|
|
|
|
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 8:41:39 AM | We have only two tools with which to influence government, 1.) our vote and 2.) our money.
If you've read one of my posts it's pretty clear I am not a liberal  but neither am I a "toe the party line" republican, rather I am a fiscal conservative. I don't care how many new social policies the candidates have, I just want them to find a way to pay for it our of THEIR pockets and stop getting back into mine every time they have another bright idea. I’m not aware of anyone who pays more than the minimum required taxes, even though you can actually pay as much as you like. So for all the people who are not opposed to higher taxes, send your money in voluntarily now so that those of us who don’t want to pay more (and don’t feel bad about it) don’t have to! The point I’m getting to, they already have our money, and the only thing we have left is our vote. If either of the two does not hold the same political philosophy as you, do yourself a favor and DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM! | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 9:11:32 AM | After hearing everyone's opinions and giving the notion further thought, I'm not certain that I am completely convinced, but I'm certainly glad to hear that there are so many people determined to vote for third party. Hopefully you are walking the walk instead of just talking the talk, and maybe one day before long it will have an impact.
While I can say with certainty that I won't be casting my vote for a third party in this election, I'm proud to announce my candidacy for the House of Representatives in PA-06 in 2010, the first year that I will be eligible, on a libertarian platform. Whether I'll actually be running as the Libertarian party's candidate is doubtful. Haha.
Cheers. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 9:21:24 AM |
The only ones who DONT want you to vote 3rd party are members of the 2 parties.
Amazing how the vast majority get sucked into the corporate sponsored vacuum. Aye?
I'd like to think people are still capable of learning, thinking, seeing and believing and then responding accordingly. What I witness says otherwise as I watch people complacently board the train to heaven knows where.
People need to take pride knowing they're not a follower, haven't bought into the "Du-o-poly" (as dear friend coined), have principles to which they live by and care enough about this country to keep it free.
Campaign For Liberty and the future of this country. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 12:20:38 PM | I think Devvy Kidd sums up the faux presidential election quite well in her article, "Presidential Election: One Giant Fraud".
If you care to read:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd402.htm | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 7:04:18 PM | A weak vote at election time is not going to substantiate any third-party candidate. The time to support a third party---with your money and volunteer support--- is months or years before a national election. A viable third party would need to be built up through campaign finance, registration, and volunteer support, like the Reform Party was in 1992. Putting Ross Perot on the ballot that year took a lot of behind-the- scenes political work, and his turnout that year shows that it is do-able.
However, anyone who is deciding 20 days before the election to scrounge for a third-party choice (because their candidate got destroyed in the primaries) is way too late. It won't make any difference whatsoever. It's better to step up and make a decision between the two legitimate candidates we have. Then, the day after the election, find yourself a fledgling third party to throw your support behind for 2012.  | |
|
edisto
|
Joined: 5/14/2008
Msg: 31 | |
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/14/2008 8:56:45 PM |
The problem is with most independent presdential nominees is that they flat-line when it comes to presidential elections. There hasn't been a popular Independent to even come remotely close to winning the white house since Ross Perot, because most of them can't fire up their base to vote for them let alone another party.
hard to get the population fired up when mainstream media denies you access to the masses and therefore, cuts you off from a major funding source-
it's the media that pins the stories on the candidates, seldom the other way around | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/15/2008 5:33:49 PM | Edisto is right, the MSM does a real good job at portraying the third parties as cooks or idealistic dreamers. They by their nature need a fight between the two parties, that builds ratings. Add to the fact that the majority of the media is biased and the third party has a big fight getting in the door. Third parties need to raise a lot of money. Even more than the two main parties. I figure then the media will call this an attempt to buy the election, lol.
But as has been said the time to start support was a while ago, but better late than never.
We need to take back the control of this country and voting for the two main parties is not the way we will ever do it.
>>>>> | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/17/2008 1:02:48 AM | | I feel that it is our duty as citizens in a representative democracy to pick the candidate whose policy will benefit ourselves the most. There is no point in voting in such a system of we dont stay true to that because its the mechanism that by which our form of government can be policed by we its citizens. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/24/2008 6:32:45 PM | The numbers vary state to state, but the national average of independent voters is somewhere around 25-35% of ALL voters. With this percentage, you should have a viable 3rd party, but you dont, because you all vote for Democrats or Republicans. Why?
What good is it to call yourself "independent" when you end up still voting for the 2 party candidates?
You shoot yourself in the foot because, you DONT support the independent candidate, so why do you boast that you're "independent" when you're not? | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/25/2008 2:02:18 AM |
The numbers vary state to state, but the national average of independent voters is somewhere around 25-35% of ALL voters. With this percentage, you should have a viable 3rd party, but you dont, because you all vote for Democrats or Republicans. Why?
What good is it to call yourself "independent" when you end up still voting for the 2 party candidates?
You shoot yourself in the foot because, you DONT support the independent candidate, so why do you boast that you're "independent" when you're not?
I think after the next four years, many more will be ready, Neopol. At the moment, there are people galore that are still dreaming and fired up about "hope" and "change." And the ones who aren't fired up about Obama's code words are firmly entrenched in a conservative base that is hardly conservative anymore. When the wheels really fall off of this thing we call the economy, perhaps everyone will finally be prepared to vote third party -- probably in 2012. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/25/2008 5:52:06 AM |
disto is right, the MSM does a real good job at portraying the third parties as cooks or idealistic dreamers. They by their nature need a fight between the two parties, that builds ratings.
I heard some morning news show anchor in passing the other day remark with her eyes wide and a shocked look on her face that Ron Paul passes the fact check every time as if that should be surprising. I guess it would be if you just bought the line that he's a "kook".
I have wished that we could see a cable news network started and ran by Ron Paul thinking media so people would have a MSM conduit into logic and truth instead of biased propaganda. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/25/2008 7:39:43 AM |
When the wheels really fall off of this thing we call the economy, perhaps everyone will finally be prepared to vote third party -- probably in 2012.
The part I dont get is that registering yourself as an independent actually restricts your vote, since there is no entrenched independent 3rd party in place. Many states will not let you vote for either Democrats, or sometimes Republicans in their primaries. If there are also no independents on the ballot, how do you benefit?
Independents cant ask us to support their cause since they collectively dont support it themselves. The 35% registered independents in the US are the ones responsible for this happening. Its their job to make it happen. I cant believe that a third of voters who are registered independent cant field independent candidates on most ballots to compete with Democrats & Republicans.
If there are no independents on the ballot(which is usually the case), you just wasted your primary vote. I am registered Democrat, & my vote in the primary is important to me....I feel that I have a say in separating the moderates from the liberals on the primary ballot. My primary vote helps steer the direction that I want my party to go.
If my moderate primary choice loses to a liberal , then I still have November to make another choice...either support the liberal, or seriously weigh the GOP, or other candidate.
As an independent, I wouldnt have had that double opportunity. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/25/2008 8:22:00 AM | Neo, it really should be look at more deeply than just enough people sending messages with their combined singular votes every 4 years.
You are right and have a logical strategy for trying to make the system work for you. The current system... choosing between your "corporate sponsored" choices... is what's wrong and what we would love to see change. Independents typically are "people" based and serve few powerful and well-financed interests so in the current system they are ignored and brushed aside. Also being Independent does leave them on an island without any kind of organizational structure.
That is why people need to be involved with 3rd parties not only starting on November 5th but also at all levels of government if you want change. People do need to organize at the grass roots level and to see it through. 3rd parties have a leg up because they do have some organization where again Independents are typically on an island as individuals without any structure around which to rally.
The primaries themselves are part of the current systems. The importance of the primaries is a resignation to the current system and what we are talking about is changing the landscape completely. The primaries are meaningless to Independents because they are not a party. They just have to be able to get their names on the ballots as Independent. 3rd parties on the other hand do have a nominating process within them so they do have methods of nominating them but I think their methods don't utilize primaries. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/26/2008 10:07:23 AM |
What good is it to call yourself "independent" when you end up still voting for the 2 party candidates?
It's pointless to talk about voting for a third-party candidate 8 days out from an election when few people have done any work for or donated to any third parties. It's a joke. I don't see anyone on this thread who has been seriously discussing what they have done with third parties (actual canvassing, fundraising, etc.) all these months. We've known that McCain and Obama were going to be the main Republican and Democrat party choices for MONTHS. Yet, there is thread after thread rehashing irrelevant associations and ad-hominem attacks against the main candidates, and very few threads about what any poster was doing to build up a third-party candidate. There were a few Ron Paul threads, but the posters who started those threads weren't discussing Paul as someone with a believable chance to win the Presidency.
Building up a third-party candidate takes time. A third party has to be built up nationally over the span of years. The Reform Party in 1992 and 1996 is a good example of a third party which had some national success. Their only flaw was that they didn't have a readily identifiable platform emphasizing a few, key issues. The Reform Party became a catch-all party which pulled in too many disparate voters who had nothing in common, so that party collapsed.
There is a lot of fùcking whining going on. Some POF members were fine with the two-party structure when they thought Hillary, or Huckabee, or Giuliani, or someone else they liked was actually going to get elected. Now that those candidates came up short, these same members are now hollering about third parties. LOL.
When I see someone start a thread the day after the election saying "I am a member of __________ Party (a third party). Here's why I'm supporting that party, and here's what I'm doing to help get a third-party candidate elected in 2012........", then I'll take that member seriously. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/26/2008 4:26:34 PM | ^^
It really doesn't matter whether you take anyone here seriously or not, does it? None of us know you from Adam. What matters is whether or not we vote our conscience and are true to our own souls. You just don't factor into the equation at all.
When the American people slowly and steadily, day after day read more and more about the corruption that's occurring within these two parties, that the two candidates back and support, then it's perfectly acceptable to determine that these candidates do not deserve our vote and that a vote for one of them is more of the same. Voting third party is a logical way of not rewarding these individuals and of making your voice heard in Washington. It doesn't matter when we come to the realization that Obama is corrupt and doesn't stand for change at all, or that McCain, though a POW, is also more of the same, through proven documentation, etc.
We have to live with ourselves at the end of the day. Maybe you're willing to stand beside a lying, corrupt politician who is the opposite of everything he preaches, but I AM NOT. You go ahead and take a stand for more of the same and back the lying hypocrite who threw values like "hope" and "change" right out the window. The only reason you don't want people to vote Independent is because you don't want to lose the votes for Obama.
The only way we will ever have change is if we become the change we need and that starts with our vote. When we find out these politicians are corrupt as the day is long, we need to act on that, imo. We are responsible for how we vote and are responsible if things don't change. It is up to us to march to the beat of a different drummer when we become aware that our idealism was pure naivety. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/26/2008 10:55:37 PM |
Voting third party is a logical way of not rewarding these individuals and of making your voice heard in Washington.
No. It's not logical to vote for a candidate who is obscure and has no chance of winning. The logical thing to do is to research the alternative parties and, if you find one which better matches your views than the Democrat or Republican parties, join that third party and actively support them with work and financial support years ahead of time. It's too late for 2008. Until a viable third-party can build an infrastructure which promotes candidates on the national stage effectively, a vote for Chuck Baldwin, Alan Keyes, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney is absolutely pointless. There are a few posters (like Oddandy) who have looked extensively at third-party candidates since this election cycle started. Most posters, however, have merely bleated the slogans of their particular candidate of choice. Either way, it won't do a lot of good if people don't support their alternative party of choice for years prior to an election and not merely days prior to one.
Certain members are butt-hurt because their primary candidate lost. That's what's going on here. Their heroes got spanked, and they have been reeling ever since. A desperate defection to some ill-considered choice (who's going to get 2% of the vote) is not a good decision. It's desperate, and it's pathetic.
Suck it up and vote for McCain or Obama. I don't care which, and neither does anyone else, as long as you have objective reasons based on the issues of the day. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/27/2008 7:48:26 AM | So i'm going to point out something that should be obvious to all: The only reason that many of you can stand third party candidates (while you can't stand the major 2) is because the media + democratic/republican machines don't care about them.
If a third party candidate actually had a chance......you would get to hear about all the NEGATIVES associated with them, and would most likely be just as disgusted by them as you are with whoever the D's and R's are putting up. Personally, I think both Obama and McCain would do just fine as president (at the very least, they would be a vast improvement over the last 8 years), and there is really no way to predict what they actually will do since most of the time elected officials do something different than what they promised.
However, if you are making your choice not to vote for a democrat or republican because of their political positions and are ok with having your candidate not having a chance.....great, maybe other's will buy into your idealism and your party may get their chance to leave the kiddie table sometime in the future. If you are voting for a third party because you think that the republican/democrat's are bad people because of all the negative ad's or news stories run about them.......you need to realize that whoever you are voting for would be smeared just as much if anyone important cared about them. If you think that your candidate is above all the "scandal's" that you hear about Obama or McCain, I can guarantee that whoever you are voting for has just as many 'associations' as any other politician.
So then....on to money. If a third party actually grew enough to get to play with the big boy's what do you think will happen? Well, first off, they would need money......lot's of it. Unfortunately, the general public doesn't have enough of it to compete in the current game.....so regardless of how idealistic your third party is, they would require the support of interest group's and corporations. Which unfortunately would require them to adopt certain positions that they probably don't agree with and ultimately turn them into EXACTLY what they were trying to replace (the current two parties).
So, how can we keep that from happening? I have no idea. There are many idea's out there from campaign finance reform, to limiting 'independant' ad campaigns from interest groups........none of which will really address the problem because unless we want to limit free speech, there really is no way to stop them from finding way's to spend more money with the candidates actually spending it themselves.
What it all boils down to is......a third party will be no different than the current two. Maybe there will be a few minor policy position's that are different, but in general you have to pander an aweful lot to ever have a shot. Then there is of course the problem of requiring 270 electoral votes, while splitting the total between 3 candidates.......senate decided president anyone? | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/28/2008 4:57:27 AM | If you’re going to proclaim yourself to be an “Independent” then for goodness sake grow a pair and vote that way. Any reasonable adult recognizes that the candidate is simply the best “face man” the parties can come up with for the elections; they are truly representative of the party line, nothing more.
While I think voting the issues are crucial in every election, there is absolutely no substantive difference between either of the candidate’s policies, particularly when you consider they have to sway at least one half of the electorate to win and neither could do so without at least some significant support from an opposing party, and must at least present a slightly centrist game face to do so. (Even though it would seem to be completely misrepresenting their own personal records.)
From my perspective, it seems most "Independents" are running away from the rapidly declining reputation of their parties, yet dragging 100% of their party’s political philosophies with them, please someone tell me, how is that “Independent” and what pray tell is it independent from?!?!?!? (The “Independent Party” makes up a full 1/4th of all registered voters, if it were a party of philosophy, we would not be operating in a two party system…)
Let's be realistic, the advent of the "Independent" voter appeared long before there was ever an Independent “Party”. It's quite simply the amalgamation of an über centrist pretense. They are basically Democrats & Republicans who proclaim themselves to look to the candidate rather than to the issues and vote accordingly. Unfortunately, all of the Election Day issues are not settled by charisma, so even the most pure of heart Independent is either a left leaning moderate, a right leaning moderate (or an idiot) in disguise.
I recently had a discussion with a self proclaimed Independent, after listening for 5 minutes about how she would never toe any party line I got the discussion turned to issues and voting history. Turns out that her ultra conservative appearance is merely a façade for a Kumbaya singing-Birkenstock wearing-granola chewing-tree hugger who thought the term “liberal” was a dirty word, and preferred to disassociate herself from the "kooks" (her word), by adopting the Independent mantra, even though she has demonstrated the absence of desire or ability to act “independent” of the two party system by never having voted in any manner other than for Democratic candidates.
We are at a stage in political campaigning where all is fair game, yet nothing is fair game, rhetoric has become rancor, truth has become fiction, fiction has become indisputable fact, legitimate questions are touted as personal attacks and misrepresenting your opponents plan is preferred over properly representing your own. In summary, come next Tuesday, we’re not voting for what we believe in, we don’t even know if it’s being represented … what we’re doing, rather than voting for the best candidate, is voting for whom we perceive to be the best liar or slickest con man, and will do the least amount of damage to the country.
 | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/28/2008 5:56:41 AM |
For those who are completely disillusioned with both party's, (Democrats & Republicans), you do have other options and they are as follows. These people below may or may not be on your state's ballot. Do a search and discover who is on your state's ballot and if necessary, you can write in the candidate of your choice.
The thread title should be Multi-Party System, the OP is not stopping at a third party but embracing multiple parties so one can find the candidate that most reflects your views. This is a good ideal to strive for (a candidate that most reflects your views) but is not practical in the real world.
Since the 1992 election, where Perot made a valiant stab at breaking the two party system, the percentage of voters not choosing a Democrat or Republican candidate has dwindled (1992 - 20%, 1996 - 10.05%, 2000 - 3.75, 2004 - 0.99%). One could argue that the other candidates have effected the outcome of the election (i.e. Nader in 2000) but have never had a serious chance at winning the election. IMHO the other candidates are there as spoilers only (in reality, not in ideal).
Voting is an important right we have in America and each of us needs to treat it seriously and with much respect. How you do that is up to you.
I plan on voting only for a candidate that has a serious chance at winning. In this election that means either Obama or McCain. I owe it to America to make my vote count, these two candidates have very different approaches to handling the economic, war, medical, etc. issues. Neither candidate is 100% in tune with my views, but there is one that is closer to them then the other. One that has a chance to win, and that candidate will get my vote. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 10/28/2008 8:48:23 AM |
I recently had a discussion with a self proclaimed Independent, after listening for 5 minutes about how she would never toe any party line I got the discussion turned to issues and voting history. Turns out that her ultra conservative appearance is merely a façade for a Kumbaya singing-Birkenstock wearing-granola chewing-tree hugger who thought the term “liberal” was a dirty word, and preferred to disassociate herself from the "kooks" (her word), by adopting the Independent mantra, even though she has demonstrated the absence of desire or ability to act “independent” of the two party system by never having voted in any manner other than for Democratic candidates.
This rings true more often than not, & it re-enforces the fact that independents are not independent voters as they wish to be viewed.
People like her feel the Democratic party isnt liberal/green enough; people like me think its not moderate enough. She casts off the Democratic identity & proclaims independence, while still voting Democratic; I retain the Democratic identity & try to force it to the center/right in the primaries, where I think it should be. If i fail, then I find another center/right candidate from another party that reflects my beliefs in November.
I am doing more to see my ideals become reailty than she is.
Most Independents seem to do nothing that changes anything when looking as the stats in this following post....:
Since the 1992 election, where Perot made a valiant stab at breaking the two party system, the percentage of voters not choosing a Democrat or Republican candidate has dwindled (1992 - 20%, 1996 - 10.05%, 2000 - 3.75, 2004 - 0.99%).
1% of all voters actually voted for someone else besides a Democrat or Republican in 2004, & 25% of those voters were registered independent. That's a pitiful display of resolve.
One could argue that the other candidates have effected the outcome of the election (i.e. Nader in 2000) but have never had a serious chance at winning the election. IMHO the other candidates are there as spoilers only (in reality, not in ideal).
That seems to be the only working tool in their toolbox. At least there is some influence with this one & only power, despite most independents flocking back to their 2 party roots on election day. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 11/1/2009 7:54:22 AM | Third party challenges in NJ, NY are warning sign
NEW YORK – Third party candidates are shaking up two major races in elections Tuesday, and the success of those candidacies is a warning shot fired at both major parties by voters angry at government and disillusioned by politics as usual.
In New York's 23rd Congressional district, where longtime Republican Rep. John McHugh stepped down to be Army secretary, Dede Scozzafava, the candidate chosen by state GOP leaders to replace him, was forced out of the race by a surging Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman. High-profile national Republicans endorsed Hoffman, saying Scozzafava, a state assemblywoman who supports abortion rights and gay marriage, had abandoned core GOP values.
In the New Jersey governor's race, independent Chris Daggett has gone from afterthought to player in a contest pitting the unpopular incumbent, Democrat Jon Corzine, against Republican Chris Christie.
Daggett is not expected to win the New Jersey contest, and the GOP split in upstate New York could throw the race to Democrat Bill Owens.
But the impact of those candidacies on the high-profile contests points to an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment sentiment that could be a prevailing theme in the 2010 congressional elections and beyond.
"What it says is the public is looking for less self-interested parties and candidates who can reflect the needs of a very frustrated public," said Douglas Astolfi, a history professor at Florida's St. Leo University. "We have two wars and we're in a recession that neither party seems to address in any positive way. There's a deep sense that government has abandoned the common man. People are frustrated and angry."
Indeed, a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll released last week found that trust in government is at a 12-year low, and half of all Americans now support the creation of a new political party.
Both parties ignore such sentiment at their peril in 2010 and perhaps into the 2012 presidential race.
In Senate contests from Florida and Kentucky to New Hampshire next year, conservatives furious at the Republican establishment are mounting primary challenges against more mainstream candidates favored by the national party.
On the other side, Democratic strategists worry that progressives, disgusted by the big money bank bailout and disillusioned with President Barack Obama's lack of fight on issues such as a government-run health insurance plan, might keep some people from voting. That could cost Democrats seats up and down the ballot.
Political operatives are keeping an eye on independent voters — an important and growing group that often decides elections. Will these voters send a signal to politicians Tuesday as well or will they stay home and leave it to the more ideologically driven base voters in both parties?
That was the case in the New York race, where polling found Scozzafava had fallen well behind her Hoffman and Owens, making it essentially a two-man contest days ago.
Sensing opportunity, ambitious conservatives across the country have jumped on the Hoffman bandwagon. The most prominent is Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee and a potential high-profile contender for the White House in 2012.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, also looking at 2012, has announced his support for Hoffman. So has Chuck DeVore, a conservative California assemblyman hoping to run in a U.S. Senate primary against Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett Packard executive backed by national Republicans to take on the Democratic incumbent, Barbara Boxer.
Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich had endorsed Scozzafava, drawing the enmity of conservative bloggers scoffing at the possibility of a Gingrich presidential run in 2012.
Hoffman's rise infuriated leaders of New York's Republican Party, who insisted Scozzafava was a good fit for the district which favored Obama last year, but is one of the few still held by Republicans in the Northeast.
In New Jersey, Daggett, a businessman and former Environmental Protection Agency official, has appealed to voters who are turned off by both Corzine and Christie and fed up with the candidates' campaign bloodbath. Daggett was widely believed to be the winner of a televised candidate debate and has been endorsed by The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., the state's largest newspaper.
John Weingart, associate director of Rutgers University's Eagleton Institute of Politics, said Daggett's candidacy had succeeded in giving disillusioned voters a competent and credible alternative to Corzine and Christie.
But Weingart said lack of money, the institutional obstacles to a third party candidacy and a growing awareness among voters of the ideological differences between Christie and Corzine would cause Daggett's campaign to stall.
"To vote for an independent candidate, you have to believe either that the person can win or that there is no difference you care about between the Democratic and the Republican candidate," Weingart said.
A Quinnipiac Poll released Wednesday found Corzine ahead of Christie by a 43-38 percent margin with 13 percent for Daggett and 5 percent undecided. But a majority of voters said they had an unfavorable view of both Corzine and Christie.
In the 1992 presidential race, money wasn't an issue for billionaire businessman Ross Perot, whose rise was powered by the same kind of populist anger brewing today. Perot vastly altered the dynamic of that contest, running as an independent and winning 19 percent of the vote.
Democrat Bill Clinton was the beneficiary of that three-way contest, taking away the presidency from George H.W. Bush with just a plurality of the vote. Clinton did so in part by adding a populist flair to his message, drawing voters who had been attracted to Perot.
Detachment from the major parties some of the success of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, another billionaire who appealed to a city craving for competence in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.,
Bloomberg, who ran as a Republican that year, announced in 2007 that he would switch parties and become and independent, leading to speculation he would run for president at some point. Bloomberg is expected to cruise to a third term on Election Day. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 11/1/2009 8:09:08 AM | .
The race for New York's 23rd Congressional district is the real show this year.... a GOP Purge..... The Nut Cases have taken over..... A Pat Robertson Grad....Palin Blessed ....
Next show Tejas.... Perry has aligned himself with the Radicals. (comments Seceding) This will be interesting...
The GOP moving that direction will not attract Independents............... | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 11/1/2009 2:34:42 PM | Now that the Republican candidate has dropped out of the NY race, you probably need to add the Conservative party to that list. Looks like the 2010 elections are going to be divided on the right between Conservatives and Republicans - which means wins for the Democrats.
Thanks Glen Beck!
| |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 11/2/2009 6:56:01 AM | .
The NY race is bad news for the GOP....
A lose ....lose...................
Nov. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Former Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava endorsed the Democratic contender for a vacant New York congressional seat over a Conservative backed by Republican leaders one day after she withdrew from the race.
Scozzafava, a state assemblywoman, yesterday announced she is supporting Democrat Bill Owens in his race against Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, in a Nov. 3 special election in New York’s traditionally Republican 23rd congressional district.
This will only divide the party more............
The Clown running in VA has Joe Wilson (SC) ??????
Texas Perry want to start HIS own country.........
Dede Scozzafava looks like a Goldwater GOP'er... So She is TOOOOOOOOO Liberal?
17% identify themselves a GOP.... watch that number drop....
This is not good for the Country............
. | |
|
| Third party aka Independent
Posted: 11/2/2009 8:32:00 PM |
The part I dont get is that registering yourself as an independent actually restricts your vote, since there is no entrenched independent 3rd party in place. Many states will not let you vote for either Democrats, or sometimes Republicans in their primaries. If there are also no independents on the ballot, how do you benefit?
In some states, like Massachusetts (IIRC), as a registered Independent on Primary Day you can request either a Demoncrat or Repuglican ballot. If you live in a state where that's not allowed then I don't much see the point of being an Independent. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
