What voting for Obama will do for 3rd parties

edited August 2008 in A Moving Train
Am i the only one here who thinks if Obama (with majority in congress)still has us fighting a fullscale war in Iraq in 4 years (or even 2) as people here say, the democratic party will effectively cease to exist? If he gets elected, and then starts another war in Iran, is there any possibility a dem can get elected in 4 years? It would pretty much convince too many mainstream people that the system is broken, and bring everything to a head, for better or for worse. Probably needs to happen.

it seems to me that putting Obama in the White House could be one of the best things that ever happen to independent candidates. its basically a "put up or shut up" ultimatum on the whole two party system. If he does a good job and actually pleases his democratic constituents, everything is good and you people are nuts.

If he doesn't, things will get fucking crazy. Violent crazy. Assuming there will even be an election in four years (who knows), there would be a high chance a 3rd party candidate can actually pull in large numbers.

it seems that putting him in office could rejuvenate the peace movement in general, as well. If the peace protesters have any brains at all (something i highly doubt), they will rachet up the pressure on him to pre-war levelsthe second he comes into office. Bush could handle the hit to his approval ratings, Obama could not, since its such a massive amount of his base support.

as it stands now, a 3rd party candidate is a useless waste of space, but in 4 years if Obama is elected, one could be seriously viable. There time just isnt now. Somehow i see McCain winning as further pushing 3rd party candidates further into obscurity (if that even possible), as the left will be even more demoralized and desperate to get anyone who isn't a republican in the white house.



just a wild theory.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    As much as I didn't want Bush to win again in '04...I felt that he wouldve been better than Kerry, mainly because I figured this country would sink far enough to wake it's people up so in '08 they would vote 3rd party or vote strong on the issues.

    I was wrong, they still don't care about anything. Regardless of the fact that america is in a nose dive right now.
  • MrBrian wrote:
    As much as I didn't want Bush to win again in '04...I felt that he wouldve been better than Kerry, mainly because I figured this country would sink far enough to wake it's people up so in '08 they would vote 3rd party or vote strong on the issues.

    I was wrong, they still don't care about anything. Regardless of the fact that america is in a nose dive right now.


    your problem was with your prediction, IMO. why would Bush being reelected cause more people to look at 3rd parties instead of being pulled to the democratic party (something which has happened, as per my prediction)? that doesnt sound logical to me. Heck, many could argue that 3rd parties is what got him elected in the first place. His reelection was a loss for 3rd parties, not a victory. Seems to me that Bush being reelected, (and having a candidate running as a new Bush) would make people more desperate to vote for a candidate other than Bush III, no matter how flimsy his integrity.
  • Uncle LeoUncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    MrSmith wrote:
    Am i the only one here who thinks if Obama (with majority in congress)still has us fighting a fullscale war in Iraq in 4 years (or even 2) as people here say, the democratic party will effectively cease to exist? If he gets elected, and then starts another war in Iran, is there any possibility a dem can get elected in 4 years? It would pretty much convince too many mainstream people that the system is broken, and bring everything to a head, for better or for worse. Probably needs to happen.

    it seems to me that putting Obama in the White House could be one of the best things that ever happen to independent candidates. its basically a "put up or shut up" ultimatum on the whole two party system. If he does a good job and actually pleases his democratic constituents, everything is good and you people are nuts.

    If he doesn't, things will get fucking crazy. Violent crazy. Assuming there will even be an election in four years (who knows), there would be a high chance a 3rd party candidate can actually pull in large numbers.

    it seems that putting him in office could rejuvenate the peace movement in general, as well. If the peace protesters have any brains at all (something i highly doubt), they will rachet up the pressure on him to pre-war levelsthe second he comes into office. Bush could handle the hit to his approval ratings, Obama could not, since its such a massive amount of his base support.

    as it stands now, a 3rd party candidate is a useless waste of space, but in 4 years if Obama is elected, one could be seriously viable. There time just isnt now. Somehow i see McCain winning as further pushing 3rd party candidates further into obscurity (if that even possible), as the left will be even more demoralized and desperate to get anyone who isn't a republican in the white house.



    just a wild theory.

    Not a totally ridiculous theory. After all Obama is the "change" candidate. And while I see him as better than McCain, I don't see that he is the answer to "how to make America and the World better places?" He'll have some incremental benefits over McCain. But assuming we are still in the Iraq quagmire after 4 years, people, in theory, may say "well, we voted for this so-called once-in-a-lifetime guy and he did not get us out. McCain obviously would not have. So now what? Who's really into peace? "

    However, I don't have that kind of optimism. I think you'd just get Obama running for re-election saying "we'll be out soon" with no progress and a GOP candidate either saying the same thing or even taking a couple of steps back. A Green, or Libertarian, or someone else would point this out, with very little media fanfare and the top 3rd party candidate would get his/her 7 percent bumped to 8 percent.

    The two party system is probably here for the foreseeable future.

    It's a moot point, as McCain is going to win.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    MrSmith wrote:
    your problem was with your prediction, IMO. why would Bush being reelected cause more people to look at 3rd parties instead of being pulled to the democratic party (something which has happened, as per my prediction)? that doesnt sound logical to me. Heck, many could argue that 3rd parties is what got him elected in the first place. His reelection was a loss for 3rd parties, not a victory. Seems to me that Bush being reelected, (and having a candidate running as a new Bush) would make people more desperate to vote for a candidate other than Bush III, no matter how flimsy his integrity.

    They can argue that 3rd parties got him elected. But it's not true. So it's not an issue.
    ---

    You see, I had hope in Americans. I thought that perhaps a small hope exists that after the years of war and a general american nose dive. The people would start to read. Learn about issues, politics and based on that information, move towards a third party, not someone like Obama who in the end, is too close to everyone else (meaning not much change)
  • Uncle Leo wrote:
    Not a totally ridiculous theory. After all Obama is the "change" candidate. And while I see him as better than McCain, I don't see that he is the answer to "how to make America and the World better places?" He'll have some incremental benefits over McCain. But assuming we are still in the Iraq quagmire after 4 years, people, in theory, may say "well, we voted for this so-called once-in-a-lifetime guy and he did not get us out. McCain obviously would not have. So now what? Who's really into peace? "
    [edit:i can't read]
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    However, I don't have that kind of optimism. I think you'd just get Obama running for re-election saying "we'll be out soon" with no progress and a GOP candidate either saying the same thing or even taking a couple of steps back. A Green, or Libertarian, or someone else would point this out, with very little media fanfare and the top 3rd party candidate would get his/her 7 percent bumped to 8 percent..
    no fucking way that flies. no way. things will change, and probably not in just voting. Surely democrats wouldn't be that stupid to think they could get away with that argument.
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    The two party system is probably here for the foreseeable future.

    It's a moot point, as McCain is going to win.


    you're probably right
  • MrBrian wrote:
    They can argue that 3rd parties got him elected. But it's not true. So it's not an issue.
    ---
    but it is the issue if you thought people would run to 3rd parties, especially since most would disagree with you on Nader costing Gore the election, right or wrong.
    MrBrian wrote:
    but it is the issue if you thought people would run to 3rd parties, especially since most people would argue that Nader did cost Gore, right or wrong.

    You see, I had hope in Americans. I thought that perhaps a small hope exists that after the years of war and a general american nose dive. The people would start to read. Learn about issues, politics and based on that information, move towards a third party, not someone like Obama who in the end, is too close to everyone else (meaning not much change)

    things are only now starting to truly nosedive. and nothing like people losing all faith in the system (by 'giving a democrat a chance' by voting for Obama) to finally push them to a new system.
  • Uncle LeoUncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    MrSmith wrote:
    you seem to contradict yourself here. would people see Obama as a 'change' candidate (a pseudo-3rd party guy in dem clothing) who lied, and thus not vote at all, or start asking questions about real 3rd parties? I dont think thats a ridiculous theory at all.
    I said "not" a ridiculous theory. Anyway, I was using that paragraph to lend your theory credence. "Obama changed nothing" so maybe we need to go third party.
    MrSmith wrote:

    no fucking way that flies. no way. things will change, and probably not in just voting. Surely democrats wouldn't be that stupid to think they could get away with that argument.

    Democrats (and voters in general) ARE that stupid. Regardless of how good/bad Obama/McCain is, four years from now, the people will still be scared to throw their votes away. So while your theory makes some intuitive sense, I just have a hard time seeing the conclusion of strong third party(ies).
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • Uncle Leo wrote:
    I said "not" a ridiculous theory. Anyway, I was using that paragraph to lend your theory credence. "Obama changed nothing" so maybe we need to go third party.



    Democrats (and voters in general) ARE that stupid. Regardless of how good/bad Obama/McCain is, four years from now, the people will still be scared to throw their votes away. So while your theory makes some intuitive sense, I just have a hard time seeing the conclusion of strong third party(ies).
    oh shit, my bad. i should learn to read. makes more sense now :) there, i edited it.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    MrSmith wrote:
    things are only now starting to truly nosedive. and nothing like people losing all faith in the system (by 'giving a democrat a chance' by voting for Obama) to finally push them to a new system.

    I figured the nose dive started the day the first bomb fell on afghanistan, it continued diving with Iraq. nevertheless I get your point.

    We will know soon enough,

    But keep in mind, with Obama, things may get pushed underground, all the troubles may be disguised or flipped into looking like a positive thing.

    And going by the way the many Obama supporters seem to ignore issues. They will accept whatever happens. That in turn pushes any 3rd party chance, far away.
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,060
    Until Canada stands up against its daddy (USA), quit yer bitchin'.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    Until Canada stands up against its daddy (USA), quit yer bitchin'.

    Are you stupid?
  • MrSmith wrote:
    If he doesn't, things will get fucking crazy. Violent crazy. Assuming there will even be an election in four years (who knows), there would be a high chance a 3rd party candidate can actually pull in large numbers.

    No they won't. Where is this unified outrage you people keep speaking of? People want out of Iraq, but I am continually astonished at the number of people that seem to honestly believe all of America somehow secretly embraces an extreme left-wing agenda and just keep voting Republican by accident or something.
  • I still think there's a good possibility that Nader will suck some key votes from Obama, and McCain could win...

    Iran will be so screwed. They (Iran) are literally just counting down the days until they are attacked. Israel is pulling all the strings. They own the media, and have infiltrated the US government, at the highest levels, not to mention the economy. PNAC will begin it's next chapter, the world will go nuts, and the population cleansing process in the middle east (and elsewhere via food prices) will begin with renewed fervor. Everything will get expensive like never before. Obama will be slightly better than McCain, but not at all for at least a few years....lot's can happen (worse) in that time following the same precarious course.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • hardboiled wrote:
    No they won't. Where is this unified outrage you people keep speaking of? People want out of Iraq, but I am continually astonished at the number of people that seem to honestly believe all of America somehow secretly embraces an extreme left-wing agenda and just keep voting Republican by accident or something.

    i agree with you somewhat, but it only takes a few to make things crazy, and there are plenty enough for that. i'm not talking about full on civil war or anything.

    and barely half (of registered voters) keep electing a republican.
  • MrSmith wrote:
    i agree with you somewhat, but it only takes a few to make things crazy, and there are plenty enough for that. i'm not talking about full on civil war or anything.

    and barely half (of registered voters) keep electing a republican.
    And what does that tell you about how concerned most Americans really are with politics? People are far more concerned with gas prices and job loss than any wars right now. Obama could nuke Iran and I think most of America would shrug it off as long as gas dropped a buck a gallon in the process. What Obama or McCain do or do not do in Iraq is not going to provoke any sort of violent, crazy response.
  • hardboiled wrote:
    And what does that tell you about how concerned most Americans really are with politics? People are far more concerned with gas prices and job loss than any wars right now. Obama could nuke Iran and I think most of America would shrug it off as long as gas dropped a buck a gallon in the process. What Obama or McCain do or do not do in Iraq is not going to provoke any sort of violent, crazy response.
    Americans aren't unique in this respect. but i think the Iraq thing could effect Americans if it continues, mostly soldiers on such long deployments, and the financial drain.

    probably depends on if suicide attacks increase or decrease.
  • I still think there's a good possibility that Nader will suck some key votes from Obama, and McCain could win...

    Iran will be so screwed. They (Iran) are literally just counting down the days until they are attacked. Israel is pulling all the strings. They own the media, and have infiltrated the US government, at the highest levels, not to mention the economy. PNAC will begin it's next chapter, the world will go nuts, and the population cleansing process in the middle east (and elsewhere via food prices) will begin with renewed fervor. Everything will get expensive like never before. Obama will be slightly better than McCain, but not at all for at least a few years....lot's can happen (worse) in that time following the same precarious course.
    spew your anti-semitic bullshit in your own "Hitler was misunderstood" thread. keep replies here on the topic at hand, if you can handle that.
  • MrSmith wrote:
    Americans aren't unique in this respect. but i think the Iraq thing could effect Americans if it continues, mostly soldiers on such long deployments, and the financial drain.

    probably depends on if suicide attacks increase or decrease.

    I don't doubt that Iraq is a sinkhole of wasted money, but I think the average American does not really realize how that is connected to the general economy. interesting link on American political attitudes:

    http://www.rotundacollection.com/DesktopDefaultPublic.aspx?type=hns&id=176946

    "Lake said, “Voters vote their hearts, not their heads,” noting that while “Americans can hold opposing ideas at the same time, they deeply resent having that pointed out.” She said there is an increasing disconnect between the language of politicians and what Americans experience. She noted that “Michigan is obsessed with immigration even though no one moves to Michigan for a job.”

    I think people have the same reaction to the wars. They don't see the logic of the impact it has at home. Americans are generally too lazy or too uninformed to connect the dots.
  • hardboiled wrote:
    I don't doubt that Iraq is a sinkhole of wasted money, but I think the average American does not really realize how that is connected to the general economy. interesting link on American political attitudes:

    http://www.rotundacollection.com/DesktopDefaultPublic.aspx?type=hns&id=176946

    "Lake said, “Voters vote their hearts, not their heads,” noting that while “Americans can hold opposing ideas at the same time, they deeply resent having that pointed out.” She said there is an increasing disconnect between the language of politicians and what Americans experience. She noted that “Michigan is obsessed with immigration even though no one moves to Michigan for a job.”

    I think people have the same reaction to the wars. They don't see the logic of the impact it has at home. Americans are generally too lazy or too uninformed to connect the dots.
    i think at some point we will have to. and all the laziness and willful ignorance won't delay it much longer.
  • raszputiniraszputini Posts: 119
    At this point, most Americans don't view third party candidates as truly viable. Third parties are either "issue parties" (Libertarian for folks who want radical tax reform, Green for environmentalists) or are parties for people to express their disgust with the political system.

    Even if the next four years changes that, the party machinery and all of the advantages associated with it still makes a third party candidate not truly viable. Bush demonstrated in 2004 how much that matters by winning the election as one of the most unpopular Presidents ever. The advanatages of incumbency and party support are overwhelming for most.

    Third party candidates only become viable in a world with serious campaign finance reform, and a complete renovation of our current party system (which perpretually protect themselves and each other.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    if voting could change the system it would be illegal.
  • Commy wrote:
    if voting could change the system it would be illegal.
    heh, good quote.
Sign In or Register to comment.