Obama wins 2012 with third party help

[LDB]

Hope you are enjoying your "change" and that you "hope" for more change because stupidity is going to reign and third party voters are going to elect Obama in 2012. The usuals will be along to tell me how I'm wrong for saying do not vote for the third party in the coming election. Well, they are the ones who are wrong. I am all for a viable third party at the right time but I'm totally against it at the wrong time and this is by far the most wrong time possible. How did that Perot deal work out again?

[Turtle]

Well, considering we have no idea who the Republican candidate will be, nor who the front-running third party candidate will be, it's a little premature to make such a statement.

[LDB]

I didn't want to wait till the last minute, although I am known for that at times.

[xiggi]

Just remember Perot.

[layoutshooter]

Bet the Dumb-O-Crats work hard to help get a third party up and running. As to candidates, our recent history shows that they are, at best, less than useful, and at worst, dangerous.

I have little doubt that 2012 will find me voting against one bum just to keep him/her/it out of office. I can honestly say that I have never once voted for a presidential candidate. I have always voted against the other one.

[Turtle]

Much to the consternation of a few who know me, I do agree with you that in most elections a third party vote really and truly is a wasted vote, regardless of how warm and fuzzy it makes the third party voter feel. Unless the third party candidate is genuinely a viable candidate, with a real chance of actually winning, then casting a vote for them is, in the end, meaningless at best, or at worst, a direct vote for the one candidate you absolutely do not want to be elected.

We will only have a viable third party candidate when one emerges from the smoke and cinders of a catastrophic event, like a phoenix from the flames, after people have lost complete confidence in their own political parties, and are desperate for someone to lead them.

We can only hope that when it happens, the phoenix doesn't turn out to be the realization of a Nostradamus prophecy.

[layoutshooter]

A real third party candidate is unlikely. Same as a real candidate showing up in either of the other two parties. With the press we have, the major divisions in the country and an atmosphere of character assasination, no quality person in their right mind would run for that office. That is just one of the many reasons we keep getting the lackluster type candidates the we always seem to get.

[aristotle]

We can always hope the Left runs a third-party candidate as well. Someone like Ralph Nader. Nader helped Bush get elected. I would donate$$$ to a 3rd party Leftist just to cause chaos on the Left. Obama isn't divine. He is totally defeatable. The GOP needs a very strong candidate this time around. Not another 70 year-old like John McCain. As Sarah Palin's star dims, I am taking another look at Mitt Romney. I like Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana as well. There will be several to choose from as election season nears. Obama is going down to defeat in 2012!

[layoutshooter]

All those you have mentioned are career politicians. Nothing new here. Just a continuation of the past. I see nothing new coming from the Dumb-O-Crats either. I fear, that as it has always been in my lifetime, that we will just continue to elect bubble brains. We are reaping the benefits of that habit now. Besides, unless there are major changes in congress, something that rarely happens, a new president will make little difference.

[greg334]

Just look at the election 100 years ago - 1912.

It seems history is sort of repeating itself in regards of a third party.

There may be more of a threat to Obama by a left of center/near center candidate from the democrats than there may be with a right of candidate from the republicans.

On the other hand people who are in the republican party and are 'standards' or talking heads for the party, like Romney, Jidel and even Palin won't make it in a race against Obama.

[layoutshooter]

It is going to take a "different" type of candidate. Someone who is not a career politician. Someone who has truly done things in their life. Who understands the military, has experience running large budgets and work forces. Someone who is not beholding to the "PuppetMaster" A person who is not afraid to lead instead of bully and who's ideas are based on reality rather than idealology.

No one of that caliber has risen to the forefront in either party.

[aristotle]

Much to the consternation of a few who know me, I do agree with you that in most elections a third party vote really and truly is a wasted vote, regardless of how warm and fuzzy it makes the third party voter feel. Unless the third party candidate is genuinely a viable candidate, with a real chance of actually winning, then casting a vote for them is, in the end, meaningless at best, or at worst, a direct vote for the one candidate you absolutely do not want to be elected.

We will only have a viable third party candidate when one emerges from the smoke and cinders of a catastrophic event, like a phoenix from the flames, after people have lost complete confidence in their own political parties, and are desperate for someone to lead them.

We can only hope that when it happens, the phoenix doesn't turn out to be the realization of a Nostradamus prophecy.

I agree with you, Turtle, about the sudden emergence of a viable third-party candidate in the event of a catastrophic event. Something like DEFCON4. I'm not sure we Americans want to become like Israel or some European countries where they are so politically fractured, a candidate can win national office with 30-40% of the vote. We are better served to elect candidates who can muster at least 50% support from the people.

I believe a conservative who is able to tap into the unprecedented anger manifesting in the US could defeat Obama. The Democrats are so outrageously socialistic in their current legislative posture... a clear thinking, plain-spoken conservative should win. We certainly lose if the GOP nominates another moderate. I don't know why anyone claims to be in the middle of the political spectrum. There is nothing there.

[layoutshooter]

I would like to see a change in the electorial college. I would like to see each State have only 1 vote. To win the presidency you would have to win at least 26 states. To win a State you would have to win a majority of the counties in that State. That would require a candidate to appeal to more than just 8-10 cities and ignore the rest of us as they do now. That would bring change.

[aristotle]

I would like to see a change in the electorial college. I would like to see each State have only 1 vote. To win the presidency you would have to win at least 26 states. To win a State you would have to win a majority of the counties in that State. That would require a candidate to appeal to more than just 8-10 cities and ignore the rest of us as they do now. That would bring change.

Unfortunately, the electoral college set-up favors the Democrats. BIG TIME. Democrats need only win California, New York, Illinois, Florida and a smattering of upper-Midwest states. Such a coalition ensures Democratic victory. Since the electoral college is based on proportional representation of a state's population, the demographic trends favor Democrats. It is disheartening. The GOP needs to work twice as hard, and be twice as well funded, as the Democrats to win.

The good news is that Obama is even more disliked than George W. Bush. I know practically no one who admits to voting for Obama. Obama carried only 8 of 120 counties in Kentucky. Obama won't do nearly as well next time. We would be committing national suicide to re-elect this man.

[layoutshooter]

I am well aware how and why it is like it is. I just would like to see that change. That would go a very long way in minimizing a lot of the things that divide this Nation.

As I said before, another Obama win will result in the last free election under our Constitution.