A list I have a few problems with but much of this list is stuff we would not have seen under a republican president.

www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/30/obamas-...historic-presidency/

Anybody suggesting a third party candidate must be unaware of the political system in the united states I assume. Even if all other parties joined together and put their money together they would have no chance to take power. Nadar would have been one to get behind. I would have voted for him for sure.

Guevarista wrote:

I am probably not the best person to ask but as I understand it to run for president you need the nomination of a party. If you look into there are actually a bunch of other parties out there left wing right wing and broken wing. The larger of these being the libertarians and the green party. The libertarians usually have failed Republicans running which tells you a lot. The greens are to the left of the democrats and neither of these parties get on the ballot in every state. Added to the obvious problem that gives you is these parties have less money for ads. Around election time you see Romney ad Obama ad followed by the local dem and local repub. You don't see ads for other parties. They do not get on the news hardly either and they are not a part of the debates. They simply don't have a voice outside of social networking and word of mouth. In England such a problem could possibly be battled by boots on the ground campaigns but that simply isn't viable in the USA. Then you have the electoral college which actually decides the president. It is a weird set up that most people (especially those that lose the election) see as unfair. Certain states are worth more. It still confuses me and I think that is the point.

Essentially all those noble or daft enough to vote for a third party are already split anyway. Left wing green right wing libertarian. It really is divide and conquer because a bunch of people are not eligible to vote for various reasons then certain people get more of a vote based on state. So if the democrats win a particular state they get twice as many votes as they would for another state.

Eh?
Nader was a 'third party candidate'! In fact, he only ran in 43 states, the libertarian party ran in 50 of 51.

andyh wrote:

Did I blink and the Shermans invaded or bought another 'state'?

Explain yerself laddie.

andyh wrote:
Tell that to everyone who voted for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore and got stuck with Bush and the Iraq war...

:

.......... wrote:
Though this is acknowledging a very serious problem - it's admitting voting doesn't really change anything because you're basically stuck with two marginally different flavours of the same sauce and it's seen as a waste of a vote to vote for anyone but the dominant players who have the whole thing stitched up.

dogsmilk wrote:
Pretty much what I intended to show all along.
/shrugs.

andyh wrote:
To say that Al Gore would have been the same warmonger president as George Bush is a misconception...imo

the only expectation you can have is that republicans would have gone to war with iran by now.

andyh wrote:
Yea, and it's important to note that's a very big expectation...

Its just an expectation, you've no idea what could/would happen anymore than anyone else.

andyh wrote:
That is what Mitt Romney said he would do right when he got inaugurated into the White House.

Build trillion dollar aircraft carriers and bomb the shit out of Iran from the sky to start the New Year.

We have to come to expect that from the republicans due to the continuous dialog about it.

Shock and Awe is a big idea i'm sure an Iraqi that lived near Baghdad in 2003 would tell you that.

In 2012 the libertarian party were on 48 state ballots plus the district of Columbia which is not all of the states.

Are you sure that wasn't actually John Bolton or some talking head on fox news who said that and not Mitt Romney?

i-baster wrote:
Eh?
Nader was a 'third party candidate'! In fact, he only ran in 43 states, the libertarian party ran in 50 of 51.

andyh wrote:
"John Bolton, the former U.N. Ambassador under Bush who is said to be one of the only top foreign policy advisers Romney actually listens to"

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/p...83ca97c314_blog.html

John Bolton endorses Mitt Romney for president

www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57357890...omney-for-president/

"Of all the candidates, Mitt Romney possesses the strongest vision for America's leadership role in the world, and I am proud to endorse him," Bolton said in a statement released Thursday by the Romney campaign. "President Obama has sapped America's credibility abroad, weakened our military and failed to lead on issues vital to U.S. national security... Mitt Romney will restore our military, repair relations with our closest allies, and ensure that no adversary--including Iran--ever questions American resolve."

andyh wrote:
I know Nader was a third party candidate. I am not a libertarian or a supporter of them which is why I would not vote for them. If I were going to cast a vote for somebody unlikely to win it would go green or to somebody like Nader.