Posted on 10/27/2012 4:03:01 PM PDT by SincerelyAmanda
If you think an election that can't be won with your ideal candidate is an election not worth winning at all, think again.
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...
Worth repeating.
Can I spurn third parties and damn the Two Party System at the same time? Because however worse Ross Perky made things for me or Ralph Baser for lefties, the system does not work. It quite plainly tabors Big Government. Not even the so-called Reagan Revolution put more than a dent in the New Deal/Great Society.
Romney/McCain/Bush/Dole/Bush/Ford/etc. being marginally better does not make them good. We will lose the Republic, if we haven’t already, playing this way, whether or not new parties can help. Simply put, democracy doesn’t work.
AMEN!! But hey, Clinton was COOL....Bush was SQUARE and SERIOUS....A country like ou just can;t tolerate SQUARE ANYMORE....to our DEMISE!!!
On the plus side, the Obama forced labor collectives will have separate barracks with extra food rations for Gary Johnson voters.
So true. The downwind consequences of Clintonism you itemized, plus SecState Hildebeast, federal judges, the petty progeny like Rahmbo, George Stephanopolis, the various marxist think tanks . . . have done incalculable damage to our republic.
Republicans controlled Congress under Clinton and dominated the federal government for 8 years off and on afterwards. You can hardly say 08 was all Bill’s fault. As tor Osaka, he wasn’t the “indispensable man.” They might have pullef it off anyway. Or if not 9/11 then some other attack. You can’t reasonably after four decades of terror point to one decision not to nab one guy as determining the issue.
Yeah, damnable Clinton judges. Oh, what we could gave done with more John Robertses.
You might want to take a look at the future of the GOP before trashing 3rd parties. I realize that they have no chance today but the GOP of tomorrow is a place where men like Bill Clinton would feel at home. In fact, I’m not so sure he would be all that unwelcome today.
Basically the choice of the future is the maxists (current democrats) or the democrats (republican party of tomorrow).
3 parties = even more opportunities for crony corruption and government spending than 2 parties.
There is a President memorialized on Mount Rushmore who was elected as the nominee of the Bull Moose Party.
I believe Romney will lose in the electoral college.
I will then put money and time into another party
The goal is to build a Conservative party and let the moderate GOP be the third smaller party
It was a black female Clinton appointee who turned the “racist” Hutaree militia loose and hammered the feds on the trumped up charges. She handed the Obama justice department their first defeat.
I have no doubt romney will win but not with my vote and I won’t be jumping up and down with joy. No, I certainly won’t be jumping up and down for Obama either (which is the first thing you Romneybots yell when anybody says anything about your new hero). Did you hear his speech today on cooperation with the dems and working across the aisle? Yeah, good luck with that. The bitching and moaning on this site will start by the end of January and it will become deafening. Conservatives will NOT have a chance to take over the GOP with Romney at its head, conservatives will NOT be able to fight both the GOPe and the Dems when he starts “cooperating”. Jim has warned for years about a Romney presidency but he has been ignored and I’m afraid we are all going to pay for that. Romney is going to destroy the chances of having a conservative in the next two elections (assuming Hilary doesn’t kick his ass in ‘16).
It was the upstart Freesoil party that seized a bunch of seats in congress and helped lead abolitionist democrats and whigs to the new 4th party republicans.
After the first few times of running the 1790 constitution through its paces Thomas Jefferson and others realized that the only way they were going to get good men into office was to form a party to back them.
As you know a single member district requires 50% + 1 vote to win ~ if there is a single opponent.
Once Jefferson and his buddies created the Republican-Democratic or Democratic-Republican party, which went out and found candidates and actively supported them for election, the other side popped into existence. It consisted of the losers who didn't care to be in a Jeffersonian coalition.
Ever since that time new electoral political movements have risen up only on the destruction of a formerly successful coalition party.
Outside of regional or state parties, the Whig party was the best known party to challenge Jefferson's party, and it was destroyed over the slavery issue. The Republican party rose up with a new coalition of anti-slavery folks of all sorts, and anti-slavery Whigs.
Perot was a single individual, not a party BTW, so that wasn't going anywhere.
Again, the two party system is a consequence of the need to win in single member districts. To get rid of it all you need to do is abolish single member districts!
Tedder was not elected president while running as the Bull Moose nominee. Instead Teddy split the conservative vote and Wilson was elected, that was not good.
Take your meds.
I’m not looking for an ideal candidate, I’m looking for a non-atrocious candidate. Not many of those lately.
I will reluctantly give Romney my vote. I refused McCain and did a write in, but something’s got to give. IMO Romney is just the lesser of the evils. What has my country come to? I’m coming to loathe the media and politics of this nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.