2024

[ggait]

No good can come from a third party campaign from Cornell West, Jill Stein, Larry Hogan, Joe Manchin, Gary Johnson, etc.

Has nothing to do with what any of those people might stand for. Bottom line, it just doesn't work.

You are just a spoiler. And most often, you wind up spoiling the option that you'd prefer. Trump won in 2016 because of Jill Stein and James Comey's buzzer beater.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ump-biden/

Unless you want to reform the Electoral College and implement, just say no to third parties.

[SCLaxAttack]

No good can come from a third party campaign from Cornell West, Jill Stein, Larry Hogan, Joe Manchin, Gary Johnson, etc.

Has nothing to do with what any of those people might stand for. Bottom line, it just doesn't work.

You are just a spoiler. And most often, you wind up spoiling the option that you'd prefer. Trump won in 2016 because of Jill Stein and James Comey's buzzer beater.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ump-biden/

Unless you want to reform the Electoral College and implement, just say no to third parties.

I'm already despondent just thinking there might be a third party candidate, unless it's Trump who happens to be it. And I'm no Biden fan. Growing up on LI I just know too much of Trump's b s, even pre-2016. I believe the country will be in for very serious, perhaps existential, problems if Trump's elected. Among the current high probability candidates - Biden, Trump, DeSantis - Biden's the only adult in the room.

[old salt]

Manchin is a better candidate than either party is offering. He's a uniter, a proven bi-partisan compromiser.
Given the disapproval %'s for both Biden & Trump, he has a shot. Much of the voting public has had it with both parties.

[a fan]

Manchin is a better candidate than either party is offering. He's a uniter, a proven bi-partisan compromiser.
Given the disapproval %'s for both Biden & Trump, he has a shot. Much of the voting public has had it with both parties.

+1000

Same bumper sticker from 2020 applies: "Functioning Adult 2024".

[ggait]

Manchin would have absolutely no chance of getting even
one electoral vote. He has zero shot. Nada. Suggesting otherwise is brain dead moron clueless idiot stupid.

Last third party candidate with even one electoral vote was George Wallace. 13.5% of the pop vote and 46 evs. Perot got almost 20% and got zero evs.

Get real guys.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Manchin is a better candidate than either party is offering. He's a uniter, a proven bi-partisan compromiser.
Given the disapproval %'s for both Biden & Trump, he has a shot. Much of the voting public has had it with both parties.

You mean he bent over for your team repeatedly.

[Farfromgeneva]

Manchin would have absolutely no chance of getting even
one electoral vote. He has zero shot. Nada. Suggesting otherwise is brain dead moron clueless idiot stupid.

Last third party candidate with even one electoral vote was George Wallace. 13.5% of the pop vote and 46 evs. Perot got almost 20% and got zero evs.

Get real guys.

Incrementalism isn’t realistic in affecting change either.

[ggait]

Nonsense.
E system stupid.
Plenty of change is possible inside the parties. Look no further than trump, bernie, Obama and many other change agents.

Third party candidates do nothing but mischief. It is th

[Kismet]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

[cradleandshoot]

Nonsense.
E system stupid.
Plenty of change is possible inside the parties. Look no further than trump, bernie, Obama and many other change agents.

Third party candidates do nothing but mischief. It is th

Plenty of change inside both parties is possible but certainly not realistic. Bernie is an Independent who is more socialist than anything else. Besides being black how did Obama change anything in the Democrat party? Trump changed the Republican party and the establishment Republicans want to make a return back to the good old days. IMO the right 3rd party may not be able to win but they sure as hell could keep the Rs and Ds honest.

[MDlaxfan76]

Third parties elect no one but the candidate whose voters they didn't attract as much as the other. It keeps NO ONE honest.

In this example, Manchin's run would likely elect Trump. I don't think Manchin could even hold his own state if that was the 3-way choice.

And Trump/MAGA ain't "honest" by a very, very long shot.

And frankly, the risk of what would happen in a Trump unbounded presidency is perhaps indeed existential for democracy in America for a generation or more.

Kleptocracy/Gilead is what they're showing us they'd do. Believe them.

[Farfromgeneva]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

[Farfromgeneva]

Nonsense.
E system stupid.
Plenty of change is possible inside the parties. Look no further than trump, bernie, Obama and many other change agents.

Third party candidates do nothing but mischief. It is th

It’s a complete joke to use Bernie as evidence. Makes no sense and I think you’re more intelligent than this. Just look at the Dems behavior in the last two primaries.

Nonsense and ludicrous is claiming Bernie impacts change from inside the dem party as they as they slam the door on him feb of 2020 having any chance.

I find the outright dismissal of a paradigm change by you as a bit juvenile frankly. Regardless of how much I loathe and worry about Trump being in the seat again. Thinking and behavior like this is just as dangerous to me.

[MDlaxfan76]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

Well, if "stuff ain't right" and that "change this system" is the goal, what are you actually talking about?

What "system" would you prefer and how do you think that will be achieved, if not incrementally? Democratically?

There's no way a third party candidate can win in the current system, and they only create unintended outcomes, none of which "change the system" to be more likely to reduce divisiveness and achieve better political answers reliably ongoing. Unless one thinks some form of fascism is the answer...make the trains run on time...

I DO agree that we may face exogenous events in our lifetime which create shocks to the system that enable and spur more rapid reform, but it's not at all clear that we can and will reform swiftly before then...so incremental, fits and starts, competition and experimentation, is how we've done it pretty darn successfully (by world comparison) for a couple of centuries now...

[MDlaxfan76]

Nonsense.
E system stupid.
Plenty of change is possible inside the parties. Look no further than trump, bernie, Obama and many other change agents.

Third party candidates do nothing but mischief. It is th

It’s a complete joke to use Bernie as evidence. Makes no sense and I think you’re more intelligent than this. Just look at the Dems behavior in the last two primaries.

Nonsense and ludicrous is claiming Bernie impacts change from inside the dem party as they as they slam the door on him feb of 2020 having any chance.

I find the outright dismissal of a paradigm change by you as a bit juvenile frankly. Regardless of how much I loathe and worry about Trump being in the seat again. Thinking and behavior like this is just as dangerous to me.

mmm, I agree that Bernie's push didn't prevail (though to say no impact I think misses what the actual policies of the Biden Admin have been), but Trump's sure as heck overturned the applecart, though in a pretty horrendous way, IMO. The GOP is unrecognizable to many of us who've been lifetime Republicans.

Note, ggait has been an advocate a ranked choice voting, a strenuous critic of gerrymandering, etc...pro SCOTUS term limits...very much pro democracy reforms, so the only argument here is whether a third party candidate in 2024 would actually achieve a positive outcome towards real reform.

[Farfromgeneva]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

Well, if "stuff ain't right" and that "change this system" is the goal, what are you actually talking about?

What "system" would you prefer and how do you think that will be achieved, if not incrementally? Democratically?

There's no way a third party candidate can win in the current system, and they only create unintended outcomes, none of which "change the system" to be more likely to reduce divisiveness and achieve better political answers reliably ongoing. Unless one thinks some form of fascism is the answer...make the trains run on time...

I DO agree that we may face exogenous events in our lifetime which create shocks to the system that enable and spur more rapid reform, but it's not at all clear that we can and will reform swiftly before then...so incremental, fits and starts, competition and experimentation, is how we've done it pretty darn successfully (by world comparison) for a couple of centuries now...

Rome had a pretty good 400yrs as well…

I’m not saying I have the answers but we need more trial and error and less reticence to experimentation. And to just shut it down and say “you’re wrong” or “that’s dumb” isn’t serious about the actual situation. That’s what I’m really responding to.

[Farfromgeneva]

Nonsense.
E system stupid.
Plenty of change is possible inside the parties. Look no further than trump, bernie, Obama and many other change agents.

Third party candidates do nothing but mischief. It is th

It’s a complete joke to use Bernie as evidence. Makes no sense and I think you’re more intelligent than this. Just look at the Dems behavior in the last two primaries.

Nonsense and ludicrous is claiming Bernie impacts change from inside the dem party as they as they slam the door on him feb of 2020 having any chance.

I find the outright dismissal of a paradigm change by you as a bit juvenile frankly. Regardless of how much I loathe and worry about Trump being in the seat again. Thinking and behavior like this is just as dangerous to me.

mmm, I agree that Bernie's push didn't prevail (though to say no impact I think misses what the actual policies of the Biden Admin have been), but Trump's sure as heck overturned the applecart, though in a pretty horrendous way, IMO. The GOP is unrecognizable to many of us who've been lifetime Republicans.

Note, ggait has been an advocate a ranked choice voting, a strenuous critic of gerrymandering, etc...pro SCOTUS term limits...very much pro democracy reforms, so the only argument here is whether a third party candidate in 2024 would actually achieve a positive outcome towards real reform.

Wake me when we get ranked choice. I like it better as well but playing inside the system is exactly what the existing system wants. To me that intransigent pushback reeks of someone talking their own book and less concerned about affecting the right change.

[MDlaxfan76]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

Well, if "stuff ain't right" and that "change this system" is the goal, what are you actually talking about?

What "system" would you prefer and how do you think that will be achieved, if not incrementally? Democratically?

There's no way a third party candidate can win in the current system, and they only create unintended outcomes, none of which "change the system" to be more likely to reduce divisiveness and achieve better political answers reliably ongoing. Unless one thinks some form of fascism is the answer...make the trains run on time...

I DO agree that we may face exogenous events in our lifetime which create shocks to the system that enable and spur more rapid reform, but it's not at all clear that we can and will reform swiftly before then...so incremental, fits and starts, competition and experimentation, is how we've done it pretty darn successfully (by world comparison) for a couple of centuries now...

Rome had a pretty good 400yrs as well…

I’m not saying I have the answers but we need more trial and error and less reticence to experimentation. And to just shut it down and say “you’re wrong” or “that’s dumb” isn’t serious about the actual situation. That’s what I’m really responding to.

ok.
And I'm all more experimentation...it's just extremely difficult to get done overnight, other than sometimes at the state level...which is why supporting these 'good government' reform efforts state by state could be so important...I think ranked choice voting would have a particularly positive effect, so supporting those efforts makes a lot of sense to me.

Gerrymandering is going to be hard, because there's no benefit in disarmament under the current SCOTUS regime...which means that it's critical to shift the Court to a makeup that will enable gerrymandering prohibitions to be much more stringent, nationwide...and whether we like it or not, that means voting Dem for POTUS and Senate for several terms because of the power play that we've gone through that reengineered the Court so far to the right...

[Farfromgeneva]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

Well, if "stuff ain't right" and that "change this system" is the goal, what are you actually talking about?

What "system" would you prefer and how do you think that will be achieved, if not incrementally? Democratically?

There's no way a third party candidate can win in the current system, and they only create unintended outcomes, none of which "change the system" to be more likely to reduce divisiveness and achieve better political answers reliably ongoing. Unless one thinks some form of fascism is the answer...make the trains run on time...

I DO agree that we may face exogenous events in our lifetime which create shocks to the system that enable and spur more rapid reform, but it's not at all clear that we can and will reform swiftly before then...so incremental, fits and starts, competition and experimentation, is how we've done it pretty darn successfully (by world comparison) for a couple of centuries now...

Rome had a pretty good 400yrs as well…

I’m not saying I have the answers but we need more trial and error and less reticence to experimentation. And to just shut it down and say “you’re wrong” or “that’s dumb” isn’t serious about the actual situation. That’s what I’m really responding to.

ok.
And I'm all more experimentation...it's just extremely difficult to get done overnight, other than sometimes at the state level...which is why supporting these 'good government' reform efforts state by state could be so important...I think ranked choice voting would have a particularly positive effect, so supporting those efforts makes a lot of sense to me.

Gerrymandering is going to be hard, because there's no benefit in disarmament under the current SCOTUS regime...which means that it's critical to shift the Court to a makeup that will enable gerrymandering prohibitions to be much more stringent, nationwide...and whether we like it or not, that means voting Dem for POTUS and Senate for several terms because of the power play that we've gone through that reengineered the Court so far to the right...

Why not work Ranked choice at state level and allow people sick of it all to support a their party candidate rather than parochial my saying “NO! You can’t do that and you’re stupid!” Because that’s what I got and was pushed here. You get it but a lot of well meaning people literally don’t understand how trapped they are in their own limited institutionalist thinking and that they’ve in fact been captured as well.

What if there was a Cory Booker/Adam Kinzinger ticket, for example?

Or take two extremes like Bernie and some equivalent on the right. That would be just populist but interesting and affect more actual change than incrementalism.

[MDlaxfan76]

Hilarious that some want to canonize the ultimate pol - Joe Manchin.

Frankly, he'll never have more political power than he does right now as a Senator. To run for Prez he'd have to give that up as his seat is up for grabs in 2024.

I thought Manchin was an odd choice and not supporting him per se but I simply don’t agree no matter how much confidence ggait tells me he’s right and I’m nonsense and his arguments haven’t yet been persuasive just little more than yelling louder. Not intellectually compelling. The idea that Bernie is an example of diversity in a party the way the party crushed him in the primaries twice in a row in fact is incongruous with even kiddie logic.

I’m of course not excited about a third party candidate pushing that far POS back into the presidential seat and recognize the risk but think anyone arguing that incrementalism would work to change this system is either benefitting from keeping this system in place with all its flaws and talking to their book or working hard to ignore history combined with any sense of paradigm analysis and Political Econ.

Yeah I’m scared of Trump coming back but stuff ain’t right and it hasn’t been since pick between 92, 2000 or 2008 (I’d say the latter two dates) and not getting better so that risk of something worse coming, an exogenous event magnitudes worse in our lifetimes is as real and potentially as severe and only totally blind people ignore that. Pounding the table and saying “you’re wrong” and ignoring that risk both probiotic of such event and severity of outcome is ignorant.

Well, if "stuff ain't right" and that "change this system" is the goal, what are you actually talking about?

What "system" would you prefer and how do you think that will be achieved, if not incrementally? Democratically?

There's no way a third party candidate can win in the current system, and they only create unintended outcomes, none of which "change the system" to be more likely to reduce divisiveness and achieve better political answers reliably ongoing. Unless one thinks some form of fascism is the answer...make the trains run on time...

I DO agree that we may face exogenous events in our lifetime which create shocks to the system that enable and spur more rapid reform, but it's not at all clear that we can and will reform swiftly before then...so incremental, fits and starts, competition and experimentation, is how we've done it pretty darn successfully (by world comparison) for a couple of centuries now...

Rome had a pretty good 400yrs as well…

I’m not saying I have the answers but we need more trial and error and less reticence to experimentation. And to just shut it down and say “you’re wrong” or “that’s dumb” isn’t serious about the actual situation. That’s what I’m really responding to.

ok.
And I'm all more experimentation...it's just extremely difficult to get done overnight, other than sometimes at the state level...which is why supporting these 'good government' reform efforts state by state could be so important...I think ranked choice voting would have a particularly positive effect, so supporting those efforts makes a lot of sense to me.

Gerrymandering is going to be hard, because there's no benefit in disarmament under the current SCOTUS regime...which means that it's critical to shift the Court to a makeup that will enable gerrymandering prohibitions to be much more stringent, nationwide...and whether we like it or not, that means voting Dem for POTUS and Senate for several terms because of the power play that we've gone through that reengineered the Court so far to the right...

Why not work Ranked choice at state level and allow people sick of it all to support a their party candidate rather than parochial my saying “NO! You can’t do that and you’re stupid!” Because that’s what I got and was pushed here. You get it but a lot of well meaning people literally don’t understand how trapped they are in their own limited institutionalist thinking and that they’ve in fact been captured as well.

What if there was a Cory Booker/Adam Kinzinger ticket, for example?

Or take two extremes like Bernie and some equivalent on the right. That would be just populist but interesting and affect more actual change than incrementalism.

Oh, absolutely, if ranked choice voting was actually instituted nationwide, we'd see third party or independent candidates sometimes win. See Alaska's Senator Murkowski as the dynamic that can happen when a party nominates an extremist and the better candidate runs as an independent. She did that without ranked choice way back in 2010...and with ranked choice enacted in 2020, the voters put Pelitola in Congress over Sarah Palin and Republican Nick Begich. Moderate Dem won over two Republicans as crazy MAGA wasn't preferred by moderate GOP voters. Rewards moderation...punishes crazy cult...