So.... today it looks like Bernie and the Donald

[billisonboard]

Found a great choice for Sanders.  Kate Brown, governor of Oregon. Now wouldn't that be

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Here in Maryland we aren't fools. Latest MD straw poll:

Trump 26%
Dr Carson 32%

Ok Dr Carson is a world renowned neurosurgeon retired from Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

Our former Governor Martin O'Malley...

Just lightening up the conversation.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 15, 2015 13:53:29 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Sept 15, 2015 13:48:34 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Maybe no one is picking the VP candidate as running mate, b/c no-one likes the choices for President.

I can't stand Scott Walker, but he would be better than Trump. That said, I wouldn't vote for either.

If it is Trump and Hillary, I think a 3rd party candidate could win.

Probably not because not enough people will think that person has a chance to win, so they will try to vote for which they see as the lesser of two evils.

more likely scenario is that a 3rd party candidate would siphon off votes from one or the other mainstream candidates, allowing the other to win.

[Deleted]

I think Trump v Sanders definitely puts a third character in play...

[Value Buy]

Sept 15, 2015 23:59:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 15, 2015 13:53:29 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Probably not because not enough people will think that person has a chance to win, so they will try to vote for which they see as the lesser of two evils.

more likely scenario is that a 3rd party candidate would siphon off votes from one or the other mainstream candidates, allowing the other to win.

Shades of Ross Perot, who damaged Bush so bad Clinton limped into office.

[billisonboard]

Sept 16, 2015 7:56:49 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 15, 2015 23:59:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

more likely scenario is that a 3rd party candidate would siphon off votes from one or the other mainstream candidates, allowing the other to win.

Shades of Ross Perot, who damaged Bush so bad Clinton limped into office.

Ross Perot myth reborn

[Value Buy]

Sept 16, 2015 8:40:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 16, 2015 7:56:49 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Shades of Ross Perot, who damaged Bush so bad Clinton limped into office.

Ross Perot myth reborn

Bull shit.
Steve Kornacki of MSNBC IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO TO CLAIM IT WAS A MYTH?
MSNBC WAS IN BED WITH THE DEMOCRATS EVEN BACK THEN.

I do not take this guy seriously for one nano second.
Perot may not have cost Bush enough votes, (by voting for Perot) but he damaged him as a candidate costing even more votes going against Bush

[Virgil Showlion]

How cute.


"Trump!"

"Sanders!"

"Hope!"

"Change!"


You're all taking the pre-primary theatrics seriously. It's positively adorable.

2016: Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush; Ms. Clinton wins

Hold on to the dream as long as you can, but get ready to accept reality when it hits.

[Value Buy]

Virgil your above statement screams that we need the thumbs down button back.

Even Facebook says they need it. Talk to Moonbeam and bring it back!   

[billisonboard]

Sept 16, 2015 9:09:16 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 16, 2015 8:40:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Ross Perot myth reborn

Bull shit.
Steve Kornacki of MSNBC IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO TO CLAIM IT WAS A MYTH?
MSNBC WAS IN BED WITH THE DEMOCRATS EVEN BACK THEN.
...

I would encourage you when you call bull shit and yell something that you be factually accurate. MSNBC was launched on July 15, 1996. 

With that out of the way, any comment on his analysis?

[billisonboard]

Sept 16, 2015 10:31:20 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Virgil your above statement screams that we need the thumbs down button back.

Even Facebook says they need it. Talk to Moonbeam and bring it back!   

I vote against bringing it back. I don't think we need a thumbsdown.

[dondub]

Zing!

[djAdvocate]

Sept 16, 2015 7:56:49 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 15, 2015 23:59:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

more likely scenario is that a 3rd party candidate would siphon off votes from one or the other mainstream candidates, allowing the other to win.

Shades of Ross Perot, who damaged Bush so bad Clinton limped into office.

totally false.  Perot took votes from both candidates.  that lie has been told so much that everyone believes it, but it is complete rubbish.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 16, 2015 9:09:16 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 16, 2015 8:40:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Ross Perot myth reborn

Bull shit.
Steve Kornacki of MSNBC IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO TO CLAIM IT WAS A MYTH?
MSNBC WAS IN BED WITH THE DEMOCRATS EVEN BACK THEN.

I do not take this guy seriously for one nano second.
Perot may not have cost Bush enough votes, (by voting for Perot) but he damaged him as a candidate costing even more votes going against Bush

you should take him seriously.  it is a fact.  the exit polling is absolutely conclusive.  there is no arguing it.

note: i believed it too, until i analyzed the data.  but the lie that has been told is just that.

[billisonboard]

Sept 16, 2015 13:07:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 16, 2015 9:09:16 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Bull shit.
Steve Kornacki of MSNBC IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO TO CLAIM IT WAS A MYTH?
MSNBC WAS IN BED WITH THE DEMOCRATS EVEN BACK THEN.

I do not take this guy seriously for one nano second.
Perot may not have cost Bush enough votes, (by voting for Perot) but he damaged him as a candidate costing even more votes going against Bush

you should take him seriously.  it is a fact.  the exit polling is absolutely conclusive.  there is no arguing it.

note: i believed it too, until i analyzed the data.  but the lie that has been told is just that.

But he used capital letters!

[Value Buy]

Sept 16, 2015 10:39:30 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 16, 2015 9:09:16 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Bull shit.
Steve Kornacki of MSNBC IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO TO CLAIM IT WAS A MYTH?
MSNBC WAS IN BED WITH THE DEMOCRATS EVEN BACK THEN.
...

I would encourage you when you call bull shit and yell something that you be factually accurate. MSNBC was launched on July 15, 1996. 

With that out of the way, any comment on his analysis?

    Jesus, Bills, quit embarrassing me with facts!

I swear they were there back in that election. Oh well, I was wrong.
I still believe to this day Perot cost Bush the election due to his criticisms of Bush's leadership.
Steve Kornacki writing a history story when he was not around due to his youth (or he is using way too much Grecian formula) does not make the analyse correct, especially siting the NY Times.
P.S. I had to re-write this answer because I had lower and upper case backwards.
Twice.

[Value Buy]

I guess discussing Perot and whether he cost Bush the election is as useless as the Pit Bull thread talking about how innocent Pit Bulls are against the people who do not believe it

[djAdvocate]

Sept 16, 2015 15:45:31 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I guess discussing Perot and whether he cost Bush the election is as useless as the Pit Bull thread talking about how innocent Pit Bulls are against the people who do not believe it

it is if you refuse to believe the numbers.  i am not one of those guys.

[billisonboard]

Sept 16, 2015 15:36:43 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

... especially siting the NY Times.
...

He cites the NY Times once early in the article followed immediately by a similar quote from the Washington Post. He then goes on to use data to back up the idea that Perot didn't cost Bush the election.

Sept 16, 2015 15:45:31 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I guess discussing Perot and whether he cost Bush the election is as useless as the Pit Bull thread talking about how innocent Pit Bulls are against the people who do not believe it

I think it has been a great discussion.  You have attacked the author of the analysis I found with the fact that you don't take him "seriously for a nano second" without any reason for why you don't take him seriously.  You attacked the employer of the person who did the analysis because of their bias in the election which I pointed out took place prior to their existence.  You attacked the source of one quote which I pointed out I felt was not necessary for the analysis.  You again attacked the author for not being old enough to have experienced the event first hand (but then admit that you didn't verify that he wasn't old enough).  You attack everything except the analysis itself.  I have to believe that any people reading this thread are learning a lot from the discussion about how the idea that Perot cost Bush the election is just a myth based on nothing more than misinformation and unsupported personal feelings.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 16, 2015 16:22:41 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I have to believe that any people reading this thread are learning a lot from the discussion about how the idea that [insert idea here] is just a myth based on nothing more than misinformation and unsupported personal feelings.

Hey, he figured out YMAM's secret sauce!

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Sept 15, 2015 23:59:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 15, 2015 13:53:29 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Probably not because not enough people will think that person has a chance to win, so they will try to vote for which they see as the lesser of two evils.

more likely scenario is that a 3rd party candidate would siphon off votes from one or the other mainstream candidates, allowing the other to win.

Last time that happened to a sizeable extent was probably Bush vs Clinton when Perot took something like 10% of the vote (probably mostly more conservative voters). When the last time before that?

[billisonboard]

Sept 17, 2015 20:52:05 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Sept 15, 2015 23:59:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

more likely scenario is that a 3rd party candidate would siphon off votes from one or the other mainstream candidates, allowing the other to win.

Last time that happened to a sizeable extent was probably Bush vs Clinton when Perot took something like 10% of the vote (probably mostly more conservative voters). When the last time before that?

It didn't happen with Perot. I could repost if you would like or you could read this thread.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Sept 17, 2015 21:04:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 17, 2015 20:52:05 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Last time that happened to a sizeable extent was probably Bush vs Clinton when Perot took something like 10% of the vote (probably mostly more conservative voters). When the last time before that?

It didn't happen with Perot. I could repost if you would like or you could read this thread.

When was the last time any other 3rd party candidate got 10% of the national vote?  I'd say that's pretty sizable number of people who bucked the trend of voting for somebody outside the major two parties.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 17, 2015 21:19:39 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Sept 17, 2015 21:04:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

It didn't happen with Perot. I could repost if you would like or you could read this thread.

When was the last time any other 3rd party candidate got 10% of the national vote?  I'd say that's pretty sizable number of people who bucked the trend of voting for somebody outside the major two parties.

the analysis shows that both Democrats and Republicans voted for Perot in approximately equal numbers.  the election would have been totally different if Perot got about 15% more, but as it stood, the Democrats actually fared WORSE by him being in the race than the GOP did, contrary to myth.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Sept 17, 2015 23:27:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 17, 2015 21:19:39 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

When was the last time any other 3rd party candidate got 10% of the national vote?  I'd say that's pretty sizable number of people who bucked the trend of voting for somebody outside the major two parties.

the analysis shows that both Democrats and Republicans voted for Perot in approximately equal numbers.  the election would have been totally different if Perot got about 15% more, but as it stood, the Democrats actually fared WORSE by him being in the race than the GOP did, contrary to myth.

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the last time a 3rd part candidate was able to really get enough votes on the national level to garner enough attention for people to think about voting that way.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Sept 17, 2015 21:19:39 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Sept 17, 2015 21:04:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

It didn't happen with Perot. I could repost if you would like or you could read this thread.

When was the last time any other 3rd party candidate got 10% of the national vote?  I'd say that's pretty sizable number of people who bucked the trend of voting for somebody outside the major two parties.

What about that guy who ran in 1980?  I'm drawing a blank on the name.  I don't think he got 10% of the vote though. 

[billisonboard]

Sept 18, 2015 6:56:16 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Sept 17, 2015 21:19:39 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

When was the last time any other 3rd party candidate got 10% of the national vote?  I'd say that's pretty sizable number of people who bucked the trend of voting for somebody outside the major two parties.

What about that guy who ran in 1980?  I'm drawing a blank on the name.  I don't think he got 10% of the vote though. 

John Anderson. Only campaign I have ever actively been involved with. He got 6.6 percent of the vote.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 18, 2015 4:39:32 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Sept 17, 2015 23:27:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the analysis shows that both Democrats and Republicans voted for Perot in approximately equal numbers.  the election would have been totally different if Perot got about 15% more, but as it stood, the Democrats actually fared WORSE by him being in the race than the GOP did, contrary to myth.

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the last time a 3rd part candidate was able to really get enough votes on the national level to garner enough attention for people to think about voting that way.

yeah, you're right, i didn't understand the question.  i still don't.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Sept 18, 2015 8:09:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 18, 2015 6:56:16 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

What about that guy who ran in 1980?  I'm drawing a blank on the name.  I don't think he got 10% of the vote though. 

John Anderson. Only campaign I have ever actively been involved with. He got 6.6 percent of the vote.

That's the one!  thank you!

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Sept 18, 2015 9:08:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 18, 2015 4:39:32 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the last time a 3rd part candidate was able to really get enough votes on the national level to garner enough attention for people to think about voting that way.

yeah, you're right, i didn't understand the question.  i still don't.

When was the last time, outside of Perot, that any 3rd party candidate garnered enough national attention to make people consider "voting for the lesser of two evils" between the 2 major parties.  When was the last time a 3rd party candidate even got enough exposure for people to even think that they would vote for them (outside the local areas of that person)?