Johnson's path to become POTUS. (Democrats, liberals, conservative, stats)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe because the alternative could have totally disastrous consequences. Of course, the gamble *could* pay off. . . . or not. A change might be needed badly, but the outsiders we have probably aren't the right vehicle to achieve the objective. Not anybody will do, right? You know the expression, "the devil you know . . . ."
Mick
In the case of Gary Johnson, its a guy who ran a state within this country, not exactly an unknown, untested, guns a blazin', wild card. But people will always have their excuses.
I find it hard to believe that in a country of 320M people the best we can do is come up with about 20-30 people to possibly step up and show interest in the job.
Self-proclaimed outsiders Trump and Bernie chose to run on major party tickets. IMO, that makes them establishment by definition.
If there is ever going to be a viable third party, it's got to be its own party and/or movement because once you commit to play by the rules of either the DNC or the RNC, you're no longer non-establishment.
Perot chose not to follow up and keep something going, so someone else will have to start from scratch. I honestly don't think it could have been Bernie this year because having an "I" after your name doesn't take away decades in Congress. But I think someone truly non-establishment could build on what he started. The question is whether Bernie really is about the movement and will work to try to make it happen for someone else, or if this has always fundamentally been about serving Bernie's ambitions.
Libertarians are completely irrelevant in 2016 America, where socialists of the left and right wing variety now command all the votes.
Not true at all. We just haven't seen a real fighting Libertarian since Ron Paul, and he wasn't even that great a candidate (not very articulate, pretty old)
Maybe because the alternative could have totally disastrous consequences. Of course, the gamble *could* pay off. . . . or not. A change might be needed badly, but the outsiders we have probably aren't the right vehicle to achieve the objective. Not anybody will do, right? You know the expression, "the devil you know . . . ."
Mick
Like what...
-an actual budget
-actual progress towards national debt reduction
-less foreign involvement in areas in which we shouldn't be
-reduction in federal government by eliminating agencies/depts that are redundant and irrelevant
-implementing a flat tax
-actually holding agencies liable to enforce current laws
-allowing states to govern
etc...
Or you could just keep voting for the establishment...that seems to being doing our country good.
And I'll repeat what I said before, Ross Perot got almost 20% of the vote and zero electoral college votes.
Say in this crazy election, Johnson does 20 TIMES better than he did in 2012. He's still looking at zero electoral college votes. And he's not going to get anything close to 20%.
I agree he won't win, but I do see him doing AT LEAST as well as Nader did in 2000, especially when you consider that Bush was nowhere near as hated by his own party as Trump is and Gore was coming off of a very popular Clinton presidency.
I think Hillary will win but Johnson will get 3-10% of the vote. Trump will use him as a scapegoat, but that won't matter because those GOP officials supporting Trump will abandon him as soon as the election is done.
Johnson won't win, BUT, I think his performance could result in more downballot libertarians getting elected mayors and state representatives, and it will be good for the Libertarian party and Libertarianism as a whole. It will also result in growth for the Libertarian Party...actually, it already has, and Trump hasn't even been named the nominee yet:
I agree he won't win, but I do see him doing AT LEAST as well as Nader did in 2000, especially when you consider that Bush was nowhere near as hated by his own party as Trump is and Gore was coming off of a very popular Clinton presidency.
I think Hillary will win but Johnson will get 3-10% of the vote. Trump will use him as a scapegoat, but that won't matter because those GOP officials supporting Trump will abandon him as soon as the election is done.
Johnson won't win, BUT, I think his performance could result in more downballot libertarians getting elected mayors and state representatives, and it will be good for the Libertarian party and Libertarianism as a whole. It will also result in growth for the Libertarian Party...actually, it already has, and Trump hasn't even been named the nominee yet:
The other key factor is if the LP candidate does get 5% or more of the popular vote, that opens up federal funding to the LP, which is huge...considering in 2012, the D/R conventioins both received 18+ million in funding...whereas the LP only received ~600k. For whatever reason, they haven't released the 2012 figures for the general election...but in 2008, the R candidate (McCain) received 84+million in federal funds.
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,790,314 times
Reputation: 1932
Social norming??????
This thread is an example of social norming?????
I learn something everyday.
"The social norms approach is founded upon a set of assumptions that individuals incorrectly perceive that the attitudes or behaviors of others are different from their own, when in reality they are similar.
This phenomenon is known as pluralistic ignorance .
It is largely because individuals assume the most memorable and salient, often extreme, behavior is representative of the behavior of the majority.
This may lead individuals to adjust their behavior to that of the presumed majority by adhering to the pseudo-norms created by observing such memorable behavior. These exaggerated perceptions, or rather misperceptions, of peer behavior will continue to influence the habits of the majority, if they are unchallenged."
Wow!!! Thick reading.
So I gather I have have adjusted my behavior in light of the extreme behavior of the group.
Really come come, all I have done is remained open to learning and educated myself regarding the process if the electoral college fails to make a majority vote for either Trump or Clinton.
Then I posed the question is someone capable of preventing that majority vote.
It is a fact it tosses the election into the House where they would pick the President. Is the current House likely to vote for Trump, Hillary, or a third party especially if third party was former Republican Governor?
Not bad, considering 99% of people outside of NM have no idea who he is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.