Fergasun Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 I just had a diabolical idea. Right now the political parties are focussed on South Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. Well, here is my idea for a third party "spoiler". We all know that you need to start small before you go big. So this is what I think. An Independent run for Texas and California as a "middle finger" to the established parties. That's right, all you need to do is campaign, and get on the ballot in two states. You can set up shop in those states, talk about how Washington sucks, how Democrats suck, how Republicans suck. Offer up better ideas, ideas that never get implemented, and then you can win over the people. All the while they are fighting over Iowa, South Carolina, etc. Imagine if someone went after only Texas and California voters; and got them in the electoral college in 2012! Yes. I can dream too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 who did you have in mind that could swing it? pipe dream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 What policies would you propose? imho campaign finance reform is the only way to change the system. Otherwise you just change the faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 What policies would you propose?imho campaign finance reform is the only way to change the system. Otherwise you just change the faces. that will probably require a constitutional amendment, unfortunately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 I'm going to be throwing my vote away anyway, in all likelihood. The only viable GOP candidate (Huntsman) ain't getting the nomination, and I can't stomach another vote for Obama. At this point, if Larry ran, I'd vote for him. Yes, seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 The best avenue for "giving both parties the finger" would be to ensure RP wins Iowa, NH, TX and CA (all within reach btw). I realize that sounds weird since he is running GOP, but we all know the real truth about how his own part feels about him, so its still a nice lil FU to the GOP and well as the Dems. Why not capitalize on already established momentum with a solid base that will nver go down in support (it has only gone up over time, RPO doesnt lose support like the flavors of the month candidates of the past" OK, off my soapbox, even if you didnt go my suggested (and admittedly biased route) I support the plan should RP not be an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 The GOP spends as much time derailing Ron Paul as they do reviewing the other candidates. The establishment HATES him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 The GOP spends as much time derailing Ron Paul as they do reviewing the other candidates. The establishment HATES him. exactly! There could be few better "middle fingers" presented to the establishment than ensuring a RP win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 I'll pick the one i think can do the best possible job. I picked Bob Barr in the last election, so the republicans better put forth a miracle for them to get a vote again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted December 18, 2011 Author Share Posted December 18, 2011 I wasn't talking any candidate in general. In fact I was thinking of a spoiler, independent, non-existent candidate at the moment. Maybe Ron Paul comes closest; but right now there is no one I've seen on a national level who is able to combine the anger of both the Tea Party (big government spending) with the Occupy Wall Street Crowd (government corruption, lack of strong slap to the banks). Certainly Paul is able to articulate and capture those who disagree wrt our foreign policy and persona liberty issues. A candidate would be opposing the established democrat and republican stance on these issues. Both parties support big government spending (hence the tea party must be re-thinking their support for GOP come 2014 elections), both parties support the big banks, lack of financial regulation (Dems can try to claim victory with Dodd-Frank, but I'm talking about things like TARP/Federal Reserve bailouts), both parties support a strong corporate-political complex based in Washington DC. Even if you look at some of the "outsider" candidates, like Cain or Gingrich it's easy to see their flaws (ie. Cain working for Federal Reserve, Gingrich benefiting greatly from the corporate-political-complex). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I simply see no way a candidate could be convincing enough to take both Cali and Texas w/o being able to sway the others...a strategy of simply going after those states is nonsensical in that case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I'm seriously considering a vote for Ron Paul. But I DO want Obama to be President, for the sole reason of appointing liberal-activist Judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I'm tossing my vote away to an independent. I can no longer feed the 2 party scam in good conscience. My vote will have nothing to do with the issues except to make a tiny step toward ending the civil war in our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobo Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I wasn't talking any candidate in general. In fact I was thinking of a spoiler, independent, non-existent candidate at the moment. Maybe Ron Paul comes closest; but right now there is no one I've seen on a national level who is able to combine the anger of both the Tea Party (big government spending) with the Occupy Wall Street Crowd (government corruption, lack of strong slap to the banks). Certainly Paul is able to articulate and capture those who disagree wrt our foreign policy and persona liberty issues.A candidate would be opposing the established democrat and republican stance on these issues. Both parties support big government spending (hence the tea party must be re-thinking their support for GOP come 2014 elections), both parties support the big banks, lack of financial regulation (Dems can try to claim victory with Dodd-Frank, but I'm talking about things like TARP/Federal Reserve bailouts), both parties support a strong corporate-political complex based in Washington DC. Even if you look at some of the "outsider" candidates, like Cain or Gingrich it's easy to see their flaws (ie. Cain working for Federal Reserve, Gingrich benefiting greatly from the corporate-political-complex). Is there a reason you don't think this describes Ron Paul? He pretty much founded the Tea Party (at least the one before the Republican establishment used it to try and rebrand itself) and Ron Paul supporters were all over OWS. When he didn't win the nomination in 2008 he specifically told people to vote third party over McCain. He's teamed up with Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader on issues. What else could he do to meet you standard? I can understand that he's more conservative and maybe you want someone who is more liberal but if you really want to give the finger to both parties does it matter if it comes from your right hand instead of the left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 Because I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and when it came down to it he captured like 1% of California. I see that happening again. The problem Ron Paul has is $$$. If he focused on the two largest blocks of voters, Texas and California, and did it now, it would be unique campaign strategy. I don't think Ron Paul is sustainable, but maybe this year he can capture a Perot-share of voters. The candidate would be the proverbial "Mickey Mouse" candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Because I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and when it came down to it he captured like 1% of California. I see that happening again. The problem Ron Paul has is $$$. If he focused on the two largest blocks of voters, Texas and California, and did it now, it would be unique campaign strategy. I don't think Ron Paul is sustainable, but maybe this year he can capture a Perot-share of voters. The candidate would be the proverbial "Mickey Mouse" candidate. With recent successes, you dont think Paul could do better than any 3rd party candidate at the moment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted September 5, 2012 Author Share Posted September 5, 2012 I don't think there's a running political thread who are just fed up with the whole political process in America. Maybe there is, but I"m going to keep updating this one. Because I can't stand the way the parties try to "win" on every issue. Our political process is like a war that has lasted longer than Afghanistan or the Iraq War, and both parties are trying to strategerize and gain ground on American soil. I'm sick of being looked at as a battleground for war, but that's how the major political parties treat me. What's worse is that I don't feel this election will change much... sure maybe the GOP will be able to get something like 52 Senators, but it's not going to drastically change things, plus I've already lived through a Romney presidency, I call it George W Bush 2005-2008... (okay, okay, so I know Romney is going to be cutting taxes for the rich, or trying to anyway... I predict the GOP blame the Democrats when they block it...). And I've lived through an Obama presidency, which I didn't think was too bad... give me inertia to the current two political parties. If we are going to have some movement, I'd like a third party... third party being "not any of the current parties, nor the moderate 'third way' BS". A real third party which somehow has real viable candidates running and competitive for more than just the President, House, and Senate. Man... I can dream. Anyway, enjoy this article: NakedCapitalism.com: The Fake Election, 10 Arguments the Republicans Aren't Making If the Republicans were interested in winning, you’d see a very different campaign. Here are ten ironclad arguments you’d see. These are arguments the Republicans could make, but aren’t:1) The Tax Cheat Administration (see Geithner and Daschle) 2) Obama Doesn't Keep His Promises to You (re: re-negotiating NAFTA, minimum wage indexed to inflation, etc) That might have been the point of Clint Eastwood's speech tho... so the GOP gets partial points. 3) Obama Administration: Brought to You By Wall Street (Bill Daley worked for JP Morgan, Jack Lew worked for Citigroup) 4) Obama Administration Handling of the Foreclosure Crisis (their housing policies had nothing to do with helping those under foreclosure and everything to do with helping out the banks) You can see 5-10 at the link. This is the author's strong closing: The Republicans don’t want to discuss tax cheating, offshoring, corruption, inequality, dissent, the rule of law, endless war, or Wall Street criminality. They’d rather lose. It’s not that they want to lose in 2012, it’s just that they aren’t going to go after every vote.Needless to say, this is the point that I made 8.5 months ago. Neither party wants to discuss that, heck even Eastwood's speech during the RNC, what was his point when he said "just bring them home tommorrow" about the wars; he didn't suggest that Romney would bring them home tommorrow, did he? Can't wait until election is over, 2012! (Although this whole thing will start all over again, possibly with the Democrats playing obstructionists to the GOP Presidency, much like they somewhat were in 2006-2008). See, us voters never learn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 What about Gary Johnson? I don't know much about him, and I am not a Liberterian, but a blurb in Politico suggested that he will be on all 50 state's ballots. http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/09/ron-paul-gary-johnson-wonderful-134316.html It would seem like this could give the Ron Paul supporters a means to be heard, though the likely end result of a substantial turnout for him would be an Obama win (I think the Paul people would lean Republican, but I could be wrong). Edit: Eastwood's speech/skit was rambling and hard to follow. He also suggested Obama got us into Afghanistan, so I wouldn't make too much out of the points he made. Saw Ryan this morning say the Romney stance on Afghanistan was essentially the same as Obama's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 What about Gary Johnson? I don't know much about him, and I am not a Liberterian, but a blurb in Politico suggested that he will be on all 50 state's ballots.http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/09/ron-paul-gary-johnson-wonderful-134316.html It would seem like this could give the Ron Paul supporters a means to be heard, though the likely end result of a substantial turnout for him would be an Obama win (I think the Paul people would lean Republican, but I could be wrong). Edit: Eastwood's speech/skit was rambling and hard to follow. He also suggested Obama got us into Afghanistan, so I wouldn't make too much out of the points he made. Saw Ryan this morning say the Romney stance on Afghanistan was essentially the same as Obama's. Johnson's got my vote in 2012. I really wish they'd let him debate Obama and Romney this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 It'd be interesting to speculate on who the "next Ross Perot" might be. Now that Paul's retiring, the most likely possibilities are probably all in the business world. If T. Boone Pickens was 25 years younger I could see him doing it. Everyone talks up Bloomberg, and I suppose he still could, though I'd shudder at the thought of that dictatorial maniac getting a decent shot at the White House. Trump has the ego for it but I'm 99% sure he just pushes the rumors out there as a publicity stunt to feed said ego and would never run in a million years, not that many people would take him seriously if he did. Theoretically one of the Koch brothers might try it if they're really disappointed with the Republican nominee sometime over the next few cycles, but I think they very much prefer to stay behind the scenes (or at least as behind the scenes as they can manage to be when everyone knows that they have no problem throwing huge amounts of money at their favorite political projects). Anyone know any other billionaires with political aspirations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Anyone know any other billionaires with political aspirations? If we can somehow convince Snyder to sell the 'Skins to run for President... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 If we can somehow convince Snyder to sell the 'Skins to run for President... He'd just go on to pay Trump a billion to be his Treasury Secretary, Kim Kardashian a billion to be his Press Secretary, Xzibit a billion to be his Secretary of Transportation, and Bruce Smith a billion to be his Secretary of Defense, and then he'd be super-surprised when everything didn't work out. (He'd still manage to crank out a few thousand commemorative coins featuring Secretary Smith's image before leaving office, though.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted September 5, 2012 Author Share Posted September 5, 2012 The strong man as President isn't going to cut it. I think first a billionaire should go for a House seat. Then he should run with policies which neither party could hold and attack both parties (which should be easy to do) at the same time making common sense obvious proposals that the parties won't take for reason of political expediency (really, both parties were attacking cuts to Medicare, and the GOP is in the position of both claiming the national debt is a problem and being AGAINST cuts to Medicare, how can you be for both!?). In my mind it'll take a cadre of politically smart/savvy/independent people who actually craft policy platform on areas where both parties are out of whack (for instance, how about being against the Mickey Mouse copyright rules... surely that doesn't mean cut off copyright after 7 years, but something like 50 years is more than reasonable). Look at how much push Paul Ryan got on the budget for his proposals in '08 (or was it '10)... pushed him all the way into the VP slot (whereby his proposals are getting diluted/water'd down by Mitt, no?). I think one of the biggest mistakes Obama made was saying "we aren't going to investigate the Bush policies", in fact the "Fast and Furious" policy of walking guns into Mexico started prior to Obama going into office. We haven't even "taken down" a bank... one of the big banks should have been taken down in by now, just to set an example. Obama has been way too weak on TBTF. The irony is that big banking money is pouring into Romney (so what was the point of Obama being soft on the banks?). I guess he's already bought and paid for, so they aren't afraid of his wrath, right? Even though we got health care reform, we didn't get a good debate on what is driving up health care costs, which is actual laws/policy that has been implemented! ... and things like not touching social security/medicare for those close to or near retirement. Comon! If you are going to change my program than you darn well better change it for the older folks who are causing the problem anyway (this is why the Ryan budget doesn't balance until ~ 2045... the budget pain of the boomers getting through the system... why should younger folks pay for that?). It's really picking good policy from the left and right, and bringing them together in addition to repudiatnig all the bad policy of the left and right. I think Mark Zuckerberg should get on this before he's no longer a billionaire! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Never going to happen. Demographics have this country eventually becoming like Europe. 2016- The RNC was really showcasing people that will be running in 2016. The big name dems are raising their profiles for their own 2016 runs. The day after election day, 2016 will be one the brain. For Republicans and Democrats, should Obama win. For the Democrats should Romney win. I have a bumper sticker that says Nobody for PResident in 2012. I'd watch Gary Johnson because while he will probably be mostly invisible; he still could garner enough votes to shift some states to Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Johnson's got my vote in 2012. I really wish they'd let him debate Obama and Romney this season. MIne too, but they will continue the deplorable act odf not allowing him to the debates. Thats a travesty that 2 political parties can control elections rigged only for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.