The various "sore-loser" rules in many states (where a loser of a primary can not be placed on the ballot as an independent for the general election) would make winning the electoral college impossible as a 3rd party candidate.
If Trump fails to get the nomination he may start a failed third party himself.
He can run, but he can't win.
The various "sore-loser" rules in many states (where a loser of a primary can not be placed on the ballot as an independent for the general election) would make winning the electoral college impossible as a 3rd party candidate.
Run Musk as an alternative; that'll jackup Donnie's base.
Born in South Africa. Not eligible.
If Trump fails to get the nomination he may start a failed third party himself. Which suggests a strategy: y'all ought to register as Republicans to vote in their primary and vote for someone more to your tastes. After all there isn't likely to be a successful primary challenger to Biden, so he doesn't need you.
Why canât we get a hyper conservative to start an independent campaign, to suck votes away from the GOP candidate. Who is the legit conservative Ralph Nader?
Run Musk as an alternative; that'll jackup Donnie's base.
Finally, a candidate I can get behind. Good luck brother West!
Why canât we get a hyper conservative to start an independent campaign, to suck votes away from the GOP candidate. Who is the legit conservative Ralph Nader?
That is semantics and incorrect definitions. What people call themselves is a definition and semantic issue that those individuals have. Having said that there are a lot of true Independents out there myself included that are tired of this partisan bickering and stalemate and quite frankly outing those that incorrectly defiine themselves is not even important in identifying the very real issue of the 2 party system destroying our country. Who cares what people call themselves? If they always vote for a certain party than they are political partisans for either the Democrats or Republicans depending on how they vote, they are not true Independents and to try to discredit true Independents is IMO distracting us from the real problem which is partisan bickering between Democrats and Republicans regardless of how they misidentify themselves.
In fact this article only strenghtens my argument that we need MORE Independents and the people you are describing are nothing but partisans.
The problem with not caring whether people claim to be independent when they really aren't is that a standard question on polls of voters is political affiliation. So when people misrepresent themselves in polls, pundits and naive analysts make incorrect assumptions and claims about the size of the population sentior liberum (pardon my mangled Latin). Based on these incorrect assumptions, groups like Americans Elect decide, incorrectly, that there are a large number of independent-minded voters out there that they can potentially win over with an appeal to the political middle, or with a candidate who doesn't stand for either pole of the political spectrum on the issues. They waste lots of time and effort in a futile attempt to fix the broken bipartisan system we have by chasing a non-existent majority of centrists/independents.
If we truly did have that many independent voters, don't you think we'd have at least a handful of Congress members who were also truly independent? In reality, we have Bernie Sanders, who votes pretty reliably with the Democrats, and Joe Lieberman, who also votes pretty reliably with the Democrats. You can argue that this is because the system is rigged against a third party, truly independent candidate getting elected. I would suggest that Democrat and Republican candidates get elected mostly because they convince a sufficient number of voters that they share their values and will vote consistent with these shared values and opinions. If there were nearly 40 percent of voters out there who were truly independent, I would think that in at least some instances, a like-minded political candidate (running in a 3 way contest) would be able to convince these nearly 40 percent of independent-minded voters to vote for her in the same way that Democratic and Republican candidates convince their base to vote for them.
No, no, no! We're in this shithole because people try to game the system. Vote for the candidate you'd most like to see win. Period. If that swings the polls toward the worst-case scenario, then whoever came in second will adapt and implement some of your third party ideas. We don't see change because we're trying to outsmart the system.
These elections come down to 2 viable candidates. The fringe candidates only are distractions, and people who care about issues should choose who of the viable candidates better represent them. BUT — I'd love to see Instant Runoff Voting, it would make independant candidates viable & make every vote count towards electing the candidate that most matches the voters preference, instead of unpredictable side effects of useless protest votes. If y'all want 3rd parties, then work to implement Instant Runoff Voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_Runoff_Voting
Oh ok, so when Independents vote for Republican sometimes Democrats others and Independent candidates sometimes each time they are partisan for that particular party? So I am a partisan Democrat and Republican?? I have voted equally Democrat and Republican over the years, now which am I??? I am sorry but I read that article and I think it is bullshit straight up. There may be people who fit that mold, but I don't give a crap what that chart says it does not apply to me. I am voting for Gary Johnson this year so I guess that makes me a closet Libertarian partisan even though I have never voted for a Libertarian before. You know what, I guess I am coming out of the closet, I am a Libertarian. There now I am no longer part of your "partisan" Independents.
Presidential voting record: 1984 - Reagan (R) 1988 - Bush (R) 1992 - Clinton (D) 1996 - Clinton (D) 2000 - Bush (R) 2004 - Bush (R) 2008 - Obama (D) 2012 - Johnson (L). Now how is that I am partisan again??
Then presumably you are part of the 7-10 percent of the electorate that is truly independent, not an "Independent leaner" who claims to be independent but actually leans strongly towards one party or another.
And as the blog points out, the number of true independents has been decreasing since the 1970s.
It's not surprising that the idea of being independent appeals to a lot of people. Independence has been romanticized, and claiming independence also allows you to attempt to sidestep the bitter partisan bickering that usually ensues during political discussions. Like the tendency of most people to believe that they are thinner and more good looking than they actually are, some people seem comfortable going with the romanticized notion and ignoring reality.
That is semantics and incorrect definitions. What people call themselves is a definition and semantic issue that those individuals have. Having said that there are a lot of true Independents out there myself included that are tired of this partisan bickering and stalemate and quite frankly outing those that incorrectly defiine themselves is not even important in identifying the very real issue of the 2 party system destroying our country. Who cares what people call themselves? If they always vote for a certain party than they are political partisans for either the Democrats or Republicans depending on how they vote, they are not true Independents and to try to discredit true Independents is IMO distracting us from the real problem which is partisan bickering between Democrats and Republicans regardless of how they misidentify themselves.
In fact this article only strenghtens my argument that we need MORE Independents and the people you are describing are nothing but partisans.
Oh ok, so when Independents vote for Republican sometimes Democrats others and Independent candidates sometimes each time they are partisan for that particular party? So I am a partisan Democrat and Republican?? I have voted equally Democrat and Republican over the years, now which am I??? I am sorry but I read that article and I think it is bullshit straight up. There may be people who fit that mold, but I don't give a crap what that chart says it does not apply to me. I am voting for Gary Johnson this year so I guess that makes me a closet Libertarian partisan even though I have never voted for a Libertarian before. You know what, IÂ guess I am coming out of the closet, I am a Libertarian. There now I am no longer part of your "partisan" Independents.
Presidential voting record: 1984 - Reagan (R) 1988 - Bush (R) 1992 - Clinton (D) 1996 - Clinton (D) 2000 - Bush (R) 2004 - Bush (R) 2008 - Obama (D) 2012 - Johnson (L). Now how is that I am partisan again??
 Then presumably you are part of the 7-10 percent of the electorate that is truly independent, not an "Independent leaner" who claims to be independent but actually leans strongly towards one party or another.
And as the blog points out, the number of true independents has been decreasing since the 1970s.
It's not surprising that the idea of being independent appeals to a lot of people. Independence has been romanticized, and claiming independence also allows you to attempt to sidestep the bitter partisan bickering that usually ensues during political discussions. Like the tendency of most people to believe that they are thinner and more good looking than they actually are, some people seem comfortable going with the romanticized notion and ignoring reality.
One of the best takeaways from "Nobody for President", below, was this:
As John Sides has been pointing out for years, the vast, vast majority of people who tell pollsters or voting registrars that they’re “independent” are actually deeply partisan.
3) Change in the opinions of independents is always consequential. It's interesting how much political discussion, here on RP and elsewhere, is based on an acceptance of these myths.
Oh ok, so when Independents vote for Republican sometimes Democrats others and Independent candidates sometimes each time they are partisan for that particular party? So I am a partisan Democrat and Republican?? I have voted equally Democrat and Republican over the years, now which am I??? I am sorry but I read that article and I think it is bullshit straight up. There may be people who fit that mold, but I don't give a crap what that chart says it does not apply to me. I am voting for Gary Johnson this year so I guess that makes me a closet Libertarian partisan even though I have never voted for a Libertarian before. You know what, I guess I am coming out of the closet, I am a Libertarian. There now I am no longer part of your "partisan" Independents.
Presidential voting record: 1984 - Reagan (R) 1988 - Bush (R) 1992 - Clinton (D) 1996 - Clinton (D) 2000 - Bush (R) 2004 - Bush (R) 2008 - Obama (D) 2012 - Johnson (L). Now how is that I am partisan again??
Yeah, nobody should ever try to buck the two-party system. It's downright unpatriotic.
Now, now. No need to be facetious. Who says we should be satisfied with the status quo?
I suspect that one of the problems that all of these failed attempts to "fix" the two-party system by creating a third, "independent", nonpartisan "party" have had is that they are based, more or less, on the myths identified below. If we want a way to break the logjam that has a chance of succeeding, maybe we need to start by acknowledging the truth about so-called "independent" voters.
One of the best takeaways from "Nobody for President", below, was this:
As John Sides has been pointing out for years, the vast, vast majority of people who tell pollsters or voting registrars that they’re “independent” are actually deeply partisan.
3) Change in the opinions of independents is always consequential. It's interesting how much political discussion, here on RP and elsewhere, is based on an acceptance of these myths.
