Possible Third Party Strategy?

[RealGun]

Originally Posted by rock jock
Badnarik … would have made the U.S. the laughing stock of the world.

You mean unlike a certain George W. Bush?

~G. Fink

As far as laughing stock goes, the LP has reached that level too.

 

[Selfdfenz]

GLM

I guess I can't disagree with much of what you write however...

Nothing has ever been built from the top down.

I may be wrong but always understood Lincoln was elected president (R) as the candidate from a party with little history of past successes or much history of a past at all for that matter.

I'm not sure I agree with the conventional wisdom that 3rd parties shooting for the WH is a plan doomed to failure. In the final analysis it's all about marketing, even for the Ds and Rs.

S-

 

[JesseJames]

I think the biggest problem is just voter apathy and a jaded electorate.

I know I am jaded. And I've yet to cast a vote in a presidential election.
Why haven't I voted?
Because I've never liked either candidate.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I may be wrong but always understood Lincoln was elected president (R) as the candidate from a party with little history of past successes or much history of a past at all for that matter.

Not really true, the Republican party was formed in 1854 from the remains of the disintegrating Whig party and a coalition of parties that opposed slavery (imagine if a new party formed between Greens, Communists and leftist Democrats around a single issue and you would have a similar idea of what occured).

During the 1854 mid-term elections, 44 Republicans were elected to the House of Representatives. The Republicans chose John C. Fremont to be their candidate for the 1856 Presidential election. Fremont lost, receiving about a third of the popular vote; but the Republicans gained more seats in the House.

Shortly after the 1856 election, the Dred Scott decision was announced which split the Democrat party into pro and anti slavery factions. The Republicans ran Lincoln in the 1860 election denouncing the Dred Scott decision... and the rest is history.

The Republicans were successful primarily because they were able to coalesce around a single issue that they all supported strongly and that split the ranks of their opponents. The coalition probably wouldn't have survived their first success politically; but the secession of the Southern states and ensuing war tamped down dissent within the party until the war was over - and once the war was over, the Republican party had enough spoils to keep the diverse factions happy.

I know I am jaded. And I've yet to cast a vote in a presidential election. Why haven't I voted? Because I've never liked either candidate.

Hey, I'll be the first to say that if there is no candidate you can stomach, then don't vote for him. However, you had better be putting in some time with your local party, your party convention and voting in the primaries to make sure you have a better choice next time around.

It takes a lot more than voting every four years to protect liberty.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

While I generally think the Libertarians would be a good choice for their fairly hands-off attitude towards guns, the war on drugs, and business, their ideas on an open border and enviromental controls totally suck the big one. The Greens might be communist tree-huggers, but their dedication to enviroment might not be too bad when most scientists are warning that global warming is here and we need to reign in our complete disregard for nature.

The MSM is just as bad on global warming and the environment as they are on gun control. What you hear mostly exaggeration, speculation, and one-sided. Whatever is happening to our climate and why, Kyoto wouldn't make the slightest difference, except make us poor. Don't forget Earth warms and cools on its own.

I agree with the Libertarian idea when it comes to the environment: private ownership is better than public for the same reasons that private restrooms/bathrooms are cleaner than public ones. I dislike their open-border policy in terms of entrance, however, and I believe the majority of Libertarians do as well, but not quite enough to change the party platform.

For those of you who don't understand why 3rd parties run presidential candidates, it is for exposure, and membership always swells during election years. The Libertarians do run local candidates--not long ago, the only competition for the Democratically-held 10th District U.S. House seat was from a Libertarian.

 

[Fletchette]

The Republicans were successful primarily because they were able to coalesce around a single issue that they all supported strongly and that split the ranks of their opponents. The coalition probably wouldn't have survived their first success politically; but the secession of the Southern states and ensuing war tamped down dissent within the party until the war was over - and once the war was over, the Republican party had enough spoils to keep the diverse factions happy.

Does anyone see a connection? Does this mean that third parties are only viable when the country is so split that it is on the verge of war?