Welcome to PatsFans.com

Is this a good year to try to establish a third-party?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Jan 11, 2012.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,652
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    I think in most cases, a third party would benefit Obama, which of course is the biggest problem for anyone on the right. Nonetheless, we don't often get the opportunity to try to establish a third party. I think the last time was with the Reform Party

    But, that said, if a third party is to be formed, we have at least two possibilities, assuming Romney wins:
    - A true Tea Party candidate, such as Santorum or Palin, perhaps
    - A promising Libertarian Party candidate, such as Paul.

    If either of those groups got a sizable percentage of the vote, then it would create an opportunity like we haven't seen since the Reform Party, to try again and establish a legitimate third party.

    If the Tea Party broke away from the Republicans, it would move the Republicans to the left, which would probably move many Democrats into the Republican camp over time. A Libertarian party would probably be more centrist, with something to offer both liberals (anti-war) and conservatives (anti-regulation).

    Do you think the American people are ready for a third party even if it helps Obama, or conceivably Romney?
  2. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The candidate who would suffer the most from a 3rd party would be the one who's beliefs were more in line with that 3rd party. In other words, if a 3rd party candidate came up from the tea party, it would benefit Obama since it would split the conservative vote. But if, for example, OWS put up a 3rd party candidate, it would benefit Romney.
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,591
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +116 / 7 / -10

    The pubs may split if Romney is the nominee since many don't see large differences with Obama.
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,026
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +292 / 6 / -8

    Yep. The big "what if..." seems to be Paul, but he's got to play ball so Randy can run in 4 years.

    I think everybody is pissed right now, right and left.

    The right of course because they're "out of power," although they're using the majority in one house, and the peculiar perks of the minority in the other house, to freeze government as best they can.

    The left base, because not enough progress has been made, and Obama hasn't delivered (in many eyes) the low bar of being a centrist. Frankly that pisses me off because it's a little on the utopian side.

    PFnV
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    I'm sure you hope so.

    You really buy that? I don't. Not one bit either. Especially if Romney picks a running mate that a lot of the disatisfied GOP'ers like. If Romney picks someone like Paul Ryan, Rubio, or dare I say Ron or Rand Paul, the bulk of the naysayers, or the nonethusiastic, will support the ticket. That's aside from the fact that running against Obama will probably be reason enough.
  6. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    My prediction is that the junior Senator from Kentucky gets a plum committee assignment, maybe Appropriations...( there will be a seat available based on retirement) and that might help a certain Congressman to opt not to make a third party run.....
    ................JMNSHO
  7. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,699
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +35 / 0 / -1

    #15 Jersey

    If Huntsman ran as a third party candidate, he would take more votes away from Obama then anyone else. What about having four legitimate candidates which would result in not actually taking away from the two parties but voting for a candidate.
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,591
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +116 / 7 / -10





    Yes that is the situation, a lot of Tea Party types ie conservatives see Romney as being pro abortion (based on judges appointed while governor and giving Planned Parent a seat at the table with respect to taxpayer funded abortions) Mitt Romney | Abortion | Pro-life Profiles.

    He isn't proposing comprehensive tax reform (Like Cain, Perry or Gingrich), no record of reducing the growth of government spending. No coherent economic plan, mushy on energy development. No plan to refrom entitlements

    Now it appears that during his tenure at Bain Capital there were occasions when Bain got government $$$$ (10M in one case) they pocketed 4M and left the creditors and taxpayers holding the bag.

    Now the establishment view the attack on those activities as being against capitalism (including people like Limbaugh). Now these sort of venture capital firms can serve a useful function in restructuring failing companies, and saving jobs, even though jobs are frequently eliminated. Better to eliminate some jobs than lose all the jobs when the company dies.

    However when you start taking government bailouts it becomes crony capitalism, not free enterprise.

    He is a candidate the dems want to run against. OWS was started to set the stage for an Obama campaign against Romney. The pubs are terminally stupid.

    I don't think a Romney 'victory would change much, DO YOU???????

    I think a victory by a number of others would bring needed change.
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,591
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +116 / 7 / -10


    I think this is correct, I think the same applies to R Paul.
  10. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,026
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +292 / 6 / -8

    Think you're right on that. I dunno. Four candidates? Well, you'd certainly (possibly) get a spectrum - in fact, a full spectrum would result in what you're talking about. Otherwise, you'd get one guy getting a traditional right or left, and the other three guys dividing up half the vote.

    But think about the "mandate" or lack thereof with four candidate -- it's not just a Perot situation, where you're looking at winning w/40-something percent of the popular vote. It's a situation where the split would be like 30-25-25-20. We really want a president who starts with 30% of the voters feeling invested?

    PFnV
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    Not to mention a primetime speech slot for senior at the convention. ;)

    Romney undoubtedly has lots of flaws, but he's the best candidate on the GOP side, and imo the most capable and qualified for the job. More qualified than Obama imo. Is he ideal? Of course not. I just think he's the best option in a less than stellar group.

    I think the one thing a Romney presidency would do, is get our fiscal situation reorganized, and more managable. I don't think he would "cut" government (no one but Paul would), but his skillset would help make the government work more efficiently than it does now. I can't say that about any other candidate, including Obama. Romney is a manager and numbers guy. I think that's one of the more important qualities the next president should have.
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,591
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +116 / 7 / -10



    If you are a conservative/Tea Party type Gingrich, Santorum or Perry are much better from a policy POV.

    Gingrich would cut government OTOH from you POV it wouldn't matter, since you are voting for a libertarian anyway.

    You seem to think Romney would be useful economically but you wouldn't vote for him so what is the point?
  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,026
    Likes Received:
    186
    Ratings:
    +292 / 6 / -8

    This "who's qualified" thing has to be set back 4 years, as in "more qualified than Obama before being president for 3 years."

    If you're just saying "what do you have on your resume that makes you capable of suiting up every day and being president," you just look first at whether you've ever done it. Oh that's right, we have only 1 guy who has.

    That said, we very frequently have to look at our subjective tiers of what qualifies one to be president.

    Interestingly, we make these arguments on the GOP side simultaneously with insisting that they be "outsiders."

    In other words, we routinely specifically invalidate candidates for understanding the type of politics they would be embroiled in on a daily basis.

    The thing is, you can change some things that drive us all crazy, but not by electing a new president, or a bunch of snakeoil salesmen in Congress.

    You need to cite a specific need, and coordinate a huge voting bloc around it. And then you need to track the issue and vote in accordance with its importance.

    But our memories and attention spans are too short to do this about anything that can change.

    Here's an example of something everybody hates: Money in politics.

    Conceivably, "we the people" could coalesce around the issue, and insist that nobody and no organization be allowed to contribute more than 500 bucks (or some other sum.)

    Ta-da, no lobbying, and for that matter, way less air-time burned on political ads.

    Or we could go further and say you can't buy air-time or produce political screeds, or otherwise spend money, to campaign... instead institutionalizing a public finance system, starting with local public access TV, and building to donated time on the networks and/or cable channels.

    That's it though. You could personally tweet and run your website but couldn't buy exposure.

    Someone could draft either piece of legislation and if we all decided we'd make that a big referendum issue, we could conceivably make it happen, because it's about how to elect people, not about "Gee I wish the outcome were X, Y, or Z."

    The problem is we coalesce around demands that no candidate can deliver -- things like running on not paying our bills, per the Norquist model. These are destined to either fail or destroy the country (see the Norquist downgrade.)

    There are things where we should be voting the direction the candidate should take -- the tax issue for example. But then the elected people have to be able to do the things they want to do to achieve the desired outcomes.

    We've somehow lost the ability to gauge realistic expectations... and we feel "entitled" to lose touch w/these realities, because (economically) all people want is to have the past back... specifically, the late 90s or so.

    People want everything to be okay. They want terrorists not to be a problem, to the extent that they're still tracking that. They want the U.S. to be the lone superpower, unchallenged for global hegemony, with even an economic "threat" from China many years away. People want low unemployment, low interest rates, and not a cloud on the horizon. We had that so recently, after all. (Many of us did, anyway.) People don't want gubmit spying to be okay, and they're sick of war as a way of life (again.)

    More than anything else, people don't want to look at forecasts and see a long stretch of very good private sector job recovery, but only adding up to the jobs lost in this last downturn after a decade or more of the country's best efforts.

    People look back not so long ago at "having it all" and they're pissed -- how'd we get "here"?

    And that empowers us, in our own minds, to insist that someone will wave a magic wand and make it alllllll better.

    Ain't gonna happen, no matter what any given candidate promises.

    We as voters ought to figure out realistic ways forward.... even if it's just enough to talk about how we elect people.

    If we want to wade into "best ways to fix it," until we fix the money/politics nexus, the solution will always be a disguised solution to the "problem" of the rich not owning us all as a source of cheaper and cheaper labor.

    If we want to fix the problems of the country, we need to fix the problem that the system by which we choose our "fixer" is itself fixed.

    PFnV
  14. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,881
    Likes Received:
    120
    Ratings:
    +303 / 1 / -9

    A third party would just turn into another party of Crook, Drunks, Sex Perverts and Grinning Liars.

    We would then have Three Partys of sh!t bums.

    :bricks:
    "lets all go down to the river
    there's a man walking on the water"
  15. Gainzo

    Gainzo Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This year is as good as any to start a third-party. I saw a stat on one of the cable news channels that showed their are more registered Independents than Republicans or Democrats in the Country.

    What does that tell you?
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    I couldn't disagree more. Santorum is the worst candidate in the pool. He couldn't even get reelected in his home state. He's no tea party type. He's an earmarker supreme and a social issues extremist. That's not the tea party.

    Gingrich is the epitomy of establishment imo. Not to mention he's a terrible, unethical human being.

    Perry is underwhelming, not so bright, and um, uh...um...I forget the third point. :D

    As a tea party patriot who is concerned with fiscal issues and individual liberty, I wouldn't ever consider any of the candidates, aside from Paul, as being Tea Party types. None of them fits the bill imo.

    Sorry, but even with his 3 years in office, Romney is more qualified, and better for the job. Hands down. We're in serious financial trouble. Social issues or positions aside, there is no one in this race with his credentials and expertise in financial matters. That isn't to say he's a great candidate either. He isn't. He's simply better than all of the options we currently have on the table.
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,591
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +116 / 7 / -10




    The establishment (both sides) hates Gingrich they are pushing Romney that speaks volumes.





    He is reasonable on policy horrible as a public speaker can't string 2 coherent sentences together.





    Paul isn't a Tea Party guy, some of his economic policies are ok, but the rest..... and of course the Tea Party folks abhor racism.




    Romney is awful lib judges Romneycare big government all the way, no thanks.


    Gingrich has a very strong platform, entitlement reform energy policy and tax reform...
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,731
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -2

    Ron Paul isn't a tea party guy? Oh my.

    Yeah, Gingrinch is the anti-establishment candidate. Can I have some of what you're smoking please? :D
  19. Gainzo

    Gainzo Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Did 13 actually say that Gingrich is anti-establishment? Hahahaha.

    I still haven't received a clear answer on what the Tea Party stands for but Ron Paul is closer to the Tea Party than any of the other GOP candidates.
  20. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Just because he has the job doesn't mean he's qualified for it. In fact the past 3 years have demonstrated how woefully unqualified he is for the office he holds. Time and again we see how deep in over his head Obama has gotten himself.

    So I'd rather have an unknown quantity than a proven and demonstrated failure, wouldn't you?

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>