I think this year, more than any other, is the opportunity for an Indy to run and do well.

[Dawgs]

I'm not advocating for it, or even say that it will happen, but it seems with the low approval of both parties, and the high number of Indys, that a run by an Independant candidate could really shake things up.

It certainly would have to be the right type candidate. Consider one that is anti-war, pro raising taxes on the rich, pro tax reform (FairTax or Flat Tax message), and pro trade reform. With those positions you have a populist that could make things difficult for both parties candidates.

Of course, they can't be crazy like Ron Paul. It has to be someone that is sensible, fairly unknown, and not necessarily tied to either party. I'm not sure that person exists, but it certainly would make things interesting if they did.

Discuss if you like.

:hide:

[Le Taz Hot]

1. K & R & IBTL

:hide:

[Frances]

24. Were the 90s so long ago?

Has everyone forgotten how Ross Perot helped deny the first Bush a second term and gave us a Dem president?

Or how the support that went to Nader instead of Gore gave us W?

IMO, people who push for 3rd parties are looking for an easy out instead of doing the hard work to reform their own party.

[HappyMe]

2. They should have already gotten their

shit together long before now.




ibtl

[Curmudgeoness]

3. As long as it is a far right indy, I am all for it. nt

[sharp_stick]

4. It would shake things up

and they may do "very well" but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that they'd actually win. So that would once again place the indy in the Ross Perot, Ralph Nader spoiler category.

I don't see the public in this country going for a multi-party system and I don't know of many places at all that elect a true independent candidate to the top office of the land.

[William769]

5. As long as he doesn't have big ears & no hair!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. I would say the field is ready for plowing if a dark horse emerged (lol). and ibtl.

I think the repubs have nothing to offer and I don't think Obama should be primaried but, the time is ripe for a 3rd party...yeah, I could see it.

how many metaphors did I just mix :D

[obxhead]

7. Oh, so you mean a Democrat

That platform sounds like a true Dem platform.

:rofl:

[Dawgs]

11. Acutally, FairTax and FlatTax are Libertarian positions, not Dem platform.

And, the current position of the Democratic candidate is in no way anti-war.

Nice try though.

[undeterred]

8. Ron Paul IS crazy.

[UTUSN]

9. "do well" and yet not win. Just split the Dem side & hand it to the Rethugs. n/t

[Dawgs]

12. In your opinion. n/t

[elocs]

10. Do well in helping to elect the Democrat or Republican candidate. That's the reality now.

Ours is a 2 party system and that is unlikely to change for many years, especially when it comes to presidential elections.

[Dawgs]

13. See #12. n/t

[Hart2008]

14. The lack of a Dem primary challenge to an unpopular President increases the chances.

And a serious third candidate greatly reduces an incumbent Presidents reelection chances.

See 1912, 1980, 1992.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. You forgot 1948

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

19. You are expecting a Dixiecrat to run in 2012? A wrote a "serious" challenger.

Strom Thurmond is dead now. He was nothing more than a regional candidate in the South in 1948.

Those kinds of bigots all vote Repuke now.

[Pab Sungenis]

21. And Henry Wallace, too.

The Democratic vote was split three ways in 1948, and Truman still won.

[Hart2008]

29. Henry Wallace got 2.4% of the popular vote and no electoral votes.

In 1948, the Dems were far more dominant as THE national party. Losing a few percentage points, or even whole states in the South, didn't have any effect. Even with Thurmond winning 39 electoral votes, Truman won 303.

There was no whining from Truman about getting "Nadered" by two different former Dems getting 4.8% of the popular vote.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. You so badly forgot 1948 that you forgot the disastrous Progressive campaign

of Henry Wallace, the challenger from the Left.

It's quite telling, actually.

2.4%. It's a number likely to repeat itself with another left challenger. In any case, I agree that no challenger from the Left will be serious, but 1948 throws your historical narrative into a bit of disarray.

:-)

[Hart2008]

30. I forgot nothing. 2.4% of the popular vote with no electoral votes is just an asterisk to history.

You forgot the Perot's 8.4% of the vote in 1996, which did not represent a serious challenge since he was kept out of the debates that year and his total dropped from 18.9% in 1992. The exit polling I saw was that Perot took votes almost equally from both parties, so it had no effect on the election itself.

Bush in 1992 wanted Perot in the debates because he felt it was his only was of getting reelected since he was so unpopular.

[Overseas]

15. Flat Tax IS crazy like Ron Paul.

If you're pro raising taxes on the rich, you want a progressive tax rates, not the flat tax.

[Dawgs]

18. I agree. But most people don't know that. A simple message works on most Americans. n/t

[Overseas]

25. Just don't use those right wing plans like the flat tax. That is NOT a fair tax.

Other simple ways to say it--

The rich get more. The rich should pay more.

We transferred the tax burden from the rich to the poor. Time to shift it back to those who can afford it.

We did a lot better as a nation when the rich paid more. We could afford a much better FEMA, and keep our roads and bridges repaired, just to name a couple of things.

[kctim]

17. I agree

An actual populist candidate could possibly syphon off moderate votes from BOTH sides. Especially if they took the populist position on many wedge issues.

[Dawgs]

20. Thank you. You understand exactly what I'm saying.

:hi:

[NorthCarolina]

22. I agree totally, and i'm hoping it will happen. nt

[loyalsister]

26. Donald Trump hasn't ruled it out

If he's not happy with the r candidate he might jump in. That would be awesome as he would siphon off votes from the r side.

[uncle ray]

27. maybe Obama could change his affiliation.n/t.

[valerief]

28. Not this year for prez. Too much vote splitting. Maybe in Congress. nt

[MineralMan]

31. This year? The only elections this year are state and local elections.

Maybe you mean next year. That's still not here yet. There's quite a bit of time before November 2012. It's a little early to start touting third party candidates.

[NNN0LHI]

32. Good, lets start with the elected Dems in your state

What state do you live in?

Don