2.74% is fringe, no matter how you look at it. A little over 2M votes out of over 100M cast. Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992, and John Anderson won 6.6% of the popular vote as independent candidates. After everyone figured out that Perot is a raving lunatic, he came back and won 8% of the popular vote in 1996.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>2.74% is fringe, no matter how you look at it. A little over 2M votes out of over 100M cast. Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992, and John Anderson won 6.6% of the popular vote as independent candidates. After everyone figured out that Perot is a raving lunatic, he came back and won 8% of the popular vote in 1996.</div> Why did he even get that much to begin with? I use "respectably" loosely as well. Anyway, I don't know why we're fixed on this subject now, I know quite well how Ross Perot did in past elections, I don't need a history lesson.
Why do trial lawyers advertise on TV that they can get you a lot of money by suing some company? There was also a lot of backlash among the left against the Democratic candidates who weren't left enough. That's why he got those 2M votes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why do trial lawyers advertise on TV that they can get you a lot of money by suing some company? There was also a lot of backlash among the left against the Democratic candidates who weren't left enough. That's why he got those 2M votes.</div> How many people can get 2.7% of the popular vote as a third candidate?
Depends on the year and the candidate. Non-fringe candidates who are as widely known as Nader have historically done significantly better, and even some lesser known ones (like Anderson) as well.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Depends on the year and the candidate. Non-fringe candidates who are as widely known as Nader have historically done significantly better, and even some lesser known ones (like Anderson) as well.</div> And we're still talking about a small set of people, hence my loose using of the word "respectably".
Huckabee is a pretty fringe guy (mostly unknown governor from a teenie state), and look at the votes he got. He'd surely get more than 2.7% of the popular vote if he ran as an independent. I can think of numerous people who would bury the 2.7% figure, including Al Gore.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Huckabee is a pretty fringe guy (mostly unknown governor from a teenie state), and look at the votes he got. He'd surely get more than 2.7% of the popular vote if he ran as an independent. I can think of numerous people who would bury the 2.7% figure, including Al Gore.</div> I think you missed the point entirely. I can easily justify what I said, I don't see how you got this perfect example with Ralph Nader matched up either.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How many people can get 2.7% of the popular vote as a third candidate?</div> LOTS
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How many people can get 2.7% of the popular vote as a third candidate?</div> LOTS </div> LOOSE using of the word.
Ron Paul could get 2.7% perhaps. Didn't Perot one time lead Bush and Clinton in the polls, before suspending his campaign or something....and didn't he end up being right about the thing that suicided his 1996 campaign? I know Ron Paul said that Perot was right during sometime in this primary season...and Paul is usually pretty honest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew -- I have some very exciting news. My good friend John Edwards is endorsing our campaign and joining our movement for change. We're here in Grand Rapids, Michigan -- and if you receive this message in time, you can probably turn on your TV and be part of the moment. I'm deeply honored by John's support. He is a true leader who dedicated his career to improving the lives of ordinary Americans. John ran a strong, principled campaign for president, focusing on a number of important issues where we share common ground -- universal health care, bringing our troops home from Iraq, and eliminating poverty in America. The way he ran his campaign was also important. He ran in a way that reflected our shared conviction that we need to fundamentally change politics. Like our campaign, John's campaign never accepted donations from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. Let's welcome John Edwards to the campaign with an outpouring of the kind of grassroots support that is bringing our political process back to the people. Make a donation of whatever you can afford now, and if you choose, include your own note to Senator Edwards. I'll make sure he gets them: https://donate.barackobama.com/johnedwards Thank you for all that you're doing, Barack Donate
In the last 20 elections and 80 years, Nader had a top 5 campaign for third party candidates. Only seven people have had better third party careers. That's why I called him "respectable". http://www.swivel.com/data_columns/spreadsheet/3018882
Here's a short list of who might have a shot at getting more than 2.7 as an independent. IMO. Mitt Romney Mike Huckabee Ruuuudddy. Ron Paul Hillary Clinton Al Gore John Edwards Dan Quayle (ok, maybe not) Ah-nold (if he was constitutionally able to run). Mike Bloomberg
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Here's a short list of who might have a shot at getting more than 2.7 IMO. Mitt Romney Mike Huckabee Ruuuudddy. Ron Paul Hillary Clinton Al Gore John Edwards Dan Quayle (ok, maybe not) Ah-nold (if he was constitutionally able to run). Mike Bloomberg</div> And look at the shortlist that already have. To say you know they'll have 2.7 for sure is dubious, and even if they did, looking back at all the 0.5% people and such, 2.7 is respectable.
To clarify, I was referring to Rudy/Bloom mostly in my previous post (Hillary, etc. is a different issue). We went 10 straight elections with no one breaking the 2.7 mark before.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 08:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Here's a short list of who might have a shot at getting more than 2.7 IMO. Mitt Romney Mike Huckabee Ruuuudddy. Ron Paul Hillary Clinton Al Gore John Edwards Dan Quayle (ok, maybe not) Ah-nold (if he was constitutionally able to run). Mike Bloomberg</div> And look at the shortlist that already have. To say you know they'll have 2.7 for sure is dubious, and even if they did, looking back at all the 0.5% people and such, 2.7 is respectable. </div> My reasoning for Mitt, Mike, and Rudy is there is the possibility of still some Republicans that won't vote for McCain. Same for Hillary, is there are still some that might not vote for Obama. Not likely however. Al Gore is pretty obvious. So is Bloomberg. They have the money and resources. Ron Paul could run as a Libertarian or Independent and do some damage. He still has all that cash right? John Edwards could run as a Socialist candidate. Many would argue he already has ran as a Socialist candidate twice, now he can run officially as one!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 08:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Here's a short list of who might have a shot at getting more than 2.7 IMO. Mitt Romney Mike Huckabee Ruuuudddy. Ron Paul Hillary Clinton Al Gore John Edwards Dan Quayle (ok, maybe not) Ah-nold (if he was constitutionally able to run). Mike Bloomberg</div> And look at the shortlist that already have. To say you know they'll have 2.7 for sure is dubious, and even if they did, looking back at all the 0.5% people and such, 2.7 is respectable. </div> My reasoning for Mitt, Mike, and Rudy is there are still some Republicans that won't vote for McCain.My reasoning for Hillary, is there are still some that might not vote for Obama. Al Gore is pretty obvious. So is Bloomberg. They have the money and resources. Ron Paul could run as a Libertarian or Independent and do some damage. He still has all that cash right? John Edwards could run as a Socialist candidate. Many would argue he already has ran as a Socialist candidate twice, now he can run officially as one! </div> Nah I clarified this in my last post and actually agree with you mostly. 2.7 doesn't come around every year either way.
.38% is pretty common. Same guy, same message. You do not account for why the people who'd score way more than 2.7% don't run as independent at all.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 08:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 08:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Here's a short list of who might have a shot at getting more than 2.7 IMO. Mitt Romney Mike Huckabee Ruuuudddy. Ron Paul Hillary Clinton Al Gore John Edwards Dan Quayle (ok, maybe not) Ah-nold (if he was constitutionally able to run). Mike Bloomberg</div> And look at the shortlist that already have. To say you know they'll have 2.7 for sure is dubious, and even if they did, looking back at all the 0.5% people and such, 2.7 is respectable. </div> My reasoning for Mitt, Mike, and Rudy is there are still some Republicans that won't vote for McCain.My reasoning for Hillary, is there are still some that might not vote for Obama. Al Gore is pretty obvious. So is Bloomberg. They have the money and resources. Ron Paul could run as a Libertarian or Independent and do some damage. He still has all that cash right? John Edwards could run as a Socialist candidate. Many would argue he already has ran as a Socialist candidate twice, now he can run officially as one! </div> Nah I clarified this in my last post and actually agree with you mostly. 2.7 doesn't come around every year either way. </div> Absolutely true, but then again, guys like Huckabee, Mitt, and Rudy would never run as a third party candidate. They're too concerned about their political future. I believe Rudy actually, will consider running for Governor of New York. I can't see Patterson staying past 2010.
