View Full Version : With a Trump vs Clinton election, can a 3rd party like Gary Johnson win?
Trump and Clinton are both despised by alot of people.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/
65 million voted for Omao
60 million for to the Rommunist
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php
95 million eligible voters DIDNT vote.
http://www.thenation.com/article/figuring-out-why-93-million-people-didnt-vote/
The numbers are theoretically there?
Eurodriver
03-27-16, 20:43
The 95 million people who didn't vote are not the type to get hype for Gary Johnson.
But the terrorist group (CIAR) is rounding up their terrorist supporters so they will vote, which means more for the wicked witch.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Not a snowballs chance in hell.
I picked his named out of thin air. I more or less meant anybody.
What makes you think that those 95 million are going to put down their crack pipes and vote in this election? Don't get me wrong, I may vote for him. I'm just under no illusions that he has a reasonable chance - at this point. ;)
Linebacker
03-27-16, 20:58
A 3rd party candidate can only play the spoiler for either party.
Seriously, no 3rd party candidate has ever won or even come close.
The 3rd party isn't about winning, it is about causing one side to lose by splitting the vote.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
All these other countries have like oodles of parties.
Ya got two choices kid:
Communist Democrats or Nazi Republicans.
You can either do weird shit like dye your hair purple, marry another dude, or get your weed card as long as you give up your money and guns.
OR
You can retain your gun rights (kind of) and maybe catch a tax break (sort of) but people have to make an issue out of who you screw, what kind of gore and titty flicks you enjoy, and what video games you play.
Either way my own personal rights that are already mine by birth are used against me as a bargaining chip to force my hand into voting against someone else.
But they were ALREADY my rights.
And...we can't have a two part system because nobody else gets their cut.
So...there it is.
You might get some Independent or 3rd part senator but president? No.
It's a racket. It's national racketeering.
I mean honest to god organized crime.
Think about it
What makes you think that those 95 million are going to put down their crack pipes and vote in this election? Don't get me wrong, I may vote for him. I'm just under no illusions that he has a reasonable chance - at this point. ;)
Let's just say only half plus another 10 million a piece from each Republican and Democratic voters that are fed up with both parties. They are still there.
The hard part and I mean really hard is getting it through the heads of the sheeple that there are people running other than the two party system. I brought it up both yesterday with family and Saturday with friends once the discussion of the presidential candidates got to point that really they mostly suck, my guy, republican or democrat just sucks less than yours, nothing can really be done at this point, everyone looked at me like I had 3 heads.
Dumbest comment of the weekend goes to my stepsister that is voting for Hillary, despite her character flaws, because she is atleast presidential, that her kids can watch presidential addresses without a bunch of yelling and hate (Trump.)
Whiskey_Bravo
03-28-16, 08:27
A 3rd party candidate can only play the spoiler for either party.
This. Until something else changes a 3rd party will more than likely only ever split the vote for one side or the other.
Gary Who?
He's a Libertarian.
Gary Who?
Exactly!
Should answer the OP's question. I suspect that no libertarian has a shot for the foreseeable future in the USA.
SomeOtherGuy
03-28-16, 10:15
No.
Self-defeating assumptions about what everyone else will do prevents a third party candidate from getting anywhere in the general election.
The Simpsons covered this VERY well in a Treehouse of Horror episode with Kang vs. Kodos.
brickboy240
03-28-16, 11:49
Weren't any of you of voting age when Ross Perot ran?
I guess not, if we are being serious about what a 3rd party candidate does to the election results.
Short version: we had to endure "I did not have sexual relations" and the whole blue dress incident because of Ross Perot.
Does THAT answer your question?
Whiskey_Bravo
03-28-16, 11:52
Weren't any of you of voting age when Ross Perot ran?
I guess not, if we are being serious about what a 3rd party candidate does to the election results.
Short version: we had to endure "I did not have sexual relations" and the whole blue dress incident because of Ross Perot.
Does THAT answer your question?
Exactly, and Perot was a damn good candidate with good name recognition. All he did was insure a democrat win.
brickboy240
03-28-16, 11:58
Believe me, Hillary and her inner circle are laughing at the GOP right now. They are, once again, flubbing up a perfectly good opportunity to defeat a Democrat with loads of baggage and a shaky track record.
They have a habit of doing this. Romney could not come close to beating a sitting president with a quadrupled deficit and double digit unemployment.
Here we have Hillary with a train-load of worse baggage than Obama could ever hope for and again...the GOP is blowing it once again.
Lather...rinse...repeat.
Exactly, and Perot was a damn good candidate with good name recognition. All he did was insure a democrat win.
TWICE - All of Clinton would have been prevented...
Exactly, and Perot was a damn good candidate with good name recognition. All he did was insure a democrat win.
I think that Bush (41) with his import ban, the arrogance he showed to families of VN POWs and a bunch of his other huge character flaws had a LOT to do with Clinton winning the election. Bush (41) was a "one term" President for a reason, and you really can't blame it on Ross Perot.
If Perot ran against Reagan in 1984, Perot would have been slaughtered along with Mondale. Perot got votes because Bush (41) lost a significant amount of support among those who considered themselves Republicans / Conservatives and they went looking for alternatives.
At the end of the day Bush (41) dropped the ball. You can't blame others who picked it up.
brickboy240
03-28-16, 14:24
True, but as bad as Bush Sr. was....I doubt we would have seen a "blue dress incident" or wasted such time on nonsense like that if he had won a 2nd term.
Just like I tend to believe we would have never seen national health care with McCain.
Sometimes, we are voting only for the person that will do the least damage....much like this election cycle.
MountainRaven
03-28-16, 18:19
Not gonna work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
If you want three or more parties, we need to change the way our votes are counted.
ETA: Video also explains why Trump has been winning despite the fact that he has yet to win 50%+ of any state's primary.
I have a strange feeling the elections are rigged. That being said the majority of the voters vote by name recognition or are programmed by the TV they watch to do what the TV says to do,
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.