Perpetually being punched in the face is not a solution.

Buying into the false dilemma keeps us in a two party system.

Break my arm. Even the "worst case scenario", Trump winning due to a third party, would be good motivation for Democrats to support a new election system.

Neither party will allow a non "first past the post" system while they have no third party competition. The first and only time I've heard politicians consider adopting an alternative voting systems was when Ross Perot polled high enough to tank the Republican candidate if he ran.

He has to be polling at 15+% and then he gets a podium. I believe he's at 10% or 11% now, so it's a very real possibility with a little exposure like this.

As for third party candidates showing in the big debates, Ross Perot did back in 92, but the rules were different back then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Yeah, I think he'd keep truckin' and run on his own as an independent. I think his ego is big enough. Plus, he'd have a pretty legitimate beef which would solidify his supporters and potentially draw in some more who are displeased with the modern GOP. I think he'd take somewhere between 30%-60% of the republican votes with him all the way to the general election.

That thought made me wonder what other independent or 3rd party candidates have done in presidential elections, and I found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_elections#Presidential

I think he'd be somewhere between Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and Ross Perot in 1992. Roosevelt got nearly 30% of the vote, took 88 electoral votes, and placed 2nd of 6 in the race. Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote, but took no electoral votes and placed 3rd of many.

I think Trump running as a 3rd party could take somewhere between 20%-30% of the popular votes (40%+ of Republican-leaning voters, semi conservatively). It would be hard to match Roosevelt's percentage of electoral votes, but he'd get at least *some*, unlike Perot, because of states with proportional rules about allocating electoral votes. And I think he'd place second, like Roosevelt. In that sense, you could argue that the Republican candidate (whoever that would be) "stole" the election from Trump, rather than vice-versa as would be the GOP's narrative.

--I should note that I'm not an expert about any of this, these are just my thoughts--

About Reid Fleming, I hadn't actually heard of that before -- but I got my handle from a character from a different (web) comic called Red Meat:
Homepage
Milkman Dan comics

Remember Howard Stern's movie "Private Parts"? a quote:
Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes a day. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.
Pig Vomit: How could this be?
Researcher: Answer most commonly given: "I want to see what he'll say next."

Maybe Trump has the same thing going for him. He's crazy enough and ego-inflated enough to serve the "Ross Perot" or "Ralph Nader" role in losing the election for his party.

I'm all in favor of that, as someone who would tend to agree with a lot of the foundation principles of the Republican party, like "small government" and "fiscal conservatism". The problem is that the modern Republican party has exchanged those "foundation principles" with batshit crazy counterparts. It needs to go ahead and implode already to let some measure of sanity back in.

This is happening in Utah as well. It's merely Tea Party members hiding under the guise of The Republican Party and getting in. Since the Republican Party doesn't seem to even care about this, NOW OLD-SCHOOL Republicans are getting forced out of the GOP by these new guys at their OWN CONVENTIONS. Like Cenk said these are ALREADY hard-line Republicans getting booted from even being in their own party's actions, conventions, which ultimately means they cannot get on the ballot unless they turn Independent.

People should be very concerned over this as the Tea Party and their related idiots (which include lots of Ron Paul's buddies and further on buddies of Ross Perot) are getting in wonderfully this way. People just don't like their old politician since there have been hard times, so without looking or really caring our idiotic brothers and sisters across the nation are voting them all in...

Utah, during this last year's session had some wonderful bill's put up by these idiots, like getting rid of the 12th grade (who needs that?, plus we save money!!!)... I'd have to look up the other one, but it was just as stupid--BOTH these bills created a LARGE uproar in Salt Lake City and surrounding areas (it's a far more Democratic area than anywhere else in the state--our lawmakers even "reorganized" our districts due to this fact so that all the Democrats would be stuck in one area and they could setup everywhere else to have a higher Republican base--basically gerrymandering 4 districts that were ALL Democratic before, now one is and the rest aren't...I have no idea how they got away with something so absolutely blatant) and were on national news and T.V., with interviews of the two "R.eally Tea Party" buffoons trying to explain why 12th grade was useless on CNN to Anderson Cooper...

>> ^quantumushroom:

as His Earness would say,


LEAVE ROSS PEROT OUT OF THIS!

More people want me banned than want CP420 back. I was kind of hoping that option would take some votes away from the "No, he shouldn't be let back in" option. It was my Ross Perot if you follow 1980s US politics.

Because I strive to be an honest person, I haven't participated in one of these roasts up till this point. Making false, crass, juvenile claims about people, even for fun, just doesn't sit right with me. However, today the roastee is blankfist and I have absolutely no problems making true, crass, juvenile claims.

Speaking of making things up, blankfist claims he owns a signed copy of Amazing Fantasy #15. For those not in the know, this is the first appearance of Spider-Man and is worth a rather hefty $50,000. Now blankfist, kids of low self-esteem often make up stories to impress people with, but you've got to keep those stories believable if you expect them to work. Also, bragging about comics isn't likely to work on girls... this is why you're not allowed on the premises of elementary schools nationwide.

When you think about it, as a web dev, blankfist is really not unlike the <blink> tag: He serves no real purpose and anyone with a modicum of intelligence detests him and the people who associate with him.

Before blankfist met his GF, she used to spend her weekends with Ryan Leslie and Sacha Baron Cohen, something she's thinking she should have stuck with since blankfist prefers cranking it to Ross Perot Ron Paul's photo instead of being intimate with her. She confessed he recently woke her up in the middle of the night yelling "The Revolution is coming, Ron! Yeah, baby! The Revolution!" from the bathroom. She said it would probably be too awkward to go back to Cohen after the Ron Paul stunt in Bruno, though.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^imstellar28:
i've seen more spines in jellyfish, noam.

either of you two (gwiz, johnald) care to explain why you downvoted this? am i not allowed to state facts lyrically or was this a strictly biological criticism?
choosing the lesser of two evils is undeniably cowardly. here is an explicit example which proves this: someone walks up to you with a gun and says "i'm going to kill your wife or your son, make a choice" what would you call the person who complies and picks either? a coward? what do you call the person who refuses to make a choice, and instead trys to tackle the gunmen? brave? exactly. please try to argue otherwise


Your logical experiment assumes success where the historical record shows failure.

The last two third party candidates, Nader and Ross Perot, simply ruined it for their party, allowing Bill Clinton to take the presidency from the Republicans, and allowing Bush to take the presidency from the Democrats.

Bravado is tempting, but not always rational.

The problem with most third parties is how they are viewed; most are seen as a one-issue party.

Take your pick...

The Green Party focuses on environmental issues.
The Reform Party focused on economic issues.
The Constitution Party focuses on social issues.
The Libertarian Party focuses on the minimization of government.
etc.

In the public's eye, the Democratic and Republican Party can't be nailed down to one particular issue - they have a well-known stance on a broad range of social, economic, civil, and foreign policy issues. This is not to say that these third parties don't hold a stance on such issues, they just don't focus on them, so they seem like a one-issue party. A single issue will never appeal to the entire population (especially a single stance on one issue), hence they remain largely unpopular.

Until a third party can become known for a strong position on multiple issues and run on those positions, they will remain unpopular.

It's really a catch 22.

Third parties are usually formed by voters who have an extreme view on a certain topic ("extreme" being a view not held by the Democratic or Republican party, since those two have the "slightly left" and "slightly right" center positions pretty much nailed). Take a look at the history of third parties in the USA - they're mostly either extremely liberal or extremely conservative; the ones that are center were mostly formed by Ross Perot in the 90's, and based on economic principles. An extreme view, by definition, is only going to be found in a minority of the population.

Therefore, until common sentiment changes (and it does...eventually...take a look at the civil rights movement or the women's suffrage movement) and public opinion sways, the Dems or the Reps will remain in power. However, even when sentiment sways it will be hard to establish a third party, as one of these major parties will just adopt the new changing sentiment and disregard their old stance, evolving with the sentiment of the people.

... so, wait, he didn't vote for the G.I. Bill, that he's taking credit for helping modify, for what reason? he kinda skipped that part.


reminded me of Ross Perot; "sir, sir, can I finish, can I finish, sir, thank you, ahem ... okay, you can talk now."

what would ron paul change, and more importantly HOW would he do it?

the answers to these questions is likely to be about as substantive as obama's ideas.

i hope he runs. we could use another ross perot, i was satisfied with what happened last time.

Do you remember the Colbert music video thing that had almost an identical music video?? Almost exactly the same thing.

This is crazier than any Ross Perot ranting!

Not as Elmer Fuddish as Perot was...Hi, I'm Ross Perot...millionaire.I own a mansion, and a yacht.

lol, O'Reilly owned that little twerp with no effort, Ron Paul is the new Ross Perot