Skip to main content

View Diary: The effect of 'Americans Elect' (270 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Rec'd for the name, but ur wrong on how it hurts. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Serious 3rd parties always take disproportionately from the incumbent historically, and usually end up electing the challengers. See, 1912(Taft/TR/Wilson), 1948(the Dixie-crats voters whould have voted D or not at all), 1968(Wallace elected Nixon), 1980(Anderson took from Carter, though was so insignificant it didn't matter), 1992(Perot), 2000(Nader).  

    I can not think of a single modern Pres election where a serious 3rd candidate helped the incumbent.  And I'd bet my bottom dollar the the $ behind 'A/E' knows and intends it to have just that effect on BO - i.e., defeat him.

    Hell, just the hubris of the name: a cabal claims to be the 'electors' for American despite tens of millions of actuall voters actually voting in actual elections, i.e., actually Electing nominees.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site