PV Voting for the viable candidate?

[wombat13]

Originally Posted by brewguy

Ok I don't fully understand.

If the majority of Republicans elected RP, are you saying Republicans would vote for Hilary over him or that if he runs as an independent he would hurt the results?

Wasn't Ross Perot third party? I don't see how that applies?

From what I can tell RP is the only stand out candidate, if you don't want to support him fine. But if you do support him how is that going to ruin the vote and get Hilary in office?

First of all I don't believe RP will be able to get the Republican nomination. If RP plays a role in the general election it will likely be as a third party candidate. That's why I compared him to Perot.

Even if he does get the Rep nomination, however, I don't see how he can possibly get more than 40% of the vote. It's a simple matter of money, but not campaign funding that everyone talks about.

I've forgotten the group that did the study (Frank Rizzo might remember), but here's the gist: if you consider both the tax structure and the way the Feds spend money, the current system is a massive wealth transfer from the top earners to lower earners. For example, for each $1 in taxes a person in the top 20% of income range pays in, he gets $0.47 in benefits. For every $1 a person in the bottom 20% pays in taxes, he gets $8 in benefits. Ultimately, the system transfers trillions of dollars from the top 40% to the bottome 60%.

The bottom 60% are unlikely to vote for someone like RP who believes the federal government should be dramatically pruned back, because pruning it back will limit the booty it extracts from the top income brackets. Now add to this all the liberals who won't vote for RP because of his position on gun control and all of the hawks who don't like his isolationist tendencies. How is RP going to put together more than 40% of the vote?

[brewguy]

Simply put I don't know. I've heard Dems who will support him as well so it is possible. There are a lot of folks who are ready for some serious change.

If he ran 3rd party I would not vote for him, I would support the rep candidate.

Maybe what we need is for Hilary to take over and drive us to the revolution.

Originally Posted by wombat13

First of all I don't believe RP will be able to get the Republican nomination. If RP plays a role in the general election it will likely be as a third party candidate. That's why I compared him to Perot.

Even if he does get the Rep nomination, however, I don't see how he can possibly get more than 40% of the vote. It's a simple matter of money, but not campaign funding that everyone talks about.

I've forgotten the group that did the study (Frank Rizzo might remember), but here's the gist: if you consider both the tax structure and the way the Feds spend money, the current system is a massive wealth transfer from the top earners to lower earners. For example, for each $1 in taxes a person in the top 20% of income range pays in, he gets $0.47 in benefits. For every $1 a person in the bottom 20% pays in taxes, he gets $8 in benefits. Ultimately, the system transfers trillions of dollars from the top 40% to the bottome 60%.

The bottom 60% are unlikely to vote for someone like RP who believes the federal government should be dramatically pruned back, because pruning it back will limit the booty it extracts from the top income brackets. Now add to this all the liberals who won't vote for RP because of his position on gun control and all of the hawks who don't like his isolationist tendencies. How is RP going to put together more than 40% of the vote?

[wombat13]

Originally Posted by brewguy

Simply put I don't know. I've heard Dems who will support him as well so it is possible. There are a lot of folks who are ready for some serious change.

If he ran 3rd party I would not vote for him, I would support the rep candidate.

Maybe what we need is for Hilary to take over and drive us to the revolution.

I agree. If RP gets the Rep nomination, I'll vote for him. I don't think there is even a remote chance he'd win, but I'd cast my vote. If he runs third party I'm definitely voting for whomever is running on the Rep ticket.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by wombat13

First of all I don't believe RP will be able to get the Republican nomination. If RP plays a role in the general election it will likely be as a third party candidate. That's why I compared him to Perot.

Even if he does get the Rep nomination, however, I don't see how he can possibly get more than 40% of the vote. It's a simple matter of money, but not campaign funding that everyone talks about.

I've forgotten the group that did the study (Frank Rizzo might remember), but here's the gist: if you consider both the tax structure and the way the Feds spend money, the current system is a massive wealth transfer from the top earners to lower earners. For example, for each $1 in taxes a person in the top 20% of income range pays in, he gets $0.47 in benefits. For every $1 a person in the bottom 20% pays in taxes, he gets $8 in benefits. Ultimately, the system transfers trillions of dollars from the top 40% to the bottome 60%.

The bottom 60% are unlikely to vote for someone like RP who believes the federal government should be dramatically pruned back, because pruning it back will limit the booty it extracts from the top income brackets. Now add to this all the liberals who won't vote for RP because of his position on gun control and all of the hawks who don't like his isolationist tendencies. How is RP going to put together more than 40% of the vote?

I remember this study, but haven't heard from Frank for a while. The study came up when we were discussion illegal immigrations costs to society. The numbers you list seem to be correct, but they are related to those who draw welfare and other subsidies as a relationship to the cost of illegal immigration to the taxpayer.
As for the 40% draw ............ see below!

Originally Posted by wombat13

I agree. If RP gets the Rep nomination, I'll vote for him. I don't think there is even a remote chance he'd win, but I'd cast my vote. If he runs third party I'm definitely voting for whomever is running on the Rep ticket.

RP has stated that he will not run on a third party ticket. Not sure where the quote is, but I will try to find it if someone does not quote it first.

Big question, If he wins the primary you say you will vote for him, so are you prepared to vote for him in the primary if nothing better evolves?
I see this as being a portion of the 40% so I am curious.

[wombat13]

Originally Posted by AZXD

I remember this study, but haven't heard from Frank for a while. The study came up when we were discussion illegal immigrations costs to society. The numbers you list seem to be correct, but they are related to those who draw welfare and other subsidies as a relationship to the cost of illegal immigration to the taxpayer.
As for the 40% draw ............ see below!


RP has stated that he will not run on a third party ticket. Not sure where the quote is, but I will try to find it if someone does not quote it first.

Big question, If he wins the primary you say you will vote for him, so are you prepared to vote for him in the primary if nothing better evolves?
I see this as being a portion of the 40% so I am curious.

No, I will not vote for RP in the primary. I don't believe he can win the general election even if he wins the Rep nomination (see my previous post). Since my priority is to ensure that Hillary (or any other Dem) doesn't win, I will vote for a candidate that I think has a shot at beating her.

[Brickboy240]

If we keep voting for who we THINK will win against Hillary...we will never see true reform. Someday...somehow...we have to break this cycle. How do you think we got Bush and Company?

If we truly want real reforms and not some sort of continuation of the status quo, it is up to us to keep voting for who we WANT in the beginning...not the person that is most likely to beat Hillary.

People like to poo poo Perot and he was a kook..I'll give you that. But, Perot's value was that he did keep the focus on the issues moreso than the other two candidates were doing. With his charts...he DID make people think.

Think what you want about Paul, but Guliani has a past of not supporting Constitutionally guaranteed rights....is this who you want over Hillary? Hillary also loves to trounce the same rights...where is the real difference in these two...eh?

- Brickboy240

[wombat13]

It's been fun debating this, but I've got to call it a day. In 10 minutes I'm leaving for vacation and won't be logging on to a computer for 10 days.

I hope you all can carry on without me.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

If we keep voting for who we THINK will win against Hillary...we will never see true reform. Someday...somehow...we have to break this cycle. How do you think we got Bush and Company?

If we truly want real reforms and not some sort of continuation of the status quo, it is up to us to keep voting for who we WANT in the beginning...not the person that is most likely to beat Hillary.

People like to poo poo Perot and he was a kook..I'll give you that. But, Perot's value was that he did keep the focus on the issues moreso than the other two candidates were doing. With his charts...he DID make people think.

Think what you want about Paul, but Guliani has a past of not supporting Constitutionally guaranteed rights....is this who you want over Hillary? Hillary also loves to trounce the same rights...where is the real difference in these two...eh?

- Brickboy240

I completely agree.
This strategic voting against who you do not want to win allows us to continue to receive the same type and style of leadership.

It does appear that the top three from both parties primarily differ only on Iraq policy. All other aspects of their track records shows that while differing slightly they are in effect basically the same.

[AZXD]

Concerning viable candidates,
here are a few thing to ponder from the February 27th issue of Reason Magazine.

I’d be curious to hear how many of my countrymen would refuse to vote for candidates based on some substantive issues. My listing of these particular items neither means that I think the number would be significant, or even ought to be significant, nor does it mean I don’t. It means that these are some things I think it would be more valuable for voters to have on their minds about candidates than age, marital status, or religion. So, would Americans vote for:

*Someone who voted to get us into a war that most Americans now see as a mistake? (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, John McCain, Tom Tancredo, Christopher Dodd, Chuck Hagel, among the more prominent).

*Someone who intends to make a push for government-sponsored universal health care one of his main concerns? (John Edwards, who wants to create a system for everyone “similar to Medicare) or A Republican candidate who instituted an insurance purchase mandate? (Mitt Romney, who is, by the way, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.)

*Someone who completely fouled up their one previous huge, national policy responsibility? (Hillary Clinton and our last brush with national health care.)

*Someone who has been a previous presidential candidate, but with a third party? (Ron Paul, 1988 Libertarian Party candidate).

*A Republican who supported public funding for abortion? (Rudy Giuliani)

*A governor who presided over general funds increases of over 23 percent—outstripping inflation and population growth by 5 percent—from 2004-06? (Bill Richardson.)

*Someone who believes and fervently acts on the belief that Americans should not be free to publicly express their opinions and feelings about presidential candidates free of complicated government interference? (John McCain.)

The point is not something as good-government sententious as “oh, why can’t the media focus on the issues instead of irrelevancies?”

[AZXD]

And concerning questions asked of the candidates, why don't we hear these questions being asked.

1) Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani
"When you were mayor of New York, you made two attempts to extend your term in office. You opposed a term limits bill that voters passed; you publicly speculated over staying in office after September 11, and only reluctantly stopped a third party from nominating you for a third term after the state legislature made it clear they wouldn't allow it. Given that the last six years have seen a vast expansion of presidential power, how can Americans trust you not to abuse the office and seek more and more personal authority?"

2) Arizona Sen. John McCain
"You've backed off on some campaign finance reforms, and you yourself are opting out of public financing for 2008. Could you explain why the other candidates should abide by the old campaign finance reforms, and by McCain-Feingold?"

3) Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
"When Sen. Hillary Clinton gave a mildly hawkish speech about Iran but opened the possibility of engaging with their leaders, you blasted her. ‘Advocating engagement displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat. The right strategy is not engagement, but economic and diplomatic isolation.' Please enumerate which other countries you want to threaten instead of engage."

4) Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback
"You opposed President Clinton's 1999 action in Kosovo, and said at the time ‘I continue to implore the Clinton administration to present a clearly thought-out exit strategy from the hostilities in Kosovo.' Why didn't you apply this standard to the Bush administration over the last six years?"

5) Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
"Your successor as Arkansas governor, Mike Beebe, is considering dropping the 'obesity report cards' you introduced. As president, what mandatory, federal programs would you introduce to schoolchildren to get them in shape?"

6) Texas Rep. Ron Paul
"You want to abolish the Federal Reserve. What is your plan for grappling with the international financial instability - if not panic - that would follow this move?"

7) Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo
"Five years ago you said ‘China is trying to export people' and continued, ‘It's a policy for them, a way of extending their hegemony. It's a government-sponsored thing.' As president, what measures would you take to stop Chinese people from breeding so energetically and dominating the world - and by extension, this country?"

Former HHS Sec. Tommy Thompson
"Could you briefly explain why every American should get a computer chip implant?"

9) Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore
"In 2001 you signed a proclamation celebrating European-American Heritage and History Month, only to rescind it when it was pointed out that David Duke lobbied for the holiday. If it was proposed by non-racists, would you support a federal European-American heritage month?"

10) California Rep. Duncan Hunter
"You're perhaps the leading advocate for a fence on the Mexican border, as you won the funding for a border fence in California. However, that fence was a boondoggle that went far over budget and poured illegal immigrant traffic over into the Arizona desert. Does this call into question your solutions on illegal immigration?"

11) New York Sen. Hillary Clinton
"Defending your vote in favor of the Iraq resolution, you said: ‘As a senator from New York, I lived through 9/11 and am still dealing with the aftereffects.' What was Iraq's role in the 9/11 attacks?"

12) Illinois Sen. Barack Obama
"In your 2004 campaign for Senate, you approached the issue of a nuclear Iran this way: ‘Us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in. On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.' How far along would Iran's nuclear program have to get before an Obama administration launched missile strikes?"

13) Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards
"You have said you were mistaken to vote for the 2002 Iraq resolution. But you did more than that: You were a co-sponsor of Sen. Joe Lieberman's war resolution, along with Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Zell Miller. Given the arc of your flip-flop, why should anyone trust your judgment on foreign policy?"

14) Delaware Sen. Joe Biden
"You were the author of the RAVE Act in the Senate. Can you explain why glow sticks should be considered drug paraphernalia, and as president what you might do to prohibit them?"

15) Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd
"When you were a congressman, you argued for ending funding to South Vietnam by saying: 'The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now.' With that in mind, don't you have a credibility problem when you talk about ending the Iraq war with minimal repercussions?"

16) Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack
"Did making English the official language of Iowa cut back on the state's influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico?"

17) New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson
"Could you defend and explain your conduct in the Wen Ho Lee case, and why it doesn't disqualify you from holding another job that would deal daily with issues of national security?"

1 Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich
"As a congressman, and now a committee chairman, you have made ‘media reform' a priority. What do you see as the president's role in regulating and limiting the media available to viewers?"

19) Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel
"If you were prohibited from appearing at any debates or candidate forums, would you still be in this race?"

And the 20^th question, a bonus question for any candidate who wants the extra points:

"You have to abolish one cabinet position. Name it."

Yes, that's more of a demand than a question. Easy to forget, but we're allowed to make those, too.

Question Source