I am sticking w Joe, who could be considered one of the greatest of our presidents. No one since Lincoln had the volume of garbage to deal with.
Joe Biden is not only decent and smart... his experience and age has offered us wisdom, compassion, courage, humor, and grace, and truckloads of policies to make everyone’s life better, safer, and easier.
Everyone ages at different rates. Joe has more in common with Jane Fonda in terms of ability to get the job done than foes trump - whose actual dementia is increasingly dangerous.
Is Biden’s age perfect? Good Lord... if you want perfect then just go w trumps call to Raffensberger. “The perfect phone call. “
Well. That brings me back to 2016 where I did vote for a third-party candidate. I just could not bring myself to vote for Hilary. In that case, however, Trump was such a malignant and obviously unsuitable candidate that I found it improbable that he'd get the win. It was a mistake and one that I won't make again until such time as the chance of getting a fascist elected to the presidency is zero.
I live in South Carolina so in national elections I effectively have no vote. This state will go almost always red and as long as we're hostage to the Electoral College, I have no voice in electing a President.
I understand why the Electoral College was necessary in order to get the Constitution ratified in 1788. I also understand why it's an obsolete impediment to advancing our common goals, as obsolete as a covered wagon or steam-powered paddleboat for transporting goods across the nation.
Then you need to get out more. In 2024 (as in 2016) anyone voting third party is casting a vote for Trump. But in 1980 I found both Carter and Reagan unfit for office. (A Herblock cartoon showed a butcher holding turkeys with their names and the customer saying, "You call this a choice?") Yes, clearly Carter and Reagan were very different, but they shared one thing n common: the country would have been far better off if neither had ever been elected president.
And, at the state and local level, third party candidates have been successful.
Teddy Roosevelt, after a successful nearly two terms as president, ran again as third-party candidate four years later and carried just 6 states. No third-party candidate will ever win in this country, and even if he or she did, that person would have no allies in either party in Congress and would have a disastrous presidency. Unfortunately, a vote for third-party candidate in this country is necessarily a vote for the major party candidate you like least.
If the right 3rd party candidate was running, IMO, they could get a lot of votes. However, I do not think they would get enough votes to become president. Therefore, again my option, it is not only a wasted vote but 2024, this will get Trump elected. I think you will see more people voting for Biden that are votes not really for Biden, but casting that vote against Trump.
Spot on - without a significant personality and/or a single issue with broad appeal, 3rd party candidate does not make sense as a potential winner.
Nevertheless, a 3rd party candidate could be a spoiler for one candidate or the other and impact/change the overall result, especially in the states where the differences in vote totals can be quite small.
Nightmare scenario - somehow, any of the 'other' Republican candidates is the nominee vs. Biden, and Trump runs as a 3rd party candidate...
There's no question there is a spoiler affect....Trump's ceiling for support is, to my mind, quite low. So having a third person in the race to effectively split the vote clearly benefits him.
I would agree - and recall it vividly. My mother was a big fan (lived just a few miles from where Ralph grew up and was a friend of his Mother's), although as a ultra liberal, she was never was able to discuss the 2000 election again when she realized the impact of his Green Party run in Florida (and truth be told, could not support him again in 2004 or 2008, even when it broke her heart)...
I'd say that Nader's 2000 campaign would be the textbook case of the better being the enemy of the good. My personal philosophies probably align with Nader's better than most.
Is it possible that the mistake everyone makes is thinking in terms of getting "this guy" elected? I wonder if a viable third party would be possible if (but I suspect only if) many years of serious investment in building a party platform, foreign policy, domestic policy, social policy, that differentiates from both the GOP and the Democrats, that building an identity and building a following...from which (maybe, just maybe) a representative emerges, but that it's the party that's getting the traction. It would take years of dogged determination to build a national identity and attraction. But, is that possible, do you think? It'd be hard. Libertarians and the Green Party exist, but they don't have a message that resonates with enough people to get financial support to build recognition (it's a vicious circle, isn't it?).
I think you are right, Andy, to take the long view. The problem is that there is never enough donor money in the non-presidential years to make it work. Which means every four years they have to, effectively, start over.
Ross Perot came to the Washington State Capitol and put on quite the performance. Trumpets sounded his arrival, much like an ancient military salute. He spoke well, with content and a plan for America, for as long as you could endure that nasal tone amplified by a tinny sound system.
The buzz among the few legislators on campus and the legislative staff lasted about 48 hours and soon faded. We know the rest well.
While Larry Hogan may have the ability to heal a divided nation, the vested interests of the two parties and their contributors will suffocate him, absent a political calamity we have yet to see.
You hit it right on the mark. Unless a 3rd party candidate comes in with a real ability (not just hope) to gain 50% of the vote it will always fail. Frankly someone with that much popularity can take over one of the two parties nomination instead of running as 3rd party (ref: Trump in 2016) As much as I like the idea of a 3rd party candidate - heck I voted for Perot back in my younger days - anyone running will always appear to lean a little left or a little right and step into an area where they are seen as taking votes away from Dems or GOPs making them spoilers, not agents for real change.
I am sticking w Joe, who could be considered one of the greatest of our presidents. No one since Lincoln had the volume of garbage to deal with.
Joe Biden is not only decent and smart... his experience and age has offered us wisdom, compassion, courage, humor, and grace, and truckloads of policies to make everyone’s life better, safer, and easier.
Everyone ages at different rates. Joe has more in common with Jane Fonda in terms of ability to get the job done than foes trump - whose actual dementia is increasingly dangerous.
Is Biden’s age perfect? Good Lord... if you want perfect then just go w trumps call to Raffensberger. “The perfect phone call. “
A third party right now would be suicidal.
Well said.
I remain of the opinion, however, that the current "3rd Party Candidates" are nothing more than Republican attempts to divide the Democrat vote.
Well. That brings me back to 2016 where I did vote for a third-party candidate. I just could not bring myself to vote for Hilary. In that case, however, Trump was such a malignant and obviously unsuitable candidate that I found it improbable that he'd get the win. It was a mistake and one that I won't make again until such time as the chance of getting a fascist elected to the presidency is zero.
I live in South Carolina so in national elections I effectively have no vote. This state will go almost always red and as long as we're hostage to the Electoral College, I have no voice in electing a President.
I understand why the Electoral College was necessary in order to get the Constitution ratified in 1788. I also understand why it's an obsolete impediment to advancing our common goals, as obsolete as a covered wagon or steam-powered paddleboat for transporting goods across the nation.
Whenever I hear someone talk about a third party candidate, I list their name in the Political Illiterate Moron file.
Then you need to get out more. In 2024 (as in 2016) anyone voting third party is casting a vote for Trump. But in 1980 I found both Carter and Reagan unfit for office. (A Herblock cartoon showed a butcher holding turkeys with their names and the customer saying, "You call this a choice?") Yes, clearly Carter and Reagan were very different, but they shared one thing n common: the country would have been far better off if neither had ever been elected president.
And, at the state and local level, third party candidates have been successful.
If there were someone that fabulous out there we’d know who it is and be clamoring for them to run.
Sheri, totally!
Teddy Roosevelt, after a successful nearly two terms as president, ran again as third-party candidate four years later and carried just 6 states. No third-party candidate will ever win in this country, and even if he or she did, that person would have no allies in either party in Congress and would have a disastrous presidency. Unfortunately, a vote for third-party candidate in this country is necessarily a vote for the major party candidate you like least.
I think voting third party feels like a virtue vote—like the voter believes they’re not compromising.
If the right 3rd party candidate was running, IMO, they could get a lot of votes. However, I do not think they would get enough votes to become president. Therefore, again my option, it is not only a wasted vote but 2024, this will get Trump elected. I think you will see more people voting for Biden that are votes not really for Biden, but casting that vote against Trump.
Spot on - without a significant personality and/or a single issue with broad appeal, 3rd party candidate does not make sense as a potential winner.
Nevertheless, a 3rd party candidate could be a spoiler for one candidate or the other and impact/change the overall result, especially in the states where the differences in vote totals can be quite small.
Nightmare scenario - somehow, any of the 'other' Republican candidates is the nominee vs. Biden, and Trump runs as a 3rd party candidate...
Hence, the hand wringing on both sides...
There's no question there is a spoiler affect....Trump's ceiling for support is, to my mind, quite low. So having a third person in the race to effectively split the vote clearly benefits him.
Many would argue that Nader's 3rd party effort in the 2000 presidential election effectively handed the White House to Bush. I'd be one of them.
I would agree - and recall it vividly. My mother was a big fan (lived just a few miles from where Ralph grew up and was a friend of his Mother's), although as a ultra liberal, she was never was able to discuss the 2000 election again when she realized the impact of his Green Party run in Florida (and truth be told, could not support him again in 2004 or 2008, even when it broke her heart)...
Not to be unkind, but look up the difference between "wart" and "wort".
I'd say that Nader's 2000 campaign would be the textbook case of the better being the enemy of the good. My personal philosophies probably align with Nader's better than most.
Your posts never disappoint, always thought provoking!
"Worts?" They have connections to plants and herbs? :)
Is it possible that the mistake everyone makes is thinking in terms of getting "this guy" elected? I wonder if a viable third party would be possible if (but I suspect only if) many years of serious investment in building a party platform, foreign policy, domestic policy, social policy, that differentiates from both the GOP and the Democrats, that building an identity and building a following...from which (maybe, just maybe) a representative emerges, but that it's the party that's getting the traction. It would take years of dogged determination to build a national identity and attraction. But, is that possible, do you think? It'd be hard. Libertarians and the Green Party exist, but they don't have a message that resonates with enough people to get financial support to build recognition (it's a vicious circle, isn't it?).
I think you are right, Andy, to take the long view. The problem is that there is never enough donor money in the non-presidential years to make it work. Which means every four years they have to, effectively, start over.
Ross Perot came to the Washington State Capitol and put on quite the performance. Trumpets sounded his arrival, much like an ancient military salute. He spoke well, with content and a plan for America, for as long as you could endure that nasal tone amplified by a tinny sound system.
The buzz among the few legislators on campus and the legislative staff lasted about 48 hours and soon faded. We know the rest well.
While Larry Hogan may have the ability to heal a divided nation, the vested interests of the two parties and their contributors will suffocate him, absent a political calamity we have yet to see.
You hit it right on the mark. Unless a 3rd party candidate comes in with a real ability (not just hope) to gain 50% of the vote it will always fail. Frankly someone with that much popularity can take over one of the two parties nomination instead of running as 3rd party (ref: Trump in 2016) As much as I like the idea of a 3rd party candidate - heck I voted for Perot back in my younger days - anyone running will always appear to lean a little left or a little right and step into an area where they are seen as taking votes away from Dems or GOPs making them spoilers, not agents for real change.
Yup, Hal. I think that's exactly right.