It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: jpatrickham on October 31, 2011, 12:52:44 PM
-
Filed under 2012 Election
"Trying to get elected as a third party candidate in America is extremely difficult if not impossible since the electing process is not by majority vote. Ballot access is also an obstacle since third parties have to meet additional criteria not required of Republicans and Democrats.
Third-party advocates are determined to maintain that they are making a difference. At best, they are not voting. Their third-party candidates don’t even register in the polls. Not a single state will be won. Not a single electoral vote will be won. John Anderson had more visibility in 1980 than any third-party candidate has today. After being beaten by Ronald Reagan in the primaries, Anderson launched his “Unity Party” campaign. See if the following sounds familiar:
Anderson felt that neither party, nor its candidates, represented American ideals: the Republicans were too socially conservative and intolerant, he said, and the Democrats’ tax-and-spend, social welfare agenda seemed to ignore economic realities. The ongoing oil crisis, which had manifested itself in terms of long gas lines and rampant inflation, was a serious problem, and Carter’s only response was to blame the public’s “crisis of confidence.” And Anderson feared that Reagan’s hawkish defense attitudes and social conservatism were bad for America.
While Anderson received nearly six million votes, he did not win a single electoral vote.
In 1992, Ross Perot ran on the Reform Party platform. He received nearly 20 percent of the popular vote (about 19 million votes), but like Anderson, did not garner a single electoral vote.
Some will point to Theodore Roosevelt’s third-party candidacy in 1912. He received four million votes in the popular election and 88 electoral votes. What is not often mentioned is that Roosevelt had been president from 1901 to 1909. His success as a third-party candidate was made possible by his previous two terms as president and his many other popular accomplishments. But even with all his notoriety, he could not win a third term as a third-party candidate."
Read more: Is a Third Party Politically Possible? | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/1785/is-a-third-party-politically-possible/#ixzz1cNnCwvsh (http://godfatherpolitics.com/1785/is-a-third-party-politically-possible/#ixzz1cNnCwvsh)
If a Romney wins in 2012 and steers the Country to the Center, I could envision a Sarah Palin mounting a charge from the Conservative Movement. The Republican Party is by no means, out of the woods. They screwed up The Reagan Revolution.
-
If Romney is the nominee I'll bet Obama gets reelected!
Let's hope people are not truly stupid enough to make us prove that prediction correct.
My biggest fear is Romney gets the nomination and Palin endorses him...our prospects for a peaceful prosperous future will evaporate in an instant!
-
Palin will support the eventual Republican nominee.
She is a strong party loyalist
-
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/libertarian-party-tells-ron-paul-to-come-on-over/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/libertarian-party-tells-ron-paul-to-come-on-over/)
This would, of course, guarantee that the democrats win in 2012.
If Paul does this and Cain is in the Republican camp - I'll vote for Cain in a heartbeat and not even think twice about Paul. The only way I vote for Paul in this instance is if Romney gets the nomination...and then, I will vote for Paul ONLY because Romney is a white Obama and Obama is a Marxist piece of crap. At least Paul is only an isolationist which is marginally better than Obama's Marxism and Romney's soft Marxism. /shrug
-
Oh Good Grief! Just kill me now!
-
Libertarian Party wants Paul?
Well, duh! What kind of a headlinen is that?!
This just in! The sky is blue! See the shocking details at 11!
Nothing of substance here, more of an attempt by meddlesome PaulBots to push their favorite cult of personality into the news at a time the surging Cain is experiencing coordinated attacks!
::mooning::
-
I'm leaning toward your way of thinking on this Libertas - but still, there is that nagging story from a couple days ago that had Paul dodging the question of whether he'd run as a third party candidate or not. So that has me thinking there's a not-insignificant chance that he's planing to do just that. I'll see if I can find it...the story that is.
EDIT:
Here it is:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/30/paul-tamps-down-third-party-talk/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/30/paul-tamps-down-third-party-talk/)
During a Fox News appearance last week, Mr. Paul declined to make a firm pledge that he wouldn’t run on a third-party ticket. With a laugh, he offered this instead during the Fox interview: “I pledge that I have no intention of doing it.”
-
Yeah, I read that as "I am not going to declare I will do that, but if they draft me I would consider it".
It's a means of keeping his options open, which even if he intends to not run as a third candidate he can exploit for his own purposes while remianing in the GOP field.
I give Paul credit when it is due and I give him a lot of grief which he regularly earns...but one would have to measure his distaste of Obama against whomever the GOP nominee is to be able to make an educated guess as to his future plans.
-
http://www.infowars.com/ventura-decries-fascist-america-after-judge-tosses-tsa-case/ (http://www.infowars.com/ventura-decries-fascist-america-after-judge-tosses-tsa-case/)
During his interview on the Alex Jones Show, Ventura put out a ‘come and get me’ plea to the Libertarian Party, indicating that he will run for President if they approach him. Ventura has also said he would seriously consider being Ron Paul’s Vice-President pick if the Congressman was successful in the Republican nomination or if Paul ran as the Libertarian Party candidate.
http://news.yahoo.com/ventura-miffed-court-says-hes-off-mexico-174718110.html (http://news.yahoo.com/ventura-miffed-court-says-hes-off-mexico-174718110.html)
He vowed to apply for Mexican citizenship so he can live there more months of the year.
The former Navy SEAL said he had lost his patriotism.
"I will never stand for a national anthem again. I will turn my back and I will raise a fist," he said.
First off let me just say to Mr. Ventura: Thank you for your service!
Secondly let me just say to Mr. Ventura: Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya on your way out!
Now then, looks like Mr. Paul has some company in Loonieville if he should decide to run as a third party candidate!
-
Saw something about him shucking his allegiance and moving to Mexico???
-
That's correct Charles...and not only that, but giving the USA the bird and essentially saying, "Pi$$off America, you ain't worth fighting for!".
-
The brain is a terrible thing to waste.
Steroids
-
Of course a third party is possible . So is a minority president like Woodrow Wilson .
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/18/ron_paul_warns_gop_not_to_capitulate_on_taxes_wont_rule_out_indy_bid.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/18/ron_paul_warns_gop_not_to_capitulate_on_taxes_wont_rule_out_indy_bid.html)
"I have no intention of doing that," Paul says of a third-party run if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. However, when asked several times by Hannity to rule out an independent bid, he would not.
If he does run on a third party ticket, Obama's going to win for certain. This is the 2nd or 3rd time he has been asked in the last month and wouldn't rule it out.
-
Yep, let's just keep on voting for the candidate with an R after his name, no matter what.
What was that definition of insanity again?
-
Well rickl, I understand your sentiment but there is a fatal flaw to your vision there. Even though an awful lot of people that vote for republicans don't like them, the alternative is democrats - which are way worse. We simply do not have a third party option...because if a faction from either R or D breaks away to form that third party then the opposing side is guaranteed to win.
Unless the situation changes I'm afraid that those of us that do not wish for the D team to get into power are, unfortunately, FORCED to vote for the R team.
Voting for a 3rd party = voting for a D.
Not voting = voting for a D.
That, unfortunately leaves me with the last option; voting for a R.
The trouble is that the parties are pretty much equal in size so any third party at this point in our history will simply siphon away votes from which ever side they happen to be closest to thereby handing a win to the opposite side by default.
I HAVE to vote for any candidate with an R after their name right now, even if I hate them...because the alternative is a name with a D after it which equals slavery for my children.
The only way a 3rd party becomes viable is if it COMPLETELY replaces one of the other parties. The only way that happens is if the third party starts out joining with and then overtaking the established party from the inside. In my opinion that is what the TEA Party is working toward with the Republican party. The Libertarian party is not doing that therefore, voting for Ron Paul on the Libertarian party ticket equals a democrat win in 2012.
If you can somehow show me an alternative, I'd be happy to see it. Until then, I guess you'll just have to call me crazy because I have no other choice.
-
Unless the situation changes I'm afraid that those of us that do not wish for the D team to get into power are, unfortunately, FORCED to vote for the R team.
Voting for a 3rd party = voting for a D.
Not voting = voting for a D.
That, unfortunately leaves me with the last option; voting for a R.
For verification see the 1992 election results.
Election Results:
Clinton/Gore: 370 electoral votes, 44.9 million popular votes
Bush/Quayle: 168 electoral votes, 39.1 million popular votes
Perot/Stockdale: 0 electoral votes, 19.7 million popular votes
At least 90% of Perot's votes would have been Bush voters.
-
Indeed CO...that's what I was attempting to say. Your brevity and illustration are preferable to my page of text though. Anyway, that isn't to say that I stubbornly vote R because I love them or something. I'm in a position where the team I vote for I despise. But the opposing team I absolutely HATE. I wish I had a better option, but I simply don't.
The republicans are on a bicycle, peddling the country as fast as they can toward the cliff. But the democrats are in a Ferrari with their foot mashed on the pedal laughing manically while they careen gleefully toward that same cliff. I have to vote republican in the hopes that we'll eventually be able to bring them back toward conservatism before the country is completely destroyed. Voting for Ron Paul if he switches to the Libertarian party is only going to insure that the democrats are able to continue their reign of terror.
I simply don't see any other option.
-
BMG: This is an argument that's been going on longer than I've been voting. I've been on both sides of it at one time or another.
But this is ultimately how the ruling class keeps control. There is little difference between the Republican establishment and the Democratic establishment. It should be crystal clear by now that the Republican establishment despises both social conservatives and libertarians. They are doing their utmost to marginalize us, while at the same time trying to convince us that we absolutely must vote for them, because where else are we going to go?
Some say that both parties are controlled by the big banks and the big corporations, and the whole two-party system is just a sideshow to keep the masses enthralled. Certainly there are some on the left who think that Obama isn't leftist enough, and they are being told by the D's that they have to vote for him, or else those dreadful R's will win.
One thing I totally disagree with is this:
Voting for a 3rd party = voting for a D.
Not voting = voting for a D.
I completely reject that. Voting for a third party candidate is voting for that candidate. Not voting is not voting. The ONLY way I'm voting for the D is if I ACTUALLY vote for the D. That is an utterly dishonest argument which the R's use to keep us on their plantation, and nothing more. (And the D's do it too, on their side.)
I guess it comes down to voting our principles and values, or voting out of fear.
You can vote for anyone you want and I won't call you crazy. All I ask is that you do the same for me.
-
Oh, not to worry rickl, I've not called you crazy and I wouldn't anyway. And I understand your argument. It just happens that I strongly believe that you are right in your assessment...but you're also wrong. Right in that, the republican establishment is trying to reign in the conservatives and libertarians with fear (the progressives are doing the same thing on the democrat side). I don't dispute that...I agree with it. Where you and I part company though is in the notion that we could safely vote for a 3rd party and win.
The numbers just aren't there unless we're able to get a hefty portion of the republican voters that vote for the republican establishment candidates. That's like herding cats. We need to change the republican establishment from the inside and jettison all the establishment leadership. Doing it otherwise will end in failure. This has been tested and proven in past elections when third party candidates have run.
-
You can vote for anyone you want and I won't call you crazy. All I ask is that you do the same for me.
That's not going to happen here. We can debate and discuss, but the acrimony, blaming and finger-pointing is a dead-letter.
-
Rickl how do you reconcile your statement with the 1992 results.
-
You're right about the track record of third parties and independent candidates. But during the mid-19th century, the Republican Party came out of nowhere to suddenly become a major party, and the Whigs disappeared into history. So it's happened before.
Whether it could happen again today, I don't know. All I know is that I'd rather vote for Sarah running as an independent than any of the R's. I'm probably engaging in wishful thinking as regards to her intentions.
-
If Sarah were to enter the race, I would be voting for her, definitely.
Here's the difference though (in my opinion anyway, for what it's worth):
Ron Paul doesn't hold a candle to Sarah when it comes to popularity within the ranks of the right side of the political spectrum. He would cause the democrats to win. She would cause that hefty percentage of voters that vote for establishment candidates to vote for her. I say that given the realities of the republican field of candidates we currently have. They're all weak. The voters are all looking for any strong, not-Romney. If Sarah were to enter the race as an independent she would fundamentally change the whole dynamic and it would be down to her and Romney. In that scenario, she'd win.
In my previous post I was making the assumption that she would not be involved and I was going with what we have to work with currently. Throwing her into the mix is the exception that breaks the rule so to speak.
-
I really think that if she decides to run as an independent, the Republican Party is finished. And I would dearly love to see that.
Whether she could win or not is another question.
-
I really think that if she decides to run as an independent, the Republican Party is finished. And I would dearly love to see that.
I believe that you could be correct in that assessment. It would be the beginning of the end of the republican party...at least, as it is constructed right now. I don't know that it would end up becoming the TEA Party or if the TEA Party would just take it over and continue to call it the republican party. But yeah, the improvement in the governance of the country under a true conservative government would be eye-opening to the voters. At that point, Palin will have been responsible for a shift to the right in this country - in both parties.
As far as whether or not she could win the presidency, I believe she could. All indications are that the economy will get no better than it is now by the time 2012 comes along. If it stays like it is now, then Obama is likely toast (he's got maybe a 40% chance of wining if I recall a previous story I read). But if it gets ANY worse, which it seems very plausible to think that it might, then he is guaranteed to lose to anyone the GOP puts up against him.
Let me be clear though, I think that Sarah is the only one out there that could pull this off - running as a third party candidate. I don't think there's anyone else out there that could at this time.
-
You're right about the track record of third parties and independent candidates. But during the mid-19th century, the Republican Party came out of nowhere to suddenly become a major party, and the Whigs disappeared into history. So it's happened before.
Whether it could happen again today, I don't know. All I know is that I'd rather vote for Sarah running as an independent than any of the R's. I'm probably engaging in wishful thinking as regards to her intentions.
Whigs essentially became Republicans ( like my family way back then ) so you'd still wind up with two parties . A third party this time around would simply be a re-run of 1912 . Disasterous !
-
Tried to find a definitive article on the transition from Whig to Republican, couldn't.
The Whigs as a force only lasted twenty years so they were never settled. There was
no third party conflagration. The Republicans came from within the Whig Party they
were not a third party against the Whigs.
We are witnessing and participating in the birth of the Conservative Republican Party;
whether it will be a live birth is as of yet unknown.
-
Whigs essentially became Republicans .....
Like so many of our state politicians have run from the (D) to the (R)INO party. They think no one watches how they vote so they can get away with it.
-
I'm hardly an expert on the Whigs or their demise.
I have long advocated taking the Republican Party back from the inside.
But not sure that is possible in the time we may have left.
There are huge obstacles to getting on the ballot for 3rds. I guess that's one way to be sure we get Tweedledum or Tweedledee.
The argument is always that even though Republicans suck really bad, Democrats suck even worse so we have to vote Republican.
I do like the analogy mentioned above that Republicans are on a bike riding to the cliff while the Dems are racing there in a Ferrari.
It wasn't mentioned that the brakes don't work on either.
Nobody has thought "I'm getting the hell off this bike before it reaches the cliff"
Since Reagan, we've had 2 Bushes, Dole and McCain as nominees.
We'll almost assuredly get Romney or Gingrich this time.
These are real choices?
And what about that much ballyhooed Pledge for America from Boehner and McConnell?
How's that working out for ya?
And all those 80+ "Tea Party"freshmen?
There were a couple good ones but the bulk are worth a handful of spit.
My guy, Mike Kelly, is like that
Where's the Tea Party outcry?
The Tea Party is dead. It died the death of other populist movements in this country.
This time, I'm voting for a Constitutionalist.
Probably that crazy loon who says those crazy things like smaller Constitutional government.
Admittedly, he has some ideas that make me squirm a little on foreign policy, but I'm starting to think that the bigger, more immediate enemies to Liberty and Freedom are here.
I'm getting off the bike
-
I really think that if she decides to run as an independent, the Republican Party is finished. And I would dearly love to see that.
I believe that you could be correct in that assessment. It would be the beginning of the end of the republican party...
SNIP
All indications are that the economy will get no better than it is now by the time 2012 comes along. If it stays like it is now, then Obama is likely toast
I'm a bit more pessimistic than you. Things ARE going to hell in a handbasket and I don't think that is going to change things for the majority of citizens. I'll bet any of you your drink of choice against my drink of choice that we don't even get 2/3 of the eligible voters to mark a ballot in 2012. In 2008, only a couple of states were above 70%.
We will have to have carnage in the street for people to start waking up.
I'm not sure if anything will be enough for the OWS kids ...
-
I really think that if she decides to run as an independent, the Republican Party is finished. And I would dearly love to see that.
I believe that you could be correct in that assessment. It would be the beginning of the end of the republican party...
SNIP
All indications are that the economy will get no better than it is now by the time 2012 comes along. If it stays like it is now, then Obama is likely toast
I'm a bit more pessimistic than you. Things ARE going to hell in a handbasket and I don't think that is going to change things for the majority of citizens. I'll bet any of you your drink of choice against my drink of choice that we don't even get 2/3 of the eligible voters to mark a ballot in 2012. In 2008, only a couple of states were above 70%.
We will have to have carnage in the street for people to start waking up.
I'm not sure if anything will be enough for the OWS kids ...
The OWS bunch are about out of gas ,people are tire of them.(welcome aboard).
-
I'm of essentially the same mind as Rickl on this. The "well who else are they gonna vote for? The Dems? Bwaahaaha" lording over of us by the GOP establishment is past its expiration date with me. That crap was annoying and maybe even offensive in "normal" elections -- but for them to still be using that ploy when our country is in the most precarious state it has been in since the (first) Civil War? That is contemptible beyond words.
Since we are looking down the barrel of economic disaster, pretty much regardless of what happens politically, I've begun to more and more think that destruction of the GOP is the most worthy goal. Putting a pillow over its face and holding down until the thrashing stops will, even if it seems counterintuitive, produce more meaningful long term improvement than would continuing with this charade and having the empty satisfaction of a few more letter Rs on the balance sheet. The GOP has in many ways been worse than the Democrats. With the latter, we know who and what they are. The GOP on the other hand plays lip service to notions of limited government and the rule of law, while doing practically nothing to actually aid such causes, and in many cases actively preventing such.
Let's be clear about one thing. We are, as a culture, in this mess today not because the Democrats have been such diabolical political geniuses for decades. We are in this mess because time after time, after time, after time, after time, the nominal "opposition" to the Democrats' mission of fundamental transformation has run away to the corner with its tail between its legs. Bill Whittle posted a good video of a talk he gave in Orange County, CA a few months back, where he used the common analogy of the Titanic. In his analogy, our impact with the iceberg is already a certainty. It's too late for the ship to take evasive action. Hitting it abeam at ramming speed is now the best option. It will surely crush several of the bow compartments, but the remaining compartments should be enough to keep the ship afloat. The half-measures of half-hearted course correction will only succeed in allowing the iceberg to rake all the way down the side of the ship, opening all the compartments to the sea and sending the ship to the bottom, just like the real Titanic.
-
Funny you should mention the Titanic. I made a couple of comments about it earlier tonight.
(Click "Watch on YouTube" to see them. Yes, I know, off topic.)
Titanic Breakup Theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWzU-z1p1ro#)
-
And all those 80+ "Tea Party"freshmen?
There were a couple good ones but the bulk are worth a handful of spit.
My guy, Mike Kelly, is like that
Where's the Tea Party outcry?
The Tea Party is dead. It died the death of other populist movements in this country.
This is pretty much what Karl Denninger has been saying, and why he (cautiously) supports OWS. The Tea Party has largely been reduced to shilling for Republican candidates. Any ideas about prosecuting wrongdoers in either banking or government have been long forgotten.
-
And all those 80+ "Tea Party"freshmen?
There were a couple good ones but the bulk are worth a handful of spit.
My guy, Mike Kelly, is like that
Where's the Tea Party outcry?
The Tea Party is dead. It died the death of other populist movements in this country.
This is pretty much what Karl Denninger has been saying, and why he (cautiously) supports OWS. The Tea Party has largely been reduced to shilling for Republican candidates. Any ideas about prosecuting wrongdoers in either banking or government have been long forgotten.
From where I'm sitting I think that the TEA party leadership in some cases may be shilling for an establishment candidate but since it's not a centralized movement there will be still people out there supporting a reform candidate as long as they can and in the end will all become anybody but Obama voters.
-
Since we are looking down the barrel of economic disaster, pretty much regardless of what happens politically, I've begun to more and more think that destruction of the GOP is the most worthy goal. Putting a pillow over its face and holding down until the thrashing stops will, even if it seems counterintuitive, produce more meaningful long term improvement than would continuing with this charade and having the empty satisfaction of a few more letter Rs on the balance sheet. The GOP has in many ways been worse than the Democrats. With the latter, we know who and what they are. The GOP on the other hand plays lip service to notions of limited government and the rule of law, while doing practically nothing to actually aid such causes, and in many cases actively preventing such.
What, you don't like it when your friends wait until you are relying on them to slip a dagger into your back? (/sarc)
From my perspective, the root cause of the problem seems obvious. Politicians from both parties have the same primary goal - to get re-elected. In the 20th century, each party started using much more governmental power to "serve the needs" of the people. Once the tradition was established, it was all downhill. People now rely on government for the simplest of things.
Society's inability to take care of itself transcends cultures. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that all cultures are starting to merge into a socialist model. People rely on government. Government is inherently inefficient and compensates by borrowing. Debt becomes unsustainable. Japan, the US, and the EU each have 10-20 Trillion in debt. Although China is currently the world's banker, a large part of the credit it has extended is based on Chinese real estate and the labor of its people. When the rest of the world collapses, China's reserves will go along for the ride.
The US has gone too far down this road. The OWS types are merely a symptom of our societal disease. I don't think we can walk this back. I think economic collapse (you are probably more accurate in calling it disaster) will be the ultimate result. The way I see it, there are three questions:
1.) How long until we go over the edge of the waterfall?
2.) How good is our society's basic survival skills?
3.) What gets lost in the fall?
I agree that the more we prolong this artificial situation, the worse the collapse will be.
-
The Tea Party does seem to have been co-opted.
In hindsight, it was destined to fail.
All these autonomous little groups with no simple, unified "platform"
Repeal Obamacare and cut spending and don't raise taxes.
Failed on all three.
Here we are only a couple months from primaries and I'm not seeing candidates to replace anyone, no outcry or demonstations or rallies
Our goose is cooked.
Hunker down
Buckle your seat belts, we're about to experience some turbulence
-
There's so much meat in this discussion I'm not sure where to dig in....
It seems to me that the essence of the discussion centers around dissatisfaction with the Republican party on the eve of the most important vote since 1860. jpatrickham alluded to the centerpiece of the dissatisfaction but I want to make it front & center - Romney. Romney is the reason why we're so pissed.
I can't shake the impression that the Republican elite (for lack of better term) is foisting Romney onto us. Why would I say that? Because I know of no popular support for him. I don't know anyone who is enthusiastic about him, wants "Romney's the one" bumper stickers for their cars, or is lining up to canvas neighborhoods on his behalf. Michael Medved has played a coy game of soft character assassination of each of Romney's Republican opponents so that he could then say, "who is left?" I expect him to endorse Romney any day now.
Likewise, just like 2008, we are going to see the reluctant acceptance by pundits claiming that "Romney is the only guy who can beat Øbozo" and all but demanding that we climb on board the Romney funeral procession.
I don't like Romney, I don't support Romney, and I likely won't pull the lever for Romney. This has caused great friction within my own family where these same discussions are taking place. I've always voted "R" and always expected to continue, but the 2008 bait~n~switch with McCain soured me and I'm no longer so willing to take one for the cause.
I know that some other countries have multi-party political ecologies. I do not believe that we will ever see that in America. While it is possible, it is unlikely because the dhimmicrats have so thoroughly sewn up the entitlement vote. This is where this:
For verification see the 1992 election results.
Election Results:
Clinton/Gore: 370 electoral votes, 44.9 million popular votes
Bush/Quayle: 168 electoral votes, 39.1 million popular votes
Perot/Stockdale: 0 electoral votes, 19.7 million popular votes
At least 90% of Perot's votes would have been Bush voters.
comes from and why there isn't a dhimmicrat reciprocal - except perhaps in "local" races. I can think of only one national exception for this in my entire voting life and that was Lieberman running as an independent after being screwed by the dhimmi party.
So what am I saying?
I don't want to say that we're screwed, but anything else would only be a euphemism. I'm saying that Charles recently posted the result of a straw poll:
Newt Gingrich 42.82% (1,228 votes)
Herman Cain 33.26% (954 votes)
Rick Perry 9.76% (280 votes)
Mitt Romney 4.5% (129 votes)
Ron Paul 4.46% (128 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.93% (84 votes)
Rick Santorum 1.71% (49 votes)
Jon Huntsman 0.56% (16 votes)
and I would willingly pull the lever for any one of them except for Romney, Paul, or Huntsman.
I'm saying that somehow I need to get that message to the Republican elite - "We have good Republican candidates but Romney isn't one of them". If you continue to shill for him you will lose me as a voter.
I'm saying that I agree with the analogy of the bicycle and the Ferrari, that both sides are driving us to ruination and depending on which side you choose dictates how quickly you'll arrive.
I'm saying that it sure looks to me like our nation is bent on suicide and if that's the case I want it to happen quickly - not agonizingly slowly.
I'm saying that in 2008 the party elite McCain became our candidate not out of any sense of populism or performance but out of inter-party maneuvers and manipulations. He was foisted upon us. I'm saying that 2012 is shaping up to be a repeat performance with Romney as the default candidate this time around. I'm saying that it sucks and I don't think that I will be a party to it.
I'll still vote because there will still be other races where good people deserve support, but if they give us Romney I'll pass in favor of loading more ammo.
I have a feeling that I'll be needing it.
-
Not Newt Neither
-
There's so much meat in this discussion I'm not sure where to dig in....
It seems to me that the essence of the discussion centers around dissatisfaction with the Republican party on the eve of the most important vote since 1860. jpatrickham alluded to the centerpiece of the dissatisfaction but I want to make it front & center - Romney. Romney is the reason why we're so pissed.
I can't shake the impression that the Republican elite (for lack of better term) is foisting Romney onto us. Why would I say that? Because I know of no popular support for him. I don't know anyone who is enthusiastic about him, wants "Romney's the one" bumper stickers for their cars, or is lining up to canvas neighborhoods on his behalf. Michael Medved has played a coy game of soft character assassination of each of Romney's Republican opponents so that he could then say, "who is left?" I expect him to endorse Romney any day now.
Likewise, just like 2008, we are going to see the reluctant acceptance by pundits claiming that "Romney is the only guy who can beat Øbozo" and all but demanding that we climb on board the Romney funeral procession.
I don't like Romney, I don't support Romney, and I likely won't pull the lever for Romney. This has caused great friction within my own family where these same discussions are taking place. I've always voted "R" and always expected to continue, but the 2008 bait~n~switch with McCain soured me and I'm no longer so willing to take one for the cause.
I know that some other countries have multi-party political ecologies. I do not believe that we will ever see that in America. While it is possible, it is unlikely because the dhimmicrats have so thoroughly sewn up the entitlement vote. This is where this:
For verification see the 1992 election results.
Election Results:
Clinton/Gore: 370 electoral votes, 44.9 million popular votes
Bush/Quayle: 168 electoral votes, 39.1 million popular votes
Perot/Stockdale: 0 electoral votes, 19.7 million popular votes
At least 90% of Perot's votes would have been Bush voters.
comes from and why there isn't a dhimmicrat reciprocal - except perhaps in "local" races. I can think of only one national exception for this in my entire voting life and that was Lieberman running as an independent after being screwed by the dhimmi party.
So what am I saying?
I don't want to say that we're screwed, but anything else would only be a euphemism. I'm saying that Charles recently posted the result of a straw poll:
Newt Gingrich 42.82% (1,228 votes)
Herman Cain 33.26% (954 votes)
Rick Perry 9.76% (280 votes)
Mitt Romney 4.5% (129 votes)
Ron Paul 4.46% (128 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.93% (84 votes)
Rick Santorum 1.71% (49 votes)
Jon Huntsman 0.56% (16 votes)
and I would willingly pull the lever for any one of them except for Romney, Paul, or Huntsman.
I'm saying that somehow I need to get that message to the Republican elite - "We have good Republican candidates but Romney isn't one of them". If you continue to shill for him you will lose me as a voter.
I'm saying that I agree with the analogy of the bicycle and the Ferrari, that both sides are driving us to ruination and depending on which side you choose dictates how quickly you'll arrive.
I'm saying that it sure looks to me like our nation is bent on suicide and if that's the case I want it to happen quickly - not agonizingly slowly.
I'm saying that in 2008 the party elite McCain became our candidate not out of any sense of populism or performance but out of inter-party maneuvers and manipulations. He was foisted upon us. I'm saying that 2012 is shaping up to be a repeat performance with Romney as the default candidate this time around. I'm saying that it sucks and I don't think that I will be a party to it.
I'll still vote because there will still be other races where good people deserve support, but if they give us Romney I'll pass in favor of loading more ammo.
I have a feeling that I'll be needing it.
Not Newt Neither
If gNewt doesn't self destruct consider it a miracle.
-
There's so much meat in this discussion I'm not sure where to dig in....
It seems to me that the essence of the discussion centers around dissatisfaction with the Republican party on the eve of the most important vote since 1860. jpatrickham alluded to the centerpiece of the dissatisfaction but I want to make it front & center - Romney. Romney is the reason why we're so pissed.
I can't shake the impression that the Republican elite (for lack of better term) is foisting Romney onto us. Why would I say that? Because I know of no popular support for him. I don't know anyone who is enthusiastic about him, wants "Romney's the one" bumper stickers for their cars, or is lining up to canvas neighborhoods on his behalf. Michael Medved has played a coy game of soft character assassination of each of Romney's Republican opponents so that he could then say, "who is left?" I expect him to endorse Romney any day now.
Likewise, just like 2008, we are going to see the reluctant acceptance by pundits claiming that "Romney is the only guy who can beat Øbozo" and all but demanding that we climb on board the Romney funeral procession.
I don't like Romney, I don't support Romney, and I likely won't pull the lever for Romney. This has caused great friction within my own family where these same discussions are taking place. I've always voted "R" and always expected to continue, but the 2008 bait~n~switch with McCain soured me and I'm no longer so willing to take one for the cause.
I know that some other countries have multi-party political ecologies. I do not believe that we will ever see that in America. While it is possible, it is unlikely because the dhimmicrats have so thoroughly sewn up the entitlement vote. This is where this:
For verification see the 1992 election results.
Election Results:
Clinton/Gore: 370 electoral votes, 44.9 million popular votes
Bush/Quayle: 168 electoral votes, 39.1 million popular votes
Perot/Stockdale: 0 electoral votes, 19.7 million popular votes
At least 90% of Perot's votes would have been Bush voters.
comes from and why there isn't a dhimmicrat reciprocal - except perhaps in "local" races. I can think of only one national exception for this in my entire voting life and that was Lieberman running as an independent after being screwed by the dhimmi party.
So what am I saying?
I don't want to say that we're screwed, but anything else would only be a euphemism. I'm saying that Charles recently posted the result of a straw poll:
Newt Gingrich 42.82% (1,228 votes)
Herman Cain 33.26% (954 votes)
Rick Perry 9.76% (280 votes)
Mitt Romney 4.5% (129 votes)
Ron Paul 4.46% (128 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.93% (84 votes)
Rick Santorum 1.71% (49 votes)
Jon Huntsman 0.56% (16 votes)
and I would willingly pull the lever for any one of them except for Romney, Paul, or Huntsman.
I'm saying that somehow I need to get that message to the Republican elite - "We have good Republican candidates but Romney isn't one of them". If you continue to shill for him you will lose me as a voter.
I'm saying that I agree with the analogy of the bicycle and the Ferrari, that both sides are driving us to ruination and depending on which side you choose dictates how quickly you'll arrive.
I'm saying that it sure looks to me like our nation is bent on suicide and if that's the case I want it to happen quickly - not agonizingly slowly.
I'm saying that in 2008 the party elite McCain became our candidate not out of any sense of populism or performance but out of inter-party maneuvers and manipulations. He was foisted upon us. I'm saying that 2012 is shaping up to be a repeat performance with Romney as the default candidate this time around. I'm saying that it sucks and I don't think that I will be a party to it.
I'll still vote because there will still be other races where good people deserve support, but if they give us Romney I'll pass in favor of loading more ammo.
I have a feeling that I'll be needing it.
Not Newt Neither
If gNewt doesn't self destruct consider it a miracle.
And if he doesn't you can consider him elected.
-
It seems Newt is following the McCain playbook in some ways.
If he can hold on until Iowa and/or NH, he's the guy.
It comes down to Romney or Mitt.
Cain's done.
Perry's a long shot but may regain some legs.
A Paul upset in Iowa would make it interesting.
Edited to add:
And if he doesn't you can consider him elected.
Not so sure
-
It seems Newt is following the McCain playbook in some ways.
If he can hold on until Iowa and/or NH, he's the guy.
It comes down to Romney or Mitt.
Cain's done.
Perry's a long shot but may regain some legs.
A Paul upset in Iowa would make it interesting.
Edited to add:
And if he doesn't you can consider him elected.
Not so sure
Me either but I'm voting for him with bells on. It's anybody but Obama.
-
I think all of us are on the ABBR page,
it's that we are working on who that person
will/should be.
That top 4 list, in order of preference, can
change from day to day or by one sound
bite.
-
I think all of us are on the ABBR page,
it's that we are working on who that person
will/should be.
That top 4 list, in order of preference, can
change from day to day or by one sound
bite.
True but all we can do is wait for the culls to get weeded out and that's fast approaching.
-
Just got off the phone for a political call from Newt.
I explained that I would vote for Newt or Romney the day after Hell froze over