|
Math Debater posted:
This is a great way for him to get marginalized and have no policy impact on the debate. The idea that you're going to build a 3rd party from scratch when you already have an infrastructure of a democratic party to work within who has already gotten people like Liz Warren and Sharrod Brown elected is very foolish. The only way to get real change is to make the infrastructure better.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Math Debater certainly seems to want him to. If he runs in the primary he will by default run as a Democrat, because there's no primary for third party candidates There actually is, if he wants to run on, say, the Green ticket. They don't just say, "we'll vote for the most famous person who makes themselves available," they actually have to beat out the other activists who are running at the Green party convention. There was a year where Nader couldn't do it, for example, because they were pissed at him for spoiling 2000 if I remember correctly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 16:04
|
|
I understand why people would want him to be President, but he's not going to pull off a coup on Hillary like Obama did.
|
Cliff Racer posted:There actually is, if he wants to run on, say, the Green ticket. They don't just say, "we'll vote for the most famous person who makes themselves available," they actually have to beat out the other activists who are running at the Green party convention. There was a year where Nader couldn't do it, for example, because they were pissed at him for spoiling 2000 if I remember correctly. So what you're saying is that when the Green party field a candidate, who can impact the election, they get pissy at him for taking votes from a Democrat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
I don't see the purpose of a third party candidacy. A third party will always perform worse in a general election that it would in a primary in both getting media attention and electoral votes. With the exception of Ross Perot, the media ignores you. He couldn't raise enough money to buy airtime wherever it might matter. It's a great way to help the GOP, not a great way to raise awareness for your cause.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:So what you're saying is that when the Green party field a candidate, who can impact the election, they get pissy at him for taking votes from a Democrat? Yeah, that he got too many votes was probably not the reason he wasnt renominated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Yeah, that he got too many votes was probably not the reason he wasnt renominated. The Green Party desperately wanted to re-nominate him. He didn't want to run under their label again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Remember that Nader 2000 deliberately campaigned in swing states in the hopes of playing spoiler, stating explicitly that he wanted George W. Bush to be President because electing a Texas oilman would shock the public into appreciating the environment or some other accelerationist claptrap. He could have spent his time running up the green party vote in California, the Pacific Northwest and other liberal enclaves, then been a real presence in the 2004 Gore re-elect campaign. The reason there are no third parties is because building a party is a long term prospect but the only people crazy enough to run for President are egomaniacs who are unwilling to settle for incremental growth of their movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Okay, well Sanders suggests in that Nation article that the United States may be in need of a "political revolution." Are these the words of a Democrat? Is Sanders just posturing? Yup. I mean, I like the guy, but his big issues in recent years have been removing the cap on social security contributions, ditching the pre-funding requirement for postal worker pensions, and better dental insurance coverage. October, 1917 this ain't. If he runs as an independent or third party candidate than it will be a rather sad vanity campaign. If he runs as a Democrat then he might pull Hillary (and the rest of the field) left on a couple issues, getting them to make campaign pledges or say things in debates. Obviously President Hillary (or President not-Hillary) won't necessarily keep all those promises (see: Obama, Barack), but they may keep some and they may also give Democrats cover to run on those issues down ticket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Also the federal government is not built to accommodate a third party president. Nothing would make it out of the Oval Office. The president has to work through Congress utilizing his party. A third party candidate would be ineffective or like independents do now just be effectively members of one of the parties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Also the federal government is not built to accommodate a third party president. Nothing would make it out of the Oval Office. The president has to work through Congress utilizing his party. A third party candidate would be ineffective or like independents do now just be effectively members of one of the parties. That's not really true. We can assume that the Third Party President would get most of their executive appointments through the Senate and the power wielded by the President is largely expressed through executive agencies. The President would find it more difficult than most pushing legislation through Congress, but it's extremely rare for bills suggested by the President to go through Congress untouched. I agree with you that the mythical Third Party President would most likely gravitate toward one of the two parties - most likely the one currently controlling Congress!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Also the federal government is not built to accommodate a third party president. Nothing would make it out of the Oval Office. The president has to work through Congress utilizing his party. A third party candidate would be ineffective or like independents do now just be effectively members of one of the parties. To be fair, it's not like the President necessarily keeps control of his partisan counterparts in Congress (see Clinton, Bill, 1993-95).
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:100,000 dead Iraqis would be inclined to disagree with this logic.  Also in terms of Bernie Sanders having a louder voice if he runs Independent or Third-Party, Do you remember the Bush/Gore/Nader debate of 2000 or the McCain/McKinney/Obama debate in 2008? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ross Perot was the last 3rd party candidate to be in a nationally televised debate, and after he crashed and burned I think the Committee of Presidential Debates just said "gently caress it, it's not like they have a shot in hell of winning" and excluded 3rd parties. Bernie Sanders can do a lot more to move the national dialogue left running as a democrat, half the reason the GOP is so bizarre today is because of all the psychopaths we were running for the nomination in 2012. Air Skwirl fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:The reason there are no third parties is because building a party is a long term prospect but the only people crazy enough to run for President are egomaniacs who are unwilling to settle for incremental growth of their movement. A bigger problem is a lot of states have extremely restrictive ballot access laws aimed at keeping out third parties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:A bigger problem is a lot of states have extremely restrictive ballot access laws aimed at keeping out third parties. That exactly the kind of hurdle an organization with institutional memory is better equipped to deal with while a celebrity/flash-in-the-pan can only whine about after he's missed the filing deadline. The Libertarian Party managed to get onto the ballot in 48 states (and DC), it's not an insurmountable obstacle. edit: Skwirl posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ross Perot was the last 3rd party candidate to be in a nationally televised debate, and after he crashed and burned I think the Committee of Presidential Debates just said "gently caress it, it's not like they have a shot in hell of winning" and excluded 3rd parties. The Committee on Presidential debates is wholly the creature of the two parties, it is run jointly by Republican and Democratic party hacks who have zero interest in fostering any kind of third party movement, the reason Perot got in was because he a) managed to poll in first place in the summer and b) although he had faded significantly by the fall (and 1996) Bill Clinton saw that it was to his advantage to press for Perot's inclusion in the debates. DynamicSloth fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
FMguru posted:A KLF-themed campaign seems perfectly suited to handle the issue of a 3am phone call.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:For about 5 years, maybe. After that both Mexico and the US lost textile jobs to China. Without NAFTA the jobs would have gone straight to China, so NAFTA effectively accelerated what was going to happen anyway. This is one of those things where my old rear end is just old enough to completely remember something as an adult that your older rear end is talking about, heh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:That exactly the kind of hurdle an organization with institutional memory is better equipped to deal with while a celebrity/flash-in-the-pan can only whine about after he's missed the filing deadline. The Libertarian Party managed to get onto the ballot in 48 states (and DC), it's not an insurmountable obstacle. It's not, but it requires a ton of money to build that and maintain that level of organization. The LP spends an inordinate amount of their money just remaining on ballots from election to election in some states, let alone running campaigns. They're by far the most well-funded and organized of the third parties, and in most states you can count the number of elected libertarians on one hand with fingers to spare, and they're all local yokel stuff like water district and school boards with almost no barrier to entry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:That exactly the kind of hurdle an organization with institutional memory is better equipped to deal with while a celebrity/flash-in-the-pan can only whine about after he's missed the filing deadline. The Libertarian Party managed to get onto the ballot in 48 states (and DC), it's not an insurmountable obstacle. quote:The Committee on Presidential debates is wholly the creature of the two parties, it is run jointly by Republican and Democratic party hacks who have zero interest in fostering any kind of third party movement, the reason Perot got in was because he a) managed to poll in first place in the summer and b) although he had faded significantly by the fall (and 1996) Bill Clinton saw that it was to his advantage to press for Perot's inclusion in the debates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:It's not, but it requires a ton of money to build that and maintain that level of organization. The LP spends an inordinate amount of their money just remaining on ballots from election to election in some states, let alone running campaigns. They're by far the most well-funded and organized of the third parties, and in most states you can count the number of elected libertarians on one hand with fingers to spare, and they're all local yokel stuff like water district and school boards with almost no barrier to entry. There's no reason the far more successful 2000 Greens or early to mid 90s Reform Party couldn't have maintained that kind of organization though, they're quixotic leaders just did not give a poo poo about any kind of legacy organization. Libertarians are a joke but relatively speaking far more successful then either of those other two parties in actually getting people elected and promulgating a consistent platform. If Perot or Nader had cared about their respective parties at all they might be an actual big deal by 2016. DynamicSloth fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
I was involved in 3rd party building just after 2000. It only works locally where you don't need the massive startup costs. Otherwise, cash will flow to the best investment. Public financing is the only way it will ever be possible. That and/or proportional representation. Neither is coming soon. There are too many structural issues. And if Bernie does cost the Dems in 2016, he will absolutely be pilloried and exiled from the media outlets he needs to get his message beyond Democracy Now. How many times does CNN bring on a 3rd party/iconoclast/outlier and actually treat them like a serious person. When Nader makes it on, it's treated the same way as when Jesse Ventura is on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:There's no reason the far more successful 2000 Greens or early to mid 90s Reform Party couldn't have maintained that kind of organization though In theory, but again it takes an inordinate amount of money constantly flowing to keep even a scrub organization like the LP running at a national level, which pretty much precludes any group inimical to business interests. The Reform Party's big problem was their tendency to attract and nominate total nutbars, which is the sort of thing that can only feasibly be avoided with a professional, well-paid (meaning well-funded) organization. The Green Party generally pulls in a few hundred thousand a year. They need to make about 100 times that much to even start thinking about winning elections. The RNC and DNC took in $80 and $60 million respectively last year, and then there's the senatorial and congressional campaign committees, state and local parties, etc. And those two have every built-in advantage possible as the default parties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders won't be pilloried because he won't cost the Democrats anything. Unfortunately for the Global Revolution that's because his campaign won't be covered in the first place. Even more unfortunate for the Global Revolution, that's because candidates who are preordained to get 7% of the vote don't matter rather than him being important in some way. The absolute most he can do is pick a pet issue, campaign largely on that one thing and parlay his 7% into two minutes of debate airtime where he talks about it enough to make a difference. That's not really too bad at all if it works! Of course it's not Global Revolution so that makes him irrelevant to Math Debater et al. Math Debater posted:Yeah, well I may be inclined to believe that the advancement of a revolutionary movement to defeat capitalism in the United States and throughout the world would be worth risking the deaths of millions of people for. Gonna go out on a huge limb here and say you're a white male. e: confirmed in post history, not going to helldump but goddamn son
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Yeah, well I may be inclined to believe that the advancement of a revolutionary movement to defeat capitalism in the United States and throughout the world would be worth risking the deaths of millions of people for. i too am willing to spend as many lives of other people as it will take for me to get what i want
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Xandu posted:So he should become a crackpot that defends murderous dictators? U.S./NATO imperialism and Zionism are greater enemies of the world and of humanity than Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad ever have been. The world needs more people like George Galloway involved in the politics of the U.S. and its wealthy first-world allies, and I hope Galloway will keep doing his thing for many years to come, God willing. Bernie Sanders is 72 years old and his term in the Senate will go through the year 2018. I really would like for Sanders to spend the final years of his career as a militant anti-establishment leftist figure, and I think he should take every opportunity he can to publicly denounce capitalism, denounce U.S. imperialism, denounce the 2-party system, and advocate for the revolutionary transformation of society. Trying to push the Democrats to the left in hopes that they may one day begin advocating for more progressive policies seems to me like a futile endeavor that will never lead to the kinds of massive social changes that leftists should be advocating for. With global warming ongoing, it seems to me that there's no loving time for incrementalism and that revolutionary militancy is a must. Sanders, in my humble opinion, should give zero fucks about what the Serious & Respectable Washingtonians think of him and should be doing everything he can to try to incite the masses to rise up and overturn the status quo. If he wanted to do so, I think Sanders could do a lot to turn people on to revolutionary leftism by running for president in 2016 as an independent or 3rd party candidate and by being more aggressive in his work as a Senator. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Well keep hoping mate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:U.S./NATO imperialism and Zionism are greater enemies of the world and of humanity than Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad ever have been. The world needs more people like George Galloway involved in the politics of the U.S. and its wealthy first-world allies, and I hope Galloway will keep doing his thing for many years to come, God willing. Yeah ok you're just trolling now, because no one who doesn't spend their days in a padded cell believes this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Sanders, in my humble opinion, should give zero fucks about what the Serious & Respectable Washingtonians think of him and should be doing everything he can to try to incite the masses to rise up and overturn the status quo. If he wanted to do so, I think Sanders could do a lot to turn people on to revolutionary leftism by running for president in 2016 as an independent or 3rd party candidate and by being more aggressive in his work as a Senator. Neither the Black Guy nor the 2007 Crash managed to incite the masses, on either side. An old Vermont dude talking about things sure as poo poo isn't going to incite anything or even nudge the status quo. Especially not in the black hole of attention that is being a 3rd Party candidate for POTUS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Sanders, in my humble opinion, Word to the wise, "humble" is not a synonym for "insane."
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Whenever a 3rd party candidate* that acquires some degree of popularity runs for president and loses, people seem to stop giving a poo poo about them right after the election. I think prominent left-wingers are better off focusing their time and money in trying to get people elected to city and state government, and then build up slowly. I like Bernie, but I don't think running for president would be worth anything. *My opinion of him running in the Dem primary isn't much different. Lycus fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:U.S./NATO imperialism and Zionism are greater enemies of the world and of humanity than Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad ever have been. The world needs more people like George Galloway involved in the politics of the U.S. and its wealthy first-world allies, and I hope Galloway will keep doing his thing for many years to come, God willing. You do know that Bernie isn't a revolutionary leftist, right? I mean. Absolutely none of the things you listed are actually goals of his.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
I see the thread is still discussing Bernie "Che" Sanders. Carry on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Sanders, in my humble opinion, should give zero fucks about what the Serious & Respectable Washingtonians think of him and should be doing everything he can to try to incite the masses to rise up and overturn the status quo. If he wanted to do so, I think Sanders could do a lot to turn people on to revolutionary leftism by running for president in 2016 as an independent or 3rd party candidate and by being more aggressive in his work as a Senator. I, too, think Bernie Sanders could do a lot of good if he suddenly pulled off his Bernie Sanders mask to reveal that he's secretly been someone else this entire time. I mean, do you actually know anything about Sanders other than 'leftist' and 'old'? Seriously? There is no rational way to draw a line between 'who Bernie Sanders has been for his entire political career' and 'revolutionary leftist' without going through multiple loop-the-loops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKTH1YXbO7M
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
I mean, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter if you are the Pope, you cannot run for President of the United States and even compete unless you can raise at least a several hundred million dollars as well as have the ability to pull media attention to you. Bernie Sanders couldn't raise $10 million dollars, much less $100 million. Third party presidential runs are about ego, not politics. That's been the case for some time now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Whenever a 3rd party candidate* that acquires some degree of popularity runs for president and loses, people seem to stop giving a poo poo about them right after the election. I think prominent left-wingers are better off focusing their time and money in trying to get people elected to city and state government, and then build up slowly. I like Bernie, but I don't think running for president would be worth anything. It's really telling that leftists have just watched the Tea Party turn half the country into their political fantasy while making the public view center-right neoliberalism as the furthest left acceptable point on the political spectrum as Republicans and take from that that what we really need is another vanity Presidential run.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:It's really telling that leftists have just watched the Tea Party turn half the country into their political fantasy while making the public view center-right neoliberalism as the furthest left acceptable point on the political spectrum as Republicans and take from that that what we really need is another vanity Presidential run. But Democrats and Republicans are both two sides of the same coin! Oh, sorry. Thought it was still the year 2000. Turns out they couldn't possibly be more different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I mean, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter if you are the Pope, you cannot run for President of the United States and even compete unless you can raise at least a several hundred million dollars as well as have the ability to pull media attention to you. Bernie Sanders couldn't raise $10 million dollars, much less $100 million. Third party presidential runs are about ego, not politics. That's been the case for some time now. To be fair, I'm sure the Pope would clear it with the big man so he could have some campaign workers pass a hat or two around every Sunday. Plus, dude's got a hell of an organization. Too bad the US doesn't go in for Catholicism much. Maybe once Texas turns blue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Remember that Nader 2000 deliberately campaigned in swing states in the hopes of playing spoiler, stating explicitly that he wanted George W. Bush to be President because electing a Texas oilman would shock the public into appreciating the environment or some other accelerationist claptrap. I don't remember this at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I don't remember this at all. I hope its true because the idea of Nader as some cloak and dagger long run accelerationist con man is goddamn hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I hope its true because the idea of Nader as some cloak and dagger long run accelerationist con man is goddamn hilarious. quote:It is past time for everyone, including Mr. Gore, to get tougher on Mr. Nader. He is being more open these days about his willingness to throw the election to Mr. Bush and his desire to damage the Democratic Party. Mr. Nader, with his nearly $4 million net worth, can afford to be indifferent about the public-policy fallout of a Bush victory. But Social Security recipients and the 45 million Americans without health insurance cannot afford to be indifferent to the fact that Mr. Gore's policies would help them more than Mr. Bush's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 06:02
|
|
