Tired of the same old guys? Come to our awesome 3rd Party!!!

[cookiva]

Alright guys. I have made my beliefs well known. I want a Kucinich white house, which wont happen. If Edwards doesn't win NH, then I believe he is done as well. These two losses are forcing me to take a good hard look at some third party candidates. This is the place to discuss all Constitution, Green, Libertarian, Socialist, and other independents players in the USA's 2008 election.

If you want some more information on the biggest 3rd parties, here are some of their main websites.

Constitution Party

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Green Party

http://www.gp.org/index.php

Libertarian Party

http://www.lp.org/

Socialistic Party

http://www.sp-usa.org/

You can go here as well to find out more information about the frontrunners in each party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_presidential_candidates, _2008

[Malice]

http://www.uscentrist.org/

This is my new party

[cookiva]

Matt and Hippie Hunter were talking about creating a more central party. This will make them sad....

[bell110]

I voted libertarian in the 2000 election.

[SuBe]

Go Libertarian!

[amazingfantasy15]

I've "thrown my vote away" in the last two elections voting for third parties. Didn't like either of the two "real" candidates and was pressured into voting.

[Venom'sDad]

I'm not sure America needs a third party, but it couldn't hurt. All great empire corrupt themselves from the inside, than crumble & deteriorate. Not long after a Third Party is created, ambitious people over time will corrupt the party, similar to the existing parties we have now.

What Americans needs is elected officials to strictly follow the Constitution, as the promise to when they take the Oath of Office. The Senate & the Congress is where America is be eroded and soveriegnty loss. The Presidency is a figure head, a Manager if you will, who job is to manage the execution of the Laws... as legislated by the Senate and Congress.

Sadly each branch of government is doing more than what is ask for them, by law, to do. Judges are following International Law, effectively ignoring the U.S. Constitution and are not interpreting law, but legislating it from the Bench.

The Executive Branch ignoring and by-passing the Legislator Branch right to make declarations. So now the Legislator Branch is now interpreting their own Constitutional Laws(a la Immigration, Rights to Privacy, Bare Arms, Eminent Domain, Monetary, etc).

NO ONE IS FOLLOWING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. So i'm not sure a Third Party is really necessary... it will be no more, imo, than a band-aid.

[bell110]

The Constitution party is terrible. They should call themselves the Bible party.

[Kel]

Love the thread......lol

[Movies205]

I never really understood the two party system. In the end it gives one majority and the other just lies dormant, why not have a 3 party system that forces them to work together instead of relying on majority?

[cookiva]

I never really understood the two party system. In the end it gives one majority and the other just lies dormant, why not have a 3 party system that forces them to work together instead of relying on majority?


We would have a similar system to that if people actually read everything on every candidate. You would find someone closer to your views. For example, my sister is under 18, but she is very interested in politics right now. She was reading alot about Obama, and I sent her a few emails of different candidates. Now, she is pulling for Edwards.

Granted, the USA will never have every potential voter read about every candidate....

[AllThingsComic]

http://www.uscentrist.org/

This is my new party

I'm with Malice, this is my new party as well!! And Kel, great avatar!

[Matt]

Everyone...I have the third party that you have been waiting for. I can sum up why you should join in one little sentence.

Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi Party!!! (no one will get the reference and everyone's going to think I'm a Nazi :csad:)

[Kel]

I'm with Malice, this is my new party as well!! And Kel, great avatar!


Aaaawwww, thanks ATC, I kinda like it myself....:cwink:

[amazingfantasy15]

Everyone...I have the third party that you have been waiting for. I can sum up why you should join in one little sentence.

Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi Party!!! (no one will get the reference and everyone's going to think I'm a Nazi :csad:)

Isn't that from the Producers?

[SuperFerret]

I've "thrown my vote away" in the last two elections voting for third parties. Didn't like either of the two "real" candidates and was pressured into voting.

I think that's the biggest problem and a key to getting third partys more clout. I've heard that a lot of times people will vote either (1) against one candidate, not for the one they're voting for, or (2) for the "lesser" of two "evils", primarily because they're pressured to vote. If people would realize that you don't have to vote (especially if both major candidates bring the bile to the back of your throat) maybe something would change.

[cookiva]

Exactly. There are other options. Dont vote for the one who you think is less evil. Vote for the person you like the most....

[SuperFerret]

Exactly. There are other options. Dont vote for the one who you think is less evil. Vote for the person you like the most....

And if you don't like anyone, don't vote. And go outside and make some friends, you're an ass if you don't like anyone.

[amazingfantasy15]

And if you don't like anyone, don't vote. And go outside and make some friends, you're an ass if you don't like anyone.

I'm not making friends with politications. I like to have a real friend not just someone who's my friend to make them look better in the polls.

The first time I was pressured to vote by my parents saying it's your duty to vote, I said it was my right to vote or not vote, didn't feel like getting into a big argument though so just voted third party because I didn't think either major candidate was right for the job.

In 2004, the office I was working at opened late so that people could vote before coming in. So I was pressured to vote again, didn't feel either candidate was right for the job so I "threw my vote away" again. The funny thing is, I live in Illinois so my vote doesn't really matter anyway, it's not a swing state, IL always goes democrat.

[cookiva]

Same with me. Texas isnt going to be a hard decision this year....

[MaskedManJRK]

Yeah, I'm more of a Libertarian.

[Catman]

The Green Party was soooo 2004. I don't know what third party to support this election. :csad:

[Matt]

Support Bloomberg who has set up a research committee! :woot:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/bloomberg/

I don't agree with him on everything, but I love the notion of a socially liberal, fiscal conservative independent who can reach out to both sides and has literally limitless funds and due to that is in no one's pocket.

[Venom'sDad]

Well, hillary and her supporters would love for that to happen... Bloomberg run as an 3rd Party candidate, a la Ross Perot. :rolleyes:

[The Senator]

Well, hillary and her supporters would love for that to happen... Bloomberg run as an 3rd Party candidate, a la Ross Perot. :rolleyes:

Actually, they'd probably hate it. Bloomberg may very well take more votes from left-leaning independents, considering his political views and record as mayor. Plus, he has a lot of support in New York City... which is a traditional Democratic stronghold.

[Venom'sDad]

Maybe the left in NYC; but on a national scale, he will take more of the moderate vote... which has a history of voting Republican in a two-party race. The hillary people know this.

[The Senator]

Maybe the left in NYC; but on a national scale, he will take more of the moderate vote... which has a history of voting Republican in a two-party race. The hillary people know this.

Actually, the Hillary people are pretty scared of a Bloomberg run. When I volunteered at her campaign headquarters in the fall, a few of the communications people were discussing the prospects of a Bloomberg run. Independents who dislike Hillary immensely will probably find Bloomberg very appealing. He stands for every social issue she supports, and he comes without the polarizing baggage people fault her for.

He will probably be supported by a few right-leaning independents, but he won't appeal to those socially conservative independents who make up middle America. He will appeal to those who are in the dead center, in states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. Democrats usually have tough/ close races in those states, and if Bloomberg gets in, Hillary (or the eventual nominee) will have to work extra hard to carry those states-- not to mention other swing states such as Ohio and Wisconsin, where Bloomberg's politics are consistent with statewide political leanings.

[Matt]

Actually, they'd probably hate it. Bloomberg may very well take more votes from left-leaning independents, considering his political views and record as mayor. Plus, he has a lot of support in New York City... which is a traditional Democratic stronghold.

Maybe the left in NYC; but on a national scale, he will take more of the moderate vote... which has a history of voting Republican in a two-party race. The hillary people know this.

I think Spice is right. Bloomberg's fiscal policies would no doubt cut into some traditionally Republican votes, as Perot did...however, Republicans don't really rely on that any more. They learned when Perot sunk them in '92. Now-a-days they depend on the religious right movement to put them over the top and Bloomberg ain't touchin' that.

He is too socially liberal. Democrats on the other hand, depend to a big extent on social liberals. He is pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty and has a hell of a record for enviromental work. With his resources, his cut into Democratic votes could make Nader's look tiny. Especially if Hillary or Obama is forced on the defense for foreign policies as opposed to domestic, as the Republican candidate will no doubt try to do.

[hippie_hunter]

Because Matt asked for it:

I may disagree with Bloomberg on issues like gun control and the death penalty, but I really like the guy. American needs more moderate politicians like Bloomberg. He's conservative where needed and liberal where needed and he can really serve as a uniter, unlike Obama or Huckabee.

[Matt]

Because Matt asked for it:

I may disagree with Bloomberg on issues like gun control and the death penalty, but I really like the guy. American needs more moderate politicians like Bloomberg. He's conservative where needed and liberal where needed and he can really serve as a uniter, unlike Obama or Huckabee.

:up:

[cookiva]

Because Matt asked for it:

I may disagree with Bloomberg on issues like gun control and the death penalty, but I really like the guy. American needs more moderate politicians like Bloomberg. He's conservative where needed and liberal where needed and he can really serve as a uniter, unlike Obama or Huckabee.

Good points. He is the closest thing to a true moderate in this election, if he decides to jump in. Im actually quite afraid, on the other hand, of the outcome of this. He WILL take away votes from the democratic nominee. Plain and simple. Like Matt and HH have said, republicans bank on the religious right now, and Bloomberg knows that he has a snowballs chance in hell with that. I would prefer a Bloomberg White House over a Clinton White House, but I know that he would split the votes with Clinton/Obama if he does run.

Bloomberg runs, its because we have either Romney or Huckabee as the republican nominee. If Bloomberg splits with the Dem's, the republicans take the white house, and I really dont want a Romney/Huckabee POTUS.

Please Bloomberg, know what you are getting into. I know you will run a better campaign than Nader, but if you take 10-20% of the national vote, the republicans win. Do you, Micheal Bloomberg, want that?

[hippie_hunter]

Bloomberg will take votes from Republicans too, particularly the fiscal conservatives and the socially moderate Republicans who don't give a damn about religion.

[cookiva]

Bloomberg will take votes from Republicans too, particularly the fiscal conservatives and the socially moderate Republicans who don't give a damn about religion.

Yes, but its not the large block it once was. We all know their bread and butter is that middle america bible thumpers. Those are the guys and girls that vote straight party tickets for all republicans.

But who knows. We might see a shift this election, with all of the moderates/ people in the center wanting to get away from extremes on both sides. I would actually like a Bloomberg White House, more so than any other potenial one right now (The only POTUS for me right now is Edwards).

[Venom'sDad]

Actually, the Hillary people are pretty scared of a Bloomberg run. Independents who dislike Hillary immensely will probably find Bloomberg very appealing. He stands for every social issue she supports, and he comes without the polarizing baggage people fault her for.

He will probably be supported by a few right-leaning independents, but he won't appeal to those socially conservative independents who make up middle America. He will appeal to those who are in the dead center, in states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New Hampshire.

OK, 1st: hillary people are not afraid of him other than NYC. Remember Ross Perot was the same kind of candidate a social moderate and a fiscal conservative, who was precieve as being weak on defense. The same kind of candidate, not as social liberal as Bloomberg, but Bloomberg is mostly centrist. Perot still took votes away from Bush Sr. because history has shown, most Moderates/Independents vote Republican.... which is what Bloomberg is. The underline/bode proves my point.

2nd: History has shown that Moderate/Independents traditionally hurt Republicans more than Democrats with well known Third Party Candidates.

Finally: Last year when everyone and their sister & brother, was announcing their candidacy for Prez of the U S of A... speculation was running wild about Bloomberg possible run as an Independent. MSNBC Oberman himself said a Bloomberg run would benefit hillary in a three-way race with Rudy G. The Networks then was already conceding RudyG & hillary would be the parties nominees. I agree with Oberman then, I agree with him now... it would benefit hillary if he runs.

[cookiva]

You do realize that its not 1992 anymore. The right doesnt lean on fiscal conservatives anymore....

[Venom'sDad]

Yes they do, which is one, of many reasons, why RudyG will win the Repub's nomination.

[cookiva]

They do lean on them? Really? Its now a block the size of African American voters who vote for the dems. They love that Evangelical right vote.

Rudy is to far gone. If he doesnt win Florida by alot, he is done.

[bell110]

Rudy is a non-issue now.

[CorpusBlack]

I'm somewhere between Libertarian and Project Mayhem.

[Raiden]

Because Matt asked for it:

I may disagree with Bloomberg on issues like gun control and the death penalty, but I really like the guy. American needs more moderate politicians like Bloomberg. He's conservative where needed and liberal where needed and he can really serve as a uniter, unlike Obama or Huckabee.

Well, Obama IMO has the potential to attract independent and maybe even some moderate Republican support due to his broad appeal. I really think he can be the "uniter" if he is the Prez.

As for Bloomberg, I really like most of his positions and I wish he'd go back to the Dems (which he was before turning GOP). But even if he stays Independent, I'd seriously consider voting for him if he does run for office, even though I'd still prefer a Democrat instead.

[Matt]

Well, Obama IMO has the potential to attract independent and maybe even some moderate Republican support due to his broad appeal. I really think he can be the "uniter" if he is the Prez.

I doubt it. Especially if he has a Democratic Congress. Just because a few Republicans vote for him, doesn't mean he will unite the country He will do the same thing Bush did with a Republican Congress. Lock out the other side and push his party's agenda. That isn't uniting. That is ignoring half of America because you can. That is the type of behavior that causes partisan politics.


As for Bloomberg, I really like most of his positions and I wish he'd go back to the Dems (which he was before turning GOP). But even if he stays Independent, I'd seriously consider voting for him if he does run for office, even though I'd still prefer a Democrat instead.

So you like him, and agree with his positions, but would vote for a label over a candidate. Its that kinda attitude that is killing America, dude. :csad:

[Raiden]

So you like him, and agree with his positions, but would vote for a label over a candidate. Its that kinda attitude that is killing America, dude. :csad:

Unfortunately, after the Nader factor in the 2000 & 2004 elections, I'm very leery about voting for a 3rd party that will just rob Dems' votes away so GOP can win. And since GOP has had 8 years in the WH, I think the Dems deserve a chance to right this ship before it sinks lower.

[cookiva]

So you would rather vote for someone that you might not agree with so you keep someone you dont agree with out of the white house? Think about that one for a second...

[Raiden]

So you would rather vote for someone that you might not agree with so you keep someone you dont agree with out of the white house? Think about that one for a second...

As I said, I think voting for Nader was one of the main reasons why Bush is a 2-term president, and I don't really want another GOP to win WH just because we decided to vote for a 3rd party candidate. Anyway, Bloomberg hasn't declared so this is kinda moot, and my feeling may change if he does. Unless I really feel that Bloomberg can win, I think I'd rather vote Dems.

[cookiva]

As I said, I think voting for Nader was one of the main reasons why Bush is a 2-term president, and I don't really want another GOP to win WH just because we decided to vote for a 3rd party candidate. Anyway, Bloomberg hasn't declared so this is kinda moot, and my feeling may change if he does. Unless I really feel that Bloomberg can win, I think I'd rather vote Dems.

Where do you live...?

[Kel]

So you would rather vote for someone that you might not agree with so you keep someone you dont agree with out of the white house? Think about that one for a second...

If there is someone running, that I beyond a shadow of a doubt, DO NOT want to win for EVERY REASON......, and I know that voting for the one that hits 99% of my criteria has no chance in hell of winning, but someone that meets my criteria 50+% has a great chance of winning with some help in the numbers.....hell yeah I'll vote for the guy that I'm not quite in agreement with to make sure the other does not become president. In a heartbeat!

[cookiva]

I guess living in Texas, knowing that its impossible my vote here matters, its different for me.

[Kel]

I live in Texas....

[cookiva]

I know, Kel. But do you think that your vote honestly matters, no matter which candidate you choose, for the POTUS??? You know that this state has its mind made up as far as who wins. Whoever the republican nominee is, thats who wins...

[Kel]

I know, Kel. But do you think that your vote honestly matters, no matter which candidate you choose, for the POTUS??? You know that this state has its mind made up as far as who wins. Whoever the republican nominee is, thats who wins...


Two decades ago, I might have thought that it didn't count...........no I believe my vote does count, it is my voice in the political system...and I will continue to make my voice heard.

[cookiva]

Crap, that made it look like im not voting.

Listen, Im all for voting. Vote or die, mother****er. Yeah. That said, with the electoral college, the power is honestly with the few as of right now. My vote counts in the popular election, but electoral college, enspecially with who I support, I have little to no voice.

[Kel]

I've always wondered what would happen if we had a uniform start up and shut down time for voting precincts. That would be interesting what the impact would be.


Yes, the electoral college is outdated to a large degree.......and the shifts in population in this country are astronomical right now, and that will not stop for decades to come...........

This election will tell me alot, and will take months to analyze......but I'll enjoy every minute of it....

[SuperFerret]

I've always wondered what would happen if we had a uniform start up and shut down time for voting precincts. That would be interesting what the impact would be.


Something no politician can truly deliver; change.

[The Senator]

OK, 1st: hillary people are not afraid of him other than NYC. Remember Ross Perot was the same kind of candidate a social moderate and a fiscal conservative, who was precieve as being weak on defense. The same kind of candidate, not as social liberal as Bloomberg, but Bloomberg is mostly centrist. Perot still took votes away from Bush Sr. because history has shown, most Moderates/Independents vote Republican.... which is what Bloomberg is. The underline/bode proves my point.

Here you go again, thinking you know things better than everyone else. I volunteered for the Clinton campaign in October. People who design campaign strategies were speculating that she would face a threat in states which are essentially suburbs of New York City-- i.e., Connecticut and New Jersey. These states are always close, and since Bloomberg is mayor of New York, they know quite a lot about him. Bloomberg may not win these states, but he will take votes away from both parties. The Democratic candidate will need these votes more than the Republicans.

2nd: History has shown that Moderate/Independents traditionally hurt Republicans more than Democrats with well known Third Party Candidates.

History has shown us that Ross Perot hurts Republicans. Bloomberg is a different kind of independent. He isn't Ross Perot, and I can guarantee that fiscal conservatism won't be his campaign message. Additionally, there are enough Democrats who hate Hillary Clinton enough to vote for Bloomberg instead. Unlike 1992, when her husband was running as basically an outsider from middle America, Hillary is known, loved and hated-- immensely. Everyone has an opinion of her, and those who also dislike her and the Republican candidate will be more inclined to vote for Bloomberg. They basically get the same thing they do with Hillary, except without the polarizing personality.

Finally: Last year when everyone and their sister & brother, was announcing their candidacy for Prez of the U S of A... speculation was running wild about Bloomberg possible run as an Independent. MSNBC Oberman himself said a Bloomberg run would benefit hillary in a three-way race with Rudy G. The Networks then was already conceding RudyG & hillary would be the parties nominees. I agree with Oberman then, I agree with him now... it would benefit hillary if he runs.

If Rudy Giuliani is the nominee, then yes, it will probably hurt him more than Hillary. However, it has grown more and more likely that Rudy won't be the nominee. Since there isn't any polling data which places Bloomberg and Hillary up against the forty-seven other Republicans running for the nomination, all I can say is read my above points.

[Arkady Rossovich]

It's very bad that there isn't a third party.Independents arn't strong enough to really be on their own yet,so you basically HAVE to vote Democratic or Republican.

[hippie_hunter]

Independents are strong enought (both the Republicans and Democrats rely on them), they just don't have the will to do so.

[Kel]

It's very bad that there isn't a third party.Independents arn't strong enough to really be on their own yet,so you basically HAVE to vote Democratic or Republican.


Great thing about our country is NO, you DON'T HAVE TO vote Democrat or Republican......thats the beauty of it.

Independent voters are the fastest growing group of people in politics today....yes many will choose a Democratic or Republican candidate....but straight ticket voting is slowly becoming a thing of the past, and the Independent candidates will grow, in the future, to be more than just the person who screws it up for the Dem or Rep candidate.....

[bell110]

It's very bad that there isn't a third party.Independents arn't strong enough to really be on their own yet,so you basically HAVE to vote Democratic or Republican.

Yeah, uh, no. Just pick a third party you like and vote for them. If more people voted for a third party instead of saying "I HAVE to vote Dem or Rep" then third party candidates CAN make a difference.