Will Barr and the Libertarians hurt McCain or Obama more?

[Alonzo]

What happened
The Libertarian Party nominated former Republican Rep. Bob Barr (Ga.) as its 2008 presidential candidate at the Libertarian convention in Denver over the weekend. The party is already on the ballot in 28 states, and Barr said he will get on the ballot in at least 20 more. National polls put his support as high as 7 percent, but Barr said he is "in this to win,” not be “a spoiler.” (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

What the commentators said
Libertarians are touting the Barr-led ticket as their strongest yet, said Andrew Malcolm in the Los Angeles Times’ Top of the Ticket blog (free registration), but “that may not be saying much.” There simply aren’t enough Libertarians “to elect their ticket to anything.” However, in a “close election” between John McCain and Barack Obama, Barr might be able to “draw enough votes of dissatisfied conservatives” to hurt McCain’s chances.

“I don’t buy it,” said Michael Goldfarb in The Weekly Standard’s The Blog. Barr's best hope is that he will inherit the supporters of McCain’s only remaining GOP rival, Rep. Ron Paul. But "Ron Paul voters" are mostly an anti-Iraq War protest vote, so they'll be tempted to vote for the anti-war Obama. Barr is also anti-war, so he “seems likely to siphon votes from Obama, not McCain.”

Without the backing of Paul himself, said Jonathan Martin in Politico, the Libertarian candidate “could be as much of a non-factor this year as in every other recent presidential cycle.” So far, despite some ideological similarities, Paul has shown “little enthusiasm for Barr,” so his supporters and donors won't, either.

Paul or no Paul, said John Cole in the blog Balloon Juice, the Libertarian vote will never be anything more than “a protest vote.” The party can’t seem to build the “solid grass roots structure” needed to win elections—which makes sense if you look at the core, anti-government Libertarian message. “No one is going to fill the bingo halls to hear about all the things you are not going to fund for your district.”

http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/us_news_opinion/42666/will_barr_and_the_libertarians_hurt_mccain_or_obam a_more.html

[AlanC]

I figure his vote will be split... 10 of them would have voted for McCain, 10 for Obama and the other 10 would have voted for a Libertarian anyway. So no net effect really.

[bishop]

“I don’t buy it,” said Michael Goldfarb in The Weekly Standard’s The Blog. Barr's best hope is that he will inherit the supporters of McCain’s only remaining GOP rival, Rep. Ron Paul. But "Ron Paul voters" are mostly an anti-Iraq War protest vote, so they'll be tempted to vote for the anti-war Obama. Barr is also anti-war, so he “seems likely to siphon votes from Obama, not McCain.”

paul voters tempted to vote for obama??? obama supporters who'll vote for barr over clinton??? the fact that goldfarb is employed by a major publication just goes to show that any idiot can be successful in this country..

people who vote libertarian will likely do so more because they want to participate in the process and vote their conscience - regardless of the actual chance of casting a winning ballot (gotta love how voting in this country is akin to gambling on the roulette wheel). barr doesn't excite many people, but for people who'd actually consider voting libertarian - mccain, clinton and obama don't get them excited either (arguably less excited).

[Deadshot]

I figure his vote will be split... 10 of them would have voted for McCain, 10 for Obama and the other 10 would have voted for a Libertarian anyway. So no net effect really.


Agreed. But I have to ask the question, why do people waste their vote?

Voting for Perot in '92 only gave the election to the Dems.
Voting for Nader in '00 only gave the election to the GOP.

So if you lean Conservative, vote McCain, someone who has a chance to actually WIN.
If you lean Liberal, vote for Obama, someone who has a chance to actually WIN.

But why, o why, would you vote for a person who has NO CHANCE to win?

[AlanC]

Agreed. But I have to ask the question, why do people waste their vote?

Voting for Perot in '92 only gave the election to the Dems.
Voting for Nader in '00 only gave the election to the GOP.

So if you lean Conservative, vote McCain, someone who has a chance to actually WIN.
If you lean Liberal, vote for Obama, someone who has a chance to actually WIN.

But why, o why, would you vote for a person who has NO CHANCE to win?

they think they are sending a message to someone?

I'm sure they are, but its not the message they want to send and it doesn't go to those they meant it to.

[Deadshot]

they think they are sending a message to someone?

I'm sure they are, but its not the message they want to send and it doesn't go to those they meant it to.

I think you are right. In the end the message that they send is "We are irrelevant!"

It's so sad to see people throw their vote away. As I'm sure those on the right lamented the Perot run that killed Bush I, us Dems were just sickened by the Florida and Ohio count for Nader as Bush II won....:sad:

[NortheastCynic]

Waste my vote?

Why would I vote for two people whom I believe will harm this country?

I'm not wasting my vote, I'm using it in a way where it does no harm.

I live in Massachusetts, who the hell do you think is going to win my state? Any vote not for a Democrat could be arguably called a 'wasted' vote.

I'm not wasting my vote, I'm voting for the candidate whom I believe would make the best President [assuming I vote for Ron Paul], just like everyone else should be doing. I've always been angered by this 'wasted vote' nonsense. I will not vote for members of two parties who have systematically curbed personal liberties over the last 60 years, period. I want to be able to look at myself in the mirror 4 years from now and be able to say, "I had no hand in giving the necessary power to <insert President's name here> that he/she used to <insert future Presidential fuck up here>"

I'm not wasting my vote anymore than those who are convinced they're voting for 'change' are.

-NC

[Deadshot]

Yes you are wasting your vote. Here let me give you an example...


There are eleven of us going out for lunch 5 say go to the Meat Shack, 5 say go to the Veggie Shack and then the vote comes to you and you say Chinese Food! Your vote is wasted.

This isn't like the movie Twelve Angry Men, where your vote can be followed with your elegant speech while you persuade us to see the truth. It stands alone. So if you vote for Barr, and not McCain or Obama your vote is wasted because at least Obama or McCain have a chance of winning your state. Barr has no chance at anything!

[NortheastCynic]

Deadshot, John McCain has as much chance of winning Massachusetts as Bob Barr, let's not kid ourselves.

Your example has absolutely no relevance with regard to my situation.

A more realistic example:
11 of us our going out for lunch:
9 vote for Clam Chowder
1 votes for KFC
If I vote for Clam Chowder [which I don't like] my vote doesn't matter, if I vote for KFC [which I don't like], my vote doesn't matter. If I vote for pizza, which is my preference, my vote doesn't matter.

So I'll say it again, my vote is not wasted. It's not my opinion to make myself feel better about voting for Dr. Paul, it's a fact. If I vote for Obama [assuming he's the nominee], Obama wins, if I vote for McCain, Obama wins, if I vote for Paul, Obama wins...If I vote for Deadshot, Obama wins.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

So alright, Deadshot, who should I vote for, if not Ron Paul [because that would be a 'waste'...somehow]?

-NC

[Alonzo]

NEC, most states aren't guaranteed to the point that MA is. Being a Republican running for anything except Governor here is the equivalent of having the campaign slogan of "I suck".

[NortheastCynic]

I understand, Zo. What I'm saying is to say that my vote is wasted, here in MA, is to ignore the political reality of the state. Now, if I were living in a battleground state, I would carefully look at both candidates [as I do now], decide whether or not is what I consider to be a 'good' candidate. If I determine that answer to be 'no', I vote for someone whom I do believe is a good candidate. Neither major party candidate will get my vote. If my some act of God, the election is decided by one vote [which it won't be...ever] and if I had voted for one of the major candidates, there would have been a tie, I'd shrug. I didn't want either to win, so I didn't vote for either.

-NC

[Tsky]

Good example Deadshot. I understand that people vote for the principle of the matter, in other words, it’s my right to vote so I’ll vote however I choose. But just like your example about eating; there has to be a lesser of two evils in just about every aspect of life. If you like neither veggies nor meat there has to be one that you can stomach more than the other and the one that you can stomach is obviously the smart choice because it won’t make you sick. If you are allergic to meat then veggie is the wisest choice although veggies give you gas. But either way, you’ve made the best choice under the circumstances. When all of the votes are tallied and you still have to eat meat because veggies lost, at least you tried to assert your will and stood up for what would work best for you under the circumstances. But to vote for a third food choice that doesn’t have a shot at hell at winning means not only will you NEVER get what you wanted but your second choice, something you could have stomached even though you didn’t want it, was lost also because you wasted your vote on something that didn’t matter. That is why I can’t understand why people will either not vote of vote for a candidate that would make them sick, as in, won’t do anything to help their cause in this country, just because the choice they wanted didn’t make it. It’s akin to choosing meat as your choice for lunch, knowing you are allergic and will have a violent reaction to it, simply because Chinese wasn’t an option. Meanwhile, you could have voted for veggies, something you didn’t want but wouldn’t work against you, and still find a happy medium after your pissed-offness about Chinese food not being on the menu wore off.

BUT there is a caveat. I would have a hard time voting AT ALL if Barack doesn’t win the nomination because the only way he can lose is by some nefarious means. In that case, screw Democracy, I’m sitting at home because Democracy would already have been screwed to allow this to happen in the first place. Now if Barack is disqualified because it is found out that he’s actually Baraquina Husseina Obama, a 46 year old white woman from France who has been lying to us about her everything from her gender to her past history this whole time, then yeah, Hillary’s my choice.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Oh look, another thread about "spoilers votes", "wasted votes" and "lesser of two evils" mentality......

Come on people.....you are acting like there is some romanticism to keeping the same two corrupt political parties in office for another term, on top of the last 158 years.....never mind of course that anyone with a clue knows there is more than two parties to pick from.

Are they putting something in the water or what?

Who could credit this "spoiler" concept as valid AFTER actually thinking about it for a few minutes?

Shameless partisan rhetoric and propaganda.

[ECW]

If I vote for Clam Chowder [which I don't like] my vote doesn't matter, if I vote for KFC [which I don't like], my vote doesn't matter.

This explains a whole lot...

:lmao:

[PatrickHenry]

The food analogy is stupid.

A better analogy is poison.

Some of you folks want strychnine, others want arsenic...

I am voting for chips and salsa instead.

[AlanC]

The food analogy is stupid.

A better analogy is poison.

Some of you folks want strychnine, others want arsenic...

I am voting for chips and salsa instead.

I hope you enjoy your strychnine or arsenic, whatever the others decide you are going to get then.

[Deadshot]

Deadshot, John McCain has as much chance of winning Massachusetts as Bob Barr, let's not kid ourselves.

Your example has absolutely no relevance with regard to my situation.

A more realistic example:
11 of us our going out for lunch:
9 vote for Clam Chowder
1 votes for KFC
If I vote for Clam Chowder [which I don't like] my vote doesn't matter, if I vote for KFC [which I don't like], my vote doesn't matter. If I vote for pizza, which is my preference, my vote doesn't matter.

So I'll say it again, my vote is not wasted. It's not my opinion to make myself feel better about voting for Dr. Paul, it's a fact. If I vote for Obama [assuming he's the nominee], Obama wins, if I vote for McCain, Obama wins, if I vote for Paul, Obama wins...If I vote for Deadshot, Obama wins.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

So alright, Deadshot, who should I vote for, if not Ron Paul ?

-NC

OK, I'm a little confused here, NC. You state "If I vote for Clam Chowder [which I don't like] my vote doesn't matter, if I vote for KFC [which I don't like], my vote doesn't matter. If I vote for pizza, which is my preference, [B]my vote doesn't matter."

So you admit that your vote does not matter if you vote for "pizza" in your example. So you admit voting for a third party candidate does not matter. In the first two examples of Clam Chowder and KFC your vote does matter because you do not know, until the end, who voted for what. You only knew that those two choices were the most popular.

NC, they talked to Nader voters after the 2000 elections in Ohio and Florida. The grand majority of them stated that if they were forced to pick between Gore and Bush they would have voted for Gore. Therefor, they wasted their vote on someone who COULD NOT win. If they were to have voted for the candidate that they hated the least we would have had Gore as the POTUS in 2000, not the Hell that has been Bush!

So pick whomever you hate less, McCain or Obama. Vote for someone who actually has a chance to win and make your vote count!

...and Patrick, AlanC is correct. If there was a valid third party candidate I would probably be interested, but there isn't. Our system is against it right now, and for THIS election it's too late to change. There are things about Obama that I don't like. Ask AlanC and you'll probably find out there are things about McCain that he doesn't like. But those two choices are the CLOSEST to our position that have a CHANCE to win! Barr, Paul, Nader and other have no chance. A vote for them is a wasted vote.

If "chips and salsa" were a choice, I'd take it. Keeping with your analogy, the two poisons are our only choices, I'm going to pick the one I like in the hopes of getting the better of the two. You and NC are going to waste your votes and something that will NEVER COME TO PASS!

[Buck Laser]

The food analogy is stupid.

A better analogy is poison.

Some of you folks want strychnine, others want arsenic...

I am voting for chips and salsa instead.
PH, arsenic saved my life three years ago. It was the chemotherapy they used to treat my leukemia. So there is a choice.

[NortheastCynic]

So you admit that your vote does not matter if you vote for "pizza" in your example. So you admit voting for a third party candidate does not matter. In the first two examples of Clam Chowder and KFC your vote does matter because you do not know, until the end, who voted for what. You only knew that those two choices were the most popular.Yes, I do know who is going to win, MA, and so do you and everyone else who knows anything about American electoral politics. Barrack Obama will win Massachusetts. Period, end of discussion. If I vote for Barrack Obama, he will win Massachusetts. If I vote for John McCain, Barrack Obama will win Massachusetts and if I vote my conscience [which I will], Barrack Obama will win Massachusetts. What I've admitted [and made it very clear] is that my vote doesn't matter NO MATTER WHO I VOTE FOR here in Massachusetts. It has nothing to do with third vs. major party, my vote in this state is irrelevant no. matter. who. I .vote. for. That is the nature of Massachusetts.

So pick whomever you hate less, McCain or Obama. Vote for someone who actually has a chance to win and make your vote count!I don't hate Obama less than McCain and I don't hate McCain less than Obama...So there goes that theory. And I'll say it again, my vote doesn't count in MA regardless.

Again, I will not endorse the future screw-ups of either McCain or Obama. Couple that with the FACT that the Democratic candidate WILL win MA [as in, there is a 100% chance of that happening and a 0% chance of anything else happening], my vote is no more a waste than any other vote in my state.

-NC

[Muser]

The food analogy is stupid.

A better analogy is poison.

Some of you folks want strychnine, others want arsenic...

I am voting for chips and salsa instead.

And the other option: to not vote for anything at all.

I'm with Os and NEC on this one. The last time I didn't vote my true conscience, GWB won and we all know how that turned out.

The election process is a farce, anyway. Just because you can vote for your favorite clown doesn’t mean it changes who owns the circus.

[Deadshot]

my vote is no more a waste than any other vote in my state.
-NC


BULLSHIT!!!!

NC, you might be right about a Blue state like MA. I have proven that you were not right in OH or FL in 2000. In swing states like mine, MO, and others like OH, FL, LA, IN, NM and others EVERY vote does count. If you lived in Florida in 2000 your vote counted for a lot. Bush had 2,912,790, he beat Gore by 727 votes! Nader had 97,421, if just half of those votes go to Gore he wins by a LANDSLIDE!!!! 3027 people voted for "other"!!!!

Our country has changed so much because people threw away their votes on candidates that had no chance of winning it's not funny.

Maybe your right about a Blue state that the Dems win solidly by a 60%+ margin, but in other states it simply is not true.

[NortheastCynic]

Deadshot, I've been talking about my personal example the whole time. THE WHOLE TIME. I don't live in Ohio, I don't live in Florida, I don't live in a battleground state. I live in Mass-a-fucking-chusetts and that state will be won by the Democrats, easily. So, you agree that no matter which candidate I vote for, a Democrat will win the state?

If you lived in Florida in 2000 your vote counted for a lot. Bush had 2,912,790, he beat Gore by 727 votes! Nader had 97,421, if just half of those votes go to Gore he wins by a LANDSLIDE!!!! 3027 people voted for "other"!!!! Neither you nor I know how good or bad a President Gore would have been. If I lived in Florida in the year 2000 [when I was 14 years old] I would have voted for George Bush because I was a socially conservative 'Republican' back then. If I lived in a battleground state this year, I would be voting third party. This is because, as I've said, I think three times now, I will not endorse the future disastrous policy decisions of either McCain or Obama. How do you think the people in Florida who voted for Bush because voting for Pat Robertson was a 'waste' feel right now? You think they feel good about being partially responsible for Bush?

I won't do it. I will not endorse what Obama and McCain will do to this country, and in four years, I will point out the monumental mistakes either have made and proudly say that I voted for Ron Paul.

This theory of 'wasting a vote' is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If all the people who want to vote Third Pary did, we'd have third party Senators by now. But that would be REAL change, and Americans, especially major party members and officials don't want that.

Maybe your right about a Blue state that the Dems win solidly by a 60%+ margin, but in other states it simply is not true.Of [i]course I'm right about MA. That was, up until this post, all I was talking about. But again, I'd vote for Ron Paul no matter where I live.

-NC

[Deadshot]

NC, you are speaking for yourself, and I'm responding to you as such. Vote for a third party ANYWHERE and you waste your vote. Plain and simple.

Show me an example in the past 100 years where a third party candidate won the Presidency or came within 25% points of winning the POTUS then I'll agree with your decision.

Until then, you are simply throwing away your vote.

As to the two candidates now running there is a difference among them. If you do not wish to see it that's your affair. But a vote for McCain is voting for Bush Jr. and more of the same. A vote for Obama is a vote for change. A vote for anyone else is wasted.

[NortheastCynic]

Vote for a third party ANYWHERE and you waste your vote. Plain and simple. We just determined that a vote for anyone in my state is a 'waste' because Democrats will win no matter whom I vote for. My vote is no more of a waste than any other vote in my state.

It's interesting that you aren't responding to a very important [and often repeated] part of my argument.

You completely ignored this:
This is because, as I've said, I think three times now, I will not endorse the future disastrous policy decisions of either McCain or Obama. How do you think the people in Florida who voted for Bush because voting for Pat Robertson was a 'waste' feel right now? You think they feel good about being partially responsible for Bush?

I won't do it. I will not endorse what Obama and McCain will do to this country, and in four years, I will point out the monumental mistakes either have made and proudly say that I voted for Ron Paul. I take voting too seriously to vote for the lesser of two evils [which doesn't exist this election]. Voting is an endorsement of the future acts of someone. I will not be responsible for what Obama or McCain do to my country.

how me an example in the past 100 years where a third party candidate won the Presidency or came within 25% points of winning the POTUS then I'll agree with your decision.Okay. In the election of 1912, Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party gained 27.4% of the popular vote, Woodrow Willson won 41.8% of the popular vote. This means that Roosevelt's third party came within 14.4% of winning the POTUS.
Ooops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1912)

So I guess you agree with my decision then, eh...After all, that's what you said.

As to the two candidates now running there is a difference among them. If you do not wish to see it that's your affair. But a vote for McCain is voting for Bush Jr. and more of the same. A vote for Obama is a vote for change. A vote for anyone else is wasted.Thank you for the DNC Talking Point's Guide to Election 2008, Deadshot, but I''ll draw my own conclusions, thank you. McCain will continue a disasterous foreign policy while appointing some decent judges and guiding a social policy which I will agree with about 30% of the time. Obama will have a decent foreign policy, appoint God-awful judges and guide a social policy I agree with about 30% of the time. Neither will get my vote for President.

But this shouldn't be a problem now, since a 3rd Party candidate came with 14% of winning the POTUS, you now agree with my decision to vote 3rd Party.:thumbsup:

-NC

[Deadshot]

I take voting too seriously to vote for the lesser of two evils [which doesn't exist this election]. Voting is an endorsement of the future acts of someone. I will not be responsible for what Obama or McCain do to my country.

That's wonderful that you take the moral high ground like that. You can then proudly say "I didn't vote for Obama. I didn't vote for McCain. I voted for Flintstone." You can stand proud knowing that you didn't advocate the 'lesser of two evils' but instead advocated someone who was irrelavant. Going back to our earlier food example if the votes are 7 for Clam Chowder, 2 for KFC and you vote for Vegitarian you'll be known as someone who sticks to his principles, but also as someone that would be contrarian no matter what.

So embrace those principles and the candidate who will never be able to serve your principles. The rest of us will be standing by our candidates pushing for actual change.


Okay. In the election of 1912, Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party gained 27.4% of the popular vote, Woodrow Willson won 41.8% of the popular vote. This means that Roosevelt's third party came within 14.4% of winning the POTUS.
Ooops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1912)

Good call and find. Now investigate and see just what happened to the GOP after that election.


So I guess you agree with my decision then, eh...After all, that's what you said.

Thank you for the DNC Talking Point's Guide to Election 2008, Deadshot, but I''ll draw my own conclusions, thank you. McCain will continue a disasterous foreign policy while appointing some decent judges and guiding a social policy which I will agree with about 30% of the time. Obama will have a decent foreign policy, appoint God-awful judges and guide a social policy I agree with about 30% of the time. Neither will get my vote for President.

But this shouldn't be a problem now, since a 3rd Party candidate came with 14% of winning the POTUS, you now agree with my decision to vote 3rd Party.:thumbsup:

-NC

Nah, you're still making a bad decision. Teddy Roosevelt, a former POTUS, who was locked out by the GOP hence his need to run for a third party is not what's happening today.

[NortheastCynic]

That's wonderful that you take the moral high ground like that. You can then proudly say "I didn't vote for Obama. I didn't vote for McCain. I voted for Flintstone." You can stand proud knowing that you didn't advocate the 'lesser of two evils' but instead advocated someone who was irrelavant. Irrelevant > Awful President

So embrace those principles and the candidate who will never be able to serve your principles. The rest of us will be standing by our candidates pushing for actual change. Now, when you say the rest of us, you mean Democrats, right? After all, Democrats are the one's who want change. :rolleyes: Americans don't want change. They want the war to end, gas prices to go down and the real estate crisis to end. Maybe universal healthcare. But by and large, Americans can't handle change. Obama, God bless him, has convinced the electorate that what they want is huge change and even more impressively, has convinced them that he will bring substantial change. He won't and neither will McCain. But his potential Presidency will be good for a few laughs.

Nah, you're still making a bad decision. Teddy Roosevelt, a former POTUS, who was locked out by the GOP hence his need to run for a third party is not what's happening today.So first you say that if I produce a third party candidate who came within 25% of the Presidency, you'd concede...I do so and you don't. :lmao:

Oy.

-NC

[Alonzo]

Neither you nor I know how good or bad a President Gore would have been. If I lived in Florida in the year 2000 [when I was 14 years old] I would have voted for George Bush because I was a socially conservative 'Republican' [in as much as a 14 year old can be a Republican] back then. If I lived in a battleground state this year, I would be voting third party. This is because, as I've said, I think three times now, I will not endorse the future disastrous policy decisions of either McCain or Obama. How do you think the people in Florida who voted for Bush because voting for Pat Robertson was a 'waste' feel right now? You think they feel good about being partially responsible for Bush?

And you think Gore would be equally as bad as Bush? What's the difference between the guy who sits home and the guy who voted Nader? You technically act different, but the result is the same.

Actually, considering Nader is attempting yet another run, it just encourages that train wreck of a man.

What people "feel" about their vote is irrelevant. Refusing to vote for the better of the two realistic options is the political equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. "Don't blame me I didn't participate", even though you took a course of action that increased the risk of the worst being elected.

[NortheastCynic]

What people "feel" about their vote is irrelevant. Refusing to vote for the better of the two realistic options is the political equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. "Don't blame me I didn't participate", even though you took a course of action that increased the risk of the worst being elected.Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. If I didn't take voting seriously I wouldn't vote. But because I do, I do vote. And because I take voting seriously, I will NOT vote for someone who will do serious damage to my country. Obama and McCain will. Let's look at the other side of the coin, Zo. Again, there are sure people in Florida who voted for Bush because Pat Buchannan wasn't a viable candidate. What do they have to say for themselves now? "Uh...sorry about one of the worst President's ever." Not me. You can label it 'sticking my head in the sand', I really don't care. What I call it is refusing to knowingly and willingly do harm to my country.

-NC

[Alonzo]

Okay. In the election of 1912, Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Party gained 27.4% of the popular vote, Woodrow Willson won 41.8% of the popular vote. This means that Roosevelt's third party came within 14.4% of winning the POTUS.

Teddy Roosevelt, not the bull moose (progressive) party, polled at 27%. Nader and Paul are not Teddy Roosevelt.

[Osborn F. Enready]

The problem is Alonzo.... YOU PEOPLE (republicans and democrats) only consider YOUR OWN PARTIES realistic options, when they are BY FAR the most corrupt, most fraudulent parties in the political realm.....

If that is what you call "realistic", or "valid", is it any wonder both parties are sinking like a stone, or that congress's approval rating equals the POS Presidents approval ratings?

There is a "realistic" time to abandon a sinking ship if self-preservation is the goal, and that time is now.

[NortheastCynic]

Teddy Roosevelt was a member of the Progressive Party. Teddy Roosevelt was a third party Presidential candidate who came within 14.4% of winning the Presidency.

The above two sentences are both facts.

-NC

[Deadshot]

And you think Gore would be equally as bad as Bush? What's the difference between the guy who sits home and the guy who voted Nader? You technically act different, but the result is the same.

Actually, considering Nader is attempting yet another run, it just encourages that train wreck of a man.

What people "feel" about their vote is irrelevant. Refusing to vote for the better of the two realistic options is the political equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. "Don't blame me I didn't participate", even though you took a course of action that increased the risk of the worst being elected.

:clapper: Well put! :clapper:

NC, you want to speak of the moral high ground, as you showed above it's better to be irrelavent then wrong, but that's not right. At least if your wrong you actually made a decision that mattered, it was just wrong or you just lost. "Aiming" for irrelavence is really a cop out and kinda sad.

Boogy and I do not agree on much of anything, but I do respect the fact that he stands up for his beliefs. Your philosophy is to simply stand there and bitch once one side or the other simply makes a mistake. Showing your wisdom for not doing anything until it's time to lay th blame.

It's also a fact that TR ran as as the third party because the GOP locked him out.

[NortheastCynic]

It's incredible Osborn, absolutely astounding the level of bullshit present.

Democrat: You should only vote for two major parties because voting for all other parties is a 'waste'. You should vote for a Democrat because the Republicans suck.

Therefore my only real choice is the Democrats.

Republican: You should only vote for two major parties because voting for all other parties is a 'waste'. You should vote for a Republican because the Democrats suck.

Therefore my only real choice is the Republicans.

It boggles the mind.

-NC

[Alonzo]

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. If I didn't take voting seriously I wouldn't vote. But because I do, I do vote. And because I take voting seriously, I will NOT vote for someone who will do serious damage to my country. Obama and McCain will. Let's look at the other side of the coin, Zo. Again, there are sure people in Florida who voted for Bush because Pat Buchannan wasn't a viable candidate. What do they have to say for themselves now? "Uh...sorry about one of the worst President's ever." Not me. You can label it 'sticking my head in the sand', I really don't care.

They made a choice. Your argument works just as well for those who didn't vote at all. Who did you think feels greater regret, the Nader or Bush voters? Considering Bush was re-elected, and Nader has become a curse word to liberals, I think that's an easy question.

What I call it is refusing to knowingly and willingly do harm to my country.

-NC

Refusing to vote Gore was a rousing success for that strategy, wasn't it?

[Alonzo]

Teddy Roosevelt was a member of the Progressive Party. Teddy Roosevelt was a third party Presidential candidate who came within 14.4% of winning the Presidency.

The above two sentences are both facts.

-NC

NEC, what has happened to the reform party since Perot stopped running?

The party Roosevelt ran on, assuming it wasn't as a Republican or Democrat, was irrelevant. He would have polled at 27% if he had run on the Fluffy Bunny Party.

[NortheastCynic]

NC, you want to speak of the moral high ground, as you showed above it's better to be irrelavent then wrong, but that's not right. At least if your wrong you actually made a decision that mattered, it was just wrong or you just lost. I have not spoken of moral high ground. If you believe that Obama would be a great President, then vote for him. Same with McCain. I'm not pretending to be better than people who vote for a candidate they want to vote for. What I'm saying is that telling me to vote for someone I don't want to be President is a pointless [to say nothing of stupid] endeavor. As for the rest of this quote. Gee golly, a decision that mattered. Here's a decision that mattered: 4,000 Americans dead, the economy sucks, housing market = dead, oil = pricey. Hey GOP, thanks for making your decision matter.:madlaugh:

"Aiming" for irrelavence is really a cop out and kinda sad. Aiming for irrelevance? Who said I want the LP to continue to be irrelevant? No one. Nice try. I want this country to change and I want the LP to be elected. Simply because they won't be now does not mean that I will assume the fetal position and give up. THAT would be sad.

Your philosophy is to simply stand there and bitch once one side or the other simply makes a mistake.You clearly know nothing about my philosophy.

Showing your wisdom for not doing anything until it's time to lay th blame.You clearly don't know anything about my level of political activism.

You're doing a lot of talking about things you know nothing about. Namely, me.

Doing nothing. Bull-shit. Let me tell you about the nothing I'm doing. I'm writing letters to State Reps, Congressmen and State senators weekly. I'm volunteering at campaigns [Democrats and Republicans] who's candidates I believe are pro-liberty. I'm actively supporting pro-business Democrats and socially liberal Republicans. I'm dedicating time out of my schedule to make pragmatic steps toward CHANGE. Libertarian change. So don't lecture me about my inactivity and bitching, Deadshot, because you have not a God damn clue as to what your talking about.

It's also a fact that TR ran as as the third party because the GOP locked him out.Yet it is. Quick yes or no question: Did Teddy Roosevelt, running as a member of a third party, come within 25% or less of winning the Presidency?

Refusing to vote Gore was a rousing success for that strategy, wasn't it?You say that as if Gore wouldn't have harmed the country. I know, 'would he have been as bad as Bush'. I don't know and neither do you. It's easy to criticize in hindsight, if Bush was the best President in history we'd be saying thank God for Nader.

-NC

[Elrathin]

Refusing to vote is stupid and accomplishes nothing. There is no other way to put it.

If you don't like any of the candidates, write one in for but crying out loud VOTE. I don't understand why more people in this country do not vote. It just boggles the mind.

[NortheastCynic]

Amen, El. Amen. Voting is your duty. Voting for a major party candidate, however, is not.

-NC

[Alonzo]

I know, 'would he have been as bad as Bush'. I don't know and neither do you. It's easy to criticize in hindsight, if Bush was the best President in history we'd be saying thank God for Nader.


Well, as you point out:

Here's a decision that mattered: 4,000 Americans dead, the economy sucks, housing market = dead, oil = pricey. Hey GOP, thanks for making your decision matter.

No, thank you Nader voters. The GOP wouldn't have been in that position without you guys.

[NortheastCynic]

You've taken those quotes completely out of context, Zo. There's no need for me to respond to two quotes of mine that have absolutely no connection to each other.

-NC

[bishop]

i've tended to believe that there are people who don't vote because they feel alienated from the system - rather than uninterested and lazy. here in MA, for example, the electoral vote is all but guaranteed to go to a democratic candidate - so it's arguable that there's little motivation to vote for a non-democrat candidate.

what would be great is if, on every ballot, people were given a choice to vote for "none of the above"... it'd be a great way to quantify the legitimicy that the public attributes to our government and "leaders".

[Osborn F. Enready]

NorthEastCynic said:
It's incredible Osborn, absolutely astounding the level of bullshit present.

Democrat: You should only vote for two major parties because voting for all other parties is a 'waste'. You should vote for a Democrat because the Republicans suck.

Therefore my only real choice is the Democrats.

Republican: You should only vote for two major parties because voting for all other parties is a 'waste'. You should vote for a Republican because the Democrats suck.

Therefore my only real choice is the Republicans.

It boggles the mind.

It was designed to boggle the mind.... that is the only tool unreasonable people have to temporarily blind reasonable people.

Sane people know that doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result each time is technically insanity, yet that is the ENTIRE PREMISE of the major parties platforms.... no suprise.... ;)

[Elrathin]

i've tended to believe that there are people who don't vote because they feel alienated from the system - rather than uninterested and lazy. here in MA, for example, the electoral vote is all but guaranteed to go to a democratic candidate - so it's arguable that there's little motivation to vote for a non-democrat candidate.


For president maybe, but there is more on the ballot than just the President and VP right? I understand the frustration some have with the Pres/VP ticket, but there is more at stake than just that.

Hell I would be willing to bet that less than 1% of people that actually vote know about any of the other people up for election besides the Pres/VP.

It really is sad.

[bishop]

You've taken those quotes completely out of context, Zo. There's no need for me to respond to two quotes of mine that have absolutely no connection to each other.

-NC

well, i agree with you 100% - probably because i'm not another one of the two-party, pro-establishment flock of sheep.

all of the problems in this country are attributable to the people elected to power, and the people who chose to vote them into power. both parties are utterly rife with corruption, abuses of power, a sense of entitlement, and that great habit of putting their political interests over those of the people they're supposed to represent. to vote for any establishment candidate, imo, is to contribute to the country's problems.

using nader as an example - according to zo's mentality, having diversity of choice is a bad thing. someone like nader wouldn't exist had the democratic party not have become another imperialist, corporate establishment. but rather than acknowledge the problems of leadership, blame the people who advocate and genuinely support change. that is a dead end mentality as far as i'm concerned.

[Alonzo]

For president maybe, but there is more on the ballot than just the President and VP right? I understand the frustration some have with the Pres/VP ticket, but there is more at stake than just that.

Hell I would be willing to bet that less than 1% of people that actually vote know about any of the other people up for election besides the Pres/VP.

It really is sad.

There is el, but people don't always know them.

The guy who represents my area in the state house is Jim Micelli. He's been a state rep here for decades, he has no ambition to go beyond here it's just what he is. I met him multiple times, and my parents used to run a business and his company (forget if it was law or insurance) was next door. He was a nice guy. Though I changed my view a few years ago, when he became one of the few congressman to vote against same sex marriage. I then looked up his voting record and was amazed. He's pro-life, anti-same-sex marriage, got an A+ from the NRA, mediocre on the environment, low ratings on poverty. Most shockingly of all, considering he's a democrat, the Massachusetts Democratic Party gave him a 0% rating in 2004.

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=4854

The guy is basically a conservative Republican who claims to be a Democrat and gets re-elected because people are familiar with him. I even asked people if they knew any of his positions and no one really did.

Anyway, during the primary I voted for Hillary and voted against Micelli. I left the rest of it blank as I didn't know the other local candidates, and I honestly didn't know Micelli's opponent, I just assume he's probably actually a Democrat.

[Deadshot]

I'm not happy about it, but it is what it is.

We have a two party system for this upcoming election. A third party candidate does not have the money or fixed well of resources nor the ready made support group that the two party systems have. I would LOVE for there to be a legitimate third, fourth, fifth, etc. choices. I would LOVE for our elections to be Bugs 22%, Daffy, 21%, Porky 20%, Foghorn 20%, Tweety 10% and Sam 7%. That would be great! But it's not reality.

Right now, in November of '08, it's not possible for 3rd party to win a National election. If you want that to happen begin to build the grass roots organization to make it happen. It hasn't happened in over 100 years.

If you vote 3rd party, as Zo and I have both proven, you might as well not vote. TODAY there will only be two (2) viable candidates. I am not happy with it, but it is a fact.

Don't throw away your vote.

[bishop]

For president maybe, but there is more on the ballot than just the President and VP right? I understand the frustration some have with the Pres/VP ticket, but there is more at stake than just that.

Hell I would be willing to bet that less than 1% of people that actually vote know about any of the other people up for election besides the Pres/VP.

It really is sad.

sad - to a limited extent imo.

it is normal for candidates of lesser offices to campaign on the same exact platform as the presidential candidate. and since the vast majority of voters sheepishly follow the two-party, lesser of two evils, system - the importance of knowing about those lesser candidates becomes somewhat negligible.

nobody knew much about clinton's or obama's record prior to their election, but since they have been in office, they've voted in near lockstep with the party establishment.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Deadshot, you are basicly saying "your screwed, they screwed you, so you might as well stop fighting them off, just try to enjoy the rape while it lasts".

I don't buy into that lie.

[bishop]

Don't throw away your vote.

throwing away your vote is to vote for someone you don't believe in - or to vote for one candidate to prevent another from getting elected.

[PatrickHenry]

throwing away your vote is to vote for someone you don't believe in - or to vote for one candidate to prevent another from getting elected.That's the ONLY moral position to hold.

It's as if we're all standing on the dock and the hawkers for the cruise are telling us, "Board the Titanic! The Andrea Doria is headed for disaster!"

And, "No! No! The Titanic is headed for disaster! Board the Andrea Doria!"

Crowds of the doomed are swarming aboard.

And some of us are looking around and seeing a small, fast liner and saying, "Hmm...what about this one?"

And the hawkers scream louder, "It's too small! Can't carry enough fuel or people! Board my ship!"

And some of us are thinking..."I saw this movie..."

[Osborn F. Enready]

ROFLMAO at Patricks apropo analogy.... ;)

[Deadshot]

That's the ONLY moral position to hold.

It's as if we're all standing on the dock and the hawkers for the cruise are telling us, "Board the Titanic! The Andrea Doria is headed for disaster!"

And, "No! No! The Titanic is headed for disaster! Board the Andrea Doria!"

Crowds of the doomed are swarming aboard.

And some of us are looking around and seeing a small, fast liner and saying, "Hmm...what about this one?"

And the hawkers scream louder, "It's too small! Can't carry enough fuel or people! Board my ship!"

And some of us are thinking..."I saw this movie..."

Great analogy, but not accurate. Let me bring it in line with the reality of the situation.

Your standing on the docks and the land behind you is crumbling. You MUST board a ship or die. Some board the Titanic, others the Doria, you pick a third choice. The Problem is the third ship cannot disengage from the dock and you are stuck there. You may have boarded the best ship you thought available. I boarded a ship that sailed, yours cannot.

It will either be Obama, Clinton or McCain. It will not be a third party candidate. You, NC, Oz and others have admitted as much.

Let me give you another analogy. I love the Kansas City Royals baseball team. If I went to Vegas right now and bet on the Royals to win it all I'd get great odds because the Royals have no chance. Now were I to bet on the Angels or the Marlins, based on today's standings I'd get poor odds, because they actually have a chance to win. NC had to go back to 1912 and use an example of a former POTUS to show us a third party candidate with a viable chance to win the POTUS, and that person still LOST!

Voting for third party is voting for a loser.

[Osborn F. Enready]

As long as people hold that attitude Deadshot, they will be the part that continues to drag down the political system into violent revolt, since that attitude rules out change.

Is violent revolt really a better way in your opinion?

[PatrickHenry]

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are PROVEN entities.

They have an exclusive game that has brought us to our present doomed course.

I am concerned with options that may allow some of us to survive, while Dems and Reps argue about which doom is preferable.

And try to persuade me to support their choices. Well, I don't.

[Deadshot]

As long as people hold that attitude Deadshot, they will be the part that continues to drag down the political system into violent revolt, since that attitude rules out change.

Is violent revolt really a better way in your opinion?

I don't know about violent revolt, but change is required, yet it must be change before the final moment. The reason a third party is sinking is because there is no third party movement in the country. In 1992 the Conservatives tried it and it propelled Clinton into the White House. In 2000 the Liberals tried it and it propelled Bush into office. Until they actually have a chance a third party is doomed.

Patrick, tell me how you are going to escape the "doom"? If you vote for ANY third party candidate and they lose, which they will, what have you prevented?

[PatrickHenry]

Patrick, tell me how you are going to escape the "doom"? If you vote for ANY third party candidate and they lose, which they will, what have you prevented? I will try to pursuade some of you to avoid the doomed course!

If enough of you can be pursuaded, the course may be reset!

But so many of you say, "No, only the OTHER Party has set a course of disaster."

Listen, no one person can restrain the nation from falling into the abyss we are approaching!

We need to dialog about the ISSUES and to prioritize them.

The primary issue, IMHO, is the size, scope and cost of government.

If you liberals don't agree, you must continue with your course, I suppose, and since I reside in the same nation I must come along for the ride.

But you will hear my voice of alarm and warning as we descend.

I don't see the Democratic Party as any better than the Republican party.

True, there is a different focus. On some issues, one is not as bad as the other. But on the MOST important issue, steadily increasing rule from Washington, they agree! They collude!

How could I support that?

[Deadshot]

You support the lesser of two evils today, I don't see it that way but I'm writing to you on how you see things, and tomorrow you try to fix the problems by fixing the party, or better yet helping to sponser a third party into a political reality instead of a political joke.

Having you scream bloody murder in the back of the bus, while never coming near the steering wheel means nothing and serves no purpose. One must begin to get closer to the wheel if one wants to change the course.

[PatrickHenry]

I think Bob Barr is credible and will support his candidacy.

[bishop]

given the options that the democrats and republicans are providing, barr looks increasingly like the candidate i like the best.

if voting was akin to betting on the roulette wheel, i'd follow the loser "best of the worst" mentality. thankfully it isn't, despite conventional wisdom and practice.

[william the wierd]

The lesser evil mentality of major party voters is simply the embrace of evil. Voting major is like winning at Russian roulette you are still an idiot and fool for being in such a game, you just got lucky. Embrace evil incarnate and vote major party: a great motto.

[AlanC]

given the options that the democrats and republicans are providing, barr looks increasingly like the candidate i like the best.

if voting was akin to betting on the roulette wheel, i'd follow the loser "best of the worst" mentality. thankfully it isn't, despite conventional wisdom and practice.


Voting for the third party of your choice, is more like betting on numbers not even represented on the wheel. But it's your money, bet it on whatever makes you happy.

[Osborn F. Enready]

The people who put forth the lesser of two evils theory just don't get it.....

If you keep being FORCED to vote between two corrupt choices... HOW CAN THE BALLOT BOX BE USED TO CHANGE IT?!?

You are almost defacto saying "its time for revolution" since the ballot won't work.....

[Milton Bradley]

Agreed. But I have to ask the question, why do people waste their vote?


I answer you by asking..., Why you would sanction the status quo, rather than actually use the process for it's intended purpose?


Because that's what your vote is, a sanction to run the government in this obviously unsustainable manor.


they think they are sending a message to someone?

I'm sure they are, but its not the message they want to send and it doesn't go to those they meant it to.


We are using the power we have in the only way we know how.


I ask you the same quetion I asked Deadshot.


How can you sanction this behavior with your vote?

[Milton Bradley]

Hmmm, obviously I'm late to this party.


I didn't notice the thread had grown to seven pages before I got in the mix.


:(

[NortheastCynic]

The people who put forth the lesser of two evils theory just don't get it.....

If you keep being FORCED to vote between two corrupt choices... HOW CAN THE BALLOT BOX BE USED TO CHANGE IT?!?

You are almost defacto saying "its time for revolution" since the ballot won't work.....
Exactly.

To those who believe an American voter should not vote third party: How do you propose we make third parties more viable? How will not voting for them accomplish anything? Parties are only viable if people vote for them. What an absurd catch-22. In order for a party to be viable, people must vote for it in such a way that it has a chance to win an election. In order for the party to be in a position to win an election, people must vote for it. So if I don't vote for it, and no one else does, what have we accomplished.

Zero.

0.

Anti-something.

-NC

[william the wierd]

McBama will make 3rd party advocates of upto 30% of the electorate. Losing homes, retirement funds, jobs and other nice to have stuff to government mismanagement seems to have that effect on a lot of people.