Is there any independent candidate who appeals to both left and right?

Superman, not at all. An everyman who made his own way, is a genuine patriot, in it for what is best for America.

Quote from Maverick74:

LOL. Yes, Zzz, you have described Superman. Perfect. What does he go by in the real world? Does he have a name? Sure, I'm all for Superman. Of course if Batman were to get in the mix then, well, then I'm on the fence again. Such tough choices.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Superman, not at all. An everyman who made his own way, is a genuine patriot, in it for what is best for America.
More...

Like I said.

images
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I believe a strong populist candidate, who doesn't need the elite, could split the party and have a shot.

Yes, the elite would fight it, but a strong populist who is centrist, practical, who is a true patriot could use that to their advantage.
More...

Again, it is not the willingness or the popularity of a person, but the set up of the American voting system. It pretty much guarantees that no 3rd party candidate can try a successful run at the presidency. The winner takes all thingy and the electoral college, not to mention the problem of getting on the ballot in every state....Even Nader wasn't on the ballot in every state in 2000...

If you go through the posts in this thread, there are plenty of valid criticisms of the US system and some ideas how to play the system by a 3rd party candidate:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/gs6l9/ralph_nader_the_only_difference_between_the/

One suggestion is that it takes 2 elections to gain enough voters and government financial support.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You have a very dim view of patriots in America.
More...

OK, surely then you can throw out a few names. Look, obviously your dentist is not going to run for President. You have to pick someone in the field. It's kind of like the NFL draft Zzz, you have to pick from who is available. So you are on the clock now. Who do you pick? Who is this candidate? He can't be hypothetical. He has to be real and he has to have a name. Whose your first round pick Zzz?
 
You don't study history, do you?

http://www.fairvote.org/the-perot-simulator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

Had Perot not dropped out in the summer, he was on course to win the presidency.

Quote from Pekelo:

Again, it is not the willingness or the popularity of a person, but the set up of the American voting system. It pretty much guarantees that no 3rd party candidate can try a successful run at the presidency. The winner takes all thingy and the electoral college, not to mention the problem of getting on the ballot in every state....Even Nader wasn't on the ballot in every state in 2000...

If you go through the posts in this thread, there are plenty of valid criticisms of the US system and some ideas how to play the system by a 3rd party candidate:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/gs6l9/ralph_nader_the_only_difference_between_the/

One suggestion is that it takes 2 elections to gain enough voters and government financial support.
More...
 
Look above.

Also, not yet, but I think Governor Martin O'Malley has a good shot in 2016.

Better yet, Obama should drop Biden and pick up O'Malley. It would help the ticket.

Quote from Maverick74:

OK, surely then you can throw out a few names. Look, obviously your dentist is not going to run for President. You have to pick someone in the field. It's kind of like the NFL draft Zzz, you have to pick from who is available. So you are on the clock now. Who do you pick? Who is this candidate? He can't be hypothetical. He has to be real and he has to have a name. Whose your first round pick Zzz?
More...
 
This guy has potential.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JMUamoHi8gY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You don't study history, do you?
More...

And your first link is a fucking SIMULATOR! :)

No, I don't study simulated history, but you awakened my interest. Is there a class?

So far 3rd candidates were only good for one thing, spoiling it for one of the other two...

Had Perot not dropped out in the summer, he was on course to win the presidency.

Where exactly did you dream this??? But thanks for making my point, quote from Wiki:

" One common explanation for the decline was Perot's exclusion from the presidential debates, based on the preferences of the Democratic and Republican party candidates..."

The elite at work. They did learn the lesson from 1992 and promptly didn't let a 3rd guy into the presidential debates...End of story...

Oh yeah, the simulator had results when nobody wins the EC so the House decides the presidency. Do you think the House would vote for the 3rd party guy, when it is made up of the other 2 parties' members???? Again, you are proving MY point, thanks for playing...
 
Perot was on a path to win the election, and suddenly dropped out (he claimed that his family had been threatened) but the point is that there is a good chance he could have won if he hadn't dropped out. Even having dropped out, when he re-entered in September, he did remarkably well.

Look, if you get Obama and Romney, sure a strong third party candidate is viable.

Quote from Pekelo:

And your first link is a fucking SIMULATOR! :)

No, I don't study simulated history, but you awakened my interest. Is there a class?

So far 3rd candidates were only good for one thing, spoiling it for one of the other two...

Had Perot not dropped out in the summer, he was on course to win the presidency.

Where exactly did you dream this??? But thanks for making my point, quote from Wiki:

" One common explanation for the decline was Perot's exclusion from the presidential debates, based on the preferences of the Democratic and Republican party candidates..."

The elite at work. They did learn the lesson from 1992 and promptly didn't let a 3rd guy into the presidential debates...End of story...
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top