Quote:
Originally posted by bwind22
Well, I almost totally agree with you. Except that we, the people, don't squash 3rd party hopes. The Democrats & Republicans are the ones that squash any hopes of ever seeing a viable 3rd party candidate, let alone a 4th, 5th or 6th, because as much as they dislike each other, they aren't stupid. They realize that more parties means less control for them (both parties, collectively & individually).
Just listen to Ralph Nader talk about it some time. He knows first hand how good of a job they can do at squashing a 3rd party candidates efforts.
The only way we'll ever see a third party as a viable option will be if it's someone rich enough to fund their own campaign (like Ross Perot did) because none of the other parties are able to fundraise enough money to even get television ads, let alone any sort of national attention.
|
I couldn't have stated it better. Third party candidated hardly ever get invited to debates. As a matter of fact, I don't think any of them ever do. The only reason we got to see Perot at a debate is as you said: he had enough money to do it by himself.
Interesting to note: the only third party candidate to ever win a state was Teddy Roosevelt (who had already been president) when he ran with the Bull-Moose party against WH Taft. All it really did was split the Republican vote and handed the election to Woodrow Wilson.
I tend to lean more to the left, but I disagree with too much from both sides to really have an affiliation. If it is Bush vs. Clinton in 2008, that's probably the only scenario I won't register to vote for. That will make three elections in a row that I haven't been willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.