What would it take to elect a 3rd party president?

[Terry Tate]

Lets say that the two existing parties polarize even more, and the disconnect from the beltway and the united states (hell..the beltway and the world for that matter) continues.

Polarize even more, From where I stand, there's only one major party now - the sow party. That's not polarization, that's just piglets pushing to get to the teet first.

[pope zimli]

In this scenario you'd likely to have a coalition of "opposition parties" to that party form, ultimately leading to one major party in opposition of that party, thus another 2 party system.

413879[/snapback]

I agree. And another probability is that the new "reform" party will eventually be co-opted by the existing corrupt group. I'm afraid for that happening in Ukraine eventually, and hope they maintain real vigilance to avoid that. The same caveat would exist for a successful third or "reform" party here.

[Chilly]

I agree.  And another probability is that the new "reform" party will eventually be co-opted by the existing corrupt group.  I'm afraid for that happening in Ukraine eventually, and hope they maintain real vigilance to avoid that.  The same caveat would exist for a successful third or "reform" party here.

414047[/snapback]

 

I'm not real familiar with Ukraine politics - is it an SMSP system or a PR system?

[ExiledInIllinois]

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)

411629[/snapback]

 

 

Sounds good. The lines WERE blurred early on. Look at elections in the early 1800's. Was it because of the very reasons you point out?

 

In the early days of the US... Wasn't the VP the person who lost the election (or second place vote getter)?

 

In "upside down elections" (that being where the electoral vote out weighs the general), IMO feel that a VP provison is needed (even more than normal) to balance the electoral tactics that are so obviously being practiced.

 

I think our "elightened" forefathers saw that, yet the notion was quickly 86'd during the mid 19th century. For what reason I don't know?

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

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.

411784[/snapback]

 

I would agree if there wasn't a winner take all the stakes (in the states) electoral system in our country.

 

Domestically, we are not a regional society fighting for our very economic survival anymore.

[Mickey]

I would agree if there wasn't a winner take all the stakes (in the states) electoral system in our country.

 

Domestically, we are not a regional society fighting for our very economic survival anymore.

414558[/snapback]

The winner take all system really does provide additional power to the dedicated fringes of both parties. Without it, candidates would have to be much more moderate to win. I sometimes wonder if the polarization everyone keeps complaining about is genuine or just a result of demographic changes and our electoral system. Much of the population increase in the south is due to northern transplants who are politically diverse comparatively although by and large more moderate than homegrown southerners. However, it is not as if they all moved to one state. The transplants have fanned out in many different states so that they don't have significant enough numbers in any one state to be much of a force making those states more moderate. The result is a shift in electoral power to the least politically diverse states. The result is that we appear more polarized but in fact, the real numbers are still just as much in the center as they always were. The problem is that the center, due to the electoral system and population shifts, has lost its power. To win, a politician needs to appeal to the dedicated fringe, the so-called "base" of the party.

 

This could just be my own perceptions based on my political beliefs but with that caveat, it seems to me that the shift to the edge by each party has been worse on the right than the left. Republicans might deplore Kerry as a super liberal but among democrats, he was looked at as the centrist moderate. The real liberal was Dean and when it came down to it, the democrats chose the centrist in droves and rejected Dean. Kerry's loss actually has given a boost to the edgers in the democratic party. The argument being, "we tried it your way and look what happened..." Accordingly, you have Pelosi and Dean in more prominent positions.

 

With too few swing voters out there, the name of the game is turnout, ie, fire up the base. The tension and uncertainty in the democratic party right now is over this issue, should they move left and fire up the base or continue to shift a little right in an effort to follow the middle. I think the odds of a 3rd party having any success in this environment is, for better or worse, pretty bleak.

[Bill from NYC]

>>>>>This could just be my own perceptions based on my political beliefs but with that caveat, it seems to me that the shift to the edge by each party has been worse on the right than the left. Republicans might deplore Kerry as a super liberal but among democrats, he was looked at as the centrist moderate. <<<<<

 

I am not so sure Mickey. Of the original 9 Dem. primary candidates, how many would you say appeared to be competant, main stream candidates; or even sane?

I would say Gephardt and Lieberman, and both were trounced.

 

Looking back, I find it frightening that Kerry got as many votes as he did. $10,000 haircuts, telling different stories about his cars, "for and against the war," answering "yes" as to whether he was for or against gay marriage, tossing other people's medals, etc.

 

Wrt your very interesting mention of demographics, there are many factors to consider. There are SOO many retired NY cops and firemen in Va, NC, and Fla, they actually have formed large clubs. As a rule, these guys are far from liberal.

I understand that many retirees from out west are heading toward Idaho, Montana and of course Nevada.

My point is that I think that in NY and Cal., not all of those leaving are leftists, thus making some of the receiving states even more conservative. It was telling that Edwards could not even carry his own state.

 

Frankly, I wish a dem would step forth who was not a kook nor a leftist and get the nomination. It might provide us with a good alternative. My fear is they would get destroyed by fellow dems.

My favorite politician, Suffolk Cty. Exec. Steve Levy, is a dem. Recently, he evicted 64 illegal aliens from a small, one family home that was chock full of serious health risks. Fellow dems accused him of "ethnic cleansing."

[KRC]

>>>>>This could just be my own perceptions based on my political beliefs but with that caveat, it seems to me that the shift to the edge by each party has been worse on the right than the left.  Republicans might deplore Kerry as a super liberal but among democrats, he was looked at as the centrist moderate. <<<<<

 

Looking back, I find it frightening that Kerry got as many votes as he did. $10,000 haircuts, telling different stories about his cars, "for and against the war," answering "yes" as to whether he was for or against gay marriage, tossing other people's medals, etc.

415230[/snapback]

 

He got as many votes as he did, because he was running against Bush. Kerry tried to be all things to all people. He ran to the center to get moderates. The fringe got ticked off, so he ran towards them. This ticked off the moderates and he then tried running towards the center again. Basically, he showed that he really stood for nothing and he contradicted himself on a regular basis. Any reasonable democrat would have beaten Bush easily.

 

Now the Democrats are running to the far left. They feel that they lost because they were not bitter and hateful enough in their opposition of Bush and anything Republican (their words). They plan to increase this type of rhetoric in an attempt to "fire up their base." The problem is that this part of the base was already fired up due to the Michael Moore's and MoveOn.org's. You do not need to move towards them. You need to go towards the moderates who are turned off by this type of behavior. How do you do this? By being more than just the party of "No!"

 

I have no problem with opposition. Just provide an alternative. I do not see that from the Democrats. They just oppose things but do not provide any solutions. The Republicans at least provide solutions, albeit bad ones. At least they are tossing something out there to work with. I do not see that from the Dems. They will continue to lose election after election until they wake up and realize why they are losing to the Republicans.

[UConn James]

I am not so sure Mickey. Of the original 9 Dem. primary candidates, how many would you say appeared to be competant, main stream candidates; or even sane?

I would say Gephardt and Lieberman, and both were trounced.

415230[/snapback]

 

Wes Clark. People were scared away from his lack of governing experience and his newness on the scene after a pretty secular military career. He'll run for the nod again and do better simply by being around, but following from Mickey's post tho, there's a scant chance he would get it. It'll probably only get him more of a shot at the VP slot. Vilsak or Richardson/Clark are two tickets I could live with as a former Rep-turned-Dem-mulling-Ind. Edwards hurt the campaign more than most people admit when he got fairly schooled by Cheney in the debate.

 

Imagine if Clark didn't feel a sense of duty to the party (such as it is) last year and ran independently. Money would have been a big issue, but ideas are what count most. I think he would have gotten a lot of votes.

[Bill from NYC]

Wes Clark. People were scared away from his lack of governing experience and his newness on the scene after a pretty secular military career. He'll run for the nod again and do better simply by being around, but following from Mickey's post tho, there's a scant chance he would get it. It'll probably only get him more of a shot at the VP slot. Vilsak or Richardson/Clark are two tickets I could live with as a former Rep-turned-Dem-mulling-Ind. Edwards hurt the campaign more than most people admit when he got fairly schooled by Cheney in the debate.

 

Imagine if Clark didn't feel a sense of duty to the party (such as it is) last year and ran independently. Money would have been a big issue, but ideas are what count most. I think he would have gotten a lot of votes.

415280[/snapback]

 

Was Clark one of the original nine? Sorry about that.

How did Bill Clinton like him? I know that he was pushing Edwards (probably to ensure a loss and push Hillary in 08).

[Mickey]

>>>>>This could just be my own perceptions based on my political beliefs but with that caveat, it seems to me that the shift to the edge by each party has been worse on the right than the left.  Republicans might deplore Kerry as a super liberal but among democrats, he was looked at as the centrist moderate. <<<<<

 

I am not so sure Mickey. Of the original 9 Dem. primary candidates, how many would you say appeared to be competant, main stream candidates; or even sane?

I would say Gephardt and Lieberman, and both were trounced.

 

Looking back, I find it frightening that Kerry got as many votes as he did. $10,000 haircuts, telling different stories about his cars, "for and against the war," answering "yes" as to whether he was for or against gay marriage, tossing other people's medals, etc.

 

Wrt your very interesting mention of demographics, there are many factors to consider. There are SOO many retired NY cops and firemen in Va, NC, and Fla, they actually have formed large clubs. As a rule, these guys are far from liberal.

I understand that many retirees from out west are heading toward Idaho, Montana and of course Nevada.

My point is that I think that in NY and Cal., not all of those leaving are leftists, thus making some of the receiving states even more conservative. It was telling that Edwards could not even carry his own state.

 

Frankly, I wish a dem would step forth who was not a kook nor a leftist and get the nomination. It might provide us with a good alternative. My fear is they would get destroyed by fellow dems.

My favorite politician, Suffolk Cty. Exec. Steve Levy, is a dem. Recently, he evicted 64 illegal aliens from a small, one family home that was chock full of serious health risks. Fellow dems accused him of "ethnic cleansing." 

415230[/snapback]

I won't argue with you over whether Kerry is a kook or a leftist, my point is that to democrats, he was our "conservative" candidate. I am fairly confident that no matter who we nominated, that person would have been skewered as a maniac liberal from the git-go. Maybe if a democrat stepped forward who was for cutting all taxes, against gays, willing to outlaw abortion, limit stem cell research, teach religion in science class and pull a Schiavo, then they wouldn't be a "kook" or a "leftist" but then they would be Zel Miller and a democrat in name only.

 

Frankly, on most positions, Kerry wasn't all that far from Bush. He voted for the war but thought it could have been handled better. He was against gay marriage but for civil unions. He was for a tax cut, just a different one than the President wanted. On and on. The positions really weren't all that far apart but as you concluded, many thought Kerry was a "kook" and a "leftist".

 

I agree that not every transplant was a liberal, that is what I meant by "politically diverse". You have a diverse population transplanting to a homogenous area. That kind of shift moves electoral strength but doesn't change the political majority in the newly strengthened states. If you have a state with 8 republicans and 2 democrats and then you add 5 more of each, you still have a state that is predominantly republican (13-7). The state doubles its electoral strength but keeps its politcal identity.

 

I don't mean to say that people changing their minds on certain issues doesn't play a role. I'm just saying that demographics, not just ideology, alters elections. With the winner take all electoral system, minor differences that could be explained by many things besides ideology are magnified into some sort of titanic shif in attitudes that might not really have taken place.

 

Just a hypothesis.

[Mickey]

Was Clark one of the original nine? Sorry about that.

How did Bill Clinton like him? I know that he was pushing Edwards (probably to ensure a loss and push Hillary in 08). 

415313[/snapback]

Actually, if I recall correctly, Clark was the candidate the Clinton's most preferred.

[Mickey]

He got as many votes as he did, because he was running against Bush. Kerry tried to be all things to all people. He ran to the center to get moderates. The fringe got ticked off, so he ran towards them. This ticked off the moderates and he then tried running towards the center again. Basically, he showed that he really stood for nothing and he contradicted himself on a regular basis. Any reasonable democrat would have beaten Bush easily.

 

Now the Democrats are running to the far left. They feel that they lost because they were not bitter and hateful enough in their opposition of Bush and anything Republican (their words). They plan to increase this type of rhetoric in an attempt to "fire up their base." The problem is that this part of the base was already fired up due to the Michael Moore's and MoveOn.org's. You do not need to move towards them. You need to go towards the moderates who are turned off by this type of behavior. How do you do this? By being more than just the party of "No!"

 

I have no problem with opposition. Just provide an alternative. I do not see that from the Democrats. They just oppose things but do not provide any solutions. The Republicans at least provide solutions, albeit bad ones. At least they are tossing something out there to work with. I do not see that from the Dems. They will continue to lose election after election until they wake up and realize why they are losing to the Republicans.

415257[/snapback]

No doubt Kerry was trying to do just as you say however, I believe Bush was doing the same, trying to be all things to all people. The party platform was totally against gay marriage and civil unions but on the eve of the election, Bush suddenly said he was for civil unions. Four words: Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Those are just a few examples.

 

My own view is that there were many factors in play that could be analyzed and argued over for years. The one dominant issue however was the war and the American people just do not like changing leaders in the middle of a war. History demonstrates that pretty well. Roosevelt's extra terms for example. As long as the President isn't being blamed for the national crisis at hand (see Hoover), people are not going to change captains in the middle of a stormy sea unless that captain is Cpt. Queeg. Just my view, I am certainly not staking out ground here.

[pope zimli]

I'm not real familiar with Ukraine politics - is it an SMSP system or a PR system?

414451[/snapback]

Ukraine has an executive branch which includes a prime minister (Viktor yushenko) and a very powerful second in charge (Yulia Tymoshenko, a Julia Roberts look alike and tough cookie) and a legislative branch or Rada, and a judiciary. Elections very much like ours (a little more corrupt though until recently)

[Ghost of BiB]

Ukraine has an executive branch which includes a prime minister (Viktor yushenko) and a very powerful second in charge (Yulia Tymoshenko, a Julia Roberts look alike and tough cookie) and a legislative branch or Rada, and a judiciary. Elections very much like ours (a little more corrupt though until recently)

416470[/snapback]

 

Damn. Even their politicians are good looking.

 

Yulia

[Wacka]

Answering the question in the thread title- LSD in the water system!

[The Rverside Rat]

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]

 

The 3rd party candidate would have to get more votes then either the democrate or the republican candidate.