Will The Left Run Up The White Flag

[Moderate Right]

Yes, Hillary outspent Trump 1.4 billion to a bit less than a billion. A billion is still a lot of money. Also Trump knew how to play the media, every morning he was calling into the morning shows to get his name out there while Hillary basically hid. Yes also to the democratic primaries being rigged in Hillary's favor. No doubt about that. What I find so strange about that is hardly any Democrats gave a hoot. Gave a hoot that Hillary was chosen as their 2016 nominee prior to the 2012 election in a meeting between Bill, Hillary and Obama. Perhaps the moral of that story is not to choose your presidential nominee four years in advance of the election.

Third party and independent candidates tend to fade the close the election becomes. Voters tend to buy into the propaganda spouted by the two major parties that an vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote because they can't win. So it becomes a self fulling prophecy. Johnson in 2016 fell from 9% in August down to a final vote tally of 3.3%.

Not sure how much Johnson's drop toward the end had to do with normal "fading" or his Aleppo moment. That certainly kind of did him in (kind of showed the Libertarian view of not giving a crap about anything going on in the world). Voters were hungry for someone else to vote for other than Hillary or Trump. But, that kind of ties in to why I don't think a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket would need a huge bankroll. Voters seem to like debates, or at least the media certainly likes to televise them. If I remember correctly, most debates require a threshold of 10% in order to take part in them (either toward the end of the primaries or in the general). Johnson couldn't break that threshold but I believe the Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket could and that could get the train rolling down the tracks and picking up steam. Of course we don't know who the Democratic nominee will be but if we assume Trump will be the Republican nominee in 2020 (maybe up against a far left progressive socialist) then voters will be hungry again for a different viable option. Another money factor in favor of the Kasich/Hickenlooper Independent ticket is that they would not have to spend a dime to win the nomination of a party. They could just declare and run. All they'd have to do is get enough signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

 

[Perotista]

Not sure how much Johnson's drop toward the end had to do with normal "fading" or his Aleppo moment. That certainly kind of did him in (kind of showed the Libertarian view of not giving a crap about anything going on in the world). Voters were hungry for someone else to vote for other than Hillary or Trump. But, that kind of ties in to why I don't think a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket would need a huge bankroll. Voters seem to like debates, or at least the media certainly likes to televise them. If I remember correctly, most debates require a threshold of 10% in order to take part in them (either toward the end of the primaries or in the general). Johnson couldn't break that threshold but I believe the Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket could and that could get the train rolling down the tracks and picking up steam. Of course we don't know who the Democratic nominee will be but if we assume Trump will be the Republican nominee in 2020 (maybe up against a far left progressive socialist) then voters will be hungry again for a different viable option. Another money factor in favor of the Kasich/Hickenlooper Independent ticket is that they would not have to spend a dime to win the nomination of a party. They could just declare and run. All they'd have to do is get enough signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

This time around, the bipartisan debate commission said 15% for 2016. Whatever the percentage is, they can change it on a whim. As to Johnson, his popularity had more to do with his last name not being Trump nor Clinton in my opinion. 54% of all independents disliked both major party candidates and didn't want neither one to become their next president. Johnson's main support came from independents.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...mericans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

In the end, 12% of independents ended up voting third party even with 54% disliking both major party candidates. A lot of voting for the major party candidate they wanted to lose the least. In other words, they bought into that propaganda statement about a wasted vote.

I don't think Aleppo had much to do with his fading. He never got his message out and outside of folks who are political active, like the one's on this site, most never heard of him. But he was on all 50 state ballots and an option other than Clinton or Trump.

If I had my way on the presidential debates, the first debate would include all candidates who were on enough ballots to gain 270 electoral votes. That would have include both Johnson and Stein and no others in 2016. The second debate a candidate would have to be on the ballot in enough states to gain 400 electoral votes. Johnson would have qualified, but not Stein. The final debate, 538. Again, Johnson was there. If Johnson got heard, who knows how he would have done. Remember he was outspent by 2.4 billion to 3 million. He had no name recognition, never got his message out, no one knew who he was, the media never covered him, he was just a third name on the ballot few had ever heard of.

 

[Moderate Right]

If I had my way on the presidential debates, the first debate would include all candidates who were on enough ballots to gain 270 electoral votes. That would have include both Johnson and Stein and no others in 2016. The second debate a candidate would have to be on the ballot in enough states to gain 400 electoral votes. Johnson would have qualified, but not Stein. The final debate, 538. Again, Johnson was there. If Johnson got heard, who knows how he would have done. Remember he was outspent by 2.4 billion to 3 million. He had no name recognition, never got his message out, no one knew who he was, the media never covered him, he was just a third name on the ballot few had ever heard of.

I like the idea of the first debate including all candidates who were on enough ballots to gain 270 electoral votes. After that I would fall back to the percentage thing with the percentage being determined by an unbiased source. I also think all moderators and questioners in all debates should not be biased in nature. All should have a reputation for being fair and not have a biased agenda. The debates in 2016 were mostly all partisan hacks on both sides that were pretty much disgusting to watch.

 

[Perotista]

I like the idea of the first debate including all candidates who were on enough ballots to gain 270 electoral votes. After that I would fall back to the percentage thing with the percentage being determined by an unbiased source. I also think all moderators and questioners in all debates should not be biased in nature. All should have a reputation for being fair and not have a biased agenda. The debates in 2016 were mostly all partisan hacks on both sides that were pretty much disgusting to watch.

I agree with most. But the percentage things bothers me. There was no doubt in my mind that if Johnson or anyone else running on a third party ticket reached the 15% plateau, the so called bipartisan debate commission would have raised it to 20%.

Another problem with percentages is a third party candidate might not be on the ballot in a state where that candidate is polling the 20 or 30%. Those folks couldn't vote for him. His percentage would be run up by folks who couldn't cast a ballot for him. This is one reason I liked the 270, 400 and 538 electoral vote qualifications for the debates. But I would happily accept your idea, anything is better than let Republican and democratic leaders determine who will be in the debates. All the time figuring out ways to deny, deny, deny any other candidates than the two major party candidates.

 

[Moderate Right]

I agree with most. But the percentage things bothers me. There was no doubt in my mind that if Johnson or anyone else running on a third party ticket reached the 15% plateau, the so called bipartisan debate commission would have raised it to 20%.

Another problem with percentages is a third party candidate might not be on the ballot in a state where that candidate is polling the 20 or 30%. Those folks couldn't vote for him. His percentage would be run up by folks who couldn't cast a ballot for him. This is one reason I liked the 270, 400 and 538 electoral vote qualifications for the debates. But I would happily accept your idea, anything is better than let Republican and democratic leaders determine who will be in the debates. All the time figuring out ways to deny, deny, deny any other candidates than the two major party candidates.

Unfortunately, we are both debating fantasies.

 

[Perotista]

Unfortunately, we are both debating fantasies.

Very true, but fun none the less when one wants to improve our election system. Neither of the two major parties will ever accept anything that could possibly diminish their power and monopoly over our two party system electoral system. Democracy, wants and wishes of the people all take a backseat in their quest for or retaining power.

 

[veritas1]

Oh good. Careful observation will have you have noticing Trump encouraging mob behavior, and groups like the Proud Boys.

Yes, I've been looking for the rightwing mobs but only see Antifa and other similarly unhinged leftists.

 

[JMR]

Yes, I've been looking for the rightwing mobs but only see Antifa and other similarly unhinged leftists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...an-left-wing-violence/?utm_term=.44f31942a6db

But the story that a wave of left-wing terrorism threatens America is wrong. The poster child for this false narrative is antifa, a small, weak organization that protests white supremacist aggression.

The real threat of violence comes from the right. The Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism reports that right-wingers and white supremacists were responsible for 74 percent of the murders committed by political extremists in the United States over the past decade. Only 2 percent were committed by left-wing radicals. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, has calculated that “terrorists inspired by Nationalist and Right Wing ideology have killed about 10 times as many people as Left Wing terrorists since 1992.”

Look harder.

 

[Harshaw]

If that happens, I won't be angry at Democratic politicians, I'll be livid and disgusted with Democratic voters.

OTOH: how will they right-wing react to there being no red wave? Not good.

They'll suck it up and move on.

Suuuuuure.

The wackos that support Trump won't go quietly.

You can tell yourself that, but conservatives don't riot, or throw tantrums, when they lose.

Oh, well. Right now it looks likely that the Democrats will gain a small majority in the House. I guess you'll be really disappointed when Republicans do nothing but grumble for a little while after.

Yeah, I forgot what great sports the Tea Party were after 2008.
. . . .
What will be interesting is if the Democrats make the projected gains, how will Trump react? And what will his supporters do?

You let me know when those riots start.

 

[PLizzy]

You let me know when those riots start.

His supporters are so stupid they think 37 seats being lost is a "win".:lamo

The cult of 45# is even crazier than I gave them credit for.

 

[Harshaw]

His supporters are so stupid they think 37 seats being lost is a "win".:lamo

The cult of 45# is even crazier than I gave them credit for.

MovingGoalposts.