(02-03-2016 12:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Here's the way I see third party votes. If neither of the two major parties reflects my views, then what do I accomplish by voting for the lesser of two evils?
I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal. While democrats are a little to the left of me on some social issues--if you have a ****, you belong in the boys' bathroom--I'm generally far more comfortable with them on issues like abortion and gay rights and the death penalty and drugs, but their stance on economic issues is a total show stopper for me. I'm not comfortable with republicans generally on social issues, but generally have preferred their fiscal conservatism. I've tended to favor republicans because the fiscal issues are more important to me personally. My chances of marrying another man are about the same as my chances of needing an abortion, so those aren't hot button issues for me, whereas the fiscal issues do matter to me. I'm close to retirement age, so a strong dollar is important to my savings, so deficits matter to me, for example.
I'll vote for a social conservative if that's what it takes to get a fiscal conservative. What I'm not willing to do is vote for a social conservative who turns out not to be a fiscal conservative. Somebody like GWB, for example. He told us during the 2000 campaign that he was going to reduce the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business, which sounded perfect to me. The he went and grew the federal government faster than any prior president and got us into two massive nation-building efforts. I'm sorry, but I cannot support that in any way, shape, or form.
So what I'm left with at this point is that I'm okay (not thrilled, but okay) with democrats on social issues, but cannot support them on fiscal issues. I'm not okay with republicans on social issues, but as long as they were fiscally conservative, I would accept them as the lesser evil. Once they lose their fiscal conservatism, I have no use for them either.
Balance the budget, flatten and broaden taxes, keep regulations that ensure health and safety but get of those where the hassle factor outweighs any benefit, improve education results (not spend more on education) and infrastructure (not pork barrel bridges to nowhere), these things taken together stimulating real economic growth, reform welfare so that we provide for all but people who work live better than people who don't work, get us out of meddling in internal affairs of other countries and fighting wars that we don't intend to win. Who comes close to that? Neither democrats nor republicans. So why should I vote for either?
As far as Perot and 1992, I'm friends with the Bushes (enough that GHWB has recognized me in public) but I actually think Bill Clinton was a pretty good president. I'm also friends with the Pauls, who come a lot closer to my views than any other republicans out there right now. If Rand were the republican nominee, I would clearly vote republican, and I would probably end up doing something in Washington if he were elected. But he's not where the republican party is headed right now. I'd vote for any republican against Sanders or Warren, because I don't want to live in a socialist/communist country (and I put both of them in that category), but if it's Hillary versus Trump, then that kind of looks to me like two peas in the same pod.
...and that's all fine and dandy.....
but, you already know the end game pal......
we know what your are.....
it doesn't help to continue to repeat to be brutally honest.....and you know I agree with most also...
so, now what?
I say "Costa"
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2016 01:04 AM by stinkfist.)
(02-03-2016 12:34 AM)EagleX Wrote: whenever someone claims to have not "seen any evidence" for something or other, it's usually because they either don't want to see it, or wouldn't know it if they did see it.
If you or anyone else has any evidence/data to indicate that Perot's 1992 voters would have supported Bush over Clinton by a 65-35 margin, by all means feel free to share. Anything less than that, Clinton still would've won the national popular vote.
(02-03-2016 12:01 AM)EagleX Wrote: what Ross Perot did was teach us the unintended consequences of a third party presidential candidate. it's a lesson I hope we remember.
Apologies if I'm misinterpreting your point, but the idea that Ross Perot's candidacy enabled Clinton to defeat Bush in 1992 is unproven, at best.
The question of "What would Perot's voters do if Perot wasn't in the race?" was one of the great political campfire debates of the 1990s. I don't think any true consensus on that issue ever did emerge, but even if we assume that 100% of Perot's 1992 voters would have shown up at the polls anyway (even if Perot himself had not been on the ballot), those voters would've had to break for Bush over Clinton by about 65-35 in order for Bush to have won the national popular vote. I have never seen any evidence to suggest such an outcome would have been plausible.
you don't seem to remember 1992 very well. And whenever someone claims to have not "seen any evidence" for something or other, it's usually because they either don't want to see it, or wouldn't know it if they did see it.
The surveys didn't show such a significant break toward Bush.
But Perot's whole candidacy is what hurt Bush. Without Perot running, Bush would have won. If Perot dropped out the day before the election, maybe Clinton still would have won, but it was the whole campaign.
(02-03-2016 12:34 AM)EagleX Wrote: whenever someone claims to have not "seen any evidence" for something or other, it's usually because they either don't want to see it, or wouldn't know it if they did see it.
If you or anyone else has any evidence/data to indicate that Perot's 1992 voters would have supported Bush over Clinton by a 65-35 margin, by all means feel free to share. Anything less than that, Clinton still would've won the national popular vote.
first of all, we don't elect presidents by popular vote.
If you or anyone else has any evidence/data to indicate that Clinton would have gotten to 270 in the electoral college in a two man race with Bush, by all means feel free to share. Anything less than that fails to prove your case.
We know how many people actually voted in the election, and how many voted for each candidate. To figure out what % of Perot's voters Bush needed to surpass Clinton is a very simple math-problem, and the answer is about 65%. Sixty-four-point-seven to be precise, if we go by Wikipedia's numbers.
I have stated my opinion -- yes, opinion -- that it is unlikely Bush could have gotten that many of Perot's voters to vote for him, even if Perot had not been on the ballot. You replied that I don't "remember 1992 very well" but did not explain why/how you disagree. And you certainly have not said how you think the Perot voters would've split up if forced to choose between Bush and Clinton that year. I mean, do you really think Bush would've gotten 70% of them? 80%? Based on what?
I would just add that the 65% figure is really being quite generous to Bush if we allow for the odds that some of Perot's voters (I.) just wouldn't have voted at all if he hadn't been on the ballot, and (II.) would've voted for other 3rd-party candidates (these are people who by definition obviously made the decision to step back from the 2 main parties with their votes). Bush needed to make up for a deficit of about 5.8 million votes with Clinton, and Perot got about about 19.7 million.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2016 12:28 AM by Native Georgian.)
(02-03-2016 12:01 AM)EagleX Wrote: what Ross Perot did was teach us the unintended consequences of a third party presidential candidate. it's a lesson I hope we remember.
In this case the consequence was generally positive. Other than being a randy skirt chaser, he did a pretty good job as POTUS.
(02-03-2016 12:01 AM)EagleX Wrote: what Ross Perot did was teach us the unintended consequences of a third party presidential candidate. it's a lesson I hope we remember.
In this case the consequence was generally positive. Other than being a randy skirt chaser, he did a pretty good job as POTUS.
he was a walking, talking piece of human excrement that happened to be president when the dotcom bubble inflated. millie, barbara bush's springer spaniel, would have done just as good a job in the oval office if the dog had been president during those years -- and her mess would have been easier to clean up.
(02-04-2016 12:28 AM)Native Georgian Wrote: We know how many people actually voted in the election, and how many voted for each candidate. To figure out what % of Perot's voters Bush needed to surpass Clinton is a very simple math-problem, and the answer is about 65%. Sixty-four-point-seven to be precise, if we go by Wikipedia's numbers.
I have stated my opinion -- yes, opinion -- that it is unlikely Bush could have gotten that many of Perot's voters to vote for him, even if Perot had not been on the ballot. You replied that I don't "remember 1992 very well" but did not explain why/how you disagree. And you certainly have not said how you think the Perot voters would've split up if forced to choose between Bush and Clinton that year. I mean, do you really think Bush would've gotten 70% of them? 80%? Based on what?
I would just add that the 65% figure is really being quite generous to Bush if we allow for the odds that some of Perot's voters (I.) just wouldn't have voted at all if he hadn't been on the ballot, and (II.) would've voted for other 3rd-party candidates (these are people who by definition obviously made the decision to step back from the 2 main parties with their votes). Bush needed to make up for a deficit of about 5.8 million votes with Clinton, and Perot got about about 19.7 million.
I hesitate to engage with you on this topic because you're stuck on a false and hopelessly simplistic premise; that this is a matter of math. it's not. before we could have a productive conversation about what a perot-less campaign would have looked like, I would first have to dissuade you from your "lust to multiply" -- and that looks pretty hopeless.
you can't create a new timeline simply by removing selected events from a totally different timeline, and then projecting the new timeline sideways. that's just not the way it works. a presidential campaign is a year long chess match. if perot had never declared, there would be no such thing as "perot voters", and, thus, nothing to do math on in the first place. in a nutshell, you want to talk about -- nay, you want to make central -- this thing that you call "perot voters", yet I deny that they even exist. see? no place to really start the discussion.
when I said that you must not have remembered 1992 very well, I was being polite. I suspect you weren't politically aware in 1992. perot ran hard against bush, and slimed him pretty relentlessly. there was bad texas blood between the bush and perot families. the whole thing was one hot mess; you can't do math on a hot mess and expect to get anything sensible out of it.
If you break down the electoral vote state by state, and look at most any combination of states that could have pushed Bush over the top, he would have needed to get something pretty close to 65% of the Perot voters in those states in order to do it. If you don't believe it, Google the numbers and play with them. So the 65% popular vote number is really a pretty good number.
(02-04-2016 12:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: If you break down the electoral vote state by state, and look at most any combination of states that could have pushed Bush over the top, he would have needed to get something pretty close to 65% of the Perot voters in those states in order to do it. If you don't believe it, Google the numbers and play with them. So the 65% popular vote number is really a pretty good number.
(02-04-2016 12:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: If you break down the electoral vote state by state, and look at most any combination of states that could have pushed Bush over the top, he would have needed to get something pretty close to 65% of the Perot voters in those states in order to do it. If you don't believe it, Google the numbers and play with them. So the 65% popular vote number is really a pretty good number.
I read that before. If Perot was running that hard as the anti-Bush (and I agree that he was) then it stands to reason that most of his followers were anti-Bush.
What I believe was the actual motivation behind Perot's run is something that has been little, if at all, discussed. A big issue of his (and one with which I disagree) was opposition to NAFTA. What's interesting is that Perot was actually a big free trade guy. He had just spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing Alliance Airport, just north of Fort Worth, and had cashed in numerous political favors getting it designated as a tax-free zone. The value proposition was going to be that you fly in components, without paying import duties, assemble them, and fly (or truck or train) out finished product, not paying any taxes until they hit their destination. By removing some of the attraction of a tax-free zone, NAFTA obviously cast considerable rain on that parade. The airport is still there, and some commercial development, but the south end of the property has been turned into the NASCAR/Indy car track.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2016 05:47 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
We need proportional representation before any 3rd party vote will change anything significant. As it stands, 3rd party votes simply rob from one party or the other. Maybe it changes an outcome... maybe not... but it doesn't allow for any nuances that lead to incremental changes.
(02-04-2016 12:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: If you break down the electoral vote state by state, and look at most any combination of states that could have pushed Bush over the top, he would have needed to get something pretty close to 65% of the Perot voters in those states in order to do it. If you don't believe it, Google the numbers and play with them. So the 65% popular vote number is really a pretty good number.
I read that before. If Perot was running that hard as the anti-Bush (and I agree that he was) then it stands to reason that most of his followers were anti-Bush.
What I believe was the actual motivation behind Perot's run is something that has been little, if at all, discussed. A big issue of his (and one with which I disagree) was opposition to NAFTA. What's interesting is that Perot was actually a big free trade guy. He had just spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing Alliance Airport, just north of Fort Worth, and had cashed in numerous political favors getting it designated as a tax-free zone. The value proposition was going to be that you fly in components, without paying import duties, assemble them, and fly (or truck or train) out finished product, not paying any taxes until they hit their destination. By removing some of the attraction of a tax-free zone, NAFTA obviously cast considerable rain on that parade. The airport is still there, and some commercial development, but the south end of the property has been turned into the NASCAR/Indy car track.
perot was more personally anti-bush than he was philosophically anti-bush. the guy ran a slime factory for his campaign. his followers wouldn't have been anti-bush enough to vote for bill clinton, which would have been their only option without that dodgy little rattletrap in the race in the first place.
I have minimum high regard for the guy. perot was was a crony-capitalist before crony capitalism was uncool.
(02-04-2016 05:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: We need proportional representation before any 3rd party vote will change anything significant. As it stands, 3rd party votes simply rob from one party or the other. Maybe it changes an outcome... maybe not... but it doesn't allow for any nuances that lead to incremental changes.
you'd have to repeal the electoral college (everyone's bête noire these days), and now you're flirting with the nightmare of coalition governments. ask the israelis and the french how that's working out for them. we already have an electorate full of retards that don't understand the two option that we have now. giving them more options isn't going to improve the quality if their decisions.
you're may be about to say, "anything beats what we've got now". famous last words. I'd just respond by saying that you'd better be sure. you'll never get this genie back in the bottle.
![[Image: DAV2-2A_2d_hires2.jpg?w=450&h=45...p;amp;q=70]](https://typeset-beta.imgix.net/2016/2/1/DAV2-2A_2d_hires2.jpg?w=450&h=450&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&q=70)
