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.
The third party bit has me confused. I can see how a third party would definately affect the woman person because of Bernie ... they now have a new home. But its effect on The Donald has to be minimal. The issue of the R party fracture is overblown. Jeb, Ted, and the rest only represent the establishment ... which is what The Donald is against ... just like Bernie used to be. Consider how large the anti-establishment electorate (proven by voter turn out) and then it becomes a question of who will be left standing. The woman person's speech was so captivating that even Bubba fell asleep. And all the verbal fallecio she got leading up to this flop speech did nothing. Even the WH moslem mentioned himself 119 times. Demo party unity is almost an oxymoron. Is the R party really splintered? How many R groups are marching against The Donald? I kinda hope Johnson gets his 15%. Most of those will be the one's Bernie threw under the bus.
Bernie Sanders is about taking on the most powerful special interests in the country and reforming the economy which is rigged through a corrupt system of campaign finance. The establishment is the big money donor class and their puppets buying elections. The only way to change this is to fight for publicly funded elections. Donald Trump wants to do the opposite. Open all floodgates for the super rich to buy politicians, through his Supreme Court picks, which makes it impossible to win office without being super rich or the puppet of the super rich.
Third parties have never worked or been successful in American politics. The two major parties have never been totally different in terms of the economy, different approaches to foriegn policy and social issues certainly. Traditionally both are center or middle of the road parties esp. ONCE the general elections begin.
If you notice, during the primaries politicians on both sides go state to state and say different things pandering to everyone for votes and financial support. They promise everyone the moon. BUT, when the general election starts they begin the move to center. In doing this, they effectively isolate third parties to the left or right.
The real problem with third parties is: they absorb votes from either the Democratic or Republican candidate and can adversely effect the presidential outcome.
Third parties have never worked or been successful in American politics. The two major parties have never been totally different in terms of the economy, different approaches to foriegn policy and social issues certainly. Traditionally both are center or middle of the road parties esp. ONCE the general elections begin.
If you notice, during the primaries politicians on both sides go state to state and say different things pandering to everyone for votes and financial support. They promise everyone the moon. BUT, when the general election starts they begin the move to center. In doing this, they effectively isolate third parties to the left or right.
The real problem with third parties is: they absorb votes from either the Democratic or Republican candidate and can adversely effect the presidential outcome.
Well that is just false, at one point in time there were several parties, since our 14th President, not counting the National Union party, there were various parties competing. Since then, we have seen a rise in the two parties taking dominance in the elections and basically turning this country into a two party system. Though with rising dissatisfaction with the two party system, I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing more from the Green Party and the Libertarian Party.
I know in Oregon, the Libertarian Party fared better than the Republicans in a number of elections.
They might win local elections but they have never taken a presidential election. That was my argument.
Third fourth or fifteenth parties dont work in America where a majority (greater than 50%) vote is needed to get elected!
They do work in European countries because they only need a plurality of the vote.
I just proved that to be false, at one time, we had more than two parties running and it wasn't the Democrats and Republicans.
In the US, you don't need to get more than 50% of the vote to win. You need to get to 270 electoral votes to win. Clinton in 1992 only got 43% of the vote, but won 370 electoral votes.
I just proved that to be false, at one time, we had more than two parties running and it wasn't the Democrats and Republicans.
In the US, you don't need to get more than 50% of the vote to win. You need to get to 270 electoral votes to win. Clinton in 1992 only got 43% of the vote, but won 370 electoral votes.
we had '17 parties' running just on the republican side alone. if you were sitting at home on april 5th watching the ncaa basketball march madness final game, would you say "we need more than 2 teams"?
we had '17 parties' running just on the republican side alone. if you were sitting at home on april 5th watching the ncaa basketball march madness final game, would you say "we need more than 2 teams"?
You had 17 candidates within one party, that isn't the same as 17 parties.
Cliftopdx
In the US, you don't need to get more than 50% of the vote to win. You need to get to 270 electoral votes to win. Clinton in 1992 only got 43% of the vote, but won 370 electoral votes.
270 out of 535 electoral votes IS a majority of the vote!
Do you need a graphing calculator?
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.