Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XV

[Kelly]

He would be the only 3rd Party Presidental choice running that would get on a talk show or late night show on on NBC, CBS, or ABC. He's been on The View last year now...

Why would you leave the country? 2% for him would be good. I believe in some of what he belives in, but like I said...I am toning down on it, while he makes money on a TRU TV SHOW ABOUT CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

I want to see Andy Levy run under the LP before Ventura though...He is libertarian, served our country, and has a job some would say on FOX NEWS.

Because he's a fruitcake and a ratings grabber, not because he is a viable candidate....why would you want someone representing your party that people see as a freak. That doesn't help your party, it hurts it...just GETTING ON A TALK SHOW, is not going to do it.

 

[enterthemadness]

Because he's a fruitcake and a ratings grabber, not because he is a viable candidate....why would you want someone representing your party that people see as a freak. That doesn't help your party, it hurts it...just GETTING ON A TALK SHOW, is not going to do it.

Um, yes it is. About talk show, not Ventura. Like I said, I rather see Andy Levy run than Ventura if Gary doesn't run in 16.

A talk show is a good launching point. Not the internet. Going viral is very difficult. Getting on a talk show needs to be a stressing point for the LP in 2016. Talk shows, interviews on cable news channels, and internet is key.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It is my understanding that the poling rule was under 15% at one point. CPD changed ti from 5% or 10% to the now 15%. Not only that, polling isn't the best way to look at things. Getting on enough ballots is hard as it is and takes up time and money from the 3rd parties that do so. Going by state ballots, the LP's Johnson and Green's Stein would had been invited to the debates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates#cite_note-15

Furthermore...Perot *****ed in 1996 about not getting into the debates even though the prior election he did. Because he asked for public funding aid in 1996, the CPD said he didn't have a great chance at winning, since in 92 he used his own money. But if you are using tax payer money to help your campaign, shouldn't you get in then? This money comes from the FEC I believe. In 1999, as the quote below says, the CPD made the new rule, the 15% in 5 polls rule.


http://www.publicintegrity.org/2008/09/18/3057/two-party-debates

Why 5 polls at 15%? I've asked what these 5 polls are..and no one really knows which ones. It's only known that Gallup is one of the 5. Another one that *may* be in on it is Rasmussen. Not to mention sponsors, usually corporate ones at that, fund the CPD.

Everything you put up is completely and utterly irrelevant. Even when the stupid commission you constantly bring up allowed candidates in at the 5% level, third party candidates still didn't cross the 1% threshold at the ballot. Candidates like Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are very rare exceptions.

The way parties gain hold is by actually winning elections at lower levels before they become major players on the national level. Because we do not have a proportional form of voting, third parties just cannot win seats at local or state or Congressional levels and thus cannot allow their voices to be heard. Without a chance to be heard or be seen in governance, people aren't going to vote for parties in upper tier elections.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I have to disagree with you there. Exposure is key. The media intentionally avoids candidates who don't fit into their narrative (Ron Paul is a great recent example). If third party candidates were given national attention (i.e. being allowed to partake in national debates), it would make a dramatic difference, as we saw with Ross Perot (who ran a rather poor campaign).

There's a reason they try to keep third parties out. They're not going to win elections (probably), but they will greatly influence the outcome, and the Democrats and Republicans know that, which is why they keep them out.

Ross Perot was the exception because he was allowed to partake in a national debate. Otherwise he'd be... Jill Stein.

 

[wiegeabo]

It's a combination of all the factors.

Besides the Big Two wanting to keep third parties out of the media, there's really little reason for the media to cover them. If they can't win a local election, then what's the point of worrying about their effect on a national level? Just a waste of resources.

Of course, usually, at whatever level, the only time you hear about third party candidates is when they actually get enough votes to be a potential 'spoiler'. But then, they only discuss the spoiler effect, which pretty much paints them in a negative light. Like they're abusing the two other poor candidates who are having a hard enough time campaigning...

 

[Kelly]

I have to disagree with you there. Exposure is key. The media intentionally avoids candidates who don't fit into their narrative (Ron Paul is a great recent example). If third party candidates were given national attention (i.e. being allowed to partake in national debates), it would make a dramatic difference, as we saw with Ross Perot (who ran a rather poor campaign).

There's a reason they try to keep third parties out. They're not going to win elections (probably), but they will greatly influence the outcome, and the Democrats and Republicans know that, which is why they keep them out.

Ross Perot was the exception because he was allowed to partake in a national debate. Otherwise he'd be... Jill Stein.

Ross Perot got into the debates because the media saw him as the perfect person to take votes from the Republicans......and they were extremely correct....

The fact that they totally dropped him after the election was the proof for me....they used him, then they dropped him.

They are scared of the Libertarian candidates taking a few votes from the Democratic Candidates....because it looks like the races are very close going through the campaign year. They haven't been....but the polls have really screwed with people's brains these days.

 

[enterthemadness]

Ross Perot got into the debates because the media saw him as the perfect person to take votes from the Republicans......and they were extremely correct....

The fact that they totally dropped him after the election was the proof for me....they used him, then they dropped him.

They are scared of the Libertarian candidates taking a few votes from the Democratic Candidates....because it looks like the races are very close going through the campaign year. They haven't been....but the polls have really screwed with people's brains these days.

He was polling 7% when he got back into the race....Clinton invited him...so it wasn't media, but the Democrats. clever move there, Mr. Clinton.

 

[Kelly]

He was polling 7% when he got back into the race....Clinton invited him...so it wasn't media, but the Democrats. clever move there, Mr. Clinton.

You think Mr. Clinton thought that up all be his lonesome????? REALLY..... and as I said...had the media (not the Democrats necessarily) been all for him, as in giving him time on their news shows, and they did. He was the one that brought the whiteboard long before Rove...had they not been all for him, wouldn't have matter if Clinton or anyone Democrat asking him to join in.

It was the media that was also calling for McCain (he was their hero in the 2000 campaign), The Maverick....and they were all for him coming in as a 3rd Party (Independent) candidate....? Why? because he would take a good percentage of votes from Bush. They simply saw McCain as the next possible Perot. He just decided not to run...he did however have a Shadow convention that actually got some media time as well. Just think what would have happened had McCain gone ahead and run on the Independent ticket.....there would have been no question whatsoever....Gore would have won.

 

[enterthemadness]

No, not really. If Romney ran as a Independent in 2008...he has the money...he wouldn't be handcuffed by the Far Right of the GOP...he would had gotten to the debates. He would air TV ads. But I'm talking about if he decided ''early'' on in 2007. All it takes is money. You telling me...if he didn't put down 100 MILLION for tv ads, ballot access, etc. He would had gotten that back with donations easily.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It wouldn't really have made any difference that time around, since McCain lost rather badly. An independent Romney would have just siphoned away more votes, giving Obama an even bigger lead.

Now if Hillary had run as an independent (which she didn't do, presumably in return for her current job, and so McCain wouldn't win the election), Obama could and probably would have lost to McCain.

Really, you don't have to worry about the runner up going independent (the winner will usually give them a decent job in return for fealty). You have to worry about the angry, disenfranchised people, like the libertarians. If the Republican party keeps shafting them, they will run a dark horse candidate, who will get 5-10% of the vote, basically handing the election over to the Democratic party.

So expect the Republicans to toss the libertarians a bone (which some say they already are, with their treatment of Rand Paul).

 

[enterthemadness]

It wouldn't really have made any difference that time around, since McCain lost rather badly. An independent Romney would have just siphoned away more votes, giving Obama an even bigger lead.

Now if Hillary had run as an independent (which she didn't do, presumably in return for her current job, and so McCain wouldn't win the election), Obama could and probably would have lost to McCain.

Really, you don't have to worry about the runner up going independent (the winner will usually give them a decent job in return for fealty). You have to worry about the angry, disenfranchised people, like the libertarians. If the Republican party keeps shafting them, they will run a dark horse candidate, who will get 5-10% of the vote, basically handing the election over to the Democratic party.

So expect the Republicans to toss the libertarians a bone (which some say they already are, with their treatment of Rand Paul).

Yeah...but will the GOP let him be the nominee? Doubtful. Romney was always the GOP's man. Well, he was the early favorite and it always seemed it was his to lose.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I see him more like the only semi-electable guy in the 2012 Republican clown car. Between Herman Cain and Rick Perry, he's the best they had, by a long shot. And that was before Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann became household names scarring complacent liberals into going to the polls.

 

[enterthemadness]

I see him more like the only semi-electable guy in the 2012 Republican clown car. Between Herman Cain and Rick Perry, he's the best they had, by a long shot. And that was before Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann became household names scarring complacent liberals into going to the polls.

You forget libertarian duo, Dat Ron Paul, Dat Gary Johnson.

C'mon now....C'mon.

 

[SV Fan]

Bachmann on Obamacare "literally" killing people

[YT]IPRc-81E4pU[/YT]

I am not sure if she is serious or she is the greatest comedian in the world but this is funny as hell either way

 

[enterthemadness]

She came off as ''over-acting'' there. Lady, this isn't a NBC comedy now lul.

 

[SV Fan]

She came off as ''over-acting'' there. Lady, this isn't a NBC comedy now lul.

I guess when people ask her about woman issues she can claim she is against things that can kill woman and will fight to stop them

In all honesty though the Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare 39 times in the past 3 years. Don't they realize that in order for Obamacare to be repealed

1. Harry Reid Has to put it up for a vote which by my calculations has a >1% chance of happening

2. A Democrat dominated Senate has to to vote it down, which is even less then the above percentage

3. If the unthinkable 1+2 happens, Obama will then have to take a pen and sign that bill which by my calculations equals 0

Why even bother wasting time on something you know won't happen

Personally for poops and giggles I would love for Harry Reid to put it up for vote, the Democrats fillibuster it and 51 senators vote to repeal it meaning in a fillibuster proof senate that is a losing vote. Would teach the Republicans the joy of fillibustering.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I see him more like the only semi-electable guy in the 2012 Republican clown car. Between Herman Cain and Rick Perry, he's the best they had, by a long shot. And that was before Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann became household names scarring complacent liberals into going to the polls.

I think that if Jon Huntsman got the nomination, he would have beaten Obama.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You forget libertarian duo, Dat Ron Paul, Dat Gary Johnson.

C'mon now....C'mon.

Gary Johnson left the GOP and Ron Paul while being the most sensible one of the bunch, just doesn't have the political savvy to become President. And it's not like Paul wanted to be President anyways, it was all about the message and spreading it to the people.

It's why I think that Rand Paul will do a lot better than his father in 2016. His father planted the seeds of an appealing message, but Rand is just far more smarter politically than his father.

 

[SV Fan]

I think that if Jon Huntsman got the nomination, he would have beaten Obama.

Depends if he could have got the money, I do think though Huntsman with money backing him would have been a very tough challenger although Huntsman wasn't built for a Republican primary

It's why I think that Rand Paul will do a lot better than his father in 2016. His father planted the seeds of an appealing message, but Rand is just far more smarter politically than his father.

To me their is a difference. Ron seemed to have convictions in what he believed and I think alot of people gravitated to the fact he bluntly would say what he feels without worrying who it may offend. Rand to me feels more pandering to certain elements of his party. I think Ron was more ripe to win over Democrats then Rand ever could and I think their was a decent number of disenfranchised Democrats and Independents who would back Ron but won't Rand.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Depends if he could have got the money, I do think though Huntsman with money backing him would have been a very tough challenger although Huntsman wasn't built for a Republican primary

Obama just didn't have the popularity or approval to carry him to win an election against a Republican like Huntsman. Obama won 2012 because of how awful of a candidate Romney was.

To me their is a difference. Ron seemed to have convictions in what he believed and I think alot of people gravitated to the fact he bluntly would say what he feels. Rand to me feels more pandering to certain elements of his party. I think Ron was more ripe to win over Democrats then Rand ever could

Rand really isn't pandering, he just knows how to maneuver around certain elements of his party. And Rand is far better suited to win over Democrats than Ron. Ron has great ideas but doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut like how the Civil War shouldn't have been fought and that the federal government shouldn't have ended slavery. He can be right, but that doesn't mean that people want to hear that.

What you see as "pandering," I see as politically savvy. He's taking his father's ideas and just saying them in a more politically correct way to make them acceptable to the general public.

 

[SV Fan]

Rand really isn't pandering, he just knows how to maneuver around certain elements of his party. And Rand is far better suited to win over Democrats than Ron. Ron has great ideas but doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut like how the Civil War shouldn't have been fought and that the federal government shouldn't have ended slavery. He can be right, but that doesn't mean that people want to hear that.

What you see as "pandering," I see as politically savvy. He's taking his father's ideas and just saying them in a more politically correct way to make them acceptable to the general public.

Ron Paul would say exactly how many democrats feel about the recent wars(better then any Democrat ever did) or even take about the stupidity of drug wars and why drugs are illegal better then any Democrat would. I would like to see Rand do the same while trying to pander to his base but keep the Democrats his dad won over.

Sure Rand's "political savvy" won't rub some of the Republican base in the wrong way as much as Ron and he might have a better show in a Republican Primary, but his lack of outspokeness like his Dad won't win over Democrats who just want to hear a politician say how they feel. Basically you are either going to piss off one side or the other by taking a stand on an issue and the more you piss off one side the more you will endure yourself to the other side and I don't think Rand will go to the lengths to say how he feels to win over the other side.

As I said I think part of what gave us the Ron Paul following is he is one of the few politicians who wasn't afraid to say exactly what he means and if you sided on him with one or 2 issues and he would speak from the heart about it, that would win over alot of rapid loyal followers(even if you don't agree with other issues he has). By trying to be savvy like Rand you won't get that kind of loyal following

 

[hippie_hunter]

But when you say things like how the Federal Government shouldn't have ended slavery or have a Barry Goldwater styled opposition to the Civil Rights Act, you pretty much lose Democrats that would support Ron.

 

[enterthemadness]

I think that if Jon Huntsman got the nomination, he would have beaten Obama.

If he got the nomination...I don't think Gary Johnson and the LP would had broke 1 million votes. Huntsman, while I disagree with him on some issues,...he...I mean...he makes me want to vote for him. If Huntsman had more backing and won the GOP Nomination, do you think Gary Johnson or Ron Paul would had backed him? I am guessing Gary, if he was still running under LP, he would had said good things about Huntsman.

Gary Johnson left the GOP and Ron Paul while being the most sensible one of the bunch, just doesn't have the political savvy to become President. And it's not like Paul wanted to be President anyways, it was all about the message and spreading it to the people.

It's why I think that Rand Paul will do a lot better than his father in 2016. His father planted the seeds of an appealing message, but Rand is just far more smarter politically than his father.

I don't really see Rand getting the nomination, but he may do good enough to turn the Party towards a 2020 libertarian run. We can both agree that Rand should make some noise in 2016, more than his Dad did.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Huntsman? Unless he runs as a Democrat, he is unelectable. His views are entirely incompatible with the modern Republican Party. And he's not going to sway Democrats with his moderate positions, when there is a Democratic President standing for reelection. So all that leaves him is what's left of moderate Republicans (the few not hiding from the Tea Party, anyway), and some independents Obama failed to sway.

 

[enterthemadness]

Huntsman? Unless he runs as a Democrat, he is unelectable. His views are entirely incompatible with the modern Republican Party. And he's not going to sway Democrats with his moderate positions, when there is a Democratic President standing for reelection. So all that leaves him is what's left of moderate Republicans (the few not hiding from the Tea Party, anyway), and some independents Obama failed to sway.

I forget, but I posted....is he still a Republican, or at least in the dog house in the Party?