Loved your post, spockweed, but I would nevertheless take a different tack on a couple of points. The Democrats won't be "done for a few decades" any more than the Republicans were "reduced to the status of a regional party for at least a century" 4 years ago. The reason is that there are no real alternatives. The Republicans may be marginally less bad than the Democrats (and I am not sure even of that) but they are merely a train wreck as opposed to a plane crash. After 4 years of the Republicans controlling House, Senate and White House, the nation would want the Democrats back. Much as I hope you are right on a third party becoming a serious alternative, I remain pessimistic on this point. The Democrat and Republican parties have been in power for so long that they have used their money and influence to make it extremely difficult for other parties to come along. The reason most people vote Republican or Democrat is because most people want the government to take care of them. They merely disagree on the details of what that means, so they choose between the two parties.
The last election that saw a viable 3rd party candidate (not counting Perot) was in 68, when George C. Wallace (American Independent party) took 46 electoral votes, from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia, in the Nixon (R) - Herbert Humphrey (D) - Wallace (AI) race. 1948: Truman (D) - Thomas E. Dewey (R) - J. Strom Thurmond (State's Right Democrat), Thurmond took Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina for 39 votes. DC didn't have votes at the time; Hawai'i and Alaska weren't states. 1924: Coolidge (R) - John W. Davis (D) - Robert M. LaFollette (Progressive [Bull Moose?]), LaFollette took Wisconsin for 13 votes. 1912: Wilson (D) - Taft (R) - Roosevelt (P [Bull Moose]), T. Roosevelt [-]bitch slaps[/-] round-house kicks to the face Taft out of office by taking Washington, California, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan and Pennsylvania for 88 votes, and denying Taft the rest of the country save for Utah and Vermont (for only 8 votes!), allowing Wilson to landslide the election. 1892: Cleveland (D) - Harrison (R) - James B. Weaver (People's), Weaver takes Idaho, Nevada, Colorado and Kansas, plus one vote from North Dakota for a total of 22 votes. ND's three votes split evenly between the three candidates (Weaver won the popular vote); Michigan splits between Cleveland and Harrison. Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma not yet states. 1860: Four-way race: Lincoln (R), 180 - John C. Breckinridge (D), 72 - John Bell (Constitutional Union), 39 - Stephen A. Douglas (D), 12 Too many states not yet formed to do the break down. 1856: Buchanan (D), 174 - John C. Fremont (R), 114 - Fillmore (American), 8 1852: Last presidential election with a candidate from the Whig party. 1836: Five-way! van Buren (D), 170 - William H. Harrison (W), 73 - Hugh L. White (W), 26 - Daniel Webster (W), 14 - W.P. Mangum (IND) 11 1832: Jackson (D), 219 - Henry Clay (National Republican), 49 - John Floyd (IND), 11 - William Wirt (Anti-Masonic), 7 1824: All candidates were Democratic-Republic. John Q. Adams, 84 - Jackson, 99 - William H. Crawford, 41 - Henry Clay, 37 1808: Madison (D-R), 122 - Charles C. Pinckney, (Federalist) 47 - George Clinton (D-R), 8 1804: 12th Amendment takes care of Elector rules (getting only one vote instead of two) 1800: Jefferson (D-R), 73 - Aaron Burr (D-R), 73 - Adams (F), 65 - Pinckney (F), 64 1796: Adams (F), 71 - Jefferson (D-R), 68 - Thomas Pinckney (F), 59 - others, 48 - Burr (D-R), 30 1792: Washington (F), 132 - Adams (F), 77 - Clinton (Anti-Federalist), 50 - others (A-F), 5 1786: Washington (F), 69 - others (IND), 35 - Adams (F), 34
Hey Asyncritus, hope you are doing well and thanks for your input. I hear you, I'm just being hopeful as we have to start sometime to get a 3rd party based on individual liberties and self-reliance rolling. I may have exaggerated a bit with a "a few decades", but I do think that the Dems will not stand a chance in 2016 if Obama wins now, which he probably will. The fiscal disaster of 8 years of Obama will clearly sour all but the core of the Dem party. With another choice besides the GOP, many that voted Dem in the past, but can't bear to vote GOP can also jump ship. Do I think a 3rd party can win in 2016? Highly doubtful, but any seeds planted now in 2012, could only legitimize 3rd party runs in 2016 and beyond. It's all speculation anyhow, as sadly it's looking like Paul will not run a 3rd party campaign this election. I hope I'm wrong on this.
Doing fine and keeping busy. Playing around on Wordforge now and then during the day, when I get tired of Hittites, Mittanians, Sea People, the Bronze Age Collapse, and various other issues having to do with the history of Syria, which is what I am primarily doing these days. I very much hope so, but I also fear very much that our present system has to implode pretty badly before that will happen. Much worse than it has already, anyway. Absolutely. But if the Republicans win the White House this time around, and hold at least one house of Congress, then it is the Republicans who won't stand much of a chance in 2016.
People tend to make a mistake of forgetting that a nation is still just ultimately a massive group of individuals with their own thoughts and viewpoints. Wordforge contains posters from around the world, and among it's American posters contains those from all sides of the political spectrum, albeit not in a ratio that matches the general population. Can you name one Wordforge poster who you think would vote for Obama in 2012 but then refuse to vote for a Democrat for decades afterwards?
Blah. He's said before, he didn't leave the party, the party has lost it's way, and left him...and alot of others too. Unfortunately, average idiot voter 99% of them, most just like you, only look at GOP or Democrat. So if you're going to run for Congress and sell a platform, you HAVE to do it on the backs of one of these serpents, or I should say the "same serpent" with a head at both ends. One red, one blue. The other 1% of us can't save all of you from yourselves. That said, I hope Paul runs independent if he DOES lose the nomination. I don't give a fuck who else the GOP puts up there? Santorum? Gingrich? Romney? -Conservatives? Hardly.
As he should. Party loyalty is no different than loyalty to one's corrupt crime family. They may have your last name, but if they're corrupt, they're corrupt, and you should do what you think is right, not what they tell you to do.
