Something for Ralph Nader and Michael Bloomberg to consider as they weigh third-party presidential bids: Most voters say they’re pleased with the choices this year, according to a new Gallup poll. About 6 in 10 voters say the candidates have good ideas for solving the country’s problems — that’s twice as many satisfied voters as in 1992, when independent Ross Perot jumped into the race.
Despite the calls for “change,†say the pollsters, Americans are “quite positive about the candidates running for president so far, and believe they have suggested good solutions to the nation’s problems, marking a sharp contrast with what these same measures showed in early 1992. Thus, while dissatisfaction in general is high, the American public does not appear to believe it is important or necessary for an independent candidate outside of the traditional two major parties to step into the race in order to save the nation.â€
29 Comments
Everything is viewed as black and white, right and left in this country, so a third party candidate is built to lose, no matter how exceptional the candidate is.
dumb as a bucket of rocks they are.
But … but …
I thought I heard that Rush and O’Reilly might not endorse the GOP nominee. Don’t they need someone to support? Maybe someone with “talent on loan from God”?
It is a shame that a 3rd party candidate doesn’t have a chance. The two “major” parties are hard to distinguish in many ways anymore.
Taz I could not agree more and this is not meant as an insult to my Democratic friends. But the current Democrats in the house and Senate. Is appearing more to be filling the role that Washington Generals do for the Harlem Globetrotters . It gets sickening to watch CSPAN and see the Republicans bashing the other side and them standing there like an abused wife waiting for the next slap. I do not agree with JR on the fight fire with fire plan of attack. That has not worked out well for the country and has enabled the Neoconservatives agenda to flourish.
But like going to see the Harlem Globetrotters, it would get boring to set and watch them play if not for the Generals. But it would be pointless to cheer for the Generals unless they are trying to win. both need the others and in that they are the same.
It was Ross Perot who gave us the Clintons. Two parties are enough to keep track of. There is already 3 parties now Democrats, Republicans and the News Media. Our problems are those who want to kill us, the Politicians who want to over tax us and the News Media who want to depress us. Go my man Mitt.
Two parties can never be an accurate representation of America, never. Maybe before the parties were hijacked by the same people in 1913 things were representative but not now. We’ve got so many Tories, loyal to the crown, in this country, they claim to “want and need change” but prove otherwise. But the American Revolution happened in spite of those weak minds and weak hearts.
Bill Clinton got 43% of the vote the first time, against George H.W. Bush.
Bill Clinton NEVER got a clear majority of the vote, getting only 49.2% of the vote against Bob Dole.
However, a New York liberal is likely to hurt Democrats more than Republicans.
Bloomberg, Bloomberg, He’s our man
If He can’t buy it, no one can
That said, Econ101 is correct: Bloomberg’s candidacy has been designed by DC Democrat party mavens like Sam Nunn and David Boren, to torpedo the chances of electing a President who truly represents the goals of the Democratic Party.
Plutocrats like Bloomberg and his backers can go to hell.
Oh, and Econ101? If you want to play the “Clinton was never a legitimate President because he never broke 50% among the American public,” you encounter the small problem that, in 2000, George Bush garnered only 47.9% of the popular vote, as opposed to Al Gore’s 48.4%. And if your response is that the Electoral College determines victors, not the popular vote, then this renders meaningless your attack against Clinton for never breaking 50% of the popular vote.
Yep,
I would welcome Bloomberg’s entry into the race. However, I have a lot of money that says he won’t throw his hat into the ring. He has billiions, but he didn’t make billions by throwing money away on hopeless interprises.
Bloomberg is a democrat. He is a liberal democrat that changed to republican to run for mayor. Now he is an independent.
But. . .if he enters he will take liberal democrat votes away from the democrat candidate. Maybe, even enough to win New York or at least throw it to the rebublican.
Dear Editors: WordPress sucks. It eats a lot of posts, my last one among them.
Hank Price,
You and Econ101 are, of course, correct: Bloomberg’s candidacy is designed by the DC Plutocrat class (which includes Democrat Party traitors like David “I loves me some young guys!” Boren and Sam “the flying” Nunn) to derails the Democratic Party’s chances of winning the White House. Given McCain’s weak support among Republican constituencies, “Bloomberg’s Folly” is about the GOP’s only shot.
In principle, though, I’m pretty disgusted by the naked spectacle of somebody ponying up $500 million to buy the White House. Call me a sentimentalist.
Econ101,
If you want to keeping running the line that Clinton never enjoyed majority support, be my guest. But then you have to defend George Bush’s installation as President, when in 2000 he actually received less of a majority than did Al Gore.
Methinks, Econ101, that for you, the majority only counts when it’s going your way, as a club with which to beat the other guy. I call it the “Sincerity Gap.”
PaulTheCon – at least Clinton got more votes than the other guy. Your boy can’t make that claim.
George – Perot hurt the challenger more than the incumbent in 1002 which is the normal trend when there is a third party run.
oops – 1992 not 1002
No story.
Move on.
Hmmm . . . strangely, CF, I’ve had just the opposite experience.
Type-pad used to eat posts for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and so far WordPress has only lost one that I know of.
That one, I wish it had eaten.
Oops.
“and so far WordPress has only lost one that I know of.”
I’ve lost several, but figured that was God keepin’ me outta trouble.
Hehe, ghotiphaze.
OMG! CHE!
The supposed satisfaction with the mainstream candidates is really just a realization that– finally –the obvious bread-and-butter, life-and-death issues are being acknowledged–even on the Republican side, in case you haven’t noticed. Sure the same wacko gimmicks are being proferred by the Cons–national sales tax, etc.–but the “life is good, move along, nothing to see here, and–by the way–911! 911!” approach is, thankfully, dead (as is, thankfully, Ghouliani’s campaign!)
In that very limited sense, liberals have already won. It’s our concerns on the table, even if they’re going to be coated in shellac. :(
Hence, less of a pull for a third party candidate. And when you’ve been wandering in the desert, you’ll drink almost anything.
BTW, Paul, thanks for raise that tired old line about Clinton’s 43% presidency. This of course would be the same Clinton who defeated 38% Bush. And if you think there was some type of Bush-Perot coaltion, you weren’t paying attention to the Perot Repubs I knew. They wanted to tear your boy a new orifice. Oh well.
For my part, I was talked into not voting for Perot. His psychotic moments helped force my hand, nose firmly betwixt thumb-and-forefinger–to install the “New Democrat.”
I notice no one on the Dem side–well, except Obama—is still pandering to the Reagan narrative the way Clinton did. Paul Krugman thoughtfully points this out but conveniently forgets just how much a Republican lite Clinton was, though noting–with considerable understatement–that Clinton didn’t “change the narrative.” Duh.
Debunking the Reagan Myth, NYT, 1/21/08 :
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Maybe I have a reading comprehension problem. I do not see a question asked in the poll asking directly how people feel about a third party candidate.
That people are apparently satisified with the offerings for this years election, does not mean there could not be a worthy third-party candidate capable of rousing the same favorable responses to the questions asked.
No surprise that voters are positive about the Presidential candidates on both major parties.
ANY potential candidate would look like a positive when compared with what we have in office now.
Bob Barker (my neighbor’s dachshund) is polling several points ahead of Bush on fiscal policy and blowing him away on national security.
AmWay, I think they should just get rid of the party ‘tag’. Any person of any party has to take exception to some of the ideologies of those partys if they’re totally honest with themselves.
Then you have those regurgitating the propaganda of the party doled to the naive and ignorant because they find an over-whelming need for a sense of belonging.
I want Rush to run – perhaps with Newt.
Run Ralph Nader, RUN!
Che Guevara was a tyrant:
http://www.slate.com/id/2107100
And, KFG
“Che” actually put homosexuals in jail, in Cuba, for being homosexual.
Oh well, I guess its OK if you are a Communist, huh?
Che Guevara was a tyrant
it was a dig at me, as I’m such a radical.
Che Guevara was a tyrant:
It was a dig at me, as I’m such a radical.
We are one of the few countries that have so restricted our political parties to the point were we don’t even have a real democracy. A two-party state is only 2 times more democratic than a one party state.
Much as the one party state by Spain’s Franko, the fascist hero of the far right. Take notice Econ 101