Is the Electoral Fix Already In?

[auburnatl1 5,014]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

Joe Manchin or Nikki Haley or even the combination could be a ticket. I'm down with that. And the truth is they could possibly win. They'd get my vote.

Haley made a mistake to swear “loyalty” to the party.  It’d be held against her.  But I agree. Also with manchin.

The country today polls as it always has - generally right of center. But the parties are producing extremist low talent candidates that won’t compromise. It won’t get better.

Most kids today are required to memorize a speech that was written on a 80 mile ride to Gettysburg. How many politicians do we have today that are even bright enough to understand its vocabulary? We’ve gotten used to low quality crap.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Haley made a mistake to swear “loyalty” to the party.  It’d be held against her.  But I agree. Also with manchin.

The country today polls as it always has - generally right of center. But the parties are producing extremist low talent candidates that won’t compromise. It won’t get better.

Most kids today are required to memorize a speech that was written on a 80 mile ride to Gettysburg. How many politicians do we have today that are even bright enough to understand its vocabulary? We’ve gotten used to low quality crap.

After this week’s Iowa caucuses, which showed Trump as the clear winner, speculation mounted that GOP presidential candidate and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley could be an intriguing choice for No Labels and its supporters, who many believe lean toward a moderate Republican candidate. Haley has already shown significant support among traditional conservative donors. 

Lieberman said the group would potentially consider her as a candidate to rally around, but that it would depend on whether “she declares any interest in being part of our bipartisan unity ticket,” he said, noting that they’re “talking to a lot of people in both parties about potentially running.”

[auburnatl1 5,014]

13 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Also when the best and most gifted realized they could make generational wealth without being in the public eye 

There’s always been the temptation of generational wealth. But if you were a high talent individual would you want to be in either party? They now both  have immune systems designed to kill intellect and leadership.

One is driven by conspiracy addicts  who’ve never had a new idea in their lives and the other by whimsical personalities that have no ability to prioritize issues or pragmatically problem solve. 

[Gowebb11 9,362]

9 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

There’s always been the temptation of generational wealth. But if you were a high talent individual would you want to be in either party? They now both  have immune systems designed to kill intellect and leadership.

One is driven by conspiracy addicts  who’ve never had a new idea in their lives and the other by whimsical personalities that have no ability to prioritize issues or pragmatically problem solve. 

I’m on the back end of Liz Cheney’s book ‘Oath and Honor’. The length the parties go to control their members behind closed doors is frightening. It more closely resembles tactics from Mean Girls than what you would expect of professional adults. 

[auburnatl1 5,014]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/18/third-party-2024-no-labels-00132066

No Labels Is Pushing a Lie That Will Elect Trump

There’s no path to victory for a third-party candidate.

With a rematch between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump almost set in stone, it’s time to put a farce to rest: The notion that a third-party candidate could actually win the presidency in 2024.

The idea that a “unity ticket” featuring a Republican and a Democrat could somehow produce a nominee with “a clear path to victory” is worse than a political fiction. The group behind it, No Labels, is pushing a dangerous lie that would simply serve to put Trump back in the White House.

Then there’s Ross Perot, who No Labels aspires to emulate for his appeal to “ the vast middle of the electorate.” Despite unlimited cash and facing an unpopular incumbent in George H.W. Bush and a near-unknown in Bill Clinton, Perot failed to win a single state. Can No Labels twist the data and make an argument that Perot could have won if he had done things differently? Sure! But that’s like saying I could have been the quarterback of the Denver Broncos — technically true, but come on!

There’s a reason for this lack of success: Our political system isn’t designed to support third parties at the presidential level.

The biggest barrier is the Electoral College. States use a “winner takes all” system to distribute their electoral votes, which is why Perot won nearly 20 percent of the popular vote but got a big fat zero from the Electoral College. This leads to two practical effects: First, parties are incentivized to form the largest coalitions possible, which naturally leads to a two-party system. Second, many voters don’t want to “waste” their vote on a candidate with no chance of winning, so they default to the major parties. Both effects make it harder for third parties to compete.

The question of whether Americans are willing to vote for a third party comes up every presidential cycle. Consider this: Two months before the 2016 election, Gary Johnson polled at 10 percent. In June 1992, Perot led all candidates at 39 percent. These polls were mirages — neither got anything close to that number of votes. Third parties often poll well during a campaign, but that support vanishes on Election Day.

This points to a larger truth: Americans think a third party is needed, even if they won’t vote for one. Voters want to express discontent with their party. Sure, nearly half of the electorate thinks a third party is necessary, but No Labels mistakenly assumes this means those voters will actually vote for one. Once Americans get a good look at the alternatives, like Perot or Johnson, they end up sticking with the major parties.

While a third-party candidate can’t win, No Labels could still throw the election to Trump, and it wouldn’t take that many votes. Let’s look at three battleground states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In 2016, Trump’s margin of victory was less than 50,000 votes in these states, and third parties won significantly more votes than that in each one. Did they flip the election for Trump? It’s possible. In 2020, with no third parties to contend with, Biden beat Trump in Michigan by 154,188 votes, Pennsylvania by 80,555 votes and Wisconsin by 20,682. All of those margins are smaller than what third parties received in 2016. These Blue Wall states will be close again in 2024, and if third parties perform similarly in 2024 as they did in 2016, they will deny Biden a second term.

This alone should give any responsible person pause. A No Labels candidate in these states could easily hand the election to Trump. But maybe that’s the goal. Whatever their original intentions, the people behind No Labels — including Harlan Crow, the GOP mega-donor who gifted travel and luxury vacations to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — are using dark money on this folly. The group is working to raise $70 million and has already qualified for the ballot in 12 states, including states that could be pivotal to the outcome, such as Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina.

There are serious questions about how the group’s ticket would be picked ( likely behind closed doors) and whether acting like a political party without registering as one is legal. Not to mention, its own founders and staff are in “open revolt” over the group’s current aspirations.

While I’m not a fan of polling done more than a year out (seriously), The Wall Street Journal did an analysis that showed third parties would more likely draw votes from Biden. The report points to an NBC survey that has Biden and Trump tied head to head, but if you add a third-party candidate, Trump leads by 3 percent. (Of course, this math might change if Liz Cheney or RFK Jr. make a serious run.) New polling of young voters shows a similar dynamic, shrinking Biden’s lead with the introduction of third parties.

Historical data suggests the same. Based on exit polling (a highly flawed metric), No Labels believes Perot in 1992 may have siphoned votes from both parties equally. However, an American Journal of Political Science study concluded that Perot increased turnout by 3 percent and decreased Clinton’s margin of victory by 7 percent.

If we look at who helped Biden win last time, they are the type of voters who might switch parties: Voters who selected a third party in 2016 voted for Biden by 29 percent. Those voters could be the difference for Biden in 2024.

From all the data I see, the practical effect of having No Labels run a third-party campaign is that Trump would win. And any argument that a third party can win next year is a false promise, an illusion and a lie spread by people with ulterior motives.

The prospect of Trump being president again should be repellent to any decent person who believes in freedom and building a more perfect union. The people at No Labels know better than this. It’s time to cut the crap, believe the data and be honest with the American people. Any well-funded third-party candidate would be a disaster for our republic — and risks putting us on a direct path to a dictatorship.

Ps hypothetically, if Haley ran third party instead of manchin wouldn’t it hurt Trump more than Biden?

[I_M4_AU 7,961]

59 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Ps hypothetically, if Haley ran third party instead of manchin wouldn’t it hurt Trump more than Biden?

If either Manchin or Haley ran and the other as a VP would really be an alternative.

[auburnatl1 5,014]

41 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If either Manchin or Haley ran and the other as a VP would really be an alternative.

Haley hurt her credibility with some gaffes in the last 4 months trying to pander maga. Ultimately she’s a classic fiscally conservative/socially moderate/internationally engaged GOPer in a party that is now fiscally who cares or knows/socially conservative/isolationist Republican Party.  In 2012 she wins the nomination, in 2024 she gets steamrolled. Like Cheney - her days in the current party as it’s constructed are over unless she moved to a purple state.

Nonetheless, I agree - her and manchin together would be a formidable threat to the 2 parties. Potentially overwhelming.

Ps this is what really killed her with maga

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna389231

Edited January 30 by auburnatl1

[I_M4_AU 7,961]

13 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Haley hurt her credibility with some gaffes in the last 4 months trying to pander maga. Ultimately she’s a classic fiscally conservative/socially moderate/internationally engaged GOPer in a party that is now fiscally who cares or knows/socially conservative/isolationist Republican Party.  In 2012 she wins the nomination, in 2024 she gets steamrolled. Like Cheney - her days in the current party as it’s constructed are over unless she moved to a purple state.

Nonetheless, I agree - her and manchin together would be a formidable threat to the 2 parties. Potentially overwhelming.

Ps this is what really killed her with maga

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna389231

This is why that ticket would make people think.  It could launch the third party.  It won’t happen because of egos, but interesting to think about.

[Gowebb11 9,362]

Another hurdle to a viable Third Party is the Electoral College in my opinion. It’s one thing to have polls showing a high % of support from the electorate. It’s another thing to win the states with enough electoral votes to win. It would be interesting to see the states where a third party would have enough support to win that state, and how that would impact the electoral college. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,166]

1 hour ago, Gowebb11 said:

Another hurdle to a viable Third Party is the Electoral College in my opinion. It’s one thing to have polls showing a high % of support from the electorate. It’s another thing to win the states with enough electoral votes to win. It would be interesting to see the states where a third party would have enough support to win that state, and how that would impact the electoral college. 

Exactly, and I also think it'd be a mistake to think that ALL or even most of the voters who say they want a 3rd party would support the SAME 3rd party. 

I think it's just assumed that all third party supporters want a moderate/middle of the road party...but is that true? 60% of voters saying they want a 3rd party looks good on paper.....but what if 20% of those want a more liberal/progressive party rather than the Dems? What if another 20% of those want a more or different type of Conservative party than the Republicans give? what if another 20% want a fully Libertarian type party?

Any 3rd party would ultimately need to take some sort of stand on tough topics like abortion. How many of that 60% wouldn't vote for a 3rd party that was pro choice/life? 

 

There's absolutely no chance..at all... that any third party stands any shot of breaking through the Electoral College system  to win the Presidency in 2024...and likely the foreseeable future. It's just not politically realistic to pretend otherwise IMO. 

Third parties can't even break through locally and take over town boards, county governments, or state governments....much less nationally in congress and in the Presidency. 

 

A party like No labels can certainly affect which Democrat or Republican wins the Whitehouse by siphoning votes in key battleground states, and a VERY strong 3rd party candidate MIGHT even win a handful of electoral delegates, but that's about the ceiling for 3rd parties right now. 

 

 

Edited January 30 by CoffeeTiger

[auburnatl1 5,014]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Exactly, and I also think it'd be a mistake to think that ALL or even most of the voters who say they want a 3rd party would support the SAME 3rd party. 

I think it's just assumed that all third party supporters want a moderate/middle of the road party...but is that true? 60% of voters saying they want a 3rd party looks good on paper.....but what if 20% of those want a more liberal/progressive party rather than the Dems? What if another 20% of those want a more or different type of Conservative party than the Republicans give? what if another 20% want a fully Libertarian type party?

Any 3rd party would ultimately need to take some sort of stand on tough topics like abortion. How many of that 60% wouldn't vote for a 3rd party that was pro choice/life? 

 

There's absolutely no chance..at all... that any third party stands any shot of breaking through the Electoral College system  to win the Presidency in 2024...and likely the foreseeable future. It's just not politically realistic to pretend otherwise IMO. 

Third parties can't even break through locally and take over town boards, county governments, or state governments....much less nationally in congress and in the Presidency. 

 

A party like No labels can certainly affect which Democrat or Republican wins the Whitehouse by siphoning votes in key battleground states, and a VERY strong 3rd party candidate MIGHT even win a handful of electoral delegates, but that's about the ceiling for 3rd parties right now. 

 

 

I agree that the electoral math in Jan 2024 is muscle memory problematic. But not by much. Both current candidates are historically weak and potentially in diminishing positions legally, health wise, wars, the economy ect. The current status quo dynamics just need a few more tipping point events to push the electorate towards… sanity.   IMO November is a long ways away and neither of these guys are trending up. We’ll see.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

The last 3rd party candidate to win a state was George Wallace in 1968.

As much as I'd love to see a "Madam Secretary"-style Conrad Dalton emerge as a viable 3rd party candidate, I just don't see it with this particular iteration.

Their (No Labels) best chance to win states are ones with fairly small populations that supported Ross Perot fairly heavily in 1992 (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Maine, Kansas...upper Midwest, Rocky Mountains and a couple of isolated New England states that aren't navy blue Democrat).

The most frustrating part is that the two primary options we have are both stale-dated, and are just begging to be seriously challenged.  I guess we'll see how it unfolds.

[homersapien 11,431]

On 1/29/2024 at 8:20 PM, Gowebb11 said:

Amen. I’m beyond wanting a third party. I want a competent and sane leader as a choice on the ballot. I’ve started to use a different standard for assessing candidates. I’ve worked in the military and in a large corporation. I try to imagine where in those entities a lot of the current candidates would rank. There’s no way Trump would survive in our corporation at any level for HR reasons alone. His crap would never be tolerated. And I can’t for a moment imagine Biden possessing the judgment or decision making to make it to the rank of a Two Star General. Same for Mike Pence or Kamala Harris. We’re electing people for President and Vice-President who would be capped at Regional Manager or LT Colonel (maybe) at Home Depot or the Army. And which Fortune 100 company would have MGT or Boebert or Omar in the C-Suite? Historically pathetic is accurate. 

 

I suggest you go back and read the portion in my post that explains how our election system will inevitably devolve into two parties.

If you are really that committed to rejecting the two parties we have (status quo), then I suggest you start advocating for changing our electoral system. 

You'll certainly have my support (for one.)

[homersapien 11,431]

On 1/29/2024 at 9:08 PM, AUFAN78 said:

Jim Messina wants you to vote Biden period. Wonder why?

Jim Messina is CEO of The Messina Group. He successfully ran President Barack Obama's 2012 reelection campaign and before that was Deputy Chief of Staff in Obama's White House.

He lies about ulterior motives in the article basically claiming Joe Lieberman, a former Democratic Senator from Connecticut is trying to elect Trump. Outrageous. He should just state the obvious, he wants his guy to win and doesn't care about democracy. Based on this thread, he is not alone. 

BS.  He understands the way our electoral system works.  Voting for a third party helps Trump.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 1/27/2024 at 12:30 PM, homersapien said:

And really, "commie"?  That's so last century

You would know, wouldn't you, ya'ol fart?

Love you, Homer. 

[Gowebb11 9,362]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I suggest you go back and read the portion in my post that explains how our election system will inevitably devolve into two parties.

If you are really that committed to rejecting the two parties we have (status quo), then I suggest you start advocating for changing our electoral system. 

You'll certainly have my support (for one.)

I’ve supported changing our electoral system for a while now. Sounds like you’re on board for that as well. I’m in the process of reading Liz Cheney’s book, ‘Oath and Honor’. After reading that, I’m starting to realize our democracy as intended is in a hole it may not survive. Sad. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

On 2/1/2024 at 10:39 AM, homersapien said:

BS.  He understands the way our electoral system works.  Voting for a third party helps Trump.

No, it is not BS. It is a hypocritical pathetic attempt to justify subverting democracy. Trump doesn't matter, you do not get to thwart democracy on a whim.  

[homersapien 11,431]

27 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

No, it is not BS. It is a hypocritical pathetic attempt to justify subverting democracy. Trump doesn't matter, you do not get to thwart democracy on a whim.  

Yeah, actual history is useless as a guide to assess what is essentially a rigged electoral system.

Edited February 4 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, actual history is useless as a guide to assess what is essentially a rigged electoral system.

As stated previously, the guy doesn't care about democracy, he just wants his guy to win. And you don't care about democracy either as you are trying to justify the nonsense. Just man up and admit as much.

[homersapien 11,431]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

As stated previously, the guy doesn't care about democracy, he just wants his guy to win. And you don't care about democracy either as you are trying to justify the nonsense. Just man up and admit as much.

What exactly do you want me to "admit" to?  Telling the truth?

"Caring about democracy" has nothing to do with it. Third party campaigns have invariably served as spoilers.  They have never been actual viable alternatives.

And if one really cares about the democratic implications of that history, they would advocate overhauling our electoral system which is what makes it so. 

I support that, do you?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

22 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What exactly do you want me to "admit" to?  Telling the truth?

"Caring about democracy" has nothing to do with it. Third party campaigns have invariably served as spoilers.  They have never been actual viable alternatives.

And if one really cares about the democratic implications of that history, they would advocate overhauling our electoral system which is what makes it so. 

I support that, do you?

I want you to admit the truth, you don't care about democracy, just that your guy wins.

Democracy has everything to do with it. None of the other bloviation matters.

More bloviation. Not genuinely addressing democracy.

No. I support democracy.

 

[homersapien 11,431]

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I want you to admit the truth, you don't care about democracy, just that your guy wins.

Democracy has everything to do with it. None of the other bloviation matters.

More bloviation. Not genuinely addressing democracy.

No. I support democracy.

 

Well, I will certainly concede I believe electing Trump will threaten democracy. (I also believe he wouldn't have a chance but for the flawed electoral system we have.)

But the discussion was about the inevitable effects of a third party candidacy has on our current electoral system. That system dictates that only one of two major parties can win the office.  If Haley - or DeSantis - for examples, run as a third party, Biden wins, period. It would work in the same way if a liberal forms a third party.

It all depends on which of the major parties lose the most of their votes to the 3rd party candidate.  But there is no doubt that one of the two major parties will ultimately prevail.  That's the outcome dictated by the current system, like it or not.

Bottom line, it is the current electoral system that is the actual perversion of democracy.  Acknowledging that is not a perversion of democracy - just the opposite. After all, democracy is not defined by the flaws in our constitution. (There's lot of confirming history on that also.) 

Furthermore, decrying the messenger of what the practical results of 3rd party candidacy would produce as being "anti-democratic" is inherently undemocratic itself (that "freedom of speech" thing.)

It is at once demagogic, naive, hypocritical or just plain stupid.  It's like arguing for abolishing slavery was "undemocratic" because our system - when originated - allowed for it.

So I'd like for you to admit you are either demagogic, naive, hypocritical and/or stupid.

P.S.:

Just because you can't understand what I am plainly stating, it does not mean it's "bloviating".  It's just more evidence for the "stupid"option on your part.

 

 

Edited February 4 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,431]

On 1/30/2024 at 12:54 PM, auburnatl1 said:

Ps hypothetically, if Haley ran third party instead of manchin wouldn’t it hurt Trump more than Biden?

IMO, yes.

 

[homersapien 11,431]

3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

As stated previously, the guy doesn't care about democracy, he just wants his guy to win. And you don't care about democracy either as you are trying to justify the nonsense. Just man up and admit as much.

Do you dispute the substance of my post? It's pretty simple, even for you:

Yeah, actual history is useless as a guide to assess what is essentially a rigged electoral system.   (SARCASM)  

(Note:  That means I believe history is the best guide we have.)

I suppose it's true, Trump and MAGAs have totally disabled sarcasm.

Edited February 4 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

But the discussion was about the inevitable effects of a third party candidacy has on our current electoral system

Go back to the OP homey. The discussion is about subverting democracy. Further explained, the attempts by a group to disallow another to gain ballot access, i.e. Kennedy, No Labels. In other words, a conspiracy to stop alternative votes, a long-honored democratic norm. When you stop these groups from gaining ballot access you are preventing the American people from getting ballot access. That is not a democracy.