Give 'Em The Bird

[mrjarrell]

I have to say, not just as a fan of the man and his history as a governor, but I like the ads that Gary Johnson's team are turning out. They're to the point and they are targeted at us, not party faithful.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDSUoIVMze8[/ame]

 

[mrjarrell]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF367w4nI1E&feature=relmfu[/ame]

 

[mrjarrell]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh4dU9QNPU8&feature=relmfu[/ame]

 

[spec4]

So in the final analysis on November 6, what will he have accomplished? I doubt that anyone who votes for him would have voted for Obama had he not been running.

 

[mrjarrell]

We get it. You're committed to the status quo. Time for you to move on. We know change is hard and you're not ready yet. Come back when you are.

 

[buckstopshere]

So in the final analysis on November 6, what will he have accomplished? I doubt that anyone who votes for him would have voted for Obama had he not been running.

I can tell you of at least two. Our cousins from Cally were successfully converted to Dr Paul and told us just this past weekend if Dr Paul doesn't win the nom, they're voting for "this guy named Gary Johnson, I really like what he stands for. Have you heard of him?"

Both voted for BHO in 2008, now they're voting for liberty and freedom.

What gets accomplished? Momentum towards a freedom movement. It seems like we have to learn the lesson the hard way but eventually, it comes to this or communism as long as the status quo remains in power.

My

 

[spec4]

We get it. You're committed to the status quo. Time for you to move on. We know change is hard and you're not ready yet. Come back when you are.

Sorry, not committed to status quo. Maybe I've been around too long and have seen too much ..IMO the country is not ready for a VIABLE third party. We need to work with what we got how we can in the ongoing battle against socialism. Just hope we don't see a scenario like when Perot gave us 8 years of Clinton.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

Sorry, not committed to status quo. Maybe I've been around too long and have seen too much ..IMO the country is not ready for a VIABLE third party. We need to work with what we got how we can in the ongoing battle against socialism. Just hope we don't see a scenario like when Perot gave us 8 years of Clinton.

CURSE YOU ROSS PEROT!!!

Seriously... Blame Perot all you want for 1992. Blaming him for 1996 is silly.

Presidential Election Results from 1992 and 1996
Year `````` Perot `````````` Republican Candidate ``````` Democrat Candiate
1992 `````` 19,743,821 ````` 39,104,550 ``````````````` 44,909,806
1996 `````` 8,085,294 `````` 39,197,469 ``````````````` 47,401,185


Perot lost nearly 11.7 million votes from 1992 to 1996.
Republicans were able use that to their advantage and they increased their 1992 vote totals by an astounding 92,919 votes.
Democrats gained 26.8 votes every 1 new Republican vote.

If you believe the Perot stole votes from Republicans, then the only logical thought about the 1996 results is that the Republican Party lost 1996 by putting Bob Dole on the ticket and effectively convincing 9+million of their supposed voters to not show up to the polls.

 

[CarmelHP]

If you believe the Perot stole votes from Republicans, then the only logical thought about the 1996 results is that the Republican Party lost 1996 by putting Bob Dole on the ticket and effectively convincing 9+million of their supposed voters to not show up to the polls.

That's exactly what happened. He was an unbelievably bad candidate without a message, without charisma and generally unlikeable. Political suicide.

 

[Rob377]

We get it. You're committed to the status quo. Time for you to move on. We know change is hard and you're not ready yet. Come back when you are.

I'm a huge Gary Johnson fan. (gotta love principled libertarians that have actually accomplished something beside naming a post office) But at some point, you have to know when you're pissing into the wind.

There's a good chance I'll pissing upwind as well come November, but I'm not ready to start bashing those that aren't willing to get a little wet and stinky to make a symbolic and completely ineffectual gesture.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

I find it amazing that folks actually think that voting for a 3rd party candidate has no effect. Or is simply a protest or symbolic vote. At the very least, it changes the future mainstream candidates. To try to get more votes, the parties do not look at the votes they recieved, they look at the ones they lost

Even though 3rd party candidates may not win, they get votes. That forces the other parties to make a change in policy to chase after the votes they lost to the third party candidate. The more votes they loose the more they will have to change/adapt. We do ultimately get the gov we ask for and support.

What mechanism does loyally voting for a mainstream party invoke to cause its stance on the issues to move? None.

It would be more accurate to say that a vote for the mainstream candidate will have no effect. Why would it have an effect. You are showing approval for them with the only voice you have that they listen to, buy voting for them. Tea party protests mean nothing without follow through. Ultimately, they are often just empty threats or co-opted movements that continue to support big gov/neocon policy.

If you want to vote for the lesser evil, fine. But do not say that a third party vote has no effect.

 

[Rob377]

Harry Browne got .5% of the vote in 1996, .4% in 2000, Badnarik got a whopping .3% in 2004, and then Barr with .4% in 2008.

And have our mainstream candidates gotten any better? Nope. have the mainstream parties made any real changes toward limited gov't? nope. Quite the opposite.

Like I said, I may be pissing into the wind come November, but I'm not deluding myself into thinking it's anything but that. A consistent sub 1% of the vote isn't forcing any mainstream politician/party to do anything.

They're fighting over the 20% of "independents" in the middle. They could give 2 poops about .5% of so-called "fringe" voters think.

 

[mrjarrell]

Unlike the status quo voters, us "fringe" voters (those who are voting for smaller government, lower taxes and more liberty and freedom) we aren't going to surrender. Feel free to do so if you choose to. But the rest of us will continue to fight for our childrens futures.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Harry Browne got .5% of the vote in 1996, .4% in 2000, Badnarik got a whopping .3% in 2004, and then Barr with .4% in 2008.

And have our mainstream candidates gotten any better? Nope. have the mainstream parties made any real changes toward limited gov't? nope. Quite the opposite.

.

Then the current way of doing things is clearly not working. Maybe its time to change strategy.

 

[Rob377]

And millions of "independents" without even a passing familiarity of distinguishing their nether-regions from holes in the ground will nullify your/our vote, rendering it completely without effect.

It's fun to wax Quixotic about it all, reveling in our own intellectual and moral superiority, and look down our noses at those hoi polloi who are less pure. But it accomplishes nothing.

Just like giving the bird to the guy that pissed you off. It makes you feel a little better, but he's still an inconsiderate a-hole. Nothing changes, despite the empty gesture.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

They're fighting over the 20% of "independents" in the middle. They could give 2 poops about .5% of so-called "fringe" voters think.

^^^^^^True story.

When Perot got more than 50% of the number of votes that Bush got in 1992, the party showed that they gave no ****s by nominating Bob Dole in 1996 and inviting people who were giving up on Perot to simply stay home.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

We are all independent voters. Party affiliation is used to keep voters interest and create an "us vs them" within the population, instead of an "us vs gov tyranny"

Divide and conquer.

They want us to feel like we are "doing something"




"I want you to feel like as though you are doing well"

 

[mydoghasfleas]

^^^^^^True story.

When Perot got more than 50% of the number of votes that Bush got in 1992, the party showed that they gave no ****s by nominating Bob Dole in 1996 and inviting people who were giving up on Perot to simply stay home.

They cared. Alot. The Federal election commitee changed the rules on allowing entry into the debates to prevent independent and 3rd party candidates from getting into the future debates. They shut up the opposition. They did it together. 6 people make up of this partisan group. 3 democrats, 3 republicans.

 

[Lupin3rd]

Bah, there's too much faith in voting. The fatal flaw of democracy is that no matter who you vote for, it's going to be for a politician. Once they're in office, their first thoughts our about re-election so they think about who's most likely to re-elect him. Usually it boils down to who's giving out campaign money, hence why lobbyists have so much power in this country. But occasionally, only when people are engaged in political discussion, will the constituency have the power. Campaign money is only as good as the votes it'll buy and when people are ready and willing to hold their politicians in office accountable then the power of the lobbyist is lost.

Educate -> Train -> Mobilize

 

[spec4]

After the Perot debacle, I fail to see any serious change in the GOP direction overall. Sure, they did well with Congress in '94 but we still got stuck with Clinton again in '96. IMO that was due to Dole being a weak candidate, certainly not conservative enough, and the economy. I believe the independents were voting their wallets, foolishly giving Clinton credit he didn't deserve for an economy that was robust.

The argument has often been presented on this forum that third party voters give the GOP a message. I have yet to see any evidence the message has been received.