Skip to main content

View Diary: Vanity Fair: “The Woman Who Knew Too Much.” (Elizabeth Warren, “I’ve done brutal.”) (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I expect to see and independent enter the race (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zaka1, Jim P

    in 2012, around February, no sure who but someone will.  No one is satisfied with the status quo.  This time an independent could win.

    •  Ah, the mythical "independent" savior. (4+ / 0-)

      Republican voters want a perfect candidate too. But as they eliminate one actual candidate after another, the factions can't agree on what type of "true Republican" would be the one true anti-Obama archetype they seek.

      Those dreaming of an "independent" who can turn widespread dissatisfaction into third-party victory are thinking along the same magical lines. "Who" is the whole problem. People aren't pure archetypes, and you have to take the bad with the good if you are going to vote at all. Yeah, I know, Minnesota elected a third-party governor, we still have the scars, but the third-party record at the national level is more applicable to your point.

      The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis. --Dante Alighieri

      by uffdalib on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 10:19:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The deck is stacked against a 3d party candidate (6+ / 0-)

        Had Perot been mentally stable, he might've gotten >20% in '92, which would've started making things very interesting.  It's possible that a 3d party candidate w/ deep pockets or the ability to raise serious $ might get into the teens next year.  Issue under those circumstances would be which major party nominee would lose votes.

        A Bloomberg-type candidate who would make Tom Friedman swoon would likely pull more votes away from Obama than from the GOP nominee.  The GOP base is likely to stick w/ their nominee no matter what.  The sector of the base that doesn't like Romney is going to like The Great Centrist Hope even less.

        The odds of a 3d party candidate becoming a serious threat to pick up 270 EVs is virtually nil.  The odds of such a candidate impacting on the race cannot be discounted.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 10:38:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ross Perot WAS mentally stable. (0+ / 0-)

          Ross  was/is a man of clear perception and great personal courage.
          He spent a fortune to save us from Bush 1 redux.

           He just was not prepared to have his wife and daughters hounded by muck-rakers threatening to just make shit up.  

          Have the NEWS Corp and James O Keefe smear of Acorn not given you a clue of what "they" were up to?

          To Goldman Sachs in according to their desires, From us in accordance with the IRS.

          by Bluehawk on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 09:04:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  That's my take too. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A dark horse candidate, who isn't even on anyone's list at the moment. A relative unknown with lots of money, and a populist/demagogic spiel.

      "Whatever you do, don't mention The War." Basil Fawlty, while mentally impaired.

      by Jim P on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 11:31:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't going to happen (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        •  Might not. But I doubt the electorate is very (0+ / 0-)

          thrilled with any of the establishment at this point, and a majority of Americans -- Republican and Democrats -- would love to stick a thumb in the eye of their party leaders.

          "Whatever you do, don't mention The War." Basil Fawlty, while mentally impaired.

          by Jim P on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 09:21:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I repeat: it isn't going to happen (0+ / 0-)

            Third parties do not work in America.  The last time any of them had any effect on the outcome of an election was eleven years ago, and the result was George W. Bush.  

            •  I repeat: in the last 20 years two elections (0+ / 0-)

              were affected by third party candidates. Remember Perot as well. The result was Bill Clinton.

              And I repeat, anywhere from 2/3rds to higher of Americans have polled as being extremely displeased with both parties. Both Republicans and Democrats have polled with MAJORITIES wishing they had a choice, and this repeatedly in the last three years.

              Your prediction is based on your wish, not what happens in American politics, nor the record.

              "Whatever you do, don't mention The War." Basil Fawlty, while mentally impaired.

              by Jim P on Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 05:42:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Go read some history (0+ / 0-)

                Third parties coalesce for a few years, influence one or two elections at best, and then disappear.  

                As for wishful thinking, I'm not the one advocating something unlikely.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site