If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The virtually unknown third-party candidate who could throw a big wrench in Romney's gears   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 98
    More: Interesting, Mitt Romney, human beings, Goode, Constitution Party, William Howard Taft, George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, President Theodore Roosevelt  
•       •       •

6590 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Aug 2012 at 2:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-09 01:35:49 PM
RUN VIRGIL, RUN!!!
 
2012-08-09 01:46:22 PM
Is it Romney?
 
2012-08-09 01:46:40 PM
That'd be hilarious. But also scary, since Romney losing because of that would cause the GOP to go "MOAR CONSERVATIVE!!!"
 
2012-08-09 01:47:49 PM
But how rare is it for a third-party candidate to influence a race for president?

Not that rare.
 
2012-08-09 02:04:03 PM
Oh, NOW I get it! Romney doesn't want someone like Virgil Goode to sink Romney's campaign, so Romney's trying to beat him to the punch.
 
2012-08-09 02:09:49 PM
It's only August, and we're already blaming third party candidates?
 
2012-08-09 02:21:00 PM
FTFA: Speaking with a TV station in Lynchburg, Goode said he wanted to take votes away from both candidates. He hopes to be added to a ballot in late August, as a Constitution Party candidate.

i.imgur.com

No one. NO ONE who would otherwise vote Obama would ever vote Constitution Party. Their platform is somewhere to the political right of the Sikh gurdwara shooter and Idi Amin.
 
2012-08-09 02:28:28 PM
Third part candidate Ritt Momney is campaigning heavily.
 
2012-08-09 02:33:38 PM

Vodka Zombie: It's only August, and we're already blaming third party candidates?


It's never too early to formulate excuses.
 
2012-08-09 02:38:38 PM
Is there a reason to run for president in one state other than to attempt to derail an election?
 
2012-08-09 02:41:21 PM

MrEricSir: Is there a reason to run for president in one state other than to attempt to derail an election?


Grandstanding and attention-whoring?
 
2012-08-09 02:44:35 PM
About time Johnson got some press! *click* Who the fark is that?
 
2012-08-09 02:46:47 PM

Aarontology: That'd be hilarious. But also scary, since Romney losing because of that would cause the GOP to go "MOAR CONSERVATIVE!!!"


Only if he picks a milquetoast man to be his running mate. If he ends up picking Paul Ryan and he loses, there's no way they can claim they weren't conservative enough.

/ah, who am I kidding?
 
2012-08-09 02:47:15 PM

MrEricSir: Is there a reason to run for president in one state other than to attempt to derail an election?


Because you can't afford to get on the ballot in other states, and there is not a single unified national ballot for President, but rather 50 independent ballots
 
2012-08-09 02:48:06 PM

Aarontology: But also scary, since Romney losing because of that would cause the GOP to go "MOAR CONSERVATIVE!!!"


Good. The derp brigade can finally have their Santorum/Palin ticket in 2016 and the Democrats will nominate a white guy. Without the racial overtones, the white moderate will trounce the GOP and maybe, just maybe, the Republicans will kick out the religious nutballs and go back to being about small government and individual rights. Plus by 2020 most of the tea party will have died of old age.

The freepers honestly think they are the majority, and it will take a national reckoning to get rid of them.
 
2012-08-09 02:49:20 PM

propasaurus: Third part candidate Ritt Momney is campaigning heavily.


Is that like Lore to Data?
 
2012-08-09 02:50:25 PM
As they say, you can't keep a Goode man down.
 
2012-08-09 02:50:35 PM

MrEricSir: Is there a reason to run for president in one state other than to attempt to derail an election?


Not reason enough?
 
2012-08-09 02:50:50 PM
Can we get him on the ballot in Texas? It would be epic if Obama could take Texas that way.

most conservative Texans I know only will vote for Romney out of spite towards Obama.
 
2012-08-09 02:56:56 PM

downstairs: But how rare is it for a third-party candidate to influence a race for president?

Not that rare.


Exceptionally rare. Add to that the virtual impossibility that Virginia would be the state who decides the race, and add in the fact that third party candidates always do well this far out from an election, and you've got yourself an utterly meaningless article.
 
2012-08-09 02:56:59 PM

MrEricSir: Is there a reason to run for president in one state other than to attempt to derail an election?


It is a vanity campaign, much like Nader's.
 
2012-08-09 02:57:27 PM

Serious Black: Only if he picks a milquetoast man to be his running mate. If he ends up picking Paul Ryan and he loses, there's no way they can claim they weren't conservative enough.


Oh, they'll find a way. They always find a way.

ignatius_crumbcake: the Republicans will kick out the religious nutballs and go back to being about small government and individual rights. Plus by 2020 most of the tea party will have died of old age.

The freepers honestly think they are the majority, and it will take a national reckoning to get rid of them.


I dunno about that. the religious right brings in a shiat ton of money and votes for them. They're more politically reliable than any other faction simply because they hate abortion so damned much.
 
2012-08-09 02:57:35 PM
Be Goode, be Goode,
Be Goode, be Goode, be Goode,
Be Goode, be Goode, be Goode,
Be Goode, Viiiiiirgil...


/sorry 'bout that, I was listening to some Men at Work earlier today.
 
2012-08-09 02:59:04 PM

maniacbastard: Can we get him on the ballot in Texas? It would be epic if Obama could take Texas that way.

most conservative Texans I know only will vote for Romney out of spite towards Obama.


"Virtually unknown" means "no one will vote for you".
 
2012-08-09 03:01:10 PM

maniacbastard: Can we get him on the ballot in Texas? It would be epic if Obama could take Texas that way.

most conservative Texans I know only will vote for Romney out of spite towards Obama.


That's not just a Texas thing.
 
2012-08-09 03:01:11 PM
This whole "third-party spoiler" thing is wrong regardless of the which side it benefits. Seriously America, isn't it about time we updated our voting system so that people can actually vote for who the really want without it penalizing them by effectively throwing away their vote to the other side?
 
2012-08-09 03:01:56 PM
Virgil used to represent my district. I helped get rid of him for a democrat, somewhere in time.
I'll happily vote for him if it will help derail Rmoney.
The only other choice is to write in my dog.
 
2012-08-09 03:02:00 PM
MMmm, I was hoping back long before Obama appeared that the Republicans would split into two smaller, less relevant parties. I like that it is happening. But we are going to have a ways to go before they both permanently self-destruct. Democrats aren't going to retake the House this cycle, and when they do it won't matter enough, because people who don't realize that you need a supermajority to fix the country's problems will blame them for not doing it. So it's going to be another ten years of blaming the libs and gays or whatever, while the developing world figures out how to eat our lunch.
 
2012-08-09 03:02:36 PM

Pincy: This whole "third-party spoiler" thing is wrong regardless of the which side it benefits. Seriously America, isn't it about time we updated our voting system so that people can actually vote for who the really want without it penalizing them by effectively throwing away their vote to the other side?


WTF are you saying? Third party candidates shouldn't be allowed?

p.s. We already can vote for who we really want.
 
2012-08-09 03:03:10 PM

eddiesocket: Pincy: This whole "third-party spoiler" thing is wrong regardless of the which side it benefits. Seriously America, isn't it about time we updated our voting system so that people can actually vote for who the really want without it penalizing them by effectively throwing away their vote to the other side?

WTF are you saying? Third party candidates shouldn't be allowed?

p.s. We already can vote for who we really want.


I think he's saying the exact opposite, actually.
 
2012-08-09 03:04:21 PM

Somacandra: FTFA: Speaking with a TV station in Lynchburg, Goode said he wanted to take votes away from both candidates. He hopes to be added to a ballot in late August, as a Constitution Party candidate.

[i.imgur.com image 550x339]

No one. NO ONE who would otherwise vote Obama would ever vote Constitution Party. Their platform is somewhere to the political right of the Sikh gurdwara shooter and Idi Amin.


...and thus, this is why he is popular with rural Virginians, who tend to be only slightly evolved in their thoughts, if at all.

/seriously, living in rural Virginia, it is easy to feel trapped not if you're liberal, but if you have a coherent thought at all
//looking out my window, there are two drunken good 'ol boys with fark OBAMA stickers on their trucks playing cornhole as they get progressively drunker
///in about three hours, cops will have to stop by to break up the fight
////seriously
 
2012-08-09 03:04:41 PM

Aarontology: That'd be hilarious. But also scary, since Romney losing because of that would cause the GOP to go "MOAR CONSERVATIVE!!!"


I'm convinced that any outcome would cause the GOP to go "MOAR CONSERVATIVE!!!:

/eleventy!
 
2012-08-09 03:05:12 PM

qorkfiend: eddiesocket: Pincy: This whole "third-party spoiler" thing is wrong regardless of the which side it benefits. Seriously America, isn't it about time we updated our voting system so that people can actually vote for who the really want without it penalizing them by effectively throwing away their vote to the other side?

WTF are you saying? Third party candidates shouldn't be allowed?

p.s. We already can vote for who we really want.

I think he's saying the exact opposite, actually.


He's saying that third party candidates should be allowed? Well then, I have some excellent news!
 
2012-08-09 03:06:29 PM

eddiesocket: downstairs: But how rare is it for a third-party candidate to influence a race for president?

Not that rare.

Exceptionally rare. Add to that the virtual impossibility that Virginia would be the state who decides the race, and add in the fact that third party candidates always do well this far out from an election, and you've got yourself an utterly meaningless article.


Maybe not from the standpoint of taking states any more... but 1992, 1996, 2000 all had third party candidates that "threw a wrench" into the election in some way, shape, or form.
 
2012-08-09 03:09:16 PM

eddiesocket: Pincy: This whole "third-party spoiler" thing is wrong regardless of the which side it benefits. Seriously America, isn't it about time we updated our voting system so that people can actually vote for who the really want without it penalizing them by effectively throwing away their vote to the other side?

WTF are you saying? Third party candidates shouldn't be allowed?

p.s. We already can vote for who we really want.


No, I'm saying that we need a voting system that "really" allows people to vote for their preferred choice. A lot of people are not going to vote for this guy because they don't want Obama to win and thus they don't want to throw away their vote on someone who has no chance of winning. In other words, they will vote for Romney even though they would rather vote for this third-party guy because not doing so will increase Obama's chances of beating Romney.

Yes, of course you can vote for who you want, but realistically, a lot of people aren't going to vote for who they really want because of the scenario I described above. Surely you must have heard of this phenomenon? Ralph Nader ring a bell?
 
2012-08-09 03:14:55 PM
If Palin were to pull a third party run it would kill Mittens
 
2012-08-09 03:15:12 PM
sounds like hes just trying to get a VP or cabinet offer to back off...
 
2012-08-09 03:15:28 PM

Oysterman: About time Johnson got some press! *click* Who the fark is that?


This.
 
2012-08-09 03:17:42 PM
Looking at his website, he's got the expected Conservative Party views. I'll do my part to suggest this fine right-wing candidate to associates of mine in Virginia who find Romney too much of a liberal flip-flopper.

I just need to practice how to do this with a straight face.
 
2012-08-09 03:18:34 PM
Did somebody else get any of this third-party candidate's political positions out of this article?
 
2012-08-09 03:19:03 PM
Here's what a Virginia spoiler might look like.

ecomodder.com
 
2012-08-09 03:19:07 PM
I mean Constitution Party. Aww Hell, close enough.
 
2012-08-09 03:19:21 PM

eddiesocket: WTF are you saying? Third party candidates shouldn't be allowed?

p.s. We already can vote for who we really want.


More than one national party is an unstable configuration and only really exists in transitionary periods.
 
2012-08-09 03:20:37 PM
Virgil Goode's an ass, but if he wants to run her in Va., more power to him.

Disposable Rob: I'll do my part to suggest this fine right-wing candidate to associates of mine in Virginia who find Romney too much of a liberal flip-flopper.

I just need to practice how to do this with a straight face.


^This.
 
2012-08-09 03:20:49 PM

Pincy: eddiesocket: Pincy: This whole "third-party spoiler" thing is wrong regardless of the which side it benefits. Seriously America, isn't it about time we updated our voting system so that people can actually vote for who the really want without it penalizing them by effectively throwing away their vote to the other side?

WTF are you saying? Third party candidates shouldn't be allowed?

p.s. We already can vote for who we really want.

No, I'm saying that we need a voting system that "really" allows people to vote for their preferred choice. A lot of people are not going to vote for this guy because they don't want Obama to win and thus they don't want to throw away their vote on someone who has no chance of winning. In other words, they will vote for Romney even though they would rather vote for this third-party guy because not doing so will increase Obama's chances of beating Romney.

Yes, of course you can vote for who you want, but realistically, a lot of people aren't going to vote for who they really want because of the scenario I described above. Surely you must have heard of this phenomenon? Ralph Nader ring a bell?


This is cute. Now explain how such a system would work.
 
2012-08-09 03:23:10 PM
To be fair... Mitt Romney wasn't going to win the general election anyway. This guy will likely just end up becoming one of many excuses why the Republicans are going to lose to Obama in November.
 
2012-08-09 03:23:21 PM

monoski: If Palin were to pull a third party run it would kill Mittens


I don't think so. She's not nearly as popular as people make her out to be, and after her antics in the run up to the Republican primaries, most people just see her as a sleazy con-artist and a parasite who latches onto any political current and uses it to separate easily conned conservative rubes from their money.

She'd get votes, sure. But, not enough to matter.
 
2012-08-09 03:23:25 PM

eddiesocket: This is cute. Now explain how such a system would work.


It's used around the world. That's why most countries tend to have more than two national parties.
 
2012-08-09 03:26:12 PM

eddiesocket: Pincy: eddiesocket: Pincy: This whole "third-party spoiler" thing is wrong regardless of the which side it benefits. Seriously America, isn't it about time we updated our voting system so that people can actually vote for who the really want without it penalizing them by effectively throwing away their vote to the other side?

WTF are you saying? Third party candidates shouldn't be allowed?

p.s. We already can vote for who we really want.

No, I'm saying that we need a voting system that "really" allows people to vote for their preferred choice. A lot of people are not going to vote for this guy because they don't want Obama to win and thus they don't want to throw away their vote on someone who has no chance of winning. In other words, they will vote for Romney even though they would rather vote for this third-party guy because not doing so will increase Obama's chances of beating Romney.

Yes, of course you can vote for who you want, but realistically, a lot of people aren't going to vote for who they really want because of the scenario I described above. Surely you must have heard of this phenomenon? Ralph Nader ring a bell?

This is cute. Now explain how such a system would work.


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you really have never heard of any alternatives. Maybe you don't read a lot? Maybe your school district decided to build a 60 million-dollar football stadium instead of adequately funding education? Whatever the case, I'm not going to hold it against you.

A simple Google search will show several alternatives, but I'm not even going to insult you by giving you one of those "Let me Google it for you" links. I'll just give you a wikipedia link with some possibilities instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runoff_voting
 
2012-08-09 03:28:38 PM

eddiesocket: Pincy: eddiesocket: Pincy: This whole "third-party spoiler" thing is wrong regardless of the which side it benefits. Seriously America, isn't it about time we updated our voting system so that people can actually vote for who the really want without it penalizing them by effectively throwing away their vote to the other side?

WTF are you saying? Third party candidates shouldn't be allowed?

p.s. We already can vote for who we really want.

No, I'm saying that we need a voting system that "really" allows people to vote for their preferred choice. A lot of people are not going to vote for this guy because they don't want Obama to win and thus they don't want to throw away their vote on someone who has no chance of winning. In other words, they will vote for Romney even though they would rather vote for this third-party guy because not doing so will increase Obama's chances of beating Romney.

Yes, of course you can vote for who you want, but realistically, a lot of people aren't going to vote for who they really want because of the scenario I described above. Surely you must have heard of this phenomenon? Ralph Nader ring a bell?

This is cute. Now explain how such a system would work.



1) Every one ranks candidates in order of preference
2) Tally every ones highest ranked choice.
3) If one candidate has 50%, they win.
4) if no candidate has 50% eliminate the candidate with the lowest number of votes.
5) GOTO 2
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report