General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThird Party candidates could fuck us
Any Democrat or moderate entering the presidential race is handing the presidency to Trump. And if Trump doesn't win the Republican nomination, they're handing it to any Republican who ends up being the nominee.
If you're thinking of voting for any third-party candidate, please listen to me. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS. Your vote will help put another Republican prick in the White House.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
live love laugh
(16,132 posts)Very few people here will vote for a third-party candidate.
This message needs to be communicated outside of DU.
GPV
(73,355 posts)non-dem voters here. I was one of the few that I was aware of, and even as a Green I voted more often for the Dems. I switched parties and the others moved to different forums.
Cyrano
(15,388 posts)What I'm hoping is that others speak to their friends, families, neighbors,whoever, and warn them off from third party candidates. Changing even a few hundred votes, in the right states, could possibly make a difference.
live love laugh
(16,132 posts)jimfields33
(19,382 posts)The highest in history. No matter how many candidates run, he’s not losing enough to give to trumps 74 million (a win), if he even has that many anymore. Joe is going to win period!
ExWhoDoesntCare
(4,741 posts)But lose the electoral college if votes go the wrong way in some states, like Wisconsin.
In those states, Biden won only by 80K votes or something like that. It would be entirely feasible that he gets that big of a vote increase in a California, but loses the swing states.
Don't depend on the total vote count, when it's the Electoral College count that decides.
jimfields33
(19,382 posts)
OneGrassRoot
(23,924 posts)their thinking any more than MAGA voters have.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)During that time, our media has become de-centralized. Fundraising can be done through small donations. There are several state and local elections where the Dems don't even field a candidate.
I say all that to say this. If some people are serious about starting a 3rd party, then they've had all of the time, resources, and opportunity to do so, but these people are not serious. They're just political narcissists looking for their 15 minutes of fame.
JHB
(37,891 posts)Between 1996 and 2000 Ralphie-boy disappeared, which should have been reason enough to pass on the Greenies in 2000, but there were just enough people in the wrong places who couldn't perceive that.
By 2016 they'd had 20 years to build a liberal-left voting bloc to put pressure on for liberal policies. And they squandered all that time. They had ~170 elected officials in the entire country, half of those in California, and all at the municipal, county, or other local level. The less-than-full handful that had previously managed to be elected to state legislatures had by 2016 either switched to "independent", joined the Democrats, or lost their elections.
Nothing at the national level except vanity campaigns and political spoiler candidates more intent on torpedoing the Democrats than doing anything positive.
walkingman
(10,236 posts)
LetMyPeopleVote
(173,912 posts)The No Labels assholes are only trying to help TFG win and to keep President Biden from being reelected
Link to tweet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/14/biden-no-labels-opposition/
Their mission: to figure out how to best subvert a potential third-party presidential bid by the group No Labels, an effort they all agreed risked undermining Biden’s reelection campaign and reelecting former president Donald Trump to the White House.
The broad show of force at the off-the-record gathering — with about 40 people in the room and others appearing on Zoom on the anniversary of D-Day — was just the latest sign of a growing concern in some political circles about the No Labels effort to get ballot access to challenge the major-party candidates next year.....
“I see a group, under a catchy slogan that is misleading at best, saying that they have the country’s best interest at heart when the exercise will do nothing but elect Donald Trump,” said Richmond, who like Klain and Caldwell told The Washington Post that they attended in their personal capacities. “I am encouraged that a lot of people share the concern that this effort is dangerous.”....
People who attended the June 6 meeting described presentations from recent polling and focus groups that suggested a No Labels campaign would draw more support from Biden than Trump in a hypothetical three-way matchup. They said attendees discussed efforts to put pressure on No Labels donors and to educate potential No Labels presidential candidates about the dangers of the effort resulting in Trump’s election.
crickets
(26,168 posts)Model35mech
(2,047 posts)And if they do attract such votes, one must ask why the third parties rather than democrats introduced the ideas that attracted voters?
OF COURSE, there may be and probably are issues of 'core' party principles at stake, some politician offers or refuses to offer ideas/approaches that other politicians do and so makes themselves better align or not with specific groups of voters.
Shermann
(9,001 posts)They have ten candidates over there, and the Never Trump movement is still a thing. Let's hope it coalesces into something to gum up the works.
DFW
(59,631 posts)Preferably to Pitcairn Island, until after the election is over.
Model35mech
(2,047 posts)"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
I guess we have arrived at, if not being outright afraid of competitive values, philosophies, etc. we are at least a bit anxious of the cost in effort and treasure necessary to make those things non-competitive.
DFW
(59,631 posts)When JFK said that, he was referring to the Soviet Union. He never envisioned anything like Fox "News" ever getting an FCC license, much less being a major force in our open market.
A nation where a third of its population gives credence to Fox "News" SHOULD be afraid of those people. So should the rest of the world, if that nation happens to posses the world's most potent military.
Look at the current roster of Republican presidential candidates for next year: Trump, DeSantis, Haley, Pence, Huckabee, Christie and the rest of them. Incompetent, dangerous, deranged people, all of them. Here in NATO-land, people ARE afraid, because they saw what we were capable on in 2016. The rest of the world is justifiably afraid that it could happen again. We don't forbid that kind of possibility, that's not how we do things. But, it is therefore all the more our responsibility as a nation to use ballots to make sure that it couldn't happen again. ANY candidate who would enhance that possibility IS a danger, and should make us afraid.
questionseverything
(11,507 posts)He doesn’t deserve being lumped in with those other two
DFW
(59,631 posts)I just quoted him. This was before the 2016 election, granted, but West saw two kindred spirits in Trump and Sanders, and now all three of them have been presidential candidates, with one (so far) catastrophic result.
questionseverything
(11,507 posts)Using his quote to hurt the current unity between Biden and the progressive bloc of the Democratic Party is a huge mistake and insulting to voters we need
FakeNoose
(39,856 posts)Bernie saw what happened in 2016 and he'll make sure it never happens again on his watch.
Hillary could have been Potus but she was denied (in part) by the Bernie-Bros who refused to vote for her. Too many of them made a "protest" vote for a third party candidate, or they stayed home and didn't vote at all. As a result we almost lost ALL THE MARBLES and it's still going to be a tough contest next year.
I don't mean to lecture you my friend, I'm just sayin' that Bernie knows what needs to happen next.
I believe we all know.
DFW
(59,631 posts)
Initech
(107,141 posts)There's way too much at stake. Assume nothing is off the table - that includes some of the most horrific crimes imaginable like mass murder and public executions. And the GOP will get away with it, because the clergy and Fox News will be cheering them on every night. 
GreenWave
(12,139 posts)Sheesh. Some acts like millions of Dem voters do not stay home to overwhelm the minuscule amount who vote third party and would most likely not vote otherwise.
Demsrule86
(71,465 posts)
WarGamer
(18,209 posts)Beautiful Disaster
(667 posts)Ralph Nader ran for president four consecutive times between 1996 and 2008.
We only focus on one election, 2000, because it's the only one we look to as costing the Democrats the presidency.
But think about it: Nader didn't instantly grow into this firebrand phenom between 1996, when he garnered 685,435 votes, and 2000, where he garnered 2.8 million votes. And he certainly didn't just 'lose it' four years later when he garnered only 465,642 votes.
Nader was propped up by a complicit media and apathy on the left.
It wasn't Nader who cost Al Gore the presidency. If you take out Nader for any other third party candidate and you're likely to have a similar result. What cost Al Gore the presidency was the assumption that he and Bush were two sides of the same coin.
It's why, in 2004, Nader was such a non-factor - because people actually saw what Bush was and realized he and the Democrat weren't the same. Of course, it cut both ways: it galvanized Bush's supporters just as much as it did Kerry's. They just had a little bit more of them than we did ours.
Now people forget that Nader ran in 2008. He received 739,278 votes, which was higher than in 2004 and 1996 (though, it was also a higher turnout election and he only received .56% of the vote, compared to .71% in 1996 and .38% in 2004).
But that was another election where the differences were stark.
Gary Johnson also ran in 2012 - four years before he'd run in 2016. In 2012, he only pulled in .99% nationally In 2016, 3.27%.
Did Johnson instantly become a political sensation?
No. Sub out Johnson for Jo Jorgensen, who ran in 2020, and you probably see a similar number.
The issue is never the candidate. It's the narrative.
2000 and 2016 stick out because they were polarizing elections where voters felt, regardless who they supported, they results in the end would be the same. So, they voted third party in protest.
It's incumbent on Biden to define the differences. The good news is that we know the differences. No one is going to be fooled by Trump like maybe a few were in 2016. They know what he presents. No third party candidate is going to change that.
Still, Biden needs to define himself and give voters reason to support him - and if that reason is mostly because he's not Trump, it'll probably be a winning message.
pecosbob
(8,286 posts)Texas can go blue this election if we can GOTV. The GOP has given Democrats this election on a silver platter. The dog caught the car overturning Roe V Wade. They've demonized the entire LGBTQ+ community. Rs have realized their only way to pass legislation the rest of this session is with Democratic cooperation. Playing pattycake with Kevin McCarthy and his mad-dog House may well dampen turnout for Democratic candidates in the next election. The administration needs to stay on point trumpeting it's achievements for progressives.
Manchin and Sinema will likely be history...we have work to do to ensure the Senate remains in Democratic hands.
