What if ??

[kentuck]

Bush were to actually win in November (perish the thought) but just suppose? And Al Gore were to run as a Green or Independent in 2008, would you leave the Democratic fold and vote for Al Gore or would you remain loyal to your Party and try to get 'em the next time? Just a hypothetical... :)

[Droopy]

1. Another question is

If you are a Green would you vote for Gore if they ran him?

I'd go with the Dem candidate, unless he/she was just really awful like Zell Miller.

[w13rd0]

2. If Bush serves another 4 years...

...and I'm not in a camp, and allowed to vote, in 2008, I can't say with confidence I would continue to throw my vote away on an opposition party that does a feeble job of opposing.

[kaitykaity]

3. If Bush 'wins' this time, I don't think there will be

any more 'fair and free' elections. The Thugs will either
throw out the Constitution completely, or they will
find a way to throw out the 22nd Amendment limiting the
president to two terms.

[Lou_C]

4. If Bush rips the election off again I am going to move

I will not stay in the US any longer if he takes over in 2004.

[Cornus]

6. Me too (eom)

[monkeymind]

5. dont you know

the world is going to end if the pathetic ABB strategy fails.

[kentuck]

7. Al Gore has a lot of supporters here....

Would they desert him if thought it would be best for our country if ran as an Indpendent or a Green? It might just happen...

[Bandit]

8. I will get flamed for this but I would vote for Gore even if he became a

Republican. Gore is a man with absolute integrity and nothing but the best intentions for America and himself. So the answer to your question is absolutely yes. But Gore is a Democrat and is a man of integrity so your question is very very hypothetical.

[HFishbine]

9. I've already left the Democratic fold

to become an independent. I'd vote for Gore in a heartbeat on any ticket.

[Senior citizen]

10. You guys sure post a lot of

what if * wins stuff. And always refer to your Fuhrer by name. Get a clue, dude.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[kentuck]

11. At least I didn't put "you guys" in the title of my post....

Anyway, that's what we do here. Just as you might see a post about Ron Paul for VP with John Kerry. Would you prefer this topic not be talked about?

[amjsjc]

12. No

Without massively amending the Constitution there will never be a stable third party in the United States. Anyone who votes for a third party candidate is effectively dis-enfranchising themselves.

The only thing third party candidates have ever managed to do is suck away votes from the major political party closest to them ideologically, often costing that party elections (see Roosevent in 1912, Perot in 1992, Nader in 2000).

The result of a major dem running on a third party platform would just be another Republican president.

[kentuck]

13. Do you think third Parties can force change in the two major Parties?

Do you think Goldwater forced the Repubs to change, for example? I know Goldwater was not a "third-Party" but his vote totals resembled a third Party...Perhaps Ross Perot might be a better example. Did he make the Parties change their policies about budget deficits - at least while Clinton was Prez?

(edited to add Perot analogy)

[amjsjc]

14. Not really...

Well, as an example, Clinton signed NAFTA, so in that sense Perot's candidacy had no real effect on later policy. (I don't remember anything about Perot's balanced budget positions.)

However Nader's attempt to drag the Democratic party to the left will only cause it to alienate moderate voters (if it works) or just be a drain on the total democratic vote total (if it dosen't). Either way it makes it easier for a Republican to be elected. And we all know how environmentally friendly W is.

[kentuck]

15. Perot's main issue was the deficit and the "giant sucking sound"..

and he was gonna get under the hood and fix it... :)