-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
A third party candidate is making big waves this election. And not for dumb stuff
- Thread starter Slayven
- Start date
- Status
CrocMother
Banned
Put him in the debate
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
i think in this case, its really just being an alternative to Trump, rather than building a party.
but yes, in general, most of these 3rd parties dont really put the effort in where it counts because there is no $$$ there.
in Johnsons case he would apply to "build the party from the ground up" portion of my post.
Johnson and weld both ran as Republicans
I'll stick with Vermin Supreme personally.
Omegasquash
Member
Path to citizenship is great, free trade agreements are pretty darn good globally, but unless you're replacing the ACA with Universal, lol.
And strengthening our military while lowering our taxes is just a fancy way of saying "we're going to take money from social assistance programs and add it to what we spend on "defense"."
You're half right, McMullin. America does deserve better than Trump. Thankfully, we have a Democratic candidate that fits that bill.
radios shipping overview
Member
Edit: whoops, misread
Seriously, I wonder if Hillary stands a chance here.
The ceiling for democrats in Utah seems to be around 300k, for Republicans around 600k (Mitt got 740k but then he's a mormon ... far from Trump).
If This guy splits the vote straight down the middle, it won't be far off a three way tie. Or at the least, if this guy wins, Hillary could beat Trump. Which doesn't mean anything other than bragging rights but still.
The ceiling for democrats in Utah seems to be around 300k, for Republicans around 600k (Mitt got 740k but then he's a mormon ... far from Trump).
If This guy splits the vote straight down the middle, it won't be far off a three way tie. Or at the least, if this guy wins, Hillary could beat Trump. Which doesn't mean anything other than bragging rights but still.
Except he was a Republican, ran for the gop nomination, lost and then became libertarian.
right, how does what i said still not apply? He isn't going to win as a libertarian because hardly anyone even knows what a libertarian actually is. Build the party up at the local level then state then national. Instead he's just wasting his own money and his supporters money.
Extra Sauce
Member
I take issue with the idea that Republicans were not absolutely insane before Trump. We just have a clearer view of what they are now.
Random Painted HIghway
Member
He has a bachelors from Wharton, mcmullin has an MBA. Yuge difference there.
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
538 also ran a cute little piece last week on the very remote possibility that him winning only Utah being his door to the presidency:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/
TL;DR: 1) Win Utah 2) Pray to Mormon Jesus that it's a close national race between Clinton/Trump 3) Get the anti-Trump Republicans in the house to elect him
Honestly, I'd like to see him win Utah, just because its weird and has a chance of happen. We haven't had a 3rd party candidate actually win electoral votes/state since George Wallace's racist ass won a bunch of Deep South dates in 1968.
Nate has even said their model probably underestimates McMullin's chances a little but even then the fact that he is polling even as high as he is is still noteworthy: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-how-were-forecasting-the-4-way-presidential-race-in-utah/
Aaron Strife
Banned
McDonald's never looks as good as it does in the pictures. That doesn't even look like a sandwich. It looks like a guy.
benjipwns
Banned
Slayven said:
No, he's not. Because of the way ballot access works. It's often granted top-down. If Johnson hits 5%, or even 2% this election he does far more for the Libertarian Party as a whole than if they ran no Presidential candidate period.
And he's only raised $8 million. The most for a third party candidate since 1992 iirc. Jill Stein's raised $3 million.
That's like a half hour of spending for one of the two major parties. Even in the primaries.
All the problems that the third party PRESIDENTIAL candidates face is larger and even more magnified down ballot. This is the first time the Green Party has been on the ballot, not as a write-in, in more than 40 states. This will carry over to their lower level candidates next cycle benefiting them by lowering the hurdles they have to jump.
You basically have to self-fund to run at the local and state level. And being bound to a Party hurts this because of the campaign laws, which is why guys like Angus King and Bernie Sanders ditched their third parties.
Regional/local third parties are the only ones that are potentially successful (see: Alaska, Rhode Island) and even then they have a tough time because the law is written against them.
They don't "show up every four years" and disappear, you just don't hear about them just like you don't hear about local races in the mid-terms and you barely hear about elections at all in non-Presidential years. And you mostly hear about them in Presidential races because it's somebody screaming DON'T THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN HISTORY VOTE FOR WHO I WANT INSTEAD in the first place.
"Starting from the bottom" is a non-starter in American politics. It never has been a starter. The Republicans ran nationally the day they launched the party and just folded in the Whigs, Free Soilers and American Party abandoners to fill out the roster, the earlier Republicans and Democrats were built off of national campaigns and their candidates (Jefferson, Jackson) coattails.
You're basically arguing that third parties should give up all their routes to fundraising, gaining staff/supporters/resources/etc., finding candidates, etc. in order to lose a bunch of local races and go defunct after two cycles. There's already hundreds of third parties that do exactly this every two years.
The ones you hear about, the ones that have stayed nationally relevant to whatever extent and thus can run downballot candidates? The Libertarians, the Greens, the Constitution Party. They run Presidential candidates because that's the actual way to build up the party.
And the major parties do the same thing. It'd be stupid for them to do it opposite.
They don't actually have any more of a legitimate shot at those down ballot races than they do for President/Governor/Senator. Even when the field is cleared for them, they always lose 80/20. And they're not allowed in debates or given equal free media coverage. They're crushed in campaign spending. Their votes are mainly protest votes because the other candidate is either just a Republican or Democrat. To where you get Republicans voting for Greens as much as you do Democrats, even left-wing Democrats. Because there's no other choice. There is a inbuilt bias against non-R/D candidates that has to be hurdled. Parties bring baggage (for the major parties as well, see, all Republicans having to respond to Trump, Hillary to respond to Obama doing something, etc.) that independents don't. (See again: Sanders, King)
Also, and relevant to all of this, Evan McMullin is not a third party candidate, he is an independent candidate. (He's raised $322,000.) He actually is a candidate running only for the Presidency, because his intention is to return to the GOP after this election.
Broken record I know. Sorry about the hangups regarding people giving advice to others when they openly admit they don't understand how the system works.
thelastcrusader
Banned
Wow bald shaming. Feeling good there buddy?
My friends are raving about this guy. First time in years I hear any of them consider a 3rd party candidate. I need to research him more. Lower taxes and increase military sounds pretty generic tbh.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked