• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Possible Third Party Strategy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Manedwolf,

The Constitutional Party candidate may be a theocrat - he is also happens to be a Protestant. I'm Catholic - and regardless of religious issues, he and his party are the only ones up front with a clear intention of breaking the hold the global socialists have on this country, and their more destructive elements already strangling us from the inside.

-------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
What we need is an Amalgamated Third Party that takes the best ideas of the Libertarians, Greens, Dems, Republicans, and so on... pulls them all together and makes a platform we can all believe in.
Click to expand...

I dub thee the Common Sense party. Vote me for president.

(I wish!)
 
Why do third party candidates always aim so high? You don't start by running for president, not if you want to get anywhere.

You build a third party from the ground up, not from the roof down. City councils and county boards. Then state legislatures. Then get a couple of Governorships. If you can't get at least that far, you've got no prayer of making it nationally.

Oh, yeah... it'd probably cost well over a billion dollars to get that far.

--Shannon
 
the November elections will tell the tale. if a solid slate of anti-amnesty candidates are elected,one of the partys will read the writing on that slate.
 
unless

someone can give me something better than "work the (BROKEN) system".
I believe that the repubs will have 4 to 6 years to figure out what they did to pee away their base voters. I’ll be voting constitution party!
those that have a problem with those that believe in God need to remember that "We are endued with certain inalienable rights by our creator.......";)
 
The Republican Party saw the # of Hispanic and Religious right voters that came out to support them, and thought that these votes put them in office. They didn't realize, before you do anything else, keep your base happy. And the religious right isn't the Republican base. Although there are Hispanics in the base, breaking America into ethnic groups to appease like the Democrats isn't going to ever work for the Republicans.

They didn't understand that fear is what drove the base. Fear of terrorism, fear of illegal immigration, fear of Democratic leadership. Fear.

Now, we have the Republican leadership prosecuting Iraq in a way that reminds some of our 50s and 60s years old folks of McNamara, LBJ, and Kennedys micromanaging Vietnam.

We have a southern border bleeding so bad, and harming employment so bad, many Democrats are complaining about it, in addition to the base, while Bush allows corporate agendas to rule his decisions on the border regardless of the threat the country faces.

And, we have a Republican base that sees little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, hates the Patriot Act for the most part, and wants to know why we are debasing our currency, and spending like drunken sailors at a Manila whorehouse!

Have faith though, if the Dems don't run anybody who agrees with their
base, we'll have the leftists within the party voting Green.
 
vote for a third party = Democrat victory

No one will ever elect someone to office who agrees with every ideal 100%
There has to be some give and take. I don't agree with the current batch of republican representation on many platforms. Many have just flat out disapointed me to no end.
But if you give your valuable vote to a third party, which is your right to do, you will be indirectly electing Democrats into power. An they will do EVERYTHING in their power to undo every good thing that republicans have done. [read: more and higher taxes, more brady bill gun control madness etc, and someone said republicans spending like a drunk sailor - you ain't seen nothing yet.]
Vote for who you want but understand the reality: A third party is unrealistic. Your vote will cause a Democrat to be elected.

But..... then you will REALLY get a chance to complain about the party in power.
 
rockjock,

you can say many things about the lp, but their looney tunes character, is a real American. The dude was just a computer programmer with strong feelings who decided to run for office. He had good answers, and if his campaign was a little silly (the Libertarians still need local representation before they go anywhere), atleast it wasn't scary. Badnarik was for everyone's liberty. If you think that is silly, then vote for the scary theocrat.
 
you can say many things about the lp, but their looney tunes character, is a real American. The dude was just a computer programmer with strong feelings who decided to run for office. He had good answers, and if his campaign was a little silly (the Libertarians still need local representation before they go anywhere), atleast it wasn't scary. Badnarik was for everyone's liberty. If you think that is silly, then vote for the scary theocrat.
Click to expand...
Badnarik had no answers that could stand up to any scrutiny and his view of the proper role of govt was not just extreme, it was extra-Constitutional. Badnarik would have been chewed to pieces by the press, not to mention Congress. He would have made the U.S. the laughing stock of the world. As far as the Constitution Party goes, at least they have a historical foundation for their views. No, Jefferson may not have supported some of the planks, but a good majority of the FF would have. Good enough for me.
 
Badnarik would have been chewed to pieces by the press, not to mention Congress.
Click to expand...

sure because he would have been a threat....something that needs to be killed quickly. IMHO I dont see how a pro-Bill of Rights platfirm is bad. The Constitution party is too wrapped up in religion. said it before and I'll say it again. I dont want more religion in Govt....I just want less Govt.
 
tube_ee has it right. Start at the bottom and work up. About the only campaign platform that will work is to avoid the issue of getting rid of programs at the local level; sell "efficiency" and "reduced overhead" because that hits both liberals and conservatives in the billfold. Focus on the billfold without being threatening.

Back in 1964, Goldwater went to Florida and pointed out that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme. He went to Michigan and said that high-cost unions were making the US less competitive in the marketplace. He went to the midwest and pointed out the ills resultant from farm subsidies.

He lost, even though all his points were factual and valid.

Scare people on billfold issues and guarantee your loss.

Art
 
I have said this before but will say it again anyway,
In a presidential election your vote means nothing, unless you live in one of the "battleground states".
In Texas, GW would have won the electoral votes no matter what. Even if he was caught on film having carnal relation with two goats and a pig, he would have still carried Texas{ and most of the red states}
By comparison, the Democrats will always carry California, Illinois, New York, and most of the northeast. Even is they run on a platform of letting China take over our infrastructure.

Our political system has degraded into basicly the NFL{ the voters being the cheerleaders, much like pro sports fans, will cheer their team no matter how many rape charges have been brought against them}
The electoral system is still the best system their is though.
If enough people disgusted with their party's sell out voted third party in a presidential election, the result would be that their Congressional Reps would see that as a threat to their being in office forever if they go along with the President's harebrained schemes, and would be more likely to listen to their constituents and vote NO on bogus issues.
It would also help the third parties get more recognition, and maybe more seats on city councils, county boards, sherriff departments, and state rep positions.
 
I think the reason the MSM is able to portray the LP as having so little to show, is that they DON'T!
That's the whole point.
The only 'progressive' thing to do that's supported by the media, is to pass more legislation protecting everyone from themselves. Anyone who proposes otherwise gets picked apart like overcooked fish.
 
i attended the constitution party's convention last year, art. so you know, they seemed very focused on local elections. that seemed, to me at least, to clearly be their strategy.

feel free to make contact with your local groups and run for an office.
 
I think in the immediate future the best we can hope for from a 3rd party is to steal enough votes from the other 2 parties to cause a loss where they would have one. A few upset loses and they may start to seperate themselves a bit to try to pick back up the lost votes.

We really need to change the ballot before we have a hope of seeing 3rd parties stand much of a chance in office.
 
How about these guys... http://www.falange.us/

I will be voting Libertarian from now on. I live in Southern IL and I plan to escape to Washington soon. Our Electoral College vote in IL will be going to a Democrat no matter what. Even when I move I will not vote for the lesser of 2 evils. It is still a vote for evil.
I would rather vote for the Libertarian candidate even if I knew that my vote would be the deciding factor in the house, senate, and presidential election. I cannot vote against my heart. Bush has let me down and the Democrats have let me down.

I will only vote for the candidate I feel is best and generally that is a Libertarian candidate. However it could be a Democrat or Republican. I believe Soybomb and I have the same IL House Rep. and I believe that our rep is a pro-gun Democrat. I will vote for whoever is closest to my own views.
 
vote for a third party = Democrat victory
Click to expand...

I am non-plussed by this arguement. What is so terrible about the Democrats winning back power?

Traditional Republican resonses:

"The Democrats will spend us into bankrupcy"

"The Democrats will take your guns"

"The Democrats are soft on <insert threat here>"

"The Democrats are corrupt"


It appears to me that the Republicans have lost the right to arguement any of these points. They spend and spend. They have not repealled a single gun law. They are leaving our southern border wide open and they are corrupt down to the core.

With control of the House, Senate and Presidency why have they NOT repealled Brady? GCA 68? NFA 34? Why is the border a joke?

Simply saying "vote Republican or else Democrats will rule" just doesn't impress me as a valid arguement when the Republican party is essentially, Democrat.
 
Both parties are pushing us to the same ignominable end - the sacrifice of our sovereignty, wealth, and way of life as a nation, at the altar of globalist corporatism in the guise of "compassionate" "multicultural" socialism ruled by world bureaucracy and enforced with our own military.

Keep rearranging the furnature on the observation deck, while the ship is sinking. In 20 years you will despise yourselves.
 
Unfortuantely, CAnoneer is quite correct. Both parties are in the pocket of corporate interests who long ago decided to give up having a free market system when they figured out how effective government/business collision can be in assuring they never are supplanted by newer, better but smaller businesses (they wanted to avoid the inevitable cycle of capitalistic societies).

I will vote for a Libertarian, even though I am in a battleground state. Why? Because both of the major parties are selling me out to a transnational global elite, made up of coercive businesses, and even more coercive, non-elected governors.

Do I think the Libertarians need to moderate their views? Yes, very much so. Do I think that the Libs need to begin to champion state's rights without mentioning lessening of social services? Yes. If they ever want to be taken seriously.

But you know what? That ain't happeing. And I'm not putting George Bush's fascist successor in office, nor the socialist, Hillary Clintoon. I'll take a silly anarchist any day over these slavemasters pretending to be representatives of the people.
 
Both parties are pushing us to the same ignominable end - the sacrifice of our sovereignty, wealth, and way of life as a nation, at the altar of globalist corporatism in the guise of "compassionate" "multicultural" socialism ruled by world bureaucracy and enforced with our own military.

Keep rearranging the furnature on the observation deck, while the ship is sinking. In 20 years you will despise yourselves.
Click to expand...

+1.

Not long ago I happen on a list of the past PsoUS that listed their terms and their political party affiliations of the day. It was striking how many different political parties this country has had. I disagree that 3rd party candidates can't be successful. IMO we are overdue for a replacement of one party or the other. Me thinks the Rs would be in jeapordy now if there was an alternative. One thing that would accelerate the process is officials who already hold office changing their affiliation between elections to run under a new flag. Not sure there are many in Congress that would do that at this time but who can know the future?

Historical note:
During the last election I caught a brief live interview which I believe was conducted outside the place they were holding one of the debates and Badnarik was interviewed regarding his exclusion. I don't think he did his chances or the L. party a great deal of good.
S-
 
If these "third parties" are to have any chance at all, they must start by running candidates in state and local elections. Maybe field a candidate for the U.S. House. Throwing all their money and effort behind a candidate for President or even for a Senate seat is a waste. It will never happen! There is a saying that the tree-huggers use during rallies: “Think globally, but act locally”. Nothing has ever been built from the top down. Trying to win the White House without any party members having ever won an election is folly. I also think that voting for a candidate for President that has absolutely no record is somewhat risky. If you read the party platform for the Republicans (or even the Democrats for that matter), they sound great. It’s the actions of the politicians after they are elected that is loathsome. Who knows how these unproven third party guys will react when surrounded by big interest groups and other corrupt politicians?
 
Kim said:
Third Party elected Clinton should I say more.
Click to expand...
Yes, because history did not end in 1992. The widespread dissatisfaction which allowed Perot to get so far also provided fertile ground for Mr. Newt and friends in the next election, when, for the first time in American history, they took out a sitting Speaker of the House.

Big government Republicans have created that kind of widespread dissatisfaction again, and again created opportunity for someone to exploit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Voter disaffection an opening for third party?
2
Replies
45
Views
1K
The Real Hawkeye
T
F
  • Locked
Party politics
Replies
13
Views
445
JesseJames
J
X
  • Locked
Congress Attempts to Kill the "Third-Party Threat"
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
longeyes
L
J
  • Locked
Ralph Nader gets support...
Replies
5
Views
850
Ktulu
K
R
  • Locked
Third Party Candidates Get Few Votes
Replies
0
Views
344
rock jock
R
Back
Top