Give me a break... Kerry vs Bush?

*coughcoughrossperotcoughcough*

Originally posted by Djarums
A third party could be quite helpful in getting someone the people want elected into the White House. However it needs more support to get off the ground. Who's it going to be? Nader? He's a washed up egomaniac who is running for his own benefit.

That's the ballbreaker with a third-party candidate. Neither on the right or on the left would be a shoe-in.

Nader? Forget Nader. I think he's just about pissed everyone off this time around. He's done.

Too many people in this country see people like Nader and Sharpton (who dems wish would join a 3rd party) and wonder if that's what it would mean to get a minor party candidate seriously involved.

There have been a few legitimate contenders. Before Ross Perot bowed out, he actually led Bush and Clinton in the polls. It's not an impossibility with the right person.

There is a fear of the unknown.

Truly, all we have to fear is fear itself.

Would a third party candidate be better because he's not beholden to anyone? I don't think so.

The point is it would take the certainty of control away from the establishment. That is much needed.

Mike Bloomberg is a perfect example of that. He is a Democrat who admittedly ran on the Republican ticket because the Dem ticket was too crowded. For all political purposes his platform was that of an independent because since he's so rich he owes no politicians anything. Look what happened! The guy does whatever he wants including making decisions supported by less than 20% of his constituents because he doesn't give a damn.

True as that may be, that's democracy. He can be shown the door just easily the next go-around. And he definitely should be for the that non-smoking crap!

Also, televised local debates have done little to help the case of 3rd party candidates. Last years Gubernatorial race in NY was a perfect example of this, having 9 people in their debate instead of just two. The problem is most of the other 7 were morons. One guy answered every question with "If we legalize pot this won't be a problem" and the other guy answered everything with "I'm not so familiar with this issue but check out my website to see my ideas."

All worthwhile endeavors take time and a lot of hard work. Americans throughout our history have been pretty good at that.

Our existing two party system is corrupt in every sense of the word... but what can be done about it? Is it really possible for a wildcard to build up enough nationwide support to topple either of our crappy candidates? I don't think so. Not in the near future either.

Same answer as above. Just because it appears daunting, doesn't mean it's not worth the effort. If you look at the percentages of a three-way race, it's quite possible. It'll just take the right person with the right organization. And I'm all for it!

I'm definitely with everyone that some sort of alternative would be great. What if the majority of Americans took a look at the November roster and said "My god they both suck!". At that point it's too bad, one of them will be the next President. Perhaps a larger field in the general election would be beneficial to those people who find themselves alienated from things because they don't find either side attractive.

My problem with Bloomberg isn't his lack of accountability with respect to parties, but rather voters. He most likely will be shown the door in 2005 as long as a normal candidate is put up against him. By normal I mean not Charles Barron.
The problem with Bloomberg is that even though the vast majority of city residents don't support his anti-smoking rule's scope, and don't support many other things he does, he shows absolutely no sign of caring. The guy answers to no one, and look what it turned into. A one man variety show with no concept of ratings. That's what worries me.

Hang in there, Djarums. He'll probably be outta there and you can get someone who pays attention to the people.

Vote Djarums for the third party nominee!