The end is near!

[Analogman]

We also have The Mountain Party here where I live.

 

List of Third Parties

[Winston Legthigh]

All a third party has to do is clear 5% in a given election to qualify for federal funding in the NEXT election.

 

Perot cleared that bar easily. Seems as though the libertarians would have enough interest to generate that kind of percentage.

[Moe_Syzlak]

All a third party has to do is clear 5% in a given election to qualify for federal funding in the NEXT election.

 

Perot cleared that bar easily. Seems as though the libertarians would have enough interest to generate that kind of percentage. Are they even a party?

Yeah their candidate is Bob Barr. They don't even pass the most basic of sniff tests to me though. Nice ideas, but there is reality out there to contend with and Bob Barr and his supporters don't seem to want to acknowledge that.

[John Smith]

 

Hello this is a Robo Call from Rudi Guiliani.

 

Here is a man who after becoming one of the grandest opportunists of our times has steadily lost all my respect. As Mayor of NY I had a lot of respect for him, but ever since then he has been nothing but a talking point spewing hack. Which seems to be a lot of what the current republican party fan club really wants as evidenced by their love of all things Sarah.

 

BTW that's a generality not meant to imply that YOU (whomever you may be) are like the rest of the republicans, your different from the party's base I know.

[sweetheart-mine]

And a third party like the Greens will get some votes in any election. . . .

 

yah, most people have heard of the green party by now, so those disappointed with the major parties' candidates will sometimes vote for them. other than those folks, it's the same green party members voting over and over in each election. pat lamarche in maine was actually the green party's v.p. candidate in '04 (with david cobb as presidential candidate), and in '06 she ran for governor here. the problem is, i've met her, as have a lot of other people in the state, and she's got a lot of problems -- including an addiction or two and generally erratic behavior. don't get me wrong, she has done a lot of good work on local fronts and can give a good speech, but would i ever vote for her? no way. (and i'm a green party member at the moment!)

 

great things can start out and grow at the grassroots level, but for a really viable third party to develop, it's going to take some long-term commitment by people who can think straight, agree on a platform, raise funds, and yes, certainly attract enough interest to staff offices and gradually develop great and knowledgeable candidates. i don't see it happening. i wish it would, but it requires a lot more work than 99.99999% of people can or are willing to devote themselves to.

[Sir Stewart]

As Mayor of NY I had a lot of respect for him

Guiliani time!

[sweetheart-mine]

Guiliani time!

 

oh ugh.

[MrRain422]

I highly doubt the republicans will do anything to repeal roe v wade, if elected. If they repeal it, what will they have to go on next time around? I think they think of it as their insurance policy to get into the white house.

 

Not sure what you mean by "repeal" in this context. Roe v. Wade isn't a law, its a court decision. Republicans in Congress wouldn't really have all that much power to try to overturn it themselves beyond getting anti-choice judges appointed to the Supreme Court. If the court tips anti-choice, then all it takes is a state legislature to pass a restrictive law, which inevitably would lead to someone filing a lawsuit, which, regardless of the outcome, would be appealed until the Supreme Court either chose to hear the case or not. No, Republicans in the U.S. Congress will likely not try to pass such a law, but there are several state legislatures that are already trying to.

 

Can we all agree, no matter what side we are on, that Palin is dumb? Fuck, I've got someone on another board actually trying to defend her and say that she's the most qualified person on the ticket because she has more executive experience than any of them. Holy shit! She's fucking dumb! Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

 

Yeah, that argument doesn't really hold any sway unless all executive experience counts equally to qualify someone to be President, in which case a Dunkin Donuts franchise owner is also more qualified than Obama or McCain. It's a stupid argument.

 

The two party system thrives because of the Electoral College. We have to get rid of that before we have any expectations of Other Parties gaining a foothold.

 

It's more complicated than that -- campaign finance laws also benefit the major parties, as do basic rules about how to even get on the ballot in many states.

 

All a third party has to do is clear 5% in a given election to qualify for federal funding in the NEXT election.

 

Perot cleared that bar easily. Seems as though the libertarians would have enough interest to generate that kind of percentage.

 

Perot also had a huge warchest to start out with. Money is what it's all about and Perot had enough to compete. There are definitely a large number of self-identified Libertarians in this country, but I'm not certain that that would necessarily translate to having the campaign funds necessary to compete on a national level. Even with federal funds, they still wouldn't be able to compete with the major parties' money (especially if you include surrogates of the major parties, such as 527s), and would have no chance of winning without first developing a larger presence and actually winning some offices on state and local levels (as has been noted by several people here). Grassroots local efforts are what will grow third parties into national parties, establishing themselves as competitors in areas where can actually start to seize some power, which will help them to expand their influence.

 

5% may not sound like much, but in 2000, Nader barely got half that (2.74%) and other than Perot, who again benefited from having a whole lot of his own money to work with, it's been very rare for third party candidates to reach that 5% threshold.

 

Top third party candidates in the last 50 years of Presidential elections:

1960 - Orville Faubus - 0.1%

1964 - no third party candidates received even 0.1%

1968 - George Wallace - 13.5%

1972 - John Schmitz - 1.4%

1976 - Eugene McCarthy - 0.9%

1980 - John Anderson - 6.6%

1984- David Bergland - 0.3%

1988 - Ron Paul - 0.5%

1992 - H. Ross Perot - 18.9%

1996 - H. Ross Perot - 8.4%

2000 - Ralph Nader - 2.74%

2004 - Ralph Nader - 0.38%

 

Other than Perot, the only ones to get more than 5% are George Wallace and John Anderson, and both made their names as national political figures as members of a major party before leaving it for a third party. 5% seems small but with current election laws its nearly impossible

[ih8music]

If the electoral college vote were awarded by congressional district, rather than the current winner-take-all for the entire state, I think that would go a long way toward making it seem like a true national election.

 

It currently makes no sense for Obama to spend time in TX or McCain to spend time in CA - but if they were fighting for congressional districts, you'd be certain to see Obama campaigning in Dallas or Houston and McCain campaigning in Orange County.

 

It would be very interesting to see how that would affect the overall electoral map - I'm sure one party would fare worse in this new model and therefore it's unlikely to ever happen.

[Analogman]

Election officials try to ease long voting lines

 

 

By TAMARA LUSH, Associated Press Writer Tamara Lush, Associated Press Writer

[M. (hristine]

2000 - Ralph Nader - 2.74%

2004 - Ralph Nader - 0.38%

Voted for him both times.

 

I blame myself for this mess.

[LouieB]

yah, most people have heard of the green party by now, so those disappointed with the major parties' candidates will sometimes vote for them. other than those folks, it's the same green party members voting over and over in each election. pat lamarche in maine was actually the green party's v.p. candidate in '04 (with david cobb as presidential candidate), and in '06 she ran for governor here. the problem is, i've met her, as have a lot of other people in the state, and she's got a lot of problems -- including an addiction or two and generally erratic behavior. don't get me wrong, she has done a lot of good work on local fronts and can give a good speech, but would i ever vote for her? no way. (and i'm a green party member at the moment!)

 

great things can start out and grow at the grassroots level, but for a really viable third party to develop, it's going to take some long-term commitment by people who can think straight, agree on a platform, raise funds, and yes, certainly attract enough interest to staff offices and gradually develop great and knowledgeable candidates. i don't see it happening. i wish it would, but it requires a lot more work than 99.99999% of people can or are willing to devote themselves to.

Wow, we are having an actual logical and informative discussion about the Green Party......this is serious fun....

 

The Greens have an actual political presence in Europe, where parlimentary government more or less works. I wonder what there record is, where they don't seem like total organizational spazes.

 

5% may not sound like much, but in 2000, Nader barely got half that (2.74%) and other than Perot, who again benefited from having a whole lot of his own money to work with, it's been very rare for third party candidates to reach that 5% threshold.

 

Top third party candidates in the last 50 years of Presidential elections:

1960 - Orville Faubus - 0.1%

1964 - no third party candidates received even 0.1%

1968 - George Wallace - 13.5%

1972 - John Schmitz - 1.4%

1976 - Eugene McCarthy - 0.9%

1980 - John Anderson - 6.6%

1984- David Bergland - 0.3%

1988 - Ron Paul - 0.5%

1992 - H. Ross Perot - 18.9%

1996 - H. Ross Perot - 8.4%

2000 - Ralph Nader - 2.74%

2004 - Ralph Nader - 0.38%

 

Other than Perot, the only ones to get more than 5% are George Wallace and John Anderson, and both made their names as national political figures as members of a major party before leaving it for a third party. 5% seems small but with current election laws its nearly impossible

5% is actually a shitload....The closest person to actually accomplishing a third party win as you point out was Ross Perot, one of the nuttier folks on the planet in some ways. John Anderson, the most rational and successful third party candidate I did not remember, only summoned up 7% of the vote. Amazing. George Wallace's platform (as one who is old enough to remenmber) was essentially states rights or more honestly white supremecy. We should go back and see about folks like Eugene V. Debs and Norman Thomas and other left and right wing third party candidates of the 50 years prior to that.

 

There is only one choice this year...the choice to go with the same old shit or try someone new and non-traditional out. You know what I am talkin about....

 

LouieB

[gogo]

You know what I am talkin about....

Why so coy, Lou? Tell us how you really feel.

 

[LouieB]

Voted for him both times.

 

I blame myself for this mess.

Yea know...that truly warms my heart....at least you admit it. Seriously.

 

2008 is an opportunity we can't let go by (the polls are showing a neck and neck race again today, at least on Yahoo...) and waste a single vote on the possibility of a McCain/Palin presidency. I think about this night and day (but frankly other than yacking to you guys and sending Barack some cold hard cash I ain't doing much else about it....) that we can't allow the right wing culture wariorrs to get the best of us (we are all going to become conservatives fiscally before this shitstorm ends...) and therefore we can't allow the hatemongers and bullshiters to talk us out of this moment. When it is suggested by the supporters of McCain that some of us are more patriotic, love America, are harder workers, etc. etc., than other people or parts of the country, then it IS war. Barack ain't playing that game, he is trying to play this as fair and high minded as is possible. I ain't saying Barack hasn't exaggerated a thing or two of accused McCain/Palin of some bullshit that isn't true and he certainly has tacked to the center in an effort to win the majority of voters. But compared to what is being put out against him (us) he has played as clean as can be. If you are seriously uncommitted at this point....(not you M.Christine....) then look really deeply into your soul (leave your brain out of it for am minute) and tell all of us you really think this country would be better with people who want to divide us, rather than bring us together around common issues and problems and actually try and solve those issues, and you all know there are many....You know who I am talking to here....and you know who you are....get right with "god" (nice talk from an agnostic) and know that we had best make a choice for the higher ground rather than the place where hate is the only currency....

 

LouieB

[M. (hristine]

Oh, I'm committed.

[Analogman]

Yea know...that truly warms my heart....at least you admit it. Seriously.

 

2008 is an opportunity we can't let go by (the polls are showing a neck and neck race again today, at least on Yahoo...) and waste a single vote on the possibility of a McCain/Palin presidency. I think about this night and day (but frankly other than yacking to you guys and sending Barack some cold hard cash I ain't doing much else about it....) that we can't allow the right wing culture wariorrs to get the best of us (we are all going to become conservatives fiscally before this shitstorm ends...) and therefore we can't allow the hatemongers and bullshiters to talk us out of this moment. When it is suggested by the supporters of McCain that some of us are more patriotic, love America, are harder workers, etc. etc., than other people or parts of the country, then it IS war. Barack ain't playing that game, he is trying to play this as fair and high minded as is possible. I ain't saying Barack hasn't exaggerated a thing or two of accused McCain/Palin of some bullshit that isn't true and he certainly has tacked to the center in an effort to win the majority of voters. But compared to what is being put out against him (us) he has played as clean as can be. If you are seriously uncommitted at this point....(not you M.Christine....) then look really deeply into your soul (leave your brain out of it for am minute) and tell all of us you really think this country would be better with people who want to divide us, rather than bring us together around common issues and problems and actually try and solve those issues, and you all know there are many....You know who I am talking to here....and you know who you are....get right with "god" (nice talk from an agnostic) and know that we had best make a choice for the higher ground rather than the place where hate is the only currency....

 

LouieB

 

I just saw Senator Obama giving a speech where he said something about how he could take the McCain/Palin character attacks for two weeks, so we would not have to take their attacks for 4 years. Pretty powerful.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Waiting for the Barbarians

Comment By Richard Kim

 

This article appeared in the November 3, 2008 edition of The Nation.

October 16, 2008

 

In case you haven't heard, there's a guy running for president named Barack Hussein Osama Nobama. This Nobama was born outside America and secretly schooled in Islamic terrorism at a Wahhabi madrassa. He then moved to the United States to take up the radical '60s teachings of the Weather Underground's Bill Ayers, while also organizing for ACORN, a subprime-lending, voter fraud-committing collective of affirmative-action welfare queens. All this happened before he became an elitist celebrity advocate of socialism, infanticide, the sexual abuse of children and treason.

 

Suffice it to say, this caricature stretches even the limits of comic imagination. The real Obama's Christianity, his patriotism, moderation and commitment to capitalism, law and order, and national security are matters of abundant public record--some of which displeases the left wing of his party. But this is of little import to the Republican rank and file. For them, the fallaciousness of the whole counts for less than the suggestive appeal of the parts. All John McCain, Sarah Palin and their surrogates need to do is raise the insidious question--"Who is the real Barack Obama?"--and the zealots conjure the rest, along with cries of "Treason!" "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" The virulence of such rhetoric makes even Palin seem thoughtful; she at least inserts whole verb phrases like "palling around with" in between nouns like "Barack Obama" and "terrorists."

 

Such scenes are alarming not only because of the McCain campaign's willingness to stoke such murderous mania but also because of its apparent inability to control the madness once it has been unleashed. At more than one rally, McCain has been booed by the audience for attempting to interrupt panicked rants about the impending socialist or terrorist takeover of America. The crowd's immediate anger is directed not at Obama and the Democrats but at their own party's standard-bearers, who should be "representing us" but have so far refused to "take the gloves off" and "take it to Obama" and "hit him" in "a soft spot." If the GOP leaders don't give these folks what they want, they had best watch their own soft spots, for there is no shortage of backbenchers ready to seize the helm. Take Jeffrey Frederick, the 33-year-old chair of the Virginia Republican Party, who said that Obama and Osama bin Laden "both have friends that bombed the Pentagon." Denounced by the McCain campaign, Frederick has defiantly refused to apologize for his remark.

 

Perhaps he knows which way the wind blows: the Republican Party's electoral strategy of sowing resentment and fear--sprung from Nixon and nurtured by admen like Lee Atwater, Floyd Brown and the Swiftboaters--has finally taken on a life of its own. It thrives as a postmodern pastiche of conservative hate speech that no longer requires a master--a Frankenstein monster freed from his creator. What holds this beast together is not the fear and loathing of any particular despised identity so much as the idea that America is under siege, disordered, on the cusp of imminent and total collapse, threatened by terrorists abroad and undermined by enemies at home.

 

Of course, certain pariahs are useful in certain times. In the old lexicon it was Communists, feminists and gays who peopled the right wing's paranoid imagination, and if the sheer breadth of the slander by association against Obama is any indication, these bugaboos are still of value. But this time around the terror has been most sharply drawn along the lines of xenophobia and racism, a potent combination of hostile drives of which trolls like Andy Martin, the anti-Semite behind the "Obama is a Muslim" e-mails, are but minor instigators. The real enablers are demagogues like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck, who have made careers out of inciting frenzied aggression at anyone to the left of Joe McCarthy. Only now it seems that even these right-wing pundits have been outdone by their formerly loyal listeners. Coulter, whose contempt for Muslims ("invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity") is surpassed only by her scorn for liberals ("even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do"), has yet to call for the assassination of Barack Obama. But if she genuinely believes that liberals are more dangerous than Islamic terrorists, she should follow the courage of her convictions and do so.

 

To pre-empt such embarrassing displays of weakness, softer propagandists like Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens--who once brayed on and on about the left's "hatred of the United States" and its role as a "fifth column" "in favor of surrender and defeat"--have declared their support for Obama. But as Hitchens's recent endorsement in Slate amply demonstrates, he is not quite ready to give up the poisoned sword. Obama, he writes, is not a "capitulationist," even if he does "accept the support of the surrender faction."

 

If the polls are any indication, Obama will endure this smear campaign just fine, with or without the backhanded compliments of apologetic neocons. And if his election is not quite the ringing victory for civil rights and liberties, diplomacy and cosmopolitanism that we might like, it will at least beat back for a while the idea that defaming these values as traitorous constitutes sound electoral strategy. If Obama wins, and the barbarians do not show up to rattle the gates, what will the conservatives do next? For them, the barbarians were a solution, of sorts.

[jenbobblehead]

I'd say they'll probably float more to Ron Paul's ideals. At the very least, they are going to realize that people want them to stay the hell out of their day-to-day lives.

Do you really think so? As more people lose their houses and jobs, they will want less government help? I mean, even rightwingers are suffering in this economy and it is probably going to take more than McGruber, a bobbypin and three pieces of juicy fruit to get people back up on their feet. And do you think that the right will be ok with gay marriage (that's staying out of people's business) and unfettered abortions if McCain doesn't win the election?

 

Or did I misunderstand the question?

[Wilco Worshipper]

I know this isn't related to the discussion at hand directly but I wanted to share this with you all.

 

My 4th grade 10 yr old daughter was doing her Social Studies homework yesterday. They are learning about the government, amendments, right, responsibilities, etc. So the last question on her assignment yesterday was this...

 

Which do you consider a right and a responsibility?

 

She wrote the following:

 

The right to vote because if you don't vote then you shouldn't icspect things to go the way you want them to.

 

I asked her where she got the answer and she said she didn't know that's just what she thought was the right answer. My girl

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Yes, I edited "icspect" to "expect".

[mountain bed]

I just saw Senator Obama giving a speech where he said something about how he could take the McCain/Palin character attacks for two weeks, so we would not have to take their attacks for 4 years. Pretty powerful.

Yeah! I saw the infamous Bill Maher on some show the other night (Larry King, maybe?) and he made the analogy of Barack being the "Jackie Robinson of Presidential Politics". Pretty spot on I think - think about how much hateful, hurtful shit has been thrown at him. Think about how unrattled and unflappable he's been. He HAS to be cool - just like Jackie was - just play the game as fair and square as you can. Don't let the bastards bait you into getting all hot-headed, that's what they want.

[Analogman]

Ugly election incidents show lingering U.S. racism

 

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters)

[mpolak21]

I know this isn't related to the discussion at hand directly but I wanted to share this with you all.

 

My 4th grade 10 yr old daughter was doing her Social Studies homework yesterday. They are learning about the government, amendments, right, responsibilities, etc. So the last question on her assignment yesterday was this...

 

Which do you consider a right and a responsibility?

 

She wrote the following:

 

The right to vote because if you don't vote then you shouldn't icspect things to go the way you want them to.

 

I asked her where she got the answer and she said she didn't know that's just what she thought was the right answer. My girl

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Yes, I edited "icspect" to "expect".

 

. I thought I was the only one who ever spelled that way.

 

--Mike

[Wilco Worshipper]

. I thought I was the only one who ever spelled that way.

 

--Mike

[M. (hristine]

Voted for him both times.

 

I blame myself for this mess.

I also voted for Barry Commoner in 1980.

 

So, out of 8 possible elections, I have voted third party 3 times.

[mountain bed]

I also voted for Barry Commoner in 1980.

 

So, out of 8 possible elections, I have voted third party 3 times.

Angela Davis ran in '76 - you didn't vote for her?