Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoog
...again, not true.
|
wrong. Show me your statistics.
21st century democrats are cultists; they will either vote Hillary ... or not vote at all (in the President catagory).
Quote:
|
Third party candidates very rarely win any elections. For example, such a candidate only won a U.S. Senate election twice (0.6%) since 1990. Therefore, it is very rare to have a national officeholder not affiliated with and endorsed by one of the two major parties. Currently, there are only two U.S. Senators (Angus King and Bernie Sanders), who are neither Democratic nor Republican, while no U.S. Representative hails from outside the major parties.
|
Ross Perot got the highest 3rd party ballot vote total; 19,740,000 in 1992. He took a large percentage of votes away from GH Bush.
Many claim he is credited in giving Bill Clinton the win.
Clinton vote total: 44,909,000 votes
GH B vote total: 39, 104,000
Perot vote total: 19,743,000
if Perots votes came from 2/3 likely republican voters... and 1/3 likely democrat voters; then without him on the ballot... Billy Boy would of lost.
The stats are there to see.
All the past 3rd party candidates that got decent ballot vote totals... were more conservative than liberal. No liberal would vote for such a conservative person; instead either cringing as they vote with the party line... or not vote at all in that catagory (as a protest).
A few here want to vote on principle, and normally that's OK and admirable.
But even just 4 years of Hillary will take us soooo far socialist - that there's no going back... no recovery possible; too much to risk. A person usually knows when to shift gears... practice damage control; at times where avoiding the worst from happening is paramount.