Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/16/2020 9:48:49 PM
Posted: 10/11/2007 12:54:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 12:56:41 PM EST by Bloencustoms]
This has me thinking, with all the talk of conservatives becomming jaded wth the Republican party, some say they will vote third party.

This will hurt the Republican's chances to fill the white house. Ok.

So answer me this; Why won't a third party candidate also draw votes from the Dems?

Is it just that Democrats so absolutely LOVE their candidate, no matter who they turn out to be?

Is there no chance that Democrats who are closer to the middle of the road will not vote third party if they are uncomfortable with their nominee?

For instance, take Joe Shmoe the Dem. He votes Dem out of habit. It's what the last 4 generations of his family have done. However, Shmoe decides that he doesn't want a lunatic like Hildebeest to be pres.

There is a third party candidate running. So now, he has an option to vote for someone who is both NOT Republican, and NOT The Hildebeest.

Are people like Joe Schmoe too few and far between?
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 12:57:27 PM EST
Because they say so.

Breaking ranks and voting your conscience is akin to treason.

Apparently.

Link Posted: 10/11/2007 12:59:11 PM EST
it's a scare tactic because the Rs have candidates they have no real confidence in
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:00:25 PM EST
Because the Democrats represent the socialists. The Republicans represent people willing to just allow socialism to happen.

Voting for someone who is a capitalist.... oh, hell. This isn't worth explaining.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:00:35 PM EST
If you would "normally" vote for the Republican, but instead vote third party, then it is oneless vote for the Rs.

Of course it works the same way on the other side as well one someone who would normally vote Dem votes for Nader.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:01:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
This has me thinking, with all the talk of conservatives becomming jaded wth the Republican party, some say they will vote third party.

This will hurt the Republican's chances to fill the white house. Ok.

So answer me this; Why won't a third party candidate also draw votes from the Dems?

Is it just that Democrats so absolutely LOVE their candidate, no matter who they turn out to be?

Is there no chance that Democrats who are closer to the middle of the road will not vote third party if they are uncomfortable with their nominee?

For instance, take Joe Shmoe the Dem. He votes Dem out of habit. It's what the last 4 generations of his family have done. However, Shmoe decides that he doesn't want a lunatic like Hildebeest to be pres.

There is a third party candidate running. So now, he has an option to vote for someone who is both NOT Republican, and NOT The Hildebeest.

Are people like Joe Schmoe too few and far between?


Yes the Joes just do not seem to be there, do you know of any Dems threatening to vote 3rd party? I do not, also I know what the Clintons claimed about Perot, but EVERYONE I know who voted for him would normally have voted Republican.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:03:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By Fourays2:
it's a scare tactic because the Rs have candidates they have no real confidence in


Scare tactic? You must not remember 1992 and Perot with 19% of the vote. Gee, who did we get out of that one????????



BTW, the above referenced POS-president was NEVER elected with at or over 50% of the vote. That is how Clinton's win apparently, as you know damn well Cuntlery is hoping for it too.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:05:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 1:06:16 PM EST by eswanson]
I don't know if you can generalize, but this time around that would probably be what happens. The Dems are, as a whole, pretty content with their candidates, including the presumed nominee, Hillary. The Republicans have had a hard time getting behind any one of the candidates thus far, and are not overwhelmingly happy with any of them. Therefore, this time around, I think it's reasonable to assume that the 3rd party candidate will a) come from the Republican side of things, and b) draw more voters from the R's than the D's.

ETA: Pretty hard to imagine Barack Obama launching a 3rd Party candidacy if he loses to Hillary in the primaries, isn't it? Ron Paul, OTOH...
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:06:51 PM EST
Beuller? Beuller?

Ross Perot split the conservative/republican vote in '92 and '96, and we got stuck with eight years of Dogpatch on the Potomac. Any questions?
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:10:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 1:11:44 PM EST by Primos]
No.

Bush split the vote in '92.

If he actually lived up to his campaign, and wasn't a damn communist,

Perot would have never happened.

It's not complicated.

If the republicans will actually put up a conservative candidate, then they'll get the votes.

If they refuse to, then


It's not rocket science.


And before some of you say "you're voting for hillary", STFU.

Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:11:15 PM EST
I guess that's the crux of the question. What do the Democrats d to keep their party so absolutel happy that they wouldn't consider voting for a thrid party candidate? How and why do they have such solidarity, and what can conservatives do to match it?
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:11:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:
If you would "normally" vote for the Republican, but instead vote third party, then it is oneless vote for the Rs.

Of course it works the same way on the other side as well one someone who would normally vote Dem votes for Nader.


Yep.

Ross Perot hurt the R's in '92 and '96. Nader did the same to the donkey party in '00 and '04.

Nader said he would run if Hillery was nominated. This time around I think he will get minimal votes if he runs.

That said, if you are a regualr on this site and you vote 3rd party, you are probably helping the donkey party . . .
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:12:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
I guess that's the crux of the question. What do the Democrats d to keep their party so absolutel happy that they wouldn't consider voting for a thrid party candidate? How and why do they have such solidarity, and what can conservatives do to match it?



Hillary is a Marxist. That's pretty far left wing.


The current republican candidates are mostly Marxists too. They simply hide it, and go for a more conventional, "easy to swallow" version.

But they're all still communists.


If the R's want to win, put up a conservative candidate. That's the ONLY way.

Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:14:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 1:14:37 PM EST by macman37]
Because we don't care who the Dems vote for, no matter WHO they get in office, doesn't matter. They're all anti-gun liberal idiots that want to jack our taxes up to pay for their social programs, "for our own good"...

We're trying (as conservatives) to put the best front possible forward. Diluting the "message" by voting helter-skelter does nothing but (by way of example) put Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.

It's happened before, there is precedent here.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:14:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 1:17:59 PM EST by TOL1488]

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
I guess that's the crux of the question. What do the Democrats d to keep their party so absolutel happy that they wouldn't consider voting for a thrid party candidate? How and why do they have such solidarity, and what can conservatives do to match it?


Well down here they have block parties and bus them to register then do the same come voting day...


ETA - they also seem to get dead people to vote fairly often...
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:16:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
I guess that's the crux of the question. What do the Democrats d to keep their party so absolutel happy that they wouldn't consider voting for a thrid party candidate? How and why do they have such solidarity, and what can conservatives do to match it?


Well, for one thing the Donkey Party has a serious loosing streak, so they will be happy with any D win. And second, their top runners are all leftist kooks. By contrast, the Rs are running RINOs for the most part.

Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:22:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 1:24:12 PM EST by twl]
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:24:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 1:25:20 PM EST by david_g17]

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:
If you would "normally" vote for the Republican, but instead vote third party, then it is oneless vote for the Rs...


Then the Republicans need to fix that!

I won't be blamed for them ignoring their conservative base.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:28:35 PM EST
It doesn't. Ralph Nader won the election for Bush.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 1:30:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 1:32:18 PM EST by PBIR]
It won't - that's a load of bull just like it was in 1992 - generated by people that don't want to admit that fucking your base has consequences.


In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.

Perot did a lot of damage, it is true. During the spring primaries in the big industrial states like New York and Pennsylvania, when attention might have been paid to Clinton and former California Governor Jerry Brown as they fought each other and debated a domestic agenda for the new administration, all the media covered was the "undeclared" candidacy of Ross Perot.

[ Digression - What is an undeclared candidacy? Especially when there were already several independent parties qualified to be on the ballot, but which were not considered worthy of coverage: The New Alliance Party, LaRouche for President, the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Party, the Prohibition Party and the Independent Voters Party. Why was Perot, who was not running, receiving more coverage than the candidates who were running? The answer is money. The American press is not a free press, it's a bought press. Perot promised that, if he ran, he would spend $100 million in media advertising. The press supported the undeclared candidacy of Ross Perot to fatten their own pocketbooks. The minor party candidates, who had no money to spend on media, could therefore be ignored.]

But did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

The 1992 presidential election was an analyst's dream. Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot's presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party's nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot's voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.

This assumes that all Clinton's supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush's supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot's voters.

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.

This same analysis shows that if Perot had not been on the ballot in 1996, Dole would have carried Nevada instead of Clinton. So, by any measure, even admitting that Perot's presence may have cost Bush a few electoral votes in 1992, it was no where near enough to change the outcome of that election, nor the Clinton - Dole contest in 1996.
Top Top