Freeman, your vote is independent of all other votes and is the only vote you directly control. I'm not talking collective action, I'm talking about what happens inside your voting booth.

Whether it is a defined element within the party or a third-party candicacy, you can get the major party to change its positions to attract that bloc of voters, but it has to be a fairly substantial number of voters--at least 10-15%.

How does it get to become a substantial bloc if nobody is willing to vote for it ?

Sassenach wrote:How does it get to become a substantial bloc if nobody is willing to vote for it ?

Third party candidates have been elected presidents. See below.

But I regret that this thread devolved into a discussion on third party candidates as all we're doing is rehashing old ground. I appreciate the earlier comments on how to influence folks.

I was listening to the radio and a statistic was quoted that said there are many establishment elites who know no one who is supporting Trump. For better or worse, that's not me, and I feel an obligation to have a discussion with those I'm close to that I might influence. It's something that all people who care should be doing, but it's interesting to think that while Trump appeals to 100,000,000+ people there are many who know no one of those 100,000,000+ people well. Says something about the polarization of our politics and our country.

George,
I would tell them to vote their conscience. That is what I am doing. That is what we all should be doing.

Lincoln was not a third party candidate. The Republican candidate (Fremont) had been a clear second in 1856, and 1858 the Republicans took control of the House

Lincoln was up against two Democrats and a third party candidate (Bell). The Republicans also won the Senate in 1860.

Now, you could argue that the Republicans were a third party up to 1856, but in reality they had taken over the place of the defunct Whigs in the previous two years, being effectively the merger of the Whigs, Free Soilers and the anti-slavery wing of the American party.

In every "party system" period of the US, there were two main parties, apart from the period after the failure of the Federalist and the emergence of the Whigs, when there was just the Democratic-Republicans, who the split into the Democrats, and the National Republicans who became the Whigs.

No third party candidate has come close, really.

Gary Johnson could not name a world leader he respects or admires.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... oment.html

Recently, he asked what Aleppp was.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us ... leppo.html

He wants to be president and he does not take the time to get up to speed on world events. Pathetic.

By the way, the pundits I have seen say that the way to victory for Trump is for Gary Johnson to get up to 10% in battleground states. It's a bit counter-intuitive because you would think he would pull votes away from Trump. But I guess that is not true.

I have several members of my family who are planning to vote for Trump. I'm not shy about political discussions with family, but I want to try and convince people rather than just argue. What's the best way to talk a family member down off the ledge of voting for the scoundrel?

You could give them a copy of todays USA Today...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /91295020/

Gary Johnson could not name a world leader he respects or admires.

Out of interest, who of us could answer that question ? Must say there aren't any candidates that spring immediately to mind.

Well, I think a reasonably informed candidate in answer to that question should be able to note some current world leaders, display some familiarity there, and then if he can't name a current leader he likes then discuss one from the past he admires. How hard is that question to sidestep if you want to--just say there aren't any ones that particularly stand out but discuss a few you like from the past. Completely blowing the question makes one very concerned that only does he not have a good grasp of current ones but he has a limited grasp of major historical ones as well. Of course, ignorance of history is probably a requirement for being libertarian, anyway...

Maybe he was unable to come up with an answer because his internal voice was yelling "Don't say Putin! Don't say Putin! Don't say Putin!" so loudly that it drowned out all other thoughts.

That's funny. You know he at least knows Putin. But at least he was smart enough not to mention him even though that was the only one he knew.

Sassenach wrote:

Gary Johnson could not name a world leader he respects or admires.

Out of interest, who of us could answer that question ? Must say there aren't any candidates that spring immediately to mind.

Didn't Trump say Putin? That's vastly worse than not being able to think of any, if you ask me.

bbauska wrote:http://www.evanmcmullin.com

Thanks Brad. That seems like a better choice for some than Gary Johnson. I will point him out!