TheMadCap Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 In all seriousness, with both the Republicans and Democrats being as strong as they are? How would it be possible for someone to overcome the massive advantage the bipartisans have by holding all the political cards? Does anyone think this could happen one day? If so, how could this be achieved? Please discuss.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 In all seriousness, with both the Republicans and Democrats being as strong as they are? How would it be possible for someone to overcome the massive advantage the bipartisans have by holding all the political cards? Does anyone think this could happen one day? If so, how could this be achieved? Please discuss.... 411621[/snapback] Everyone is going to talk about a "grass roots" effort. I dont see it happening in my lifetime. Maybe a complete meltdown of the Gov. Or maybe a couple of Nukes going off in this country, dont know........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 In all seriousness, with both the Republicans and Democrats being as strong as they are? How would it be possible for someone to overcome the massive advantage the bipartisans have by holding all the political cards? Does anyone think this could happen one day? If so, how could this be achieved? Please discuss.... 411621[/snapback] You start by: "Sitting on a park bench" Seriously, without going into details I think the first right step would be to go with two serious candidates as prez and vice from the two established parties. A Rep picks a Dem for a running mate, or vice versa. The more neutral folks from either party could be introduced into the administration, effecting more neutral policies -maybe even using wisdom over partismanship. Were the electable, and also successful, I don't see any other way to introduce a third party in our lifetimes. I think we need a ticket that comprises both the Democrat and the Republican party. That blurs the line. We can't have a viable third option without blurring that line. (No, McCain is not the man) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Hulk Hogan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 a celebrity with $200 Million to burn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 a celebrity with $200 Million to burn 411645[/snapback] Didn't work for the celeb with billions to burn in Ross Perot. It would take a sitting president who is has high poll numbers to switch parties to a 3rd party right before the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 I don't know that it will ever make a difference in any way, but I don't see myself ever voting for another R or D again. Or a meet-in-the-middle R/D ticket. In February 1992, someone declared they were running for president as an independent on "Larry King"; just nine months later, after dropping out and re-entering the race (!) he received 19% of the popular vote (19,722,042 votes!). I'm just saying, it could happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Didn't work for the celeb with billions to burn in Ross Perot. It would take a sitting president who is has high poll numbers to switch parties to a 3rd party right before the election. 411649[/snapback] Perot wasn't really a celebrity, just a well known executive. by celebrity i meant a media (tv, movie, music) celebrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 I would settle for a bi-partisan ticket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted August 19, 2005 Author Share Posted August 19, 2005 Didn't work for the celeb with billions to burn in Ross Perot. It would take a sitting president who is has high poll numbers to switch parties to a 3rd party right before the election. 411649[/snapback] Ah, but some alledge that he could have won had he not dropped out of the race... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Didn't work for the celeb with billions to burn in Ross Perot. It would take a sitting president who is has high poll numbers to switch parties to a 3rd party right before the election. 411649[/snapback] He made a pretty fair run at it though. He got more than 20% of the popular vote if I recall. Still well short of enough to win, but if you started with two people on the ticket who were more well known and more respectable (Ross had a little bit of that crazy thing that scared people), it might be possible. But yes, it would take a mountain of cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 He made a pretty fair run at it though. He got more than 20% of the popular vote if I recall. Still well short of enough to win, but if you started with two people on the ticket who were more well known and more respectable (Ross had a little bit of that crazy thing that scared people), it might be possible. But yes, it would take a mountain of cash. 411731[/snapback] You guys are all missing it. I don't think a third party could win no matter his/her cash. I think the only way to make it happen is to have a well liked sitting president switch to a 3rd party right before the election. It would keep a lot of his "original" party votes, plus some of the other party and the "middle of the road" folks would probably swing towards him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Didn't work for the celeb with billions to burn in Ross Perot. It would take a sitting president who is has high poll numbers to switch parties to a 3rd party right before the election. 411649[/snapback] If he hadn't dropped out and then re-entered the race..... You never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 You would need a crazy left win democrat (Hillary) vs. a Crazy right wing republican (Newt). Then a third party has a chance. The biggest problem is the perception they have no chance. I voted for bush in 04, not because i liked him, but because virginia was close and I didnt want to throw my vote away because kerry scared the hell out of me. The Nader Syndrome (or Perot Syndrome) is the problem. If people voted for who they actually wanted, yes a 3rd party has a chance. The key is convincing the electorate that there is actually a viable chance of the 3rd party winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 In all seriousness, with both the Republicans and Democrats being as strong as they are? How would it be possible for someone to overcome the massive advantage the bipartisans have by holding all the political cards? Does anyone think this could happen one day? If so, how could this be achieved? Please discuss.... 411621[/snapback] I think that the people who would be interested in a third option are a fractured bunch politically. They have no dominant view that could weld them together. Many would disagree with eachother even more sharply than they do with either established party. Some sort of cataclysm could do it maybe. A depression, that kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Money Charisma an Angry Electorate and: a great plague in which successive Democratic and Republican administrations prove to be equally incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 I think that the people who would be interested in a third option are a fractured bunch politically. They have no dominant view that could weld them together. Many would disagree with eachother even more sharply than they do with either established party. No, I disagree. I agree with the republican philosophy (or at least their campaign philosophy). Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, strong defense, less government involvement in our daily lives, etc. etc. However, they get in office and its more of the same old crap. Its troublesome. A 3rd party candidate (who stood for my values) would get my vote, if for no other reason but to send a message. Its not that I have no political backbone, far from it....its just that neither side of the isle is doing what I want them to be doing as my elected representatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 You would need a crazy left win democrat (Hillary) vs. a Crazy right wing republican (Newt). Then a third party has a chance. The biggest problem is the perception they have no chance. I voted for bush in 04, not because i liked him, but because virginia was close and I didnt want to throw my vote away because kerry scared the hell out of me. The Nader Syndrome (or Perot Syndrome) is the problem. If people voted for who they actually wanted, yes a 3rd party has a chance. The key is convincing the electorate that there is actually a viable chance of the 3rd party winning. 411764[/snapback] I agree- the thing that irks me about last year's election is when you hear people say if you vote independent that your vote doesnt count. Those people did not learn to count in grade school, nor do they understand what America is about. Every vote counts- whether its for someone who has a chance or not- it still affects percentages, and can make the race that much tighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Hulk Hogan... 411633[/snapback] That just brings tears to my eyes, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 No, I disagree. I agree with the republican philosophy (or at least their campaign philosophy). Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, strong defense, less government involvement in our daily lives, etc. etc. However, they get in office and its more of the same old crap. Its troublesome. A 3rd party candidate (who stood for my values) would get my vote, if for no other reason but to send a message. Its not that I have no political backbone, far from it....its just that neither side of the isle is doing what I want them to be doing as my elected representatives. 411776[/snapback] Have you considered the Libertarian Party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts