(That this is repeat of a four year-old blogpost needs to be posted again is quite a disappointment. Trump has been a much better president than the country deserved, and he stepped up to the responsibilities quite a bit, but it's still pretty much a game of king-of-the-hill to him.)
Invite the top three third party candidates to the next one.
If they'll come.
(They might prefer to avoid the noise fight.)
If they would join the debate, the Donald couldn't just focus on Biden's perceived weaknesses.
Frankly, that the debate organizers have failed to go out of their way to invite the third party candidates again this year says something to me about the debate organizers' motivations and goals.
I said this last time, as well, but I'll say it again, also: a vote for third party candidate you can support is not a throwaway vote. Every vote for someone else tells them they're messing up. The major political parties need to get the message that they have long since ceased to represent any real constituency.
Torn about that...just don't feel I can risk Dems and socialistic extremism taking the country down...which I am still worried about, violence and possible revolution...if they don't get their way...
ReplyDeleteI understand.
DeleteBut the theory that Perot's candidacy got us Clinton instead of Bush senior's second term has several problems.
One is the hypothesis contrary to fact conundrum: If we take changing history as a premise for a theory, we can argue just about anything, and no one can prove us wrong. No one can prove us right, either.
If we had immediately gone about taking a poll, finding as many who would admit to voting to Perot as we could, and asking, had Perot remained out of the race, whether they would have voted for Clinton, Bush, or yet someone else, we could have some confidence in whatever result that gave us. Our polling companies did not, as far as I know, take a comprehensive poll.
So we are left with after-the-fact trends to analyze, and we have to admit Clinton got his second term. We can't say that means Clinton would clearly have won, there is momentum.
But it also leaves us unable to be sure that enough of the Perot supporters would have voted for Bush.
On the contrary, the two major parties now do not have credible reason to feel a threat from a third party candidate.
Although, the very fact of Trump's first term should be sufficient warning. He's effectively the third-party candidate who was picked up by the mainstream party.