Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:01 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:12 am

That's the problem with Libertarians and their ability, or lack of, to find any cohesion to rally around - they are by their very nature stridently independent and resistant to any conformity or compromise. I can't see them rallying around someone in any great numbers.

Well, they rallied around Gary Johnson twice.

And you’re a Green supporter, who is preparing to back Jesse “the Body” Ventura this fall. Cohere around that, Mr. Centrist.

Nah, if Gary Johnson was a woman I would've voted for him/her/them/zir in the last election.

As for the "rally", twice even, he got less than 1% of the overall vote in 2012 and his big showing in 2016 was still 5x lower than what Ross Perot pulled in '92. If that's evidence of Libertarians "rallying" then it's just indicative of there not being a lot of Libertarians.

I was hopeful Johnson could get 5% in 2016. Having a 3rd party break the 5% threshold would be a pretty yuge step forward towards breaking the two party stranglehold.

If they failed in the 2016 perfect storm... it ain't happening anytime soon.

Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:21 am I was hopeful Johnson could get 5% in 2016. Having a 3rd party break the 5% threshold would be a pretty yuge step forward towards breaking the two party stranglehold.

If they failed in the 2016 perfect storm... it ain't happening anytime soon.

Perot got about 19% in 1992. How's that 3rd party working out? Show me any evidence in the past 200+ years of American politics that a 3rd party is viable for more than a very short period of time before it and its ideas get absorbed by one of the two major parties. Of course, you can't because there isn't any evidence. So what does a 3rd party have to truly do (and your 5% threshold isn't a "pretty yuge step" as it's been easily passed by other 3rd parties in US history and there is no permanent 3rd party despite that) to stick as a permanent 3rd party. I'm of the opinion that we can't and won't get a permanent 3rd party due to the structure of our federal government - I'd argue that the way the 2 branches of government work (not the judicial) and the way they are set up naturally defaults us to a two party system. That would have to be changed for a 3rd party to really gain any traction.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:26 am

Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:21 am I was hopeful Johnson could get 5% in 2016. Having a 3rd party break the 5% threshold would be a pretty yuge step forward towards breaking the two party stranglehold.

If they failed in the 2016 perfect storm... it ain't happening anytime soon.

Perot got about 19% in 1992. How's that 3rd party working out? Show me any evidence in the past 200+ years of American politics that a 3rd party is viable for more than a very short period of time before it and its ideas get absorbed by one of the two major parties. Of course, you can't because there isn't any evidence. So what does a 3rd party have to truly do (and your 5% threshold isn't a "pretty yuge step" as it's been easily passed by other 3rd parties in US history and there is no permanent 3rd party despite that) to stick as a permanent 3rd party. I'm of the opinion that we can't and won't get a permanent 3rd party due to the structure of our federal government - I'd argue that the way the 2 branches of government work (not the judicial) and the way they are set up naturally defaults us to a two party system. That would have to be changed for a 3rd party to really gain any traction.

We had this conversation in 2016. Don't expect much GF.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:26 am

Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:21 am I was hopeful Johnson could get 5% in 2016. Having a 3rd party break the 5% threshold would be a pretty yuge step forward towards breaking the two party stranglehold.

If they failed in the 2016 perfect storm... it ain't happening anytime soon.

Perot got about 19% in 1992. How's that 3rd party working out? Show me any evidence in the past 200+ years of American politics that a 3rd party is viable for more than a very short period of time before it and its ideas get absorbed by one of the two major parties. Of course, you can't because there isn't any evidence. So what does a 3rd party have to truly do (and your 5% threshold isn't a "pretty yuge step" as it's been easily passed by other 3rd parties in US history and there is no permanent 3rd party despite that) to stick as a permanent 3rd party. I'm of the opinion that we can't and won't get a permanent 3rd party due to the structure of our federal government - I'd argue that the way the 2 branches of government work (not the judicial) and the way they are set up naturally defaults us to a two party system. That would have to be changed for a 3rd party to really gain any traction.

Careful. That would be like comparing Covid to the Spanish flu
In any way. History does not repeat itself therefore it’s useless.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:26 am

Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:21 am I was hopeful Johnson could get 5% in 2016. Having a 3rd party break the 5% threshold would be a pretty yuge step forward towards breaking the two party stranglehold.

If they failed in the 2016 perfect storm... it ain't happening anytime soon.

Perot got about 19% in 1992. How's that 3rd party working out?

Perot ran as an independent not 3rd party, Professor Ganny. Try again.

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:36 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:26 am

Perot got about 19% in 1992. How's that 3rd party working out? Show me any evidence in the past 200+ years of American politics that a 3rd party is viable for more than a very short period of time before it and its ideas get absorbed by one of the two major parties. Of course, you can't because there isn't any evidence. So what does a 3rd party have to truly do (and your 5% threshold isn't a "pretty yuge step" as it's been easily passed by other 3rd parties in US history and there is no permanent 3rd party despite that) to stick as a permanent 3rd party. I'm of the opinion that we can't and won't get a permanent 3rd party due to the structure of our federal government - I'd argue that the way the 2 branches of government work (not the judicial) and the way they are set up naturally defaults us to a two party system. That would have to be changed for a 3rd party to really gain any traction.

Careful. That would be like comparing Covid to the Spanish flu
In any way. History does not repeat itself therefore it’s useless.

Well, that's one incomplete version of how to interpret history. The critical part you're missing in your ill-quipped tripe is that everything must be interpreted in its context. History without context is simply a click-baiting meme waiting to happen.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:40 am

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:36 am

Careful. That would be like comparing Covid to the Spanish flu
In any way. History does not repeat itself therefore it’s useless.

Well, that's one incomplete version of how to interpret history. The critical part you're missing in your ill-quipped tripe is that everything must be interpreted in its context. History without context is simply a click-baiting meme waiting to happen.

I agree. You’re off your game this morning, Ganny. Take a seat.

Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:39 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:26 am

Perot got about 19% in 1992. How's that 3rd party working out?

Perot ran as an independent not 3rd party, Professor Ganny. Try again.

And he ran as the Reform Party candidate in 1996 and got 8.4% of the vote, again, well in excess of your self-proclaimed 5% is going to be "pretty yuge" standard. Is that good enough for you or do I need to further illuminate things for you? There's a reason why you crashed and burned so badly in that Russian thread - thinking and posting should go together - when you do the latter without the former you end up with posts like what you've recently just dumped into this thread.

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:43 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:40 am

Well, that's one incomplete version of how to interpret history. The critical part you're missing in your ill-quipped tripe is that everything must be interpreted in its context. History without context is simply a click-baiting meme waiting to happen.

I agree. You’re off your game this morning, Ganny. Take a seat.

You agree with who, Skelly? Did you take your meds this morning, kalmie, you can't seriously be serious. It's been a valley for you recently in terms of posting quality but that would take you into a whole new trough. Say it ain't so.

89Hen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:14 am

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:36 am

Maybe. I know you’ll take the under 1%, with your renowned fondness for third parties.

I'm the one who set the 4% bar. That was back when you LP guys were so excited because Johnson was polling in the 9's.

And don't confuse my grounded reality with a dislike of third parties.

Grounded reality? Entrenched stubbornness is more like it.

If Amash gets the LP nod, I’ll take the over on your 4%. If it’s anyone else, under 2%.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:43 am

Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:39 am

Perot ran as an independent not 3rd party, Professor Ganny. Try again.

And he ran as the Reform Party candidate in 1996 and got 8.4% of the vote, again, well in excess of your self-proclaimed 5% is going to be "pretty yuge" standard. Is that good enough for you or do I need to further illuminate things for you? There's a reason why you crashed and burned so badly in that Russian thread - thinking and posting should go together - when you do the latter without the former you end up with posts like what you've recently just dumped into this thread.

That's better. Accuracy is important right, Professor Ganny?

A third party receiving 5% of the vote opens up public matching funds for your party. This not only helps presidential campaigns but state and other federal elections.

Unfortunately, the Reform Party imploded due to internal squabbles and couldn't maintain the momentum. The Libertarian Party has been around longer and would have more staying power, imo.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:45 am

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:43 am

I agree. You’re off your game this morning, Ganny. Take a seat.

You agree with who, Skelly? Did you take your meds this morning, kalmie, you can't seriously be serious. It's been a valley for you recently in terms of posting quality but that would take you into a whole new trough. Say it ain't so.

For an engineer, GF, I guess you make a great historian.

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:30 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:45 am

You agree with who, Skelly? Did you take your meds this morning, kalmie, you can't seriously be serious. It's been a valley for you recently in terms of posting quality but that would take you into a whole new trough. Say it ain't so.

For an engineer, GF, I guess you make a great historian.

I did minor History while getting my degree in ChemE. Even made the honor history society. It's amazingly useful when Jeopardy comes on tv.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:43 am I agree. You’re off your game this morning, Ganny. Take a seat.

You agree with who, Skelly? Did you take your meds this morning, kalmie, you can't seriously be serious. It's been a valley for you recently in terms of posting quality but that would take you into a whole new trough. Say it ain't so.

He’d be crapping his diapers over a legitimate Green Party candidate and the possibility they might pull a precious vote or two from the bought and paid for Dem candidate

Don’t let him fool you he’s as much a retail Democrat as any of them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:43 am

And he ran as the Reform Party candidate in 1996 and got 8.4% of the vote, again, well in excess of your self-proclaimed 5% is going to be "pretty yuge" standard. Is that good enough for you or do I need to further illuminate things for you? There's a reason why you crashed and burned so badly in that Russian thread - thinking and posting should go together - when you do the latter without the former you end up with posts like what you've recently just dumped into this thread.

That's better. Accuracy is important right, Professor Ganny?

A third party receiving 5% of the vote opens up public matching funds for your party. This not only helps presidential campaigns but state and other federal elections.

Unfortunately, the Reform Party imploded due to internal squabbles and couldn't maintain the momentum. The Libertarian Party has been around longer and would have more staying power, imo.

Who are YOU trying to kid?

You’re the lefty Alex Jones of CS... you peddled the weakest conspiracy theory thread in the history of CS since ExpandSpanos went full fake moon mission

Just sit in the corner and let the adults have the big people conversations here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:25 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:43 am

And he ran as the Reform Party candidate in 1996 and got 8.4% of the vote, again, well in excess of your self-proclaimed 5% is going to be "pretty yuge" standard. Is that good enough for you or do I need to further illuminate things for you? There's a reason why you crashed and burned so badly in that Russian thread - thinking and posting should go together - when you do the latter without the former you end up with posts like what you've recently just dumped into this thread.

That's better. Accuracy is important right, Professor Ganny?

A third party receiving 5% of the vote opens up public matching funds for your party. This not only helps presidential campaigns but state and other federal elections.

Unfortunately, the Reform Party imploded due to internal squabbles and couldn't maintain the momentum. The Libertarian Party has been around longer and would have more staying power, imo.

Wait, when did you start caring about accuracy? Who are you and what have you done with Skelly???

Regardless, the same idea exists - Perot had almost 20% of the vote in '92 and had more than 8% of the vote four years later. The idea of 5% being some magical window, especially considering the idea that they qualify for public funding, is just a fantasy. The important two things in politics are ideas (policies, plans, etc) and winning. On the former, history has shown us time and time again that when a 3rd party emerges, it quickly becomes absorbed into one of the major two parties and the ideas do as well - that's how parties change over time. The winning thing is just as important - no one like to lose. No one likes to have no shot at winning. At least in America. Third parties have no chance of immediate success in gaining control, or even partial control, of either elected branch of government. Therefore, the two parties who do have a chance are the ones that dominate. Even if a 3rd party would do so well as to win, it's very likely they would just consume one of the two parties and you'd be back with two again. Unless we change the structure of our government, that's how it's going to keep playing out. I'm sure if you did one of those Nash equilibrium's the game theory would prove that as well.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:21 am

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:01 am

Well, they rallied around Gary Johnson twice.

And you’re a Green supporter, who is preparing to back Jesse “the Body” Ventura this fall. Cohere around that, Mr. Centrist.

Nah, if Gary Johnson was a woman I would've voted for him/her/them/zir in the last election.

Mmmmkay.

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:23 am

89Hen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:14 am

I'm the one who set the 4% bar. That was back when you LP guys were so excited because Johnson was polling in the 9's.

And don't confuse my grounded reality with a dislike of third parties.

Grounded reality? Entrenched stubbornness is more like it.

If Amash gets the LP nod, I’ll take the over on your 4%. If it’s anyone else, under 2%.

I'm stubborn about a lot of things, but how so when it comes to the LP or third party politics? I'm exactly where GF is and have been for a long time. His posts on this page about Perot are almost verbatim from my posts four years ago. If EVER there were a time for a third party candidate it was in 2016. I can't imagine two more hated people in a POTUS election.

89Hen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:10 am

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:23 am

Grounded reality? Entrenched stubbornness is more like it.

If Amash gets the LP nod, I’ll take the over on your 4%. If it’s anyone else, under 2%.

I'm stubborn about a lot of things, but how so when it comes to the LP or third party politics? I'm exactly where GF is and have been for a long time. His posts on this page about Perot are almost verbatim from my posts four years ago. If EVER there were a time for a third party candidate it was in 2016. I can't imagine two more hated people in a POTUS election.

2020 might be just as fertile. Trump is still hated and while Biden isn't hated he is seen as an old, senile, creepy, lifetime politician. If Amash runs, Trump is going to attack him which will likely bring him a lot more attention than Johnson got in 2016. It's an opportunity for the Libertarians to take another step forward if they can stop being so obstinate.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:45 am

89Hen wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:10 am
I'm stubborn about a lot of things, but how so when it comes to the LP or third party politics? I'm exactly where GF is and have been for a long time. His posts on this page about Perot are almost verbatim from my posts four years ago. If EVER there were a time for a third party candidate it was in 2016. I can't imagine two more hated people in a POTUS election.

2020 might be just as fertile. Trump is still hated and while Biden isn't hated he is seen as an old, senile, creepy, lifetime politician. If Amash runs, Trump is going to attack him which will likely bring him a lot more attention than Johnson got in 2016. It's an opportunity for the Libertarians to take another step forward if they can stop being so obstinate.

I guess I'd ask the exact same question I asked in 2016... what is a step forward? Jelly was the only one who put a number to it back then. His magic number was 5% of the vote. What would a step forward look like for you?

CID1990 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:37 am

GannonFan wrote:
You agree with who, Skelly? Did you take your meds this morning, kalmie, you can't seriously be serious. It's been a valley for you recently in terms of posting quality but that would take you into a whole new trough. Say it ain't so.

He’d be crapping his diapers over a legitimate Green Party candidate and the possibility they might pull a precious vote or two from the bought and paid for Dem candidate

Don’t let him fool you he’s as much a retail Democrat as any of them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep that’s me.

Btw, Ganny, I was agreeing with YOU and alluding to attacks on my link to economic study that compares covid to 1918.

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:56 am

CID1990 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:37 am
He’d be crapping his diapers over a legitimate Green Party candidate and the possibility they might pull a precious vote or two from the bought and paid for Dem candidate

Don’t let him fool you he’s as much a retail Democrat as any of them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep that’s me.

Btw, Ganny, I was agreeing with YOU and alluding to attacks on my link to economic study that compares covid to 1918.

Unlike many “historians,” Ganny prefers not to have his work “peer reviewed.”

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 10:08 am

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:56 am

Yep that’s me.

Btw, Ganny, I was agreeing with YOU and alluding to attacks on my link to economic study that compares covid to 1918.

Unlike many “historians,” Ganny prefers not to have his work “peer reviewed.”

Nonsense, I love having my work "peer reviewed" - but I also enjoy the aspect of being able to tell my "peers" that they're wrong in their review and how that reflects a shortcoming on them personally. It's like no-holds barred history. MMA History if you will.

Besides, I think a lot of historians hate having their work reviewed - those 1619 Project folks couldn't have been more resistant to peer review.

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:56 am

CID1990 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:37 am
He’d be crapping his diapers over a legitimate Green Party candidate and the possibility they might pull a precious vote or two from the bought and paid for Dem candidate

Don’t let him fool you he’s as much a retail Democrat as any of them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep that’s me.

Btw, Ganny, I was agreeing with YOU and alluding to attacks on my link to economic study that compares covid to 1918.

Eh, sometimes it's hard for me to remember which side of a topic you were on (or at least which side you finally ended up on after going back and forth) and how that may or may not play into a snarky rejoinder on another poster. Plus I'm at work (essential employee - holding up the tax base for all you guys) so I was just shooting from the hip rather than figuring all that out.