, Bush, Dole and some others decided to hijack it the last 3-4 decades. A lot of the differences in each party at the core is in their names. Ive never favored democrats in general because overall they accept democracy as the be all, when it is in fact flawed. We are a Republic which is a very different form of govt than a true democracy. Read the founding documents, the pledge of allegiance - we've never been a true democracy. Democracies are flawed by nature.

[Townhallsavoy]

I think THS may mean each party's establishment having a lot of the same tendencies of cronyism and taking lobbyist money, etc.

It's all about money.  They just have different ways of getting it and protecting it. 

One day they'll realize that they can really grab the majority of the country if they come together.  The sheep will move right along with a "bipartisan" effort to unite the country when in reality, the politicians are just using the public to protect their money.   

[GH2001]

It's all about money.  They just have different ways of getting it and protecting it. 

One day they'll realize that they can really grab the majority of the country if they come together.  The sheep will move right along with a "bipartisan" effort to unite the country when in reality, the politicians are just using the public to protect their money.   

The irony of what you and Chizad said is that each party seems to be splitting into 2 - the GOP into the Establishment Neocons (Bush/Cheney camp) and the Tea Party (Rubio/Rand Paul camp) ; The Dems into the Blue Dogs (Manchin/Lieberman) and the Far Left (Obama/Reid/Pelosi).

[Kaos]

I think THS may mean each party's establishment having a lot of the same tendencies of cronyism and taking lobbyist money, etc.

Each Party's platform however is very different. I won't blame the Republican Party just because Nixon, Bush, Dole and some others decided to hijack it the last 3-4 decades. A lot of the differences in each party at the core is in their names. Ive never favored democrats in general because overall they accept democracy as the be all, when it is in fact flawed. We are a Republic which is a very different form of govt than a true democracy. Read the founding documents, the pledge of allegiance - we've never been a true democracy. Democracies are flawed by nature.

Nixon? You really want to go there?

Nixon may have been paranoid (for good reason) and have had some ego issues but as a president he was outstanding.   His excellent record of achievement is blotted out by the whole (and in retrospect, completely unnecessary) Watergate scandal. 

And no, we aren't a democracy.  We're a republic with democratic ideals.  True democracy needs no representation.  There would be no Senators, Congressmen or the rest.

[GH2001]

Nixon? You really want to go there?

Nixon may have been paranoid (for good reason) and have had some ego issues but as a president he was outstanding.   His excellent record of achievement is blotted out by the whole (and in retrospect, completely unnecessary) Watergate scandal. 

And no, we aren't a democracy.  We're a republic with democratic ideals.  True democracy needs no representation.  There would be no Senators, Congressmen or the rest.

Nixon was a great conservative when he ran in 1960 against the Kennedy Machine (who bought the election). Sometime between 1960 and 1968 he sold out to the Rockefeller/Kristol Establishment wing of the party and got away from the Goldwater side of the aisle.  I would guess most likely because of what happened in 1960. That said, I still don't hate Nixon or most of his policies as President. I just hate that was the camp he was in from 68 on. I prefer the Reagan/Goldwater side of the party which is today's tea party in reality.

[Tarheel]

It's all about money.  They just have different ways of getting it and protecting it. 

One day they'll realize that they can really grab the majority of the country if they come together.  The sheep will move right along with a "bipartisan" effort to unite the country when in reality, the politicians are just using the public to protect their money.   

I appreciate what you mean regarding the money THS but, to put it bluntly, that (see above) ain't gonna happen.  The two major parties have diverged so much at this point there are very few common areas if any at all.  That's why we need strong leadership in the Executive Branch (and, indeed, in the Supreme Court) to act in the best interest of the nation outside of party identity or ideology (unlike The Pharaoh).  I am reminded of a quote from Alexander Hamilton which is, in part, germane to what I'm saying about the purpose of the Exec.:

...
When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 71
...

[Tarheel]

The irony of what you and Chizad said is that each party seems to be splitting into 2 - the GOP into the Establishment Neocons (Bush/Cheney camp) and the Tea Party (Rubio/Rand Paul camp) ; The Dems into the Blue Dogs (Manchin/Lieberman) and the Far Left (Obama/Reid/Pelosi).

I think there's even more ideological fracturing than that on the Republican side and less-so on the Democrat side but your observation is well-taken.  I do not see this fracturing leading anywhere near a merging of the two parties though (the Federalists tried that one party system some time ago and it didn't end well politically).

[GH2001]

I appreciate what you mean regarding the money THS but, to put it bluntly, that (see above) ain't gonna happen.  The two major parties have diverged so much at this point there are very few common areas if any at all.  That's why we need strong leadership in the Executive Branch (and, indeed, in the Supreme Court) to act in the best interest of the nation outside of party identity or ideology (unlike The Pharaoh).  I am reminded of a quote from Alexander Hamilton which is, in part, germane to what I'm saying about the purpose of the Exec.:

I agree.  I really think they hate each other, many of them. They share common things like I said, such as pandering, taking lobbyist money, etc. But idealogically, they are on seperate planets. I could never see a merging happening. They would kill each other. Each seperate party can't even find 100% agreement inside each party itself, which is why I mention the 2 factions of each now. 

[Tarheel]

For the Libertarians to ever be taken seriously a few things will have to happen.  To me the Libertarians (which I lean towards a whole lot) are not unified.  There are too many factions or should I say there are too many that are hardcore on certain issues they will vilify anyone that disagrees with them on that certain policy.  No matter how closely they relate on others.  There is no compromise with most I have associated with. You have enough that are anarchist or miniarchist and they are so vocal it will turn people off to the Libertarian Party's platform. 

Also they will need to start an honest to god "grass roots" campaign and start getting candidates elected at the local levels of government and work their way up through our highest levels of government.  That is something that isn't going to be done in 4 years, a 16 year plan would honestly be more realistic and that would still mean a hell of a lot of hard work everyday or every year before an impact could be seen. 


EDIT:  As an example.  Lets take a look at the Ron Paul Revloution.  Tons of his supporters are self proclaimed Libertarians.  If you aren't full on retard for Ron Paul and even disagree with one of his stances, they will berate you and tell you how you are part of the problem of America going down the pisser, you big government loving un-American piece of shit or they come off tin-foil hat'ish.   It really turns people off.

Good observations all; my point in posing what I meant to be a civil question on what I see as the failure of the Libertarians is this: at the end of the day you've got to win elections. 

After 40 years of work where are they?  No one but Ron Paul (who ran as a Republican) in the House, no one in the Senate, no Governors, no State Senators, and a handful of State House Level Representatives and a few civic representatives...after 40 years.  The Tea Party Movement elected more Republicans to the Congress in a fraction of the time that the Libertarians have been around.  The Republicans started a grass-roots party in a school-house in Wisconsin in 1854 and got a President elected and had control of the Congress in 6 years (before the Troubles started...but that's another topic).  The nation was different then but the American system wasn't.

[AUTiger1]

Good observations all; my point in posing what I meant to be a civil question on what I see as the failure of the Libertarians is this: at the end of the day you've got to win elections. 

After 40 years of work where are they?  No one but Ron Paul (who ran as a Republican) in the House, no one in the Senate, no Governors, no State Senators, and a handful of State House Level Representatives and a few civic representatives...after 40 years.  The Tea Party Movement elected more Republicans to the Congress in a fraction of the time that the Libertarians have been around.  The Republicans started a grass-roots party in a school-house in Wisconsin in 1854 and got a President elected and had control of the Congress in 6 years (before the Troubles started...but that's another topic).  The nation was different then but the American system wasn't.

I am much as small federal government, turn most things back to your state and local levels (social issues, education...etc...etc..etc...) enact a consumption tax, allow a free market to flourish and drive prices of goods and services as anyone out there.  The only thing I ask from my federal government is to provide me with interstate commerce (I should be protected from California not accepting my BCBS in case of injury whilst traveling and a central currency), a strong national defense, fraud and property rights protection.  Not much else.  They don't nor should they need that much power.  Things like education, law enforcement, and social issues should be established and funded at lower levels of government.   I know that a lot of Libertarians want the same thing as I, but as you said.  They have to win elections and they don't.  For the reasons I have stated above, I don't believe they will.  Too much infighting and not enough grass roots movement.

Which is why I always tend to vote republican.  They may not be exactly what I am for, and no politician ever will, but they are close enough to what I represent to want them in office.  I understand that I will never get to have it exactly how I want it.  I am though, reasonable enough to get my head out of the sand and understand that I would rather have 70% of what I want than 10%.  Republicans are not Libertarians, but do have some Libertarian tendencies, so I will take what I can get and hope to change what I want by petitioning my politicians through letters/email to be open minded about my point of views.  To me that is how the process work.