I don't, but I see it as an opportunity to get the 5-15% needed for a 3rd party to be a real choice later. I think it could've been close to what you said, but it won't be now unless someone major defects. As in, if HRC runs but the DNC doesn't recognize her as their leading candidate (LOL), she could probably poll at 15% as a 3rd party. If, for instance, all the never-Trump CA voters that voted for Hillary instead of 3rd party (in a state that was going to be handily blue) had voted Stein or Johnson instead, we could've had it so that a 3rd party candidate got financing, airtime, debate slots, etc. Which means that you can have higher-qualified candidates run. If, for instance, Bernie could've run as an Independent, would he be so beholden to the (D) party? If he had guaranteed debate spots and financing, who knows? (Substitute Ron Paul or Tea Party Bob or whoever you non-affiliated politician of choice is...) This is from 2016, and I think you can just substitute "2016" for 2008, and "2020" for 2012.
The only purpose of a 3rd party candidate in 2020 is to reelect Trump. I expect the Trump campaign to strongly encourage all potential 3rd party candidates, as a 3-way (or more) race is the only way he can win with ~40% approval. barfo
What was Trump's approval rating on Election Day, 2016? (36%, and he won a 2-way race) More/better choices, more-informed populace, more voting-by-issue rather than voting-by-personality cult, more ability for the candidates to poll what we the voters actually care about...all those are "purposes of a 3rd party candidate", whatever the year. For instance, I have many friends here in FL that are voting blue-down-the-line (including the avowed, Soros-backed Socialist candidate for Governor) because they want to (in their exact words) "vote in people who will hold Trump accountable." Not even joking. The (D)'s marked on my ballot are for issues, one of them is my firm belief in not becoming a socialist state (or State). One of the Gillum backers is nevertrump because he thinks that any repeal of Obamacare will hurt his son with pre-existing conditions and is willing for the world to burn in order to keep his healthcare. Fair enough--each can have their own reasons for their vote--but he won't listen to any concepts of why insurance-based healthcare is bad as long as Trump is in office, and he thinks voting Blue Line will get it done. A 3rd party candidate may let that friend vote for someone who is not Trump without voting for an avowed socialist. Maybe one who wants to socialize healthcare and raise taxes, but not defund ICE, for instance.
not sure I buy that, I actually think that their will be coalition between demo and dem socialist. Kind of how they do it in Europe (England) with coalitions between parties. My only concern is that with the trend to democratic socialism which is taking over my fathers party, more Americans are trending extreme left with communist, socialist, marxist, and totalitarianism, for the monopolization of power, to the hand of ruling elite, which they think, is superior free -market capitalism. Whatever "We The People Want" is ok by me?
I think you'd agree that that in general 36% approval is not a recipe for success in a 2-way race, and that a candidate would usually look for additional help rather than assuming victory, in that circumstance. Sure, I should have said outcome instead of purpose. You think the world will burn if Gillum gets elected? barfo
We don't have a parliamentary system here. In congress two parties can caucus together, but we were talking about the presidential election, and there's no coalition possible there, each party has it's own candidate. I dunno, I don't see that trend myself. Seems to me there is much more evidence for the opposite. Obama, for example, was less liberal than Jimmy Carter, while Trump is significantly more conservative than Reagan. barfo
"The world" is hyperbole, stolen from a Batman quote. I think that if his policies are enacted, then it will mean a fundamental shift in how our societies are run. If his policies are not enacted (there is a (R) Senate and House in FL, so ramming through a tax increase may be unlikely), what the hell is the point of D's electing a guy who has an open FBI corruption case (the irony is thick with this one) and who has ignored requests from his own law enforcement to help them stem a rise to a state-leading violent crime rate?
There are several white supremacists from the republican party running for office. Do you approve of that? There is also Hunter in California that has some serious allegations that is running as well. Why is the republican party allowing their party to be infiltrated with white supremacists? https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/175258...-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia
More fake news. You believe anything you want to believe, don't you? https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...-holds-steady-at-45-percent-ahead-of-midterms
If there were more parties then you'd be likely to have a coalition? And I'm kind of thinking it's heading that way. I heard somebody on CNN call it more tribalism? I here what you're saying and maybe its best that a two party system work like it used to somewhat. I like the idea of term limits to give way to change if the people want it.
of course. I'm white. (I also voted for his female Hispanic Lieutenant Governor, but probably only because she's hot.) Or maybe it was because I'd rather vote for a Naval Officer who's deployed to Iraq and been a well-regarded Congressman--accused of being a racist because he said "monkey around with" instead of "fuck around with", and lawmaker who has broad bipartisan support in the FL House and almost a decade of history; than a literal career low-level politician (seriously, he's never held a job other than Tallahassee City Council--which he started before graduating college-- and Mayor, and who is being investigated for corruption in it) and a millionaire Progressive Christian who earned less than 5% of the D vote. You guys would love him.
Technically, it was 'monkey this up' not 'monkey around with'. And that's not the only reason he looks like a racist. But, it's your state not mine, so best of luck with whichever governor you elect! barfo
Absolutely. My point is that, barring something which I don't know that I've ever seen (Kennedy v. Carter maybe, but I was barely alive) an incumbent isn't going to get strong opposition from his party. So if you wanted a decently-known, centrist republican (or even a fiscal far-right but social moderate) to run against Trump, having a viable 3rd party that got funding, airtime and a spot at the debates would have been useful. Now, said hypothetical 3rd-partier is up against two behemoths with the weight of both sides of the government coming down on them.
Well, it's hard to imagine a more golden opportunity for 3rd parties than 2016, when both major party candidates were roundly hated. The utter failure in 2016 should suggest that hoping for a true 3rd party to arise is a fool's errand. As Trump proved, (and Bernie came somewhat close to showing) it's much more straightforward to simply hijack one of the two existing parties. barfo
