The Problem with Third Party Candidates

[mrjarrell]

Continue to lose in the big elections.



What they "want" to accomplish won't fill a thimble sized teacup in China.

To win they have to beat the Republicans and Democrats. If they could do that, there's nothing stopping them from running as Republicans or Democrats. All they have to do is get enough signatures to be on the primary ballot and then beat the other republican (or democrat) contenders in the primary. But if they could beat the Republican or Democrat in the general, then why can't they beat them in the primary.

In Indiana the LP does not participate in the primary and might not even if things changed. The primary should be party business, not a tax payer supported event. The LPIN will be choosing their candidates in convention, without using a single tax dollar. Now, if you'd like to see the LPIN participate in the Indiana primary then go out on election day and vote for the LP secretary of state candidate. If he or she gets more than 5% of the vote then the LP will see about being in the primaries (or refusing to be in it, since it should be party business and not a public matter). Your understanding of the primary process is...lacking and doesn't work the way you think it does. The LPIN has ballot access in Indiana already and has had it since 1994.

 

[dross]

I don't see a point in arguing politics with people who's minds are made up. The one to argue may be right, but never wins against a made up mind.

Thanks to all of you who have supported me.

If you're going to enter politics, you should widen your perspective. Well explained and thought out arguments may not sway your entrenched opponent. It's the dozens who read the posts and never post who might be swayed. Also, by entering the arena, you hone your arguments in the fire of conflict, something that might be quite useful to you as a politician.

 

[PatriotPride]

I don't see a point in arguing politics with people who's minds are made up. The one to argue may be right, but never wins against a made up mind.

QFT. Well spoken.

 

[mrjarrell]

Guess I should not expect support from dburkhead in my future efforts over the rights of firearms owners. :-)

Anyone who noticed. Monday night I got a Special Resolution passed through the council in favor of personal carry rights. I plan to continue working on more proposals to support gun owners. Name me one Republican in Indianapolis who has done as much as I have in recent times.

I don't see a point in arguing politics with people who's minds are made up. The one to argue may be right, but never wins against a made up mind.

Thanks to all of you who have supported me.

Thanks for all your hard work, Ed. At least we can be sure that there is one member of the council who has an interest in liberty and freedom and actual smaller government and increased rights.

 

[hornadylnl]

Continue to lose in the big elections.



What they "want" to accomplish won't fill a thimble sized teacup in China.

To win they have to beat the Republicans and Democrats. If they could do that, there's nothing stopping them from running as Republicans or Democrats. All they have to do is get enough signatures to be on the primary ballot and then beat the other republican (or democrat) contenders in the primary. But if they could beat the Republican or Democrat in the general, then why can't they beat them in the primary.

A real conservative has to battle the republican party as well as the democrats if they choose to run in the repub primary. Look at all the socialists the repub party is endorsing over true conservatives the last few years. The message is clear. True conservatives need not apply.

 

[hornadylnl]

What makes you think that I believe that there is any solution (long term)?

That I think that causing the collapse of civilization can make things incomparably worse to how they are now does not mean that I have a fix.

I don't have a fix for "old age" either, but that doesn't mean I'm going to commit suicide as an alternative.

In 1776, you would have been called a loyalist. Loyalists warned of impending doom before the shot heard round the world. Thank GOD our founders ignored them. Otherwise, we'd still be trying to delay the inevitable for ourselves while foisting our problems on to our posterity.

 

[dburkhead]

I don't like losing. But I'd rather lose for being right than win supporting wrong. McCain is evil.

You'd rather have the greater evil then sully your hands with the "lesser."

NOt to mention, I don't think things will change fast. I think it has to get worse before it gets better.

How long before the omelets and eggs cliche comes out?

BUT IF WE ARE HYPOCRITES VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE TRAITORS BECAUSE THEY ARE OUR TRAITORS NOT THEIR TRAITORS WE CAN'T EVER EDUCATE PEOPLE FOR CHANGE.

Did you read the OP? It does include the idea of voting for more libertarian/conservative candidates, just at the Primary level. But how can you seriously expect in the general election to beat the same opponent you couldn't beat in the primary especially when he's got both the full support of the party and the inertia of people voting for the party they are already familiar with going

RON PAUL lost but he woke me up and millions like me. The tide is turning.

The problem is you don't need millions. You need tens of millions.

As for "the tide is turning," this is not the first time we've heard that. Wallace in '68, Anderson in '80, Perot in '92 and '96. Of those, Wallace was the only one to actually win any electoral votes.

"This time for sure"?

 

[dross]

Let's go at this from another tack. What if all of us on this thread outlined our ideal government. I bet we're pretty close. Government only allowed to do exactly what they are authorized by the Constitution. Repeal of social security, medicare, medicaid, public education, income tax, the list goes on.

Let's poll that. Is there any chance whatsoever of winning anything nationally on that platform?

 

[hornadylnl]

Let's go at this from another tack. What if all of us on this thread outlined our ideal government. I bet we're pretty close. Government only allowed to do exactly what they are authorized by the Constitution. Repeal of social security, medicare, medicaid, public education, income tax, the list goes on.

Let's poll that. Is there any chance whatsoever of winning anything nationally on that platform?

I'll ask again. Has liberty ever been won at the ballot box?

 

[mrjarrell]

Let's go at this from another tack. What if all of us on this thread outlined our ideal government. I bet we're pretty close. Government only allowed to do exactly what they are authorized by the Constitution. Repeal of social security, medicare, medicaid, public education, income tax, the list goes on.

Let's poll that. Is there any chance whatsoever of winning anything nationally on that platform?

No republican would ever go for that unless they were a libertarian like Ron Paul. The vast majority of the rank and file gop are content with chains and don't mind weighting down others with them.
That's why the gop is not a winning proposition for increasing liberty and downsizing government. They talk a good game, but that's all they do. Talk.

 

[dburkhead]

Guess I should not expect support from dburkhead in my future efforts over the rights of firearms owners. :-)

If you actually believe that, you haven't been reading. (And I guess you haven't read your email lately either.)

The point of my OP was this: if you were running for the House of Representatives and could not beat Carlos May (for example--a Republican Candidate of whom I am aware) in the Primary in a bid for a Republican candidacy, then how would you expect to be able to beat him in the General election in a bid for the House seat itself, let alone beat Andre Carson?

If you could beat May, then could you not do it in the Primary and thereby, come the general election, pick up the votes of all those people who will vote "R" regardless of the individual (and they do exist, however much we might not wish for them to be that way)?

IOW, if Ed Coleman, espouser of Libertarian values, were running for Congress then why not run under the Republican ticket rather than with the deck stacked against him in a third party? You have to beat the same other candidates in one election or another so why not beat the republican candidate(s) early and then go after the democrat candidate later?

Anyone who noticed. Monday night I got a Special Resolution passed through the council in favor of personal carry rights. I plan to continue working on more proposals to support gun owners. Name me one Republican in Indianapolis who has done as much as I have in recent times.

There's a reason that I was specific about large federal elections.

I don't see a point in arguing politics with people who's minds are made up. The one to argue may be right, but never wins against a made up mind.

Thanks to all of you who have supported me.

 

[dburkhead]

In Indiana the LP does not participate in the primary and might not even if things changed. The primary should be party business, not a tax payer supported event. The LPIN will be choosing their candidates in convention, without using a single tax dollar. Now, if you'd like to see the LPIN participate in the Indiana primary then go out on election day and vote for the LP secretary of state candidate. If he or she gets more than 5% of the vote then the LP will see about being in the primaries (or refusing to be in it, since it should be party business and not a public matter). Your understanding of the primary process is...lacking and doesn't work the way you think it does. The LPIN has ballot access in Indiana already and has had it since 1994.

The problem is you are hung up on the label. Take your libertarian candidate, hang an "R" around his neck. Run him in the Republican Primary. Have your Libertarian voters vote in that primary (holding their nose and registering Republican if they have to). To get the seat you have to beat the leading republican challenger anyway, just do it in the Republican primary rather than waiting for the general election.

I'm not about the label, I'm about setting up the particular candidate to win. I just think the candidate is most likely to win if they run as a Republican or Democrat. So get the candidate that you want running in a party that has a decent chance of winning.

It's mountains and mohammed. It's harder to get the voters to move from their favored party to your candidate so move your candidate to their favored party.

Stop fussing about "ooh, it's an icky 'R' label" and do what it takes to actually win.

 

[dburkhead]

A real conservative has to battle the republican party as well as the democrats if they choose to run in the repub primary. Look at all the socialists the repub party is endorsing over true conservatives the last few years. The message is clear. True conservatives need not apply.

You're going to have to battle them anyway. I still haven't heard any argument why you can't beat them in the primary but somehow can magically do so in the general election.

If your position is that you can't beat them at all, well, maybe so, but well, you won't mind then if some of us think that some good can come from thinking both tactically and strategically along with our ideals.

 

[dburkhead]

In 1776, you would have been called a loyalist. Loyalists warned of impending doom before the shot heard round the world. Thank GOD our founders ignored them. Otherwise, we'd still be trying to delay the inevitable for ourselves while foisting our problems on to our posterity.

In 1776 a conversation including that statement would have been continued through seconds.

I could respond that in 1776 you would have held on to New York until your army was destroyed instead of being willing to retreat (slowly) to buy time for further action.

I'd suggest you learn a bit more about the Revolutionary war than a few sound bites. It wasn't as simple as you seem to think.

 

[mrjarrell]

The problem is you are hung up on the label. Take your libertarian candidate, hang an "R" around his neck. Run him in the Republican Primary. Have your Libertarian voters vote in that primary (holding their nose and registering Republican if they have to). To get the seat you have to beat the leading republican challenger anyway, just do it in the Republican primary rather than waiting for the general election.

I'm not about the label, I'm about setting up the particular candidate to win. I just think the candidate is most likely to win if they run as a Republican or Democrat. So get the candidate that you want running in a party that has a decent chance of winning.

It's mountains and mohammed. It's harder to get the voters to move from their favored party to your candidate so move your candidate to their favored party.

Stop fussing about "ooh, it's an icky 'R' label" and do what it takes to actually win.

If that were to be done then there'd be no need for L's and there are too many people who like being L's rather than r's. It would be detrimental to the party. And it doesn't work. The gop is not in the least bit interested in libertarian candidates. I have seen this personally with people who've done just as you suggested. It's a waste of time, effort and money. Better to be an L and act as a spoiler, if necessary in an attempt to win the battle. Your strategy is one of marginalisation and failure, every time. Take this as gospel from someone who's seen it. Ron Paul is the exception, not the rule, by an immense margin. There is no hope for the gop.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Ron Paul is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. When you couldn't get enough votes in the primary to beat other Republican candidates, how in the world could you think you'd get enough in the General election?

So what, exactly, is Ron Paul doing for you in the White House right now?

So...even if I vote for someone who cherishes liberty & our constitution in YOUR primary, I'm throwing THAT vote away? WTF?

It sounds like you're saying if I didn't vote for the 'winning team' that I threw my vote away. If that's the case, then why the !@#$ even vote? You really did take the "us versus them" bait...hook, line, and sinker. I think you even got bits of the rod in there.

As I've said before, Ds or Rs...it typically doesn't matter. Neither, on the whole, has done much to safeguard my liberties. Instead, BOTH continue to steal my money while crapping upon my liberties. On the whole...

I'll be sure to check with you this November to see which of our candidates you've deemed to be "the favored horse" so I can start asking stupid questions like "what did is your candidate doing?".

 

[dburkhead]

If that were to be done then there'd be no need for L's and there are too many people who like being L's rather than r's. It would be detrimental to the party. And it doesn't work. The gop is not in the least bit interested in libertarian candidates. I have seen this personally with people who've done just as you suggested. It's a waste of time, effort and money. Better to be an L and act as a spoiler, if necessary in an attempt to win the battle. Your strategy is one of marginalisation and failure, every time. Take this as gospel from someone who's seen it. Ron Paul is the exception, not the rule, by an immense margin. There is no hope for the gop.

If that's true then there is no hope. You win by getting out votes. I'm still waiting for anyone to offer a credible explanation how a Libertarian candidate can't get the votes in May to beat someone like Carlos May but expect to be able to get out the votes in November to beat May and Carson.

We've got lots of third-party supporters here. Can't someone explain that to me?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

What a hyperventilating dodge of a answer. In Roll Call 398 on H.R. 3162 on October 24, 2001 Bob Barr, the presidential candidate you voted for, the Libertarian Party candidate, voted with 357 other U.S. House members to pass the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. By your definition, he is an unacceptable candidate and you should be ashamed. Why should anyone support the Libertarian Party if, by your own definition, the only alternative they offer is unacceptable? Apparently ideological purity is only a tool Libertarians use to beat up those that don't immediately fall lock-step into agreement with them. Why should anyone trust a party whose advocates consider those that they'd wish to persuade, the "unwashed masses." One of the things that bothers me about LP supporters is that most I have encountered consider themselves messianic evangelists and anyone who disagrees is a recalcitrant heathen worthy of dispatch.

As I've more than clearly stated...my vote went to the Libertarian candidate ONLY because they are the most feasible third party. I knew that Barr stood no chance of winning & most Libertarians agree that he was a horrible last-minute choice. However, I feel that the current two-party system is much more destructive than either McCain or Obama.

Reading comprehension: It's fundamental!

 

[dross]

So...even if I vote for someone who cherishes liberty & our constitution in YOUR primary, I'm throwing THAT vote away? WTF?

It sounds like you're saying if I didn't vote for the 'winning team' that I threw my vote away. If that's the case, then why the !@#$ even vote? You really did take the "us versus them" bait...hook, line, and sinker. I think you even got bits of the rod in there.

It's not about being on the winning team, it's that you have to win to advance your agenda. And worse (and I get that you don't think it's a worse, but I do) you will be helping elect the furthest agenda away from yours.

 

[hornadylnl]

In 1776 a conversation including that statement would have been continued through seconds.

I could respond that in 1776 you would have held on to New York until your army was destroyed instead of being willing to retreat (slowly) to buy time for further action.

I'd suggest you learn a bit more about the Revolutionary war than a few sound bites. It wasn't as simple as you seem to think.

My comment about 1776 had nothing to do with how the war was fought and had everything to do with the opininions of the masses before the war began. Many thought that they could still talk and reason with the king. They believed war wasn't necessary and were more comfortable in chains then actually doing something about it. Our founders saw it differently. They believed the time for talk was over and liked the prospect of death better than the alternative of servitude to the king. By preaching about the ballot box, you are giving the same message as those who opposed the revolutionary war.

Am I a revolutionary war scholar? No. Am I a scholar in anything? No. Do I come on here to use $20 words to show off my intellect? No. This stupid backwoods hick understands freedom. What does freedom consist of? It can be summed up by property rights. My right to my labor, my thoughts, my income, etc. One of the single biggest reason I've given up on this country is the inability of the masses to understand basic economics. Most all of us understand the basic principles of balancing a checkbook. At the end of the day, the +'s have to be equal to or greater than the -'s. Yet many of these same people believe those principles apply to our government or businesses. They want every social program under the sun without ever giving a thought about who pays for it. They expect businesses to pay an ever increasing burden of taxes and somehow manage to sell their products for less. These people are voting me into slavery. Sorry I refuse to call these people fellow Americans.