22 total posts
I think it's very unlikely that such an independent candidate will be chosen. There's so much money and volunteers involved to launch a campaign that it hardly can be done without support of an existing infrastructure as the current 2 large political parties.
The last more or less serious ones I remember are Ross Perot and Ralph Nader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_%28politician%29#President says that George Washington was the only one who ever managed to do it.
Assuming (s)he would be chosen I don't see a reason why a basically democratic society like the USA wouldn't accept it. I don't expect the Army to grab the power.
I think you're probably correct but my question wasn't
about electability but about acceptance by those belonging to the two major party machines. I'm wondering what the reaction would be. It could be very much like what happens in the animal world when one member of a species doesn't fit in with the herd. They may drive it away or even kill it.
but if he is elected by the people, then he would have that Mandate wouldn't he? Of course I know that is the simplified version.
Perhaps you need some independent Congressional representatives as well?
Those happen but it's usually those who've jumped ship. As for mandate, that's usually only applied if someone receives an overwhelming majority of the vote. A three way split probably couldn't produce a mandate type vote.
Obama had a mandate, majorities in the House and Senate
but ran into the Republican Block the Road Machine which was by and large successful. I don't see the Repbulicans cooperating with anyone who isn't their stooge.
I'm not sure we've seen a real mandate since Reagan
I'd want to consider a mandate to be that the majority of people were actually casting votes for someone rather than against someone else. From the ever escalating percentage of negative campaigning ads, what's happening in that regard is not difficult to see.
Sorry Rob, but
as you pointed out, the Democrats controlled the Presidency, the House, the Senate for the first two years of Obama's term.
And when you consider, Roger...
Also Roger, when you consider the poll numbers about ObamaCare, it seems that a lot of Democrats as well as Republicans are against that "mandate".
I don't see poll numbers as truly representational...
... when it comes to "ObamaCare". The propaganda campaign against any attempt to revise medical insurance and a nationalized health plan for America has clouded the issue so much. I doubt many people truly understand what was proposed, what was passed, and how truly similar in many ways the plan was (and is) to legislation that was passed under the guidance of one of the current presidential candidate front runners.
I don't follow, Grim...
Grim, RomneyCare dealt with the people of Massachusetts. ObamaCare dealt with the entire country. You are trying to apply the feelings about something in just one state to the feelings about another law that is universal.
You did have one point though, ObamaCare was quickly rushed through with a mis-use of reconciliation and was 2,000+ pages long. The average person didn't find out what was in those pages until after it was passed. I, for one, find Pelosi's statement that we could read it and see what was in it after it had passed to be contrary to the basic system of how we are supposed to pass laws.
Now that people have examined it and found out it did many things that were not expected, even things not related to medical care, the poll numbers do not seem to say that the majority now support it. Many polls show their dislike of it.
Sure you follow, J.
You raised the poll numbers as an example of mandates. I brought real information about polls that are related to your talking point. You reply with often repeated rhetoric. You ignore the evidence I bring to the table about a states feelings concerning living with a bill very similar to the Obama Health Care bill.
You want to redirect the conversation? Fine. I'll address your comment about Obama rushing through the health care plan with a verifiable timeline...
First RomneyCare was a model for ObamaCare. Complaining that one is radically different from the other is misleading. To this very day, Obama give praise for Romney's ground work and even states that more state control could benefit future health care.
Next, Obama gave plenty of time for a national dialogue of Health Care reform. Obama never made it any secret what his agenda was during his campaign for the presidency. He started the dialogue about the bill before he was even elected. He began official dialogue spearheaded by Tom Daschle right after his inauguration (Daschle was unfortunately disqualified from the task in February of 2008). Open bipartisan discussion for the plan begins in March, 2008. Obama leaves it to the legislature to actually work out the details of the plan but the plan is stonewalled by the August, 2008 target date Obama had originally set as a target date for completion. Repeated votes on various drafts are made through that fall and early winter with little progress.
Obama introduces his own version of the bill on February 22, 2009. That is one year after the job was handed to both parties to work on. Obama holds a bipartisan health care summit on February 25. Republicans reply with this comment...
" 'Bipartisanship' is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support," Boehner and Cantor wrote. "Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means."
This reply ignores the fact that the right has been engaged to help form the bill for a full year. Obama's efforts are essentially snubbed by the right. Obama uses the democratic power balance to bring the legislation to a final vote on March 21, 2010 and he signs the bill into effect on March 23, 2010.
Republicans had a full year to put their stamp upon the National Health Care plan. They chose to play political games instead. When a final draft was set in front of them, they tried to stonewall some more, and the President showed he had some balls for one of the few times during his administration. Even then, the right still had over three weeks to make some final compromise and they frittered their chances away. You are correct in saying the average person had little chance to read and understand the bill for themselves. You can not make the same claim for the Republicans who were voted in to act as representatives for those very same people.
Now, I have given real evidence about the questionable reliability of the polls you claimed shows national discontent... and I have given a verifiable timeline to counter your claims that ObamaCare was bum-rushed through our hallowed legislative halls. I think we can go on to other subjects unless you have something more substantial to bring to the table.
I still don't buy it, Grim...
I still don't buy it. The Republicans were basically locked out in the formation of the bill that gave us Obamacare. How many Republicans were in those closed door sessions when the final 2,000+ bill was written? When it was released prior to the vote, how long were they given to read and analyze it before the vote? Some coverage even made use of speed readers in an attempt just read it as a means of trying to call attention to the inadequate time.
Now that enough time has passed that it has been analyzed, and parts of it are starting to be implemented, what do the current polls indicate about the people's feelings about it? Obama said a lot of things in the past. Now he has his Obamacare and what interest the people is not what they thought they were getting, but what that trillion dollar bill has actually done and what it will do in the future. It was put on the "credit card" of the people, and many current polls indicate their dislike of what they finally got, as well as the money it will cost them or whoever if the future has to pay for it.
The current polls remind me of something in the Wizzard of Oz comic strip - the peasants are revolting.
lol... I always liked the Wizard of Id.
No, they just put holds on considering matters like
legislation or appointments as they are allowed to do, and never let most of those come to a vote unless Obama adopted the Republican position. They put more holds on more bills and appointments than ever in history, far outstripping most full 4 year terms in Obama's first 2 years. They deliberately hamstrung him, for the 2010 mid terms so they could come back knowing that Democrats don't vote heavily in the mid terms.
50%+ 1 vote is a mandate. George Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but had no trouble, and talked about his mandate (personally I would have stuck to, "No, we're just good friends"). In his second term he said he'd earned political capital and it was time to spend it.
And Obama's party did not control all three branches, in theory, nobody can. It controlled the Legislature (both Congress and Senate) which is one, and the Executive, which is two. You think he controls the Court? Sorry, not a chance as they prove every chance they get to exercise judicial activism and expand the ability of business to influence Congress and the Senate.
Legislative Body, Executive, Judiciary, those are the three Branches of Government, or was my Grade 4 teacher lying.
Please excuse this combattive reply which you, Roger, who have been very polite and respectful in your disagreement, and you do not deserve and which is not directed at you. It's the result of the double Standard being applied to this Administration. You win the election and the House and the Senate, you've got a mandate.
Oh and why did the Republicans insist on a 60 vote Supermajority on virtually all bills, because they knew Obama only had 59 or 58 Senators. That too was a roadblock.
Kees, there was...
Kees, there was George Wallace in 1968. He took 5 states, giving him 46 Electoral Votes. He meets the label classification of non Democratic or Republican, but he ran under label of American Independent Party which left him off of the Wiki list.
Yep, I should have read the whole thread first
the most successful was;
a man in the 60's named George Wallace, from Alabama. The best a third party candidate can hope for in America is to be a spoiler and express his opinion of who should get his electoral votes to become President. Of course whoever bent the most his way would probably be the next president.
Wasn't he the scary one?
He certainly looked like Edward Robinson, and 'he' scared me!
I've just read that Wallace was paralyzed after a shooting. I had forgotten that.
He reminded me of a very animated southern preacher when he spoke. He was known to be a segregationist but what he'd probably prefer to be referred to is just a good ol' southern boy. He was a Democrat but left the party. Of course he'd probably say that the party left him. Just one of those colorful characters who often made the news for his antics.
Yep, that's the one.
We had our own then, Enoch Powell, a Conservative MP and Government Minister in the 60's. I was only a teenager then, but I remember his "Rivers of blood" speech being broadcast and discussed here in the UK at the time.
It never happened, although there were riots in Brixton, a suburb of London in 1981, but it is generally accepted now that this was caused by the Police's "Stop & Search" policy, aimed primarily at black people.
I doubt it would work.
Current political policies in Washington (in my pov) are so driven by party ideology right now, that the knee jerk refusal to consider any suggestion by someone not from your own party gridlocks any hope of real progress. Any true independent politician would be quickly sandbagged by both Right and Left as an unsophisticated obstructionist at best. They certainly would receive little cooperation without the "good old boy" network that builds consensus for moving legislation along in our capital.