US 3rd party win %?

[NickyJ]

The Constitution Party meanwhile, nominated former US Rep Virgil Goode (R-VA). Goode is a bit of a creep, but his party may be gaining in respectability. Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party in 2008, for what it's worth.

Goode a creep? Heck, no. He was one of the best representatives in my state. He's a great guy.

 

[Cutlass]

Goode a creep? Heck, no. He was one of the best representatives in my state. He's a great guy.

When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.

He's a bigot. And he has no place in American politics with views like that.

 

[NickyJ]

Got a source, or are you going to throw words into a quote box and say that's it?

 

[jtb1127]

This is likely part of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an_oath_controversy_of_the_110th_United_States_Congress

 

[Bootstoots]

The problem with Citizen's United is that the big money will still go where it can buy influence. So Some candidates may see windfalls, but only to the point where the donors think that they will accomplish their overall goals to get there. With Johnson there's no reason to assume big money goals will be met. With the Greens, even much less so.

What about eccentric billionaires and the like? Is there a way that rich individuals driven by ideology rather than financial self-interest could funnel money into a third-party candidate?

 

[Ayatollah So]

A Johnson vote could be the best way to voice those objections.

Exactly - Tea Party types can express their dissatisfaction with RINO Romney by voting Libertarian or Constitution. Lefties like me can express dissatisfaction with DINO Obama by voting Green. Let's hope they get the message. Prediction: 3-5%.

 

[Arakhor]

(Banning it at the Federal level isn't happening in the real world)

That way you go on about the Holy Tenth Amendment, a consistent response would be to say that it would be illegal to have a federal abortion ban, but from what I've seen, "strict constitutionalists" tend to believe that the US Constitution supports their ideas and opposes the stuff they do too.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That way you go on about the Holy Tenth Amendment, a consistent response would be to say that it would be illegal to have a federal abortion ban, but from what I've seen, "strict constitutionalists" tend to believe that the US Constitution supports their ideas and opposes the stuff they do too.

I'll be honest... this is one particular case I'd theoretically be OK with the constitution being left by the wayside, although doing so would allow everyone else to do so too.

However, it would be absolutely illegal for the Federal Government to ban abortion. In fact, its not really legal for the Federal Government to ban murder either. You are correct there.

This might be sort of off-topic, but hey, it's the Tavern.

He supports gay marriage too, government "should not impose its values upon marriage" and "should protect the rights of couples to engage in civil unions if they wish, as well as the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs." He also said "denying those rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple".
That's from the link you gave. I've seen you have enough debates about this issue (and abortion) for me to think that you do in fact have serious reservations about it.

I have far more disagreements with Mitt Romney. Heck, I have more disagreements with Rick Santorum, and I'd support him (Santorum) over Obama without a second thought.

You are correct about me that I'm not a fan of gay marriage. However, that's a state issue, and pretty much has almost no impact when it comes to who I would support for Commander in Chief.

I like Gary Johnson's generally leaning both socially and fiscally libertarian, something we don't get very often.

Between him and Ron Paul, I would have taken Paul, but that option's done. Gary Johnson is substantially better than Romney or Obama, its not even close.

 

[GoodGame]

Will all three combine to take 7% of the share? 10%? Will either Obama or Romney finish 3rd anywhere? What may make a 3rd party surge more or less likely?

For a baseline, 3rd parties won a little less than 3% in 2008.

No. No. No. And probably only as a GOP anti-Romney protest this time; so I'd say No.

Figure that Perot got 18% and 7% by spending tons of money and making a lot of noise in the mainstream media. He also took a stance on issues that was fairly middle of the road between the GOP and the Dems. I don't see any of those 3rd parties's which represent relatively fringe interests, doing any of that. I haven't heard anything "tea party" in like how long...over 12 months.

 

[jtb1127]

You are correct about me that I'm not a fan of gay marriage. However, that's a state issue, and pretty much has almost no impact when it comes to who I would support for Commander in Chief.

@anyone who cares: this isn't an argument about "Dommy explain[ing] his personal political ideology" so please don't get upset.

@Ghostwriter:No, it isn't a state issue and you can't just sweep away all civil rights issues by saying "let the states decide". For a constitutionalist, I would think think that the fourteenth amendment should make clear to you that matters such as this one are issues for the national government due to the incorporation doctrine. The ninth amendment says that rights that aren't specifically enumerated are guaranteed and the fourteenth makes it a federal duty to protect that. If you don't think marriage is a right, then that's a different issue and I'd rather not repeat the gay marriage debate for the "1854574th time". Ultimately, its status should be determined at a national level because of these things.

 

[Cutlass]

What about eccentric billionaires and the like? Is there a way that rich individuals driven by ideology rather than financial self-interest could funnel money into a third-party candidate?

Sure. There are a few. But unless they're willing to donate at least 10s of millions, then you still need large numbers of them feeling the same. Romney has 1000s of really big money supporters donating to his cause.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Sure. There are a few. But unless they're willing to donate at least 10s of millions, then you still need large numbers of them feeling the same. Romney has 1000s of really big money supporters donating to his cause.

Hey, if you've got billions, why not?

(Not saying I support the status quo on how donations and such work... I definitely think a fairer system should exist, though I don't know what it is.)

 

[DroopyTofu]

Fairer System: Everyone running gets a the same amount of money from the government and may accept no donations. All donations are sent to the "communal pot" and is split between candidates to ease the amount of money the government has to contribute. No candidate can have any more than any other, however, if they spend less than their amount the cash they had available but did not use is saved for the next race. It is up to the candidates to decide how to spend this money. This system gurantees that all are represented equally and would decrease the power of private lobbyists.

EDIT: This would make third party candidates much more visible and likely to suceed.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Fairer System: Everyone running gets a the same amount of money from the government and may accept no donations. All donations are sent to the "communal pot" and is split between candidates to ease the amount of money the government has to contribute. No candidate can have any more than any other, however, if they spend less than their amount the cash they had available but did not use is saved for the next race. It is up to the candidates to decide how to spend this money. This system gurantees that all are represented equally and would decrease the power of private lobbyists.

EDIT: This would make third party candidates much more visible and likely to suceed.

I like this idea, except for the inevitable fact that people could simply say they're campaining, get free money, and then drop-out/don't spend it. I'd recommend instead having a cap amount of money that could be received by the candidate from the government, but if they spend less, they just spend less, and they don't ever get the money back.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If the presidential vote in NM is safely democratic, I'd vote for Johnson.

 

[downtown]

First, I don't really care what people think about the actual political views of the 3rd party candidates, unless we're discussing them tactically. I don't care how they fit in with your political views. That's not what I asked, so don't spam the thread.

Augury brings up a good point about debate coverage...it'll be interesting to see if Johnson can get on TV facing any of the candidates at all. I think it will be difficult for them to raise money, especially since Ron Paul is in some weird alliance with Mitt Romney.


I feel like Johnson or Goode could prob carry 2% in their own state though (Barr is actually from Utah, a state with exactly zero Barr voters)...which may be enough to swing either NM or VA. I don't think anybody is carrying 10% anywhere, but I think a combined national voter share of a little north of 5 is possible, depending on what kind of campaign Goode runs.

 

[NickyJ]

Augury brings up a good point about debate coverage...it'll be interesting to see if Johnson can get on TV facing any of the candidates at all. I think it will be difficult for them to raise money, especially since Ron Paul is in some weird alliance with Mitt Romney.

I doubt he'll make it. If he couldn't make it to party debates, then I seriously doubt he could make it in the full election.

I feel like Johnson or Goode could prob carry 2% in their own state though (Barr is actually from Utah, a state with exactly zero Barr voters)...which may be enough to swing either NM or VA. I don't think anybody is carrying 10% anywhere, but I think a combined national voter share of a little north of 5 is possible, depending on what kind of campaign Goode runs.

Meh, I think Goode is really just an extremely local name. I doubt he'd really be able to get many votes. Few people really take third party nominees seriously, no matter where they come from, and I doubt that would change for Goode.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

especially since Ron Paul is in some weird alliance with Mitt Romney.

What alliance? I've heard some talk about it, but the whole idea makes no sense. I have never seen any actual evidence to support it.

 

[downtown]

I doubt he'll make it. If he couldn't make it to party debates, then I seriously doubt he could make it in the full election.

It's a different pool of voters to draw from. I think he'd need to grab around 3-5% in a few national polls to qualify for a debate. Without having to compete against Ron Paul, I think that is *possible*, (although maybe not super likely).

Meh, I think Goode is really just an extremely local name. I doubt he'd really be able to get many votes. Few people really take third party nominees seriously, no matter where they come from, and I doubt that would change for Goode.

Yeah, I don't think Goode pulls more than 1% anywhere outside of Virgina, unless there are some southern states where he gets ballot access and Johnson doesn't.

What alliance? I've heard some talk about it, but the whole idea makes no sense. I have never seen any actual evidence to support it.

Ron Paul decided not to run attack ads on Mitt, and focused his energies on defeating Santorum and Gingrich, paving the way for Mitt. Part of this is because Paul's wife is friends with Anne Romney, and part of it is because Ron Paul thought he could leverage his delegate count with the Romney campaign for political concessions, such as an audit of the Fed, or boosting the political profile of his son. The other two candidates wouldn't have played ball with Paul.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I'll be honest... this is one particular case I'd theoretically be OK with the constitution being left by the wayside, although doing so would allow everyone else to do so too.

So much for being a strict constitutionalist.