And the candiates are...

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by archer_007
But limiting the candiates isnt in the spirit of democracy If anything, the system should be changed to give third parties more importance.

How? Every approach I ever saw amounted to a handout for some special interest group.

J

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
How? Every approach I ever saw amounted to a handout for some special interest group.
J

Making the system more open to third party candiates. Of course, this will never happen, as the Reps and Dems are too greedy to do it.

 

[Greadius]

And it would be pointless. The President as is recieves a small enough amount of voter support at 49%, imagine if the winning candidate took 15%... as he is likely to do in the primary election.

The nature of regional elections and plurality winning will always favor two parties.

 

[Ohwell]

Originally posted by Greadius
If telling you I support Graham improves your chances of supporting him, I am a major Graham backer. If telling you I support Graham makes you less likely to support him, I have nothing to do with the man.

I like Graham. He's a good candidate, but I don't think he'll win the primary. The Democrats need to move away from centrists, and Graham is rather centrist leaning.

 

[Greadius]

Me away from centrist? Back to the good old days of Mondale and Dukakis! Maybe we can carry two states this time around!

Give me one example where moving away from the center has benefited the Democrats in the past 50 years in National politics and I'll listen to the point...

 

[Ohwell]

You're a Democrat?

Can't give you any examples. But the Democrats have two options:

- Endorse the centrist runner, hoping to grab some centrist Republicans.
- Endorse the more leftist runner, grabbing some third party liberals who think the Democrats aren't different enough from the Republicans.

I can't say either is better than the other. Whichever will help us win, I'm for it.

 

[Greadius]

American political spectrum is shaped like a bell curve. We're not interested in centrist Republicans as much as the plethora of independants that occupy the center and only vote every four years on limited information. They're the difference between the 30% turnouts for midterms and 50% for Presidential, and they always decide the vote.

3rd party liberals don't want to tell the difference between Democrats & Republicans. For all 2-3% of them its not worth the major sacrifice in the middle of the curve.

 

[Stapel]

No Gore?
No Clinton?

Why not?

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Stapel
No Gore?
No Clinton?

Why not?

I don't know...sheer luck? Mercy of the Gods?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Stapel
No Gore?
No Clinton?

Why not?

Gore decided not to seek the nomination some months ago, and Clinton is restricted from seeking a 3rd term by the Constitution (I think you meant Bill).

 

[Kinniken]

Originally posted by Greadius
Gore decided not to seek the nomination some months ago, and Clinton is restricted from seeking a 3rd term by the Constitution (I think you meant Bill).

Even non-consecutive terms? I thought the US limit was two straight terms...

In any case it's a good idea that a Clinton is not present... Having a succession order of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton might be a bit much

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Kinniken

In any case it's a good idea that a Clinton is not present... Having a succession order of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton might be a bit much

Of course that may be the case if Bush wins this time, and then Hillary wins in 08.