A Third Party Presidential Bid in 2024?

This could prove very attractive for many voters. A historic realignment could be under way.
Group Raises Alarm Prepping 3rd-Party 2024 Bid
Michael Scherer, Washington Post




It has money, name-brand political backers and declines to describe either President Biden or Donald Trump as acceptable candidates. Read More

". . . The group has already gained ballot access in Arizona, Colorado, Alaska and Oregon, with signature-gathering efforts underway in many other states. Jacobson, a former Democratic fundraiser, said the organization has until March 2024 to make a decision on whether to field a presidential ticket. It would pick one Republican and one Democrat as presidential and vice-presidential nominees, she said, with an announcement of their identities coming no later than April 15 of that year, when a No Labels convention is planned in Dallas. . . ."

 

Count me in. I would love a centrist party option. Don't care whether it's viable because what isn't viable is continuing to vote for what always seem to be two poop sandwiches being offered up for vote by the two main parties.

 

If we had a economically conservative option who didn't promote all of this culture war circus BS, I'd be into it. Most conservative candidates would catch my eye if they just stopped bitching about drag queens, trans kids, and M&Ms.

 

A third party at this point doesn't matter.

We're too far down the road to collapse for anything to stop our demise.

 

Not that the combining of the two parties on one ticket couldn't ever work, but it didn't turn out very well when Lincoln chose Johnson.

The mainstream of the two parties are farther apart than they have been in some time, suggesting it may be difficult to find active, mainstream people to run. When Cheney & Kinzinger worked with Dems, you saw how that turned out for them.

I recently came across another thread, saying that Joe Manchin was considering a run-- I suppose he would have nothing really to lose, assuming he didn't give up his Senate seat. His running mate would most likely have to be a retired Republican, one of the many who, even if they still call themselves Republicans, our current MAGA Rs, call RINOs.

 

They won.

 

Totally agree. We need to get focus on the hard policy issues rather than the culture war and trolling narrative.

 

Ha- ha. Is that your only measure? Then why do you give a crap about a third party? News flash-- one of the two Major parties, always wins our Presidential contest.

Presumably, you were anticipating better governing results. By this yardstick, that combination ticket was disastrous, since after Lincoln's assassination, Johnson f'ed up the follow through, on the situation that our country had just paid so dearly, to resolve.

 

Obviously the critical turn of events was Lincoln's assassination. Had that not happened I don't think the other problems would have followed.

 

The reason a third party entering the fray doesn't matter is because the underlying problem our nation faces is the people themselves.

You've got one party, the Democrats - every single voter is ig***ant of history, devoid of morality, and intellectually dishonest.

The other party, the Republicans - the entire top tier of the party, the leadership, are loyal to the globalists, and thwart the efforts of those beneath them who truly mean well.

But the rank and file Republicans who mean well, refuse to call out the leadership for the duplicitous traitors that they are.

And sadly, the majority of the Republican faithful themselves are ig***ant of the principles of freedom, and refuse to get rid of obvious traitors like Mitch McConnell.

Add it all up, and the situation is utterly hopeless because so few people really understand what is going on, and even fewer have the guts to even say so!!!

 

Yes, they won and succeeded in keeping McClellan and the copperheads out of the Whitehouse. Here is an 1864 McClellan presidential campaign token.



Here's what the slogan on the reverse, "The Constitution as it is" means. The full slogan was "The Union was it was (reunited); The Constitution as it is (With slavery still legal.)

That was Lincoln's great fear that the Democrats would re-instate slavery after the war. The Emancipation Proclamation was only an executive order. It could have been reversed. The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865, put and end to it.

 

Democrat, Liberal, young voter learned their hard lesson in 2016 that when you vote third-party as protest vote and pretend you are “ holier than thou”, the consequence is electing people like Trump , change the SCOTUS and over-turn 50 years precedence.

If Democrat, Liberal, young voter forgot their lesson and vote third-party in 2024 because ‘oh my goodness they can’t stand either of the party” , then they deserver another leader like Trump or Trump wanna be.

 

Are drag queens, trans kids and M&Ms more important to you than economic issues?

 

Please read what I actually wrote. I literally said the opposite. I would like to see a candidate who 1) is economically conservative and 2) doesn't mindlessly parrot this culturally conservative garbage.

 

And if you can find only the economic part which will you prioritize?

 

If there's an economically conservative candidate who is also involved in this idiocy, I'll think about it. So far, Trump is in the lead, and he's one of the least economically conservative candidates I've ever seen, so there's no chance of me voting for him . . . especially given how much he hates democracy.

 

The idea of the really viable third party is a whole lot like the tale of the girl who promised all the guys a nice blowjob at prom and then didn't even show up to said prom.

Here real facts, not fake news:
Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 (88 out of 535 EV, or 16.6%) / 27.39% of the NPV
Robert La Follette in 1924 (13 out of 535 EV, or 2.4%) / 16.62% of the NPV
J. Strom Thurmond in 1948 (39 out of 535 EV, or 7.3%) / 2.41% of the NPV
George Wallace in 1968 (46 out of 538 EV, or 8.6%) - 13.53% of the NPV
Ross Perot in 1992 (0 out of 538 EV, or 0%) / 18.91% of the NPV
1/2 of Ross Perot in 1996 (0 out of 538 EV, or 0%) / 8.40% of the NPV - must have been that giant sucking sound that did him in.
Ralph Nader in 2000 (0 out of 538 EV, or 0%) / 2.74% of the NPV

Five of those six men got absolutely nowhere. TR came in bullmoosing at 2nd place in 1912 while Republican nominee Taft got all of 8 electoral votes.

So, as fascinating as it sounds, a viable third party absolutely does not have the apparatus or infrastructure to win, at least the first time around.

It's more likely that should criminal defendant Trump lose the nomination, he and his followers would bolt and go for a third party run, in which case Biden wins by more than +27% over whoever is second place.

 

I'll never vote for either party again so I'm in.

 

Yep, that's the problem. It takes a ground game to get your supporters out to vote, and that takes a party apparatus. That was one of the reasons why Theodore Roosevelt didn't do better in 1912.



The "Dixiecrats" had their party organization in the Southern states in 1948. Ditto for George Wallace in 1968. That was why they were able to take a few southern states.

1948 post card



1968 Wallace button

 

Well that IS what your choice will come down to. Most of the Rep candidates are on the fiscal conservative side and on the social conservative side. I can't think of a socially liberal one at this point. And of course we know the Dem candidate will be a economic liberal/socialist and social liberal.

So it will come down to what is the higher priority?

I don't get this he hates democracy when it his totally wrong belief about the election results that thought he was upholding the democracy of the election because he believed the fraud claims. He believed(s?) the election results were anti-democracy. You can criticize him for that but I certainly think, and I don't support him for another run, he supports the Constitution and our REPUBLIC far more than anyone on the Dem side.

 

Trump is in the lead. He's probably the least fiscally conservative Rep running, and I doubt I could even consider him a fiscal conservative in comparison with Biden. And, yes, he hates democracy, so that runs against him as well. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and I actually like democracy. Trump has literally nothing to offer me. In fact, I find it difficult to find a politician that I should dislike more. I can't find a candidate running that hates the Constitution more than Trump does.

 

He is certainly more a fiscal conservative and pro-growth than any Dem currently serving or possible to run. Give me and example of his hatred of democracy, is it all about Jan 6?

But again there are a host of Reps who could become the nominee and it will get down to which is more important the economic or the social.

 

Trump is far, far from being fiscally conservative. And, yes, his plots to overthrow democracy in the last election signal that he hates democracy. No, it wasn't just about the riots the he encouraged. And, as I've said dozens of times now, I WILL BE VOTING IN THE ****ING GOP PRIMARIES FOR THE MOST SANE CANDIDATE. Keep up. You are way, way behind at this point.

 

The only third party candidate I could see in 2024 is Donald Trump if he somehow fails to win the Republican nomination. He’s hot headed and egotistical, and he’s got the money to run a campaign. At that point it will be a matter of spite and anger for him. The welfare of the nation will be the furthest thing from his mind. I can’t see any other significant third party candidates at this point. No one else in the Republican field seems ready.

As for the Democrats, I think that Biden will be defeated in the primaries or be eased out before they begin. He does not have the mental capacity or the stamina to run an effective campaign. He wouldn’t be able to sit in his basement, or in 2024, the White House, and expect to win. Inflation is bad, and world politics are crumbling around him. He has no record to run upon.

My guess is Gavin Newsom will be the Democrat nominee. Despite the fact that he has failed in California, he looks the part and sounds articulate. Of course, that means Kamala Harris will be out. The constitution states that the presidential and vice presidential candidates cannot be from the same state.

I know that the Democrats have the numerical advantage to win all presidential elections in the foreseeable future. The Republican path to victory is very narrow, and it appears that the key swing states, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, are getting bluer all the time. When you elect the likes of Christine Whitmer and especially John Fetterman, you know that the voters will support anything the Democrats nominate.

So get ready for President Newsom. He looks the part and is straight out of central casting. He is the Martin Sheen, “The West Wing,” of our time.

 

I’ve been known to vote third party when I dislike both major party candidates. None of this voting for the lesser of two evils, the least worse candidate or the candidate I want to lose the least. I’ve pretty much made up my mind if there is a rematch between Trump and Biden in 2024, I’d be voting third party against both. When I want both major party candidates to lose, this is the way I vote.


I certainly would give this new party a good hard look. But whether it comes to fruition or not, is kind of irrelevant. I already know who I won’t be voting for, who I will is an open question. That depends on who the two major party’s nominate.