- #176
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
- 24,017
- 3,337
It does if they're crazy. :tongue2:mheslep said:As I said above, that never happens to newly elected presidents.
It does if they're crazy. :tongue2:mheslep said:As I said above, that never happens to newly elected presidents.
Well that's why he's not going to be President. :tongue2:Evo said:It does if they're crazy. :tongue2:
They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?mheslep said:Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
Johnson pulled out of the GOP race and will be running as the Libertarian Party candidate.mheslep said:Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
Well Johnson has been in from nearly the beginning, just didn't poll high enough to get in all of the debates. Anyway, yeah its too late now for brand new faces. A Santorum or a Huntsman could surge with a campaign already on the ground. A large chunk of the delegates get committed in the primaries to somebody in March, 3 months. I agree with Intrade: this is Romney's race now that Newt's bubble broke, 68% chance. Romney's serious, he has his pace, is not prone to mistakes. If he picks a strong VP*, and there are several very strong candidates, I think he beats the President if the economy stays flat.Evo said:They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?
There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?
I recall your caution against these threads on politicians degenerating into name-calling.Evo said:It does if they're crazy. :tongue2:
mheslep said:...he's not going to be President. :tongue2:
Evo said:They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?
There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?
This first batch most certainly can't be the best the GOP has to offer.
Ok as of Nov 29. I missed that, though I'd heard him say he might earlier.ThomasT said:Johnson pulled out of the GOP race and will be running as the Libertarian Party candidate.
Dunno, but I guess there's only room for one libertarian flag waiver inside the GOP. Right now that's Paul. I heard Johnson on air saying he visited Paul way back when, was warmly accepted until he told Paul he was going to run in the GOP upon which the "conversation quickly ended" and he was shown the door.He was excluded from all but two of the GOP debates, because his poll numbers were low. His poll numbers were low, I would guess, because he didn't get sufficient exposure to allow even the possibility that they might increase significantly. Why is that?
Rubio. Got to be.Evo said:Who do you think Romney would pick?
Yes, exactly. He can exert a great deal of influence IF he's reasonable. That is, if he agrees not to run independent in return for getting the nominee to accept some fraction of his policies, and I hope that would be to curtail military spending, then he'll get influence. On the other hand if starts the there's no difference between the GOP and Democrats routine (as he has before) I'm running independent, then he will have zero influence on the GOP, though he'll get Obama reelected.Dotini said:I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent...
Good point, imho. Sort of like Ralph Nader (whose primary aim was, imo, to increase the civic involvement of average Americans), but with a lot more political power.Dotini said:I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is personally not overly concerned about being President. With him (and me), it's all about influencing the platform, which is obviously taking place to some extent.
ThomasT said:Good point, imho. Sort of like Ralph Nader (whose primary aim was, imo, to increase the civic involvement of average Americans), but with a lot more political power.
Don't forget Ross Perot.lisab said:Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?
:rofl:
lisab said:Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?
:rofl:
Evo said:Don't forget Ross Perot.
Uh ... no. Not that it wouldn't be interesting. But I don't think that Nader drinks (though I don't know for sure). And I really don't want Paul to drink. Not even a little bit.lisab said:Can you imagine having Ralph Nader and Ron Paul over for a few beers?
:rofl:
I voted for Nader and Perot. I still think the US would have been better off if either or both of them had been elected.Dotini said:I have voted for all three of them!
And I would be proud to join them for a few beers, too. At the end of the day, it's all about making this a better country, and I consider them all to be exemplary Americans, working in their way for the better.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
ThomasT said:I voted for Nader and Perot. I still think the US would have been better off if either or both of them had been elected.
Nader was responsible for getting Bush elected. You need to think about what you are doing when you vote. Was your goal to elect Bush?Dotini said:I have voted for all three of them!
And I would be proud to join them for a few beers, too. At the end of the day, it's all about making this a better country, and I consider them all to be exemplary Americans, working in their way for the common good.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
That's the usual view, and imo, and Pauli's words, it's "not even wrong". Bush got elected because of the incompetency of the Democratic Party, the activism of the fanatical Christian right, and the complacency of the rest of the US electorate. The American people got what they deserved, and, apparently, what they wanted -- eight years of G.W. Bush.Evo said:Nader was responsible for getting Bush elected.
The goal for people who voted for Nader was, I'm assuming, to elect Nader.Evo said:Was your goal to elect Bush?
The fact is, he stole enough votes to cause a Bush win.ThomasT said:That's the usual view, and imo, and Pauli's words, it's "not even wrong". Bush got elected because of the incompetency of the Democratic Party, the activism of the fanatical Christian right, and the complacency of the rest of the US electorate. The American people got what they deserved, and, apparently, what they wanted -- eight years of G.W. Bush.
The goal for people who voted for Nader was, I'm assuming, to elect Nader.
Acquiescence to an undesirable status quo and continued voting for 'the lesser of two evils' is, imo, an irresponsibe use of one's freedom to vote. I voted for the person, Nader, who I most admired and thought would make the best President.
Nader has tried to wriggle out of it, but the fact is, he caused it. No, he didn't intend to cause it, but there you go. Not thinking.Exit polls showed New Hampshire staying close, and within the margin of error without Nader[63] as national exit polls showed Nader's supporters choosing Gore over Bush by a large margin,[64] well outside the margin of error. Winning either state would have given Gore the presidency, and while critics claim this shows Nader tipped the election to Bush
In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat.
He 'stole' votes? What does that mean? He ran for a public office that he had the right, even the duty (in his supporters' as well as his own view), to run for. The fact of the matter is that nobody has any way of knowing how many votes he might have taken away from Bush and from Gore. But the all important point is that we shouldn't be thinking in those terms.Evo said:The fact is, he stole enough votes to cause a Bush win.
Evo said:Nader has tried to wriggle out of it ...
Good points, imho. But we'd better get back to discussing Ron Paul. You might start a new thread regarding your statements/points. I think it would be an interesting discussion, and I'd probably learn something.fleem said:About this "stealing" of votes. The problem isn't third party candidates that don't play the system. The problem is the system, itself. The system uses ballots specifically designed to punish third party candidates. There are a myriad of simple ways to design a ballot that mitigates the third party "split" effect, yet never do you hear of legislation for such ballot reform. For one example, each voter could be given two votes that cannot be given to the same candidate. How convenient that our legislators haven't thought of that yet, in spite of 230 years of talk about the "problem" of party splitting. Heaven forbid the people should be given more than two options placed before them by the system.
There's a name for that effect: Duverger's law - Wikipediafleem said:About this "stealing" of votes. The problem isn't third party candidates that don't play the system. The problem is the system, itself. The system uses ballots specifically designed to punish third party candidates. There are a myriad of simple ways to design a ballot that mitigates the third party "split" effect, yet never do you hear of legislation for such ballot reform. ...
Dana Carvey version, in case anyone forgets.Evo said:Don't forget Ross Perot.
I enjoyed that. Were you making a point or just a funny?mheslep said:Dana Carvey version, in case anyone forgets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xT8jS3Y1aQ
Little of both.ThomasT said:I enjoyed that. Were you making a point or just a funny?
I don't know what you mean "Nader, in case anyone forgot". Forgot what? Ok, the skit is amusing, but is there a point to it -- besides the obvious fact that Nader was unable to raise sufficient funds? Is that, in itself, something to parady or something that we should be ashamed of? Just a question.mheslep said:Nader, in case anyone forgot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg4SOzjAG4M#t=1m13s
I think in case anyone forgot what Nader was like. You have to admit he was a character.ThomasT said:I don't know what you mean "Nader, in case anyone forgot". Forgot what? Ok, the skit is amusing, but is there a point to it -- besides the obvious fact that Nader was unable to raise sufficient funds? Is that, in itself, something to parady or something that we should be ashamed of? Just a question.
Evo said:Nader was responsible for getting Bush elected. You need to think about what you are doing when you vote. Was your goal to elect Bush?
Irresponsible voting can have disastrous consequences.
On the positive side he lost the election for Gore.
Evo said:I think in case anyone forgot what Nader was like. You have to admit he was a character.