NationStates Jolt Archive

Could Greenspan be right? Could we have an independant for President in 2008 or 2012? I think it might be very possible.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/10/news/newsmakers/greenspan_book/index.htm?section=cnn_topstories

Greenspan told the Times he plans to argue that the current "ideological divide" separating conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats leaves "a vast untended center from which a well-financed independent presidential candidate is likely to emerge in 2008 or, if not then, in 2012."

He also told the newspaper the book will focus on "the forces that will determine how the next decades are likely to unfold." Among his conclusions are that "global competitive pressures are likely in the years ahead to bias most market-oriented economies toward the U.S. model."

Hopefully someone decent will run under a liberitarian flag.

I hope he's a dictator... Oh wait.

From what I've seen of American elections, there will never be a third party/independent in power.
I've heard far too many people say they're Republican or Democrat, and aren't about to flinch away from those stereotypes. America's in a rut where people don't want to leave their sides... a third (or even more) party would be a great thing for America, I think, to get them to stop thinking in black and white, right and left terms. But I still find it unlikely to happen.

From what I've seen of American elections, there will never be a third party/independent in power.
I've heard far too many people say they're Republican or Democrat, and aren't about to flinch away from those stereotypes. America's in a rut where people don't want to leave their sides... a third (or even more) party would be a great thing for America, I think, to get them to stop thinking in black and white, right and left terms. But I still find it unlikely to happen.

The thing is we need a GOOD third party candidate. Ross Perot was doing quite well until he waffled at the last minute. I've voted for two third party candidates in my lifetime and would not hesitate to vote for another if he/she were a national candidate, and I thought he/she was the best person for the job.

There arn't enough independent candidates able to overcome the overly biased system.

bump

How about we bring back the Whig Party?

Could Greenspan be right? Could we have an independant for President in 2008 or 2012? I think it might be very possible.



Personally I believe it is inevitable. I just don't understand why it has taken this long for anyone of some prominence to acknowledge it. This is an upcoming situation that to me was clear several years ago, and should have been clear to most anyone when half of the AFL-CIO withdrew from the union announcing that they would support only independent candidates representing the interests of the middle class working stiff.
The democrats abandonment of the middle class in favor of huge numbers of tiny little special interests was a tatical blunder that may well lead to the demise of the party entirely. The republicans have never been much of a friend to the middle class, but their recent move to all things corporate at the expense of the population, leaves them only with a strong national defense and private property rights in common with the middle class. While these two issues alone are enough to cause favor over democrats, it will not be enough to cause favor over an independent drawing support from thel huge numbers of middle class that both parties have abandoned, believing they had no where else to look.

Personally I believe it is inevitable...major snip

Sad but very much true. So, who is the person who could become the independant candidate and win?

Sad but very much true. So, who is the person who could become the independent candidate and win?
Oprah.

Oprah.

Nah, Democrat all the way. Nader could give it another go, possibly?

I think though that the third-party candidate will simply drag votes away from one of the parties depending on if they are more of a liberal or conservative. The two parties have a lock at least for the near future.

Sad but very much true. So, who is the person who could become the independant candidate and win?

Denis Leary

The one thing that the Semocrats and Republicans have been united in doing and very successful in doing for the last 150 years or so is rigging the system in favor of a two-party program. It's damn near impossible for a third party to get a foothold in the US because of the winner-take-all system and the power of incumbency. The very few national third party candidates have been ego-driven campaigns, by which I mean there was relatively little party apparatus and the candidates got support for other reasons. Ross Perot is a perfect example, but he's not the only one. George Wallace, even Teddy Roosevelt are other examples of how when the leader fails, the party falls apart.

Greenspan might hope that a third party will arise from the current situation, but I don't see it happening.

Oprah.

To liberal for me but better than Hill...

Denis Leary
Id vote for him

An independent candidate would be great, but unlikely. I personally believe that the whole party system (as it currently stands in the US) is a bad idea gone worse.

While there are more than a dozen different political parties in the US, the system has been pushed farther and farther toward making sure that there are only 2 viable parties. Obviously both the Republican and Democrat parties have a vested interest in making sure it stays practically a 2 party system.

What we have seen in recent history is that in the case of a third candidate getting much interest, the only real effect it has is to take a few votes away from one party or the other. Perot actually made a huge impact, not by coming anywhere near actually winning, but by forcing Clinton to pay attention to Perot’s platform or face a serious consequence in the next election (he was well aware that the reason he won was because Perot took a lot of votes that would otherwise have been Republican). Unfortunately I think that is the best we can hope for when it comes to alternative candidates in the current system.

If we are to have a viable 3 way race we need to restructure the whole campaign system. We need to see debates involving more than just 2 parties (not including the farce of a ‘debate’ when they stick everyone other than the Republican and Democrat into a room – including the really wacko candidates to make any reasonable sense look just as insignificant).

The only Dem with a chance would be Hillary, and I honestly see no way for her to get elected – win the primary definitely, but not the general. Republicans have a possible McCain/Giuliani ticket which could prove interesting, but if they go the way of another Evangelical we are looking at parties moving farther and farther away from the center.

The Republican party is set to split. Throughout our history we have seen parties become dominant by incorporating many different elements, but eventually there is too big of a gulf between them, forcing the party to break apart.

When you consider the Evangelical side and the Libertarian side of the Republicans it is hard to reconcile them. When moderate Republicans are ashamed to admit in public that they are Republicans, the chances of them not jumping to a viable third party are slim.

Alas, I think the biggest obstacle to a lively 3-way race is the ignorance and apathy of the typical voter. Most voters have only the most tenuous grasp of the issues at hand, and many only vote based on what party they have been led to believe is what they are supposed to vote for in the election (btw, has everyone seen the movie Bullworth? In particular the speech he gives at the black church).

In Japan Koizumi was able to change the LDP from within. The party had grown corrupt from almost uninterrupted power over the last 50 years while the opposition Democratic party itself nearly fell apart over a corruption scandal (even though they had never been elected to the Prime Minister's Office). Koizumi shook things up in the LDP, even running candidates against members of his own party in the House of Representatives who opposed his Postal Privatisation plan.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties in the USA need mavericks like Koizumi who will shake up the parties and make them more responsive to the public (rather than interest groups).

Please, Ghod.

I'd almost rather see a Green get in than more Republocrats. :headbang:

...snip...Alas, I think the biggest obstacle to a lively 3-way race is the ignorance and apathy of the typical voter. Most voters have only the most tenuous grasp of the issues at hand,...

BINGO. You are so right.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties in the USA need mavericks like Koizumi who will shake up the parties and make them more responsive to the public (rather than interest groups).

That takes some very strong leadership which both parties appear to be lacking at the present time.

How about we bring back the Whig Party?

On the plus side, it would be a good tip for the power of Congress over the Executive. They were also pro economic growth, education, and railroad & canal building.
In theory, they'd be big today on NASA and R&D, probably including stem cells.

On the downside, the Whigs only had 2 Presidents (Harrison and Taylor) in 26 years (rather like the DEMS after 1968) and both of them died in office.

Of course, the Whigs need to build a new platform and WOULD have to settle once and for all their position on if slavery should be allowed in US territories.

Warren Buffett!!!!

Warren Buffett!!!!

Can't we have someone other than an obscenely rich white male, for once?

Leonard Peltier!

Can't we have someone other than an obscenely rich white male, for once?
He could afford to run an independent campaign, he is humble and he's got a good stance on issues. Americans could actually elect him.

you could always write my name down;)

enough of you do it and it would work

anyways, it appears Christopher Walken (http://www.walken2008.com/index.html) is looking into running;)

Americans could actually elect him.
Mr. Buffet could be Greenspan's wingman, or vice versa.
They should bring back the Bull Moose Party.

He could afford to run an independent campaign, he is humble and he's got a good stance on issues. Americans could actually elect him.

What are his stances on issues? I know he advised Kerry and opposed Bush's tax cuts, but neither of those particularly impress me.

What are his stances on issues? I know he advised Kerry and opposed Bush's tax cuts, but neither of those particularly impress me.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/18/155747.shtml
http://www.pacificviews.org/archives/000736.html

But I can't find anything on his views regarding social issues. Suffice to say that economically, he's better than pretty much anything a Republican candidate could offer. And probably better than Mr. Peltier too.

And improve the situation? What do you think we are, radicals?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/18/155747.shtml
http://www.pacificviews.org/archives/000736.html

But I can't find anything on his views regarding social issues. Suffice to say that economically, he's better than pretty much anything a Republican candidate could offer. And probably better than Mr. Peltier too.

NewsMax hates him, that's a start. If only he really were what they call him. But aside from the unilateral nuclear disarmament advocacy, his positions make him no more radical than a moderate Democrat. I voted for David Cobb in 2004, and unless Kweisi Mfume wins the Maryland Democratic primary I'm going to vote Green again in 2006. Warren Buffett won't get my support until he starts looking more like Ralph Nader and less like John Kerry.

Leonard Peltier hasn't a chance of winning, legally he shouldn't even be running, but I like the Peace and Freedom Party.

How about Alan Keys?

http://www.angelfire.com/ia3/alankeyes/

I think the prophecy of a third party coming to presidential power in the near future is about as reasonable as the prophecy concerning the rise of the Anti-Christ in the near future.

How about Alan Keys?
That wouldn't exactly be an alternative to the Neocons though, would it.

How about Alan Keys?

http://www.angelfire.com/ia3/alankeyes/

Um, no, thank you.

I'd vote for Bush before I'd vote for that guy.

At least he'd be annihilated in the election; he lost 70-27 to Obama in Illinois.

I think the prophecy of a third party coming to presidential power in the near future is about as reasonable as the prophecy concerning the rise of the Anti-Christ in the near future.

Y'know, the way things are going, I don't think it'd be a wise idea to write it off...

Hopefully someone decent will run under a liberitarian flag.
For that to happen, the LP would have to pull it's head out of it's ass and realize that if you want to work from within the system you have to do it slowly, rather than all at once.

What are his stances on issues? I know he advised Kerry and opposed Bush's tax cuts, but neither of those particularly impress me.
Economically, Buffett's a pragmatist. He prefers the free market, but knows that it oscillates out of control without some brakes put on it. He's also a pragmatist when it comes to taxes. He knows that the current divide between rich and poor in this country is getting out of hand and that it's going to cause some major problems sooner rather than later. We could certainly do worse than him, at least from an economic standpoint.

So, is Greenspan saying he's contemplating a run in '08 or '12?

If there was a centrist, I'd vote for him, but there are never centrists.

If there was a centrist, I'd vote for him, but there are never centrists.

All mainstream US Presidential candidates are "centrists," at least by the establishment-defined center. The exceptions are gay marriage and abortion, where the establishment tends to be somewhat to the left of at least the Republicans, and on the former issue, sometimes the Democrats as well.

All mainstream US Presidential candidates are "centrists," at least by the establishment-defined center. The exceptions are gay marriage and abortion, where the establishment tends to be somewhat to the left of at least the Republicans, and on the former issue, sometimes the Democrats as well.


But I mean a true centrist.

But I mean a true centrist.
Which means?

But I mean a true centrist.

You would probably end up with someone to the left of both parties economically, but who frames issues in terms that don't shout "crazy liberal" to most people. He or she would be opposed to illegal immigration, in favor of civil unions, pro-choice, and somewhat protectionist. He or she would be fiercely committed to the war on terror, but would act more multilaterally than Bush has, and be considerably more cautious.

Is that the sort of person about which you are thinking?

You would probably end up with someone to the left of both parties economically, but who frames issues in terms that don't shout "crazy liberal" to most people. He or she would be opposed to illegal immigration, in favor of civil unions, pro-choice, and somewhat protectionist. He or she would be fiercely committed to the war on terror, but would act more multilaterally than Bush has, and be considerably more cautious.

Is that the sort of person about which you are thinking?


More or less

But I mean a true centrist.

There is no such thing. A centrist is nothing more than a politician or individual that refuses to take a side until such time it appears that one or the other is clearly the most advantagous. They are oppourtunists without the spine to take a stand until they find benefit for themselves as opposed to an independent who makes up their own mind regardless of what ideological doctrine dictates.

You would probably end up with someone to the left of both parties economically, but who frames issues in terms that don't shout "crazy liberal" to most people. He or she would be opposed to illegal immigration, in favor of civil unions, pro-choice, and somewhat protectionist. He or she would be fiercely committed to the war on terror, but would act more multilaterally than Bush has, and be considerably more cautious.

Is that the sort of person about which you are thinking?

Sounds reasonable, now where is he/she.

Hopefully someone decent will run under a liberitarian flag.
It's probably too early to speculate, but who would run for the LP in '08? Not sure if Badnarik wants a second go at the office, so I'm hoping that beyond all impossibility Ron Paul goes back to the LP and runs for prez.

It's probably too early to speculate, but who would run for the LP in '08? Not sure if Badnarik wants a second go at the office, so I'm hoping that beyond all impossibility Ron Paul goes back to the LP and runs for prez.

Ron Paul would get a lot of support if he ran as an independent, but he won't. He's a good man with real integrity that has actually been able to maintain it since I worked on his first campaign as part of my high school government project. I might be just a tad prejudice though, as he was my family doctor and delivered my daughter when she was born.

The one thing that the Semocrats and Republicans have been united in doing and very successful in doing for the last 150 years or so is rigging the system in favor of a two-party program. It's damn near impossible for a third party to get a foothold in the US because of the winner-take-all system and the power of incumbency. The very few national third party candidates have been ego-driven campaigns, by which I mean there was relatively little party apparatus and the candidates got support for other reasons. Ross Perot is a perfect example, but he's not the only one. George Wallace, even Teddy Roosevelt are other examples of how when the leader fails, the party falls apart.

Greenspan might hope that a third party will arise from the current situation, but I don't see it happening.

on the other hand, both parties are currently in the process of self-destructing. a strong push by some serious group (with a bit of luck) could probably destroy one of them and become a new major party.

There is no such thing. A centrist is nothing more than a politician or individual that refuses to take a side until such time it appears that one or the other is clearly the most advantagous. They are oppourtunists without the spine to take a stand until they find benefit for themselves as opposed to an independent who makes up their own mind regardless of what ideological doctrine dictates.

I disagree. At least here in the US, a Centrist is someone who takes from the center -- from both and neither the left and/nor the right.
For example, I'm pro (every) Amendment -- including firearms.
I'm also against war on drugs (just another means for Prohibition), and anti free-trade (but for fair trade). Then throw in being pro choice and pro death penalty...
Basically, I confound both parties. ;)

I assure you I take my stances quite seriously, and am set in my ways. If I'm not centrist, I don't know who would be.

on the other hand, both parties are currently in the process of self-destructing. a strong push by some serious group (with a bit of luck) could probably destroy one of them and become a new major party.
It would take more than luck--it would take a sea change in the way Americans think about politics, which would be difficult since the majority doesn't think about politics at all--and it would take billions of dollars. I don't see either of those situations happening any time soon.

For example, I'm pro (every) Amendment -- including firearms.
I'm also against war on drugs (just another means for Prohibition), and anti free-trade (but for fair trade). Then throw in being pro choice and pro death penalty...
Basically, I confound both parties. ;)

I assure you I take my stances quite seriously, and am set in my ways. If I'm not centrist, I don't know who would be.

I know some radical Marxists who wouldn't disagree with any of those views. Guns and the death penalty are necessary for the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat.

It's rather indicative of how stupid and absurd the US political debate is becoming.

I know some radical Marxists who wouldn't disagree with any of those views. Guns and the death penalty are necessary for the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat.

It's rather indicative of how stupid and absurd the US political debate is becoming.

Becoming, or has been since (about) the death of Kennedy? :(

Becoming, or has been since (about) the death of Kennedy? :(

No, it's been longer than that, the last meaningful election we had was in 1932, but at least the political debate was less boring a few decades ago.

No, it's been longer than that, the last meaningful election we had was in 1932, but at least the political debate was less boring a few decades ago.

I put it a little later: the Kennedy/Nixon race was IMO the last really meaningful one.
Even the Ike years were somewhat up for grabs -- McArthur very possibly could have risen to office, McCarthy could have not turned his probe into a witch hunt ala Salem, etc.

I put it a little later: the Kennedy/Nixon race was IMO the last really meaningful one.

No, that one was irrelevant, too. Kennedy went on to aggress against Cuba, despite being a liberal softie, and when in office Nixon would pursue Détente and visit the PRC, despite being a reactionary hard-liner. Their domestic policies ended up being rather similar, too.