Wasn't Paul supposed to make some kind of monumental statement today?
Was this it?

In economically distressed Michigan, the poll has Democrat Barack Obama at 45 percent, Republican John McCain at 42 percent, and Nader at 6 percent with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

In traditionally-conservative-leaning New Hampshire, it's Obama ahead with 48 percent, McCain at 43 percent, and Nader at 4 percent, based on a poll that was taken for CNN and Time magazine from September 7 to September 9.

someone put a Ralph Nader flyer on my car the other day

I stuck it in the gas tank of a Prius

notmtwain: In economically distressed Michigan, the poll has Democrat Barack Obama at 45 percent, Republican John McCain at 42 percent, and Nader at 6 percent with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

In traditionally-conservative-leaning New Hampshire, it's Obama ahead with 48 percent, McCain at 43 percent, and Nader at 4 percent, based on a poll that was taken for CNN and Time magazine from September 7 to September 9.

Not to mention Montana. With Nader, Barr, and even Paul on the ticket in some areas, this is going to be one farked up election.

Bob Barr is an asshole. He yelled at me one time in a press conference.

Turns out, to the surprise of no-one, that career politicians are assholes.

Career OBGYN's see alot of vagnias.

Larofeticus: Turns out, to the surprise of no-one, that career politicians are assholes.

Career OBGYN's see alot of vagnias.

Meh, I'd say republican politicians see a lot of assholes, while democrats prefer blowjobs.

/OBGYNs get the pussy, though

The sad part is that so many of the voting populace of this country feels like if they don't vote for one of the big two they are "throwing their vote away." It'll be nice when there's actually a viable 3rd, 4th, 5th party.

lstywnch: The sad part is that so many of the voting populace of this country feels like if they don't vote for one of the big two they are "throwing their vote away." It'll be nice when there's actually a viable 3rd, 4th, 5th party.

Ron Paul's message today was that both the Republican and Democratic party's are making the same mistakes, both are damaging America and the futures of our children and grand children. As a result, the other minor party's are more important than ever because they want to fix the problems instead of pandering to special interests.

He's right. America is being run like General Motors, no long term foresight just make things work until the end of the quarter.

I want to vote for Zombie Lincoln.

Surely someones started a nationwide write-in campaign for him?

lstywnch: The sad part is that so many of the voting populace of this country feels like if they don't vote for one of the big two they are "throwing their vote away." It'll be nice when there's actually a viable 3rd, 4th, 5th party.

The reason they feel that a vote for a third party is thrown away is this: A vote for a third party is thrown away. Your statement "It WILL be nice when there is a viable third party" unfortunately assumes that there will come a time when that is the case. Unfortunately, this needs several factors to come to pass.

First, there needs to be a candidate who can be taken seriously on the national stage. There isn't really a formula for this -- Perot was the last such candidate, and he was batshiat insane. For a more successful model, think Teddy Roosevelt. It has to be a candidate whose support is strong enough to at least win some states. The candidate will have to remember that what you poll at nationally counts for ZERO in the election. You have to be competitive in the same ball game -- that is, 270 electoral votes.

That's right. You have to WIN the election. Not "have a strong showing," not "send a message" -- the message you send with a "strong showing" is that the two major parties will have to enact more bizarre election laws to try to keep your ass off the ballot next time. And believe me, they do it.

So in order for any third party candidate to really be viable, there needs to be some institutional change first. Of course, there are the myriad byzantine ballot access laws in various states. (In Texas you have to register to be a write-in candidate) Can you imagine any third party candidate being competitive in the Electoral College? No, because people perceive a candidate like Nader as taking votes away from a candidate like Obama. We have to vote for one or the other. If we had a system like Instant Runoff Voting, you could vote for Nader first, Obama second, for example, and know that if your preferred candidate didn't win, you were not in effect voting for McCain. The "spoiler effect" would be neatly eliminated.

Will this ever get enacted? Only if enough people find out about it -- and then start pestering their Congressmen about it, enough for one of them to actually sponsor a bill.

It would be an incredibly difficult process, and one that would require a great deal more of a commitment from the country than just showing up and voting for RON PAUL. So will it happen? I must confess I have some doubts.

I'm voting for Ralph Nader


as a protest vote. He may be a socialist but he does agree with Ron Paul on a number of things.

Oh, I would like to add that my cynicism is primarily trageted at the top of the ballot. It's still tough to get a third party elected at the local level, but certainly much more doable.

Which is why I feel so many third parties are trying to run before they walk. They field candidates for local, state, and national office, and they don't win. How about this? Concentrate on local races. When you've got some city councilmen, Sheriffs, etc, and they've been doing good jobs for the community, maybe field a State Legislature candidate. Once you've got a few seats in the State Lege, field a Congressional Candidate.

In my opinion, that's where credibility comes from. Doing real work for the community, and letting the good will expand from the ground up. Why would you even try running a Presidential candidate until you've got at least a few members of Congress?

MonkeyAngst: Oh, I would like to add that my cynicism is primarily trageted at the top of the ballot. It's still tough to get a third party elected at the local level, but certainly much more doable.

Which is why I feel so many third parties are trying to run before they walk. They field candidates for local, state, and national office, and they don't win. How about this? Concentrate on local races. When you've got some city councilmen, Sheriffs, etc, and they've been doing good jobs for the community, maybe field a State Legislature candidate. Once you've got a few seats in the State Lege, field a Congressional Candidate.

In my opinion, that's where credibility comes from. Doing real work for the community, and letting the good will expand from the ground up. Why would you even try running a Presidential candidate until you've got at least a few members of Congress?

This will be the only way in.

lstywnch: The sad part is that so many of the voting populace of this country feels like if they don't vote for one of the big two they are "throwing their vote away." It'll be nice when there's actually a viable 3rd, 4th, 5th party.

Only you can make that happen. Pick a 3rd party candidate, and make sure everyone you talk to about politics knows.

To make your party viable, you should start voting for them regardless of their chances of 'winning'. It's not a 'pick the winner' situation - its a 'make your voice heard' one. And if you keep voting for D or R, they'll keep thinking that that is what you believe.

The only wasted vote is for someone you don't agree with, regardless of who wins. The result won't change until you change how you vote.

Senor Revington: MonkeyAngst: Oh, I would like to add that my cynicism is primarily trageted at the top of the ballot. It's still tough to get a third party elected at the local level, but certainly much more doable.

Which is why I feel so many third parties are trying to run before they walk. They field candidates for local, state, and national office, and they don't win. How about this? Concentrate on local races. When you've got some city councilmen, Sheriffs, etc, and they've been doing good jobs for the community, maybe field a State Legislature candidate. Once you've got a few seats in the State Lege, field a Congressional Candidate.

In my opinion, that's where credibility comes from. Doing real work for the community, and letting the good will expand from the ground up. Why would you even try running a Presidential candidate until you've got at least a few members of Congress?

This will be the only way in.

And, speaking as the daughter of a local Libertarian party leader (I'm a Democrat but appreciate any efforts to expand the two-party system), that's exactly what they ARE doing. The national races are PR vehicles. It's your city council they're really aiming for right now.

Saydrah:
And, speaking as the daughter of a local Libertarian party leader (I'm a Democrat but appreciate any efforts to expand the two-party system), that's exactly what they ARE doing. The national races are PR vehicles. It's your city council they're really aiming for right now.

While these are great efforts, part of the problem of LP members running for these offices is that there are no real policy changes to implement to show how different we want to run things. How is being a LP school board member going to help change thing to being closer toward the LP platform? How is being Sheriff? City Councils are a decent stepping stone, but so limited in scope that the LP would just end up voting like the Rs on some issues and the Ds on some.

Not until there is a figurehead at a higher level (county commissioner, governor, President), or until there is a plurality in any governing body will we ever see what the LP can do.

Saydrah: And, speaking as the daughter of a local Libertarian party leader (I'm a Democrat but appreciate any efforts to expand the two-party system), that's exactly what they ARE doing. The national races are PR vehicles.

I know... but in my opinion, the Presidential race as PR is counter-productive. When you want people to think of the Libertarian Party, for instance, you want them to think of the city council and legislature members who have been working to help them (or, I guess in the case of Libertarians, working to prevent you from being helped :) ) not the guy who was the spoiler in the last presidential race.

MonkeyAngst: Saydrah: And, speaking as the daughter of a local Libertarian party leader (I'm a Democrat but appreciate any efforts to expand the two-party system), that's exactly what they ARE doing. The national races are PR vehicles.

I know... but in my opinion, the Presidential race as PR is counter-productive. When you want people to think of the Libertarian Party, for instance, you want them to think of the city council and legislature members who have been working to help them (or, I guess in the case of Libertarians, working to prevent you from being helped :) ) not the guy who was the spoiler in the last presidential race.

The flipside, though, is if there's no prez candidate, then the voter thinks, "Who are these guys? There's not even one on the ballot running for President!"

Larofeticus: Turns out, to the surprise of no-one, that career politicians are assholes.

Career OBGYN's see a lot of vagnias.



Not sure if you are aware of just how close the two are.

/cloaca

notmtwain: In traditionally-conservative-leaning New Hampshire, it's Obama ahead with 48 percent, McCain at 43 percent...

That's mostly a demonstration of how fast Massholes are swarming across the border to escape the awfulness that is Massachusetts... and promptly turn NH into Northern Massachusetts. Also, NH went to John Kerry in 2004.

I got an extremely angry email today from the Barr campaign basically trashing Ron Paul for "spreading the vote" instead of supporting the Libertarian Party. It's a sad situation. Ron Paul could have brought a lot of disgruntled Republicans and even Democrats to the LP if he had endorsed Barr (or ran on the LP ticket, for that matter). I understand why their campaign is angry with him. However, a lot of Barr supporters came across because of Ron Paul and I don't think it's a very wise move to bash him publicly.

MonkeyAngst: lstywnch: The sad part is that so many of the voting populace of this country feels like if they don't vote for one of the big two they are "throwing their vote away." It'll be nice when there's actually a viable 3rd, 4th, 5th party.

The reason they feel that a vote for a third party is thrown away is this: A vote for a third party is thrown away. Your statement "It WILL be nice when there is a viable third party" unfortunately assumes that there will come a time when that is the case. Unfortunately, this needs several factors to come to pass.

First, there needs to be a candidate who can be taken seriously on the national stage. There isn't really a formula for this -- Perot was the last such candidate, and he was batshiat insane. For a more successful model, think Teddy Roosevelt. It has to be a candidate whose support is strong enough to at least win some states. The candidate will have to remember that what you poll at nationally counts for ZERO in the election. You have to be competitive in the same ball game -- that is, 270 electoral votes.

That's right. You have to WIN the election. Not "have a strong showing," not "send a message" -- the message you send with a "strong showing" is that the two major parties will have to enact more bizarre election laws to try to keep your ass off the ballot next time. And believe me, they do it.

So in order for any third party candidate to really be viable, there needs to be some institutional change first. Of course, there are the myriad byzantine ballot access laws in various states. (In Texas you have to register to be a write-in candidate) Can you imagine any third party candidate being competitive in the Electoral College? No, because people perceive a candidate like Nader as taking votes away from a candidate like Obama. We have to vote for one or the other. If we had a system like Instant Runoff Voting, you could vote for Nader first, Obama second, for example, and know that if your preferred candidate didn't win, you were not in effect voting for McCain. The "spoiler effect" would be neatly eliminated.

Will this ever get enacted? Only if enough people find out about it -- and then start pestering their Congressmen about it, enough for one of them to actually sponsor a bill.

It would be an incredibly difficult process, and one that would require a great deal more of a commitment from the country than just showing up and voting for RON PAUL. So will it happen? I must confess I have some doubts.

The problem with this is that it assumes that someone who is voting for a third party really prefers one of the main candidates over the other.

Con_Authority: lstywnch:

He's right. America is being run like General Motors, no long term foresight just make things work until the end of the quarter.

That is the truest thing I've read in a while. It's not "What can I do to make America better?" it's "What can I do to make sure my ass gets elected again?".

As far as politics and government goes; we're boned.

The number of non-voters has been steadily ticking upward towards the current 60% of citizens. Those people, and their descendants are practically lost to the democratic process.

Eventually the government is going to get bad enough that the consequences of the badness spill over into severely diminishing the basic ability of those 60% of people to feed and house themselves. At this point they aren't going to decide to join the political process; they're going to riot.

OK, I just figured it out. Ron Paul supporters are the political equivalent of Sci-Fi fans... Fans of Firefly.

/me runs and hides before the brown-coats descend upon him with sunflower seeds or something.

iawai: lstywnch: The sad part is that so many of the voting populace of this country feels like if they don't vote for one of the big two they are "throwing their vote away." It'll be nice when there's actually a viable 3rd, 4th, 5th party.

Only you can make that happen. Pick a 3rd party candidate, and make sure everyone you talk to about politics knows.

To make your party viable, you should start voting for them regardless of their chances of 'winning'. It's not a 'pick the winner' situation - its a 'make your voice heard' one. And if you keep voting for D or R, they'll keep thinking that that is what you believe.

The only wasted vote is for someone you don't agree with, regardless of who wins. The result won't change until you change how you vote.

I hope that is in the figurative "your" sense. Who said I have a party affiliation? I'm just tired of only two of them getting any attention. I believe EVERYONE running for president should be invited to debate. How can anyone make an informed decision without knowing fully all of the options available?

Dude, I totally read that headline as "Ru Paul & Ralph Nader." That would be way funnier.