<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><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. </div> Indeed, although I see no reason to argue the semantics with me the way Denny did.
<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 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> Ron Paul's not running for president. He said he is going to spend his money on congressional candidates for candidates who share his views and values.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>.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> And yet I only referred to 2.7, not .38. Nader did just fine.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ May 14 2008, 08:46 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 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> Ron Paul's not running for president. He said he is going to spend his money on congressional candidates for candidates who share his views and values. </div> Well I'm suprised he hasn't read the writing on the wall yet. People with "his views and values" won't be winning many congressional seats this fall, if any.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>2.7 must be a huge %, it's more than what separates Obama from Hillary.</div> 2.7 seems enough to use "respectably" loosely when describing him. And historically this is the case as well.
The only thing respectable about his 2.7% is he kept Gore from winning. The choice of Gore or anyone but Gore (or a republican) is why such a fringe person got what votes he did.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The only thing respectable about his 2.7% is he kept Gore from winning. The choice of Gore or anyone but Gore (or a republican) is why such a fringe person got what votes he did.</div> Democrats haven't won various presidential elections (recently) aside from the Clinton ones, and you're very uptight about my vocabulary. You're under some kind of impression that a John Anderson performance is the norm.
I'm under the impression that there's the "usual suspects" when it comes to third parties (who don't get a lot of votes) and the occasional luminary who runs as a 3rd party candidate has always done better than 2.7%.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm under the impression that there's the "usual suspects" when it comes to third parties (who don't get a lot of votes) and the occasional luminary who runs as a 3rd party candidate has always done better than 2.7%.</div> Being more than a usual suspect seems "decent" to me.
The point being that parties like the Libertarians tend to nominate people that nobody's heard of. Nader is and was quite famous for his exploits in the courts and his books. He's been something of an icon since the 1960s. Can you name the 2004 Libertarian Party candidate without the help of google?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The point being that parties like the Libertarians tend to nominate people that nobody's heard of. Nader is and was quite famous for his exploits in the courts and his books. He's been something of an icon since the 1960s. Can you name the 2004 Libertarian Party candidate without the help of google?</div> His exploits in court and his books makes him a respectable person, he earned his fame unlike Hillary Clinton. There's only a handful of people that have done better than him. Hillary would crush him as a third party candidate, but the Democratic party would turn on her so she's not really a third party candidate in that regard.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who could do better than 2.7% as a 3rd party candidate. Bob Barr may well do it if he's the Libertarian candidate this time around.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who could do better than 2.7% as a 3rd party candidate. Bob Barr may well do it if he's the Libertarian candidate this time around.</div> I never denied this. Historically he's done better than average, which makes him respectable. The people that do better than him were usually part of the GOP/Dem party like Barr, and had their name out in publication for those reasons. With what he had to work with, I think he did just fine, he really is a third party candidate.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who could do better than 2.7% as a 3rd party candidate. Bob Barr may well do it if he's the Libertarian candidate this time around.</div> I never denied this. Historically he's done better than average, which makes him respectable. The people that do better than him were usually part of the GOP/Dem party like Barr, and had their name out in publication for those reasons. With what he had to work with, I think he did just fine. </div> How'd he do when Al Gore wasn't running? His "respectability" is entirely related to the fact that Al Gore was the nominee of the Democratic Party. Jesse Ventura isn't of either party, and he'd certainly do better than 2.7% (think multiples of that, 3x or more) Ross Perot wasn't a part of the GOP/Dem parties. Nader got a respectable .71% of the vote in 1996, too. LOL
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 10:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who could do better than 2.7% as a 3rd party candidate. Bob Barr may well do it if he's the Libertarian candidate this time around.</div> I never denied this. Historically he's done better than average, which makes him respectable. The people that do better than him were usually part of the GOP/Dem party like Barr, and had their name out in publication for those reasons. With what he had to work with, I think he did just fine. </div> How'd he do when Al Gore wasn't running? His "respectability" is entirely related to the fact that Al Gore was the nominee of the Democratic Party. Jesse Ventura isn't of either party, and he'd certainly do better than 2.7% (think multiples of that, 3x or more) Ross Perot wasn't a part of the GOP/Dem parties. Nader got a respectable .71% of the vote in 1996, too. LOL </div> Yeah you pick only a handful of cases of people who are independent. People don't peak? What about Perot? He's a macrocosm. I just think your distaste for him makes you nitpick at everything I say. Seriously, there's nothing you can say about the relaxed manner I talked about Nader. I never said he was my savior.
