3rd party candidate possibility?
- Thread starter Mntneer
- Start date
One low probability event happened so every low probability event will happen? Maybe you should play the lottery.
That's simply not true. Shultz has said he'd want to reduce the deficit and make cuts to entitlements including social security and medicare. Is only supporters are going to be disaffected fiscal conservatives who would have been unlikely to support the democratic candidate anyway. Most of these people would likely be people who voted for Trump in 2016. Any erosion of his 2016 voters would be a certain loss for him.
Have you seen Coop post on this board? He leads that camp and he’d just as soon take a dick in the *** than vote for Trump. Trump’s base won’t change, and those guys aren’t a part of it. They’re a part of the middle 1/3 and they broke evenly for Trump and Hillbag.
We'll have to see what Coop says he'll do. However, a lot of people like Coop ended up voting for Trump in the end last time because they just couldn't come to voting for the democrat. Trumps margin of victor was razor thin, something like 10 or 20 thousand votes in a few states that gave him the EC.
I don't think a 3rd party candidate is going to make a difference really. Democrats though are going to be much more worried about a 3rd party candidate to the left than one from the middle.
I wouldn't speak for Coop... but I seriously doubt he voted Trump. I knew people that held their nose and voted for Trump, I knew people (like me) that voted for Johnson and I knew people that held their nose and voted for Hillary.
Dude, he wants to cut medicare and social security. He wants to reduce entitlements. He's not in favor of single-payer healthcare. He has little in common with progressives.
He is most certainly not on the right. He’s just seeing the train wreck of fiscal policy common on the left.
I don't know much about the guy but I believe that is the point attempting to be made. He is neither a base Trump type or a true progressive. He will suck votes out of the middle which hurts a dem challenge to Trump.
What person who supports reductions to social security was ever going to be a dem vote?
Many voted for Bush in 2000. But you are missing the point. Voters vote for all kind of reasons. Look at 1992 election how a viable 3rd party candidate can throw the election up in the air and suck votes away from someone. Schultz could take middle of the road votes away from dems that they may need. I believe that is the argument whether absolutely true or not in your view.
Here is my whacked out opinion on Schultz having a chance to get on the ballot. I believe there is enough voter regret of putting Trump up for election having zero government experience another CEO business person will not be easily embraced. But who knows.
Perot was a direct result of Bush disaffecting republicans on tax issues and it was a clear outlier in presidential elections.
Any centrist party run would likely be a wash at best. I just dont see any reason to believe otherwise.
He would have to spend hunderds of millions of his own dollars to stay in the race and draw anything ober a percentage or two of support. It just isnt going to happen.
I think the "sensible middle" if there ever really was one in American politics is being hollowed out by extreme activists in both parties.
On the Right, Trump carries the frustrations of many unapologetic Conservatives tired of not only losing head-to-head scrums with Leftists, but they're also weary of Republicans lying to them about their agenda of smaller fiscally responsible Government, lower taxes or honest devotion to either. Over on the Left, radical elements of the Socialist movement are taking over the Democrat party's base operations, and demanding an end to "Democratic Liberalism" disguised as a watered down substitute for thoroughbred Socialist policies like massive income redistribution, removal of ownership of personal private property, confiscation of concentrated or accumulated wealth, and Government paid Health insurance for all.
These two competing political opposites will define the candidates who emerge from both sides carrying their respective party's wishes. A 3rd party candidate can't find enough support from either extreme and even though most voters aren't ideologues on either side of the political spectrum, their voices cannot be heard over the more vociferous hardliners in both parties who will ultimately dictate who speaks and for whom?
The left doesn't care about foreign influence in the election.
They care about foreign influence that doesn't benefit them.
They care about foreign influence that doesn't benefit them.
U'm like...I kinda think like him too...like really wacky and ...um...like kinda crazy...like?
It's about the accumulation of and unobstructed wielding of raw political power. They seek no limits, no restraints, no challenges, no opposition, and no resistance to supreme dominance of the State over all Human affairs.
Nothing else matters to them.