Sign in to follow this  
notherhalo

Does a third party have a shot in the next few elections?

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Adam said:

 

ugh... well shit there goes that idea. 

Sidenote, Tulsi starting to sound like maybe considering a third party or independent run based on recent comments against the Dems.. and why not if they wont give her a fair shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, floplag said:

ugh... well shit there goes that idea. 

Sidenote, Tulsi starting to sound like maybe considering a third party or independent run based on recent comments against the Dems.. and why not if they wont give her a fair shot.

How has she not been given a fair shot? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

How has she not been given a fair shot? 

If you have to ask you probably wont agree with or like the answer.
Suffice to say i think the entire process to date has been a dog and pony show with the decisions already made by the DNC.  The only variance to that was that Harris might have been jumped by Warren due to her poor showings at the debates.
The rest have been there to fill air time but never had any real shot at the nomination. 
The candidate was chosen by the DNC in the last 2 elections long before the primaries, why would this one be any different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, floplag said:

If you have to ask you probably wont agree with or like the answer.
Suffice to say i think the entire process to date has been a dog and pony show with the decisions already made by the DNC.  The only variance to that was that Harris might have been jumped by Warren due to her poor showings at the debates.
The rest have been there to fill air time but never had any real shot at the nomination. 
The candidate was chosen by the DNC in the last 2 elections long before the primaries, why would this one be any different. 

That's a lot of words that explains nothing. Are the rules different for her? Unknown people like Buttigieg, and Yang have been able to make it to tomorrow's debate. Maybe she is just running a terrible campaign. She's not going to reach any dem primary voters with interviews on Tucker Carlson. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, st1ckboy said:

That's a lot of words that explains nothing. Are the rules different for her? Unknown people like Buttigieg, and Yang have been able to make it to tomorrow's debate. Maybe she is just running a terrible campaign. She's not going to reach any dem primary voters with interviews on Tucker Carlson. 

If the outcome is pre-determined then yes, the rules are different since it really doesnt matter what she does.   They need to fill the space on the stage and at least give the appearance of fairness, but the decision has already been made, thats obvious. 
Oh and doing interviews with Carlson is the smartest thing she could have done.  Reaching to the middle is what the Dems need to do.  They badly need to get moderates and disenfranchised Reps who are not in Trumps camp, they cannot win without them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, floplag said:

If the outcome is pre-determined then yes, the rules are different since it really doesnt matter what she does.   They need to fill the space on the stage and at least give the appearance of fairness, but the decision has already been made, thats obvious. 
Oh and doing interviews with Carlson is the smartest thing she could have done.  Reaching to the middle is what the Dems need to do.  They badly need to get moderates and disenfranchised Reps who are not in Trumps camp, they cannot win without them. 

What is predetermined? Do you have examples of the DNC has given advantages to say some like like Warren over Tulsi? Tulsi doesn't even poll higher than Williamson. The problem is her campaign. 

I'll take exception that Carlson viewers are "the middle," but also remember this is a primary, not a general election. Going on his show is a complete waste of time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

What is predetermined? Do you have examples of the DNC has given advantages to say some like like Warren over Tulsi? Tulsi doesn't even poll higher than Williamson. The problem is her campaign. 

I'll take exception that Carlson viewers are "the middle," but also remember this is a primary, not a general election. Going on his show is a complete waste of time. 

 

What more do you need that what happened in the last 2 elections or the fact that Biden, Sanders, Warren are leading now when they are easily the worst possible candidates?  I would legit voter for Harris over either of them and i cant stand her.   Beto and Buttrieg have gone mental, Booker has gone full agenda.  The best possible ticket  the Dems could do is some combination of Gabbard and Yang, but they cant wait to show them the door, why? 

Polls are meaningless, its all based on who you ask.  Were talking about the same polls that said Hillary would win in a landslide last time are we not?   

Believe what you will, its your choice, im simply voicing my opinion, and my belief, that the polls are nonsense, as are the primaries, and the decision is made by those in power at the DNC (and RNC for that matter to be fair) and the rest is just smoke and mirrors to legitimize it. 

Ill grant you that Carlson isnt middle, BUT.. a lot of his audience is.  There is a giant untapped pool of people in the middle that dont buy into the extremes, reaching across the aisle in any form, or reaching back from the extremist ledge, is welcome in my opinion in either direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, floplag said:

What more do you need that what happened in the last 2 elections or the fact that Biden, Sanders, Warren are leading now when they are easily the worst possible candidates?  I would legit voter for Harris over either of them and i cant stand her.   Beto and Buttrieg have gone mental, Booker has gone full agenda.  The best possible ticket  the Dems could do is some combination of Gabbard and Yang, but they cant wait to show them the door, why? 

Polls are meaningless, its all based on who you ask.  Were talking about the same polls that said Hillary would win in a landslide last time are we not?   

Believe what you will, its your choice, im simply voicing my opinion, and my belief, that the polls are nonsense, as are the primaries, and the decision is made by those in power at the DNC (and RNC for that matter to be fair) and the rest is just smoke and mirrors to legitimize it. 

Ill grant you that Carlson isnt middle, BUT.. a lot of his audience is.  There is a giant untapped pool of people in the middle that dont buy into the extremes, reaching across the aisle in any form, or reaching back from the extremist ledge, is welcome in my opinion in either direction. 

So in your opinion, they should do away with polls, and just go with who they want? What kind of sense that make? 

Again with your Tucker Carlson point, you are mixing up the primary with the general election. Mayor Pete did a town hall on Fox News, it got people talking. That's smart. Tulsi going on Tucker to complain about other dems isn't going to boost her poll numbers with primary voters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

So in your opinion, they should do away with polls, and just go with who they want? What kind of sense that make? 

Again with your Tucker Carlson point, you are mixing up the primary with the general election. Mayor Pete did a town hall on Fox News, it got people talking. That's smart. Tulsi going on Tucker to complain about other dems isn't going to boost her poll numbers with primary voters. 

How you got that from what i said i dont understand but no, that isnt my opinion at all.   What i said is that it WAS what they were doing while hiding behind an air of legitimacy.. not that i wanted them to.  My position is the exact opposite of your implication. 
And it isnt about primary numbers its about national numbers.   No, she didnt gain any demo votes for the primaries, but im betting she did in the national non partisan elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, floplag said:

How you got that from what i said i dont understand but no, that isnt my opinion at all.   What i said is that it WAS what they were doing while hiding behind an air of legitimacy.. not that i wanted them to.  My position is the exact opposite of your implication. 
And it isnt about primary numbers its about national numbers.   No, she didnt gain any demo votes for the primaries, but im betting she did in the national non partisan elections.

You have to win the nomination before the general election. Maybe her campaign doesn't understand that, and that's why she is sitting in the polls next to someone that wants to use magic healing rocks. 

Also, that's exactly what you said. Polls don't matter, the dnc should ignore them, and just pick a platform of Tulsi, and Yang. Apparently in your system she doesn't even get to pick her own VP. That's much more sound than basing it off of polling, and people voting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, st1ckboy said:

You have to win the nomination before the general election. Maybe her campaign doesn't understand that, and that's why she is sitting in the polls next to someone that wants to use magic healing rocks. 

Also, that's exactly what you said. Polls don't matter, the dnc should ignore them, and just pick a platform of Tulsi, and Yang. Apparently in your system she doesn't even get to pick her own VP. That's much more sound than basing it off of polling, and people voting. 

I think she gets exactly whats going on and knows she wont win it even if she could, the DNC has already made its choice clear and she is not it. 
You keep citing polls as if that has any meaning.. i could go take a poll right now and prove that a majority of people asked prefer the taste of old tide pods to the new and improved, ... it literally means nothing, its all about WHO you ask not what you ask. 
No... thats not what i said at all.  I cant even get where you got that as i said the exact opposite and only suggested that i would like to see those 2.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, floplag said:

I think she gets exactly whats going on and knows she wont win it even if she could, the DNC has already made its choice clear and she is not it. 
You keep citing polls as if that has any meaning.. i could go take a poll right now and prove that a majority of people asked prefer the taste of old tide pods to the new and improved, ... it literally means nothing, its all about WHO you ask not what you ask. 
No... thats not what i said at all.  I cant even get where you got that as i said the exact opposite and only suggested that i would like to see those 2.  

You may not like polls, but there is a reason every campaign, in every race, whether it be local, statewide, or nationwide use them. The DNC is using polling data as one of their qualifiers for the next debate. She didn't make it, and that's on her, and her campaign. A fail to see how she can win a nationwide election, when she is getting boat raced by one of the twin Castro brothers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

You may not like polls, but there is a reason every campaign, in every race, whether it be local, statewide, or nationwide use them. The DNC is using polling data as one of their qualifiers for the next debate. She didn't make it, and that's on her, and her campaign. A fail to see how she can win a nationwide election, when she is getting boat raced by one of the twin Castro brothers. 

You realize those polls were egregiously wrong in 16, yes?   Like not even on the same planet as a reality wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, floplag said:

You realize those polls were egregiously wrong in 16, yes?   Like not even on the same planet as a reality wrong. 

There's a whole rabbit hole of oddities of the 2016 elections we can get into, but I don't want to. Most reputable polls weren't as far off as you are representing. Either way I'll be sure to let everyone know not to bother polling anymore, instead they should just rely on floplag's gut instincts. 

You still have not come remotely close of answering my original question, based on your statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

There's a whole rabbit hole of oddities of the 2016 elections we can get into, but I don't want to. Most reputable polls weren't as far off as you are representing. Either way I'll be sure to let everyone know not to bother polling anymore, instead they should just rely on floplag's gut instincts. 

You still have not come remotely close of answering my original question, based on your statement. 

You are completely wrong.

I would explain why, but I don't want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, st1ckboy said:

There's a whole rabbit hole of oddities of the 2016 elections we can get into, but I don't want to. Most reputable polls weren't as far off as you are representing. Either way I'll be sure to let everyone know not to bother polling anymore, instead they should just rely on floplag's gut instincts. 

You still have not come remotely close of answering my original question, based on your statement. 

FFS man stop going Facking overboard.  
I simply said the polls were wrong, not that anyone should listen to me that would be the dumbest idea ever. 
And yes, i did, you are choosing to ignore the answer and this conversation is now moot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, floplag said:

FFS man stop going Facking overboard.  
I simply said the polls were wrong, not that anyone should listen to me that would be the dumbest idea ever. 
And yes, i did, you are choosing to ignore the answer and this conversation is now moot. 

Nope, you didn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, floplag said:

I think she gets exactly whats going on and knows she wont win it even if she could, the DNC has already made its choice clear and she is not it. 
You keep citing polls as if that has any meaning.. i could go take a poll right now and prove that a majority of people asked prefer the taste of old tide pods to the new and improved, ... it literally means nothing, its all about WHO you ask not what you ask. 
No... thats not what i said at all.  I cant even get where you got that as i said the exact opposite and only suggested that i would like to see those 2.  

So how do you prefer the original 25 person field gets narrowed down? Should all 25 be part of the debates from the start until the primaries? All the candidates need to make the next debate is 2% of the vote in 4 of the 16 polls. No mater what you think of the polls, getting 2% of the vote, no matter who is polled, shouldn't be too difficult to achieve, especially if there are 16 polls and they only need to do it in 4 of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone seeing what happened with the DNC and Hilary/Sanders elective will always be suspicious. It’s like some House of Cards politicking behind the scenes.

Part of the problem is the country needs to stop these lame ass debates with two minute answers, canned questions, and talking over each other. Go on a three hour podcast, make your case, answer some real questions, and have some real discourse. I’m learning dick about you and what you stand for based off a couple Q&A’s and some slanted tv commercials that slander the other party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be unpopular but I don’t really care what the DNC did to Sanders. He was an independent using the DNC to grab the nomination. If the DNC favored a Democrat over an independent, that’s their right. Maybe seems shady but I don’t see an issue with it.

What I do see as an issue is Sanders having to use the DNC as having any legitimate shot at the presidency and getting the exposure he needs. It just highlights how broken the system is with the two parties.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brandon said:

I think everyone seeing what happened with the DNC and Hilary/Sanders elective will always be suspicious. It’s like some House of Cards politicking behind the scenes.

Part of the problem is the country needs to stop these lame ass debates with two minute answers, canned questions, and talking over each other. Go on a three hour podcast, make your case, answer some real questions, and have some real discourse. I’m learning dick about you and what you stand for based off a couple Q&A’s and some slanted tv commercials that slander the other party.

Do what I do.

Read the tweets Rico posts here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, tennischmp said:

So how do you prefer the original 25 person field gets narrowed down? Should all 25 be part of the debates from the start until the primaries? All the candidates need to make the next debate is 2% of the vote in 4 of the 16 polls. No mater what you think of the polls, getting 2% of the vote, no matter who is polled, shouldn't be too difficult to achieve, especially if there are 16 polls and they only need to do it in 4 of them. 

You realize you just proved my point by using polls a the determining factor i hope? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this