Independent President?

[Slippery Slope]

Independents are a growing in the United States, people are sick and tired of partisanship.

I understand that Independents don't have a specific ideology, and that they are more like people who don't fit into the popular party lines of either Republican, Democrat, etc.

But will an independent (with not party affiliation) ever take the oval office?

I disagree, the independent ranks are swelling simply because republicans don't want to be affiliated with that moniker because of the last eight years. All of my republican friends now call themselves independents. I think only the ditto heads still call themselves republicans.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I think its an outside chance but not likely.

Two ways...

If there is a strong third party candidate both on the right and the left, thus making it a legitimate four man race. If that happened, you could perhaps have an independent squeeking in.

Nah, it would get thrown into congress, where the dems and GOP would vote for their own people.

I could see this happening with the republicans. As the elites of it continue to push it left and left I can see a more MODERATE libertarian ideology becoming popular within the youth. I could see in a 12 to 16 year time period the Republican party being steered farther left by its elites and the former younger folks pushing the more libertarian and traditional conservative ideology to such a forefront that it ends up swallowing the republican party and taking the party back to its roots. So you'd essentially still have a two party system, but the Republican Party would look strikingly different then the it would've in the 20-30 years prior to it.

I disagree that the GOP is going to the left. Look at who is losing elections and being replaced in congress. It isn't hard-line republicans, it's the moderates from swing districts. I mean, there's not a single Republican congressman from New England. They're already being pulled right

 

[the makeout hobo]

I think that perhaps they will. If a celebrity/charismatic, well-funded, moderate independent ran on a platform of reducing government's power (like executive orders), of communication w/ the American people, and solutions that cover a large majority of what people want without having trade-offs (environmental solutions using capitalism, welfare reform that encourages people to work, etc etc etc) than I think that canidate would have a good shot.

Keep in mind, this canidate can point out every flaw and problem with the R's and D's with their past administrations, and how they continue to abuse the American people. The D's and R's won't be able to call him out on much, especially since he/she is calling for solutions that at least partially satisfy all areas in the political spectrum, things that the average American is in support of. They would be in a very uncomfortable place.

Why wouldn't the Dems and GOP be able to call him on it? They'll be calling for solutions too, and they will feel his proposals have holes in them, which they'll poke at as needed. To say nothing of one of the candidates co-opting his positions. You're looking at this way too optimistically.

 

[Keorythe]

Well, first of all you have to define an "Independent". An independent is not the same as a third party. An independent is someone who has no firm convictions about political policy. They are the flip floppers that are more likely to allow emotional sentiment to control their support than anything else. They are not Libertarians nor Greens. They will often claim fiscal insert ideology here and socially insert ideology here but vote straight party ticket with the occasional popular vote despite a politicians voting record or public ideology.

Claiming themselves as "Independent" makes them sound as if they are free thinkers and not hardline partisans.

Real Independents willing to vote a mixed ticket based on research and not popular setiment are not easy to find in the current morass of politically weaklings.


So in essence, no. An Independent will never be elected president. Third party? Oh yeah.

 

[peepnklown]

I do not think it will happen in my lifetime but, if we want an independent to take the White House then we need more media coverage and they would need to be included in the national debates.

 

[laska]

I think it would take something like a severe recession, both parties nominating weak candidates, and an independent who is a star (charisma). They would need a well funded, highly organized campaign, and a political philosophy that is not too narrow. The timing needs to be just right to catch lightning in a bottle. Too early and the magic can fizzle, too late and not enough time to get their message out.

 

[.daniel]

Why wouldn't the Dems and GOP be able to call him on it? They'll be calling for solutions too, and they will feel his proposals have holes in them, which they'll poke at as needed. To say nothing of one of the candidates co-opting his positions. You're looking at this way too optimistically.

I meant that are no past administrations for them to criticize. And by independent, I mean both literal independents and third parties that are moderate. Libertarians stand a slim chance of getting elected because they are so radical. Green and Constitution parties as well. It'll take a very moderate one to pull it off.

I am not saying that they won't be able to criticize at all, though. But a truly moderate canidate can fend off attacks from both sides much easier than any party that leans very far any direction, politically. Let's take Welfare for an example.

The Democratic canidate is for continuing it. Republican canidate wants to end it because it damages the economy and encourages poverty. The independent says "Well, let's have it, but let's reform it so that it is fiscally responsible and discourages poverty." If he can provide a good plan for doing that -I know I can - than he will stand a decent chance in debates on topics like that. He'll also find a lot of centrists, some centrist Repubs and many Democrats agreeing with his/her position.

 

[Zyphlin]

I disagree that the GOP is going to the left. Look at who is losing elections and being replaced in congress. It isn't hard-line republicans, it's the moderates from swing districts. I mean, there's not a single Republican congressman from New England. They're already being pulled right

I disagree here. Look at who the republican nominated this time out...one of the most moderate to left leaning republicans in the senate. Look at comments by some republicans such as Powell, Arnold, and even McCain now talking about how the party needs to continue to move to the left and getting support from it by others in the elite. Look at the actions taken by republicans in the past years in regards to the perscription drug plan [welfare], no child left behind [government intervention], a large amount of them joining originally on the immigration bill [weak sense of nationalism and rule of law], and recent movement in regards to global warming as a means for government regulation and government buy outs.

Its not a giant move, its more of a very slow shuffle, but it has most definitely been a leftward move from where the movement was in the 80's and many in its elite leadership are continuing the movement to that direction.

In regards to losing spots, go look at 2006. The vast majority of democratic pick ups were done by "Blue Dog Democrats", democrats that were relatively moderate or even right leaning on numerous issues save for the war, that ran up against republicans that either goofed badly or were somewhat unpopular within their base due to the lack of conservatism shown in congress leading up to it.

Democrats didn't win the congress in 2006 on the backs of going more liberal. They won it on opposition to the war, candidates that were far more moderate or even right leaning save for their stance on the war, and capitalizing on a number of bad scandals coming down on the republican side.

Virginia is an excellent example of this. Outside of the war, Jim Webb didn't have many extreme liberal views. Many of his views outside of the war were moderate, with maybe a slight left lean or occasionally even a right lean. The only MAJOR difference he had with Allen was the war and that's what he ran on...and even then it took macaca and yotuube to give him the seat. Prior to that, Allen was looking to be a shoe in and a potential presidential nominee. I imagine come the next go round we're going to see the Republicans in Virginia end up nominating some extreme moderate of the party thinking they can get some people in Northern Virginia, but that won't happen and they'll lose a lot of their support everywhere else in it.

 

[American]

It's kind of odd that the public didn't like Ron Paul because he seemed too moderate, but decided on McCain as their presidential nominee. And now they want Congress to move further left? I'm confused.

 

[JoeMama]

I disagree, the independent ranks are swelling simply because republicans don't want to be affiliated with that moniker because of the last eight years. All of my republican friends now call themselves independents. I think only the ditto heads still call themselves republicans.

....interesting point, but I think the statistics I brought previously tell a different story

 

[ludahai]

I think its an outside chance but not likely.

Two ways...

If there is a strong third party candidate both on the right and the left, thus making it a legitimate four man race. If that happened, you could perhaps have an independent squeeking in.

However, this this happens, the likelihood of ANY of those candidates getting enough EVs to win is remote, thus throwing the election into the House, where party loyalties will win out.

Or

If one parties incumbant was disliked by almost all, and the opposing parties guy was not liked by his base or ONLY liked by a segment of his base. In an instance like this I could see a 3rd party independent who had things that moderate members of the incumbant party could get behind while appealing to some of the core beliefs (or a subset of core beliefs) of the opposition party as well.

However it is a very slim chance. I think what's more likely is the actual rise of a legitimate 3rd party with the decline of one of the two major parties, with either the 3rd party then assimilating the flagging main party into itself and essentially birthing it with the 3rd parties ideals but the main parties name.

I could see this happening with the republicans. As the elites of it continue to push it left and left I can see a more MODERATE libertarian ideology becoming popular within the youth. I could see in a 12 to 16 year time period the Republican party being steered farther left by its elites and the former younger folks pushing the more libertarian and traditional conservative ideology to such a forefront that it ends up swallowing the republican party and taking the party back to its roots. So you'd essentially still have a two party system, but the Republican Party would look strikingly different then the it would've in the 20-30 years prior to it.

Theoretically possible, but I still don't think you could get the national support needed without the structure and support of a political party.

 

[ludahai]

History has shone that parties don't really die like that. And if they do die, like federalists, there ideas live on...but that is besides the point.

If Repubs and Dems die out...which I dont think will happen, but if they do, then other parties will take over.

the year 2009 is no different from the 18th century - in the sense that we still got the same partisan elections - and the same parties.

The way an independent would have to win (which is HARD..duh..) is too overtake the other parties.

But I think a case could be made for independents...that they end the partisanship started by Feds and Repubs in the 18th century. To transform washington - one man at a time. Starting with him, the first independent pres.

Exactly. WHen the Whigs died out, the Republicans developed and took their place. I wonder how many people realize what Abe Lincoln was first elected to public office as a Whig before the party fell apart.

 

[ludahai]

Just like a woman, always talking about shoes. :2razz:

Imelda Marcos?

 

[Slippery Slope]

....interesting point, but I think the statistics I brought previously tell a different story

Yeah except most of those republicans er, independents claim they were never republican. IOW, I don't trust that people in the stats are being truthful.

 

[JoeMama]

Yeah except most of those republicans er, independents claim they were never republican. IOW, I don't trust that people in the stats are being truthful.

Yes as I said before:

"....that's pretty strong stats...although I understand some of those stats could've been twisted... as all stats are nowadays are"

A stat is a powerful, yet it can be quite dangerous in distorting the truth.

 

[UtahBill]

If an eloquent orator with money to back him up came along, and took a moderate/centrist America first position, I would join up and even donate money.