Posted on 07/12/2008 12:34:59 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
This non-partisan, national grassroots lobbying organization working day and night on issues pertaining to border sovereignty, recently updated their online 2008 Presidential Candidates score card.
On a variety of (15) issues relating to Immigration, the group ranked Presidential Candidate CHUCK BALDWIN of the US Constitution Party, as "EXCELLENT" in all categories.
Coming in second place with a high report card was Libertarian Party's CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR.
There are also helpful links to each Presidential candidate's official website.
I like the Constitution Party and am very supportive of their platform. I am going to vote for McCain because I don’t think we can afford Obama in the White House. He would appoint liberal judges and destroy our chances of overturning Roe vs. Wade. I feel we are very close to having enough to overturn it.
Thanks for signing on and bumping the thread.
Is that a backhanded complement to Baldwin, a slap at Barr’s fall, or an indictment of the Republican nomination process?
You are free to make subjective suppositions. Thanks.
Best for who? Best for Barack Obama?
I’m in Illinois so a vote for McCain here is meaningless as he has zero chance of carrying Illinois and its electoral votes. I can vote for McCain or Howdy Doody, and it won’t make a bit of difference as to the outcome in Illinois. So, I’ll be casting a protest vote and will vote for whomever has the best position on getting rid of the illegals.
As I have posted before I will vote for the Constitution Party for president this November since I live in NH which is a state what will go solidly for Osama. Our only hope here in NH is to unseat either or both of these lousy 1st term Rats in the US House and retain Sununu in the Senate.
3rd parties cannot win with either just Presidential candidates or single issue platforms. Instead, the two things they need are “popular” platforms and targeted elections.
“Popular” platforms are easy and in no way hypocritical. The party starts by bullet listing its top 20 agenda items, in no particular order. Then a national poll is taken about what the top 5 or top 10 of that list is popular with the public as well.
Then, as with the Republican Contract With America, you get all of your candidates nationwide to sign onto the short list, as a clear, concise platform that anyone can understand, and all candidates advertise.
This does not mean that you disavow you other platform items, just that you run on the most popular ones. It connect the party with the people. It also brings in votes from people who like a brief, clear message, even if they are not in full agreement with it.
At the same time, the 3rd party needs to pick its battles, those with a higher chance for a pickup in the election. By scavaging a seat here and a seat there, offering an alternative after a scandal by the incumbent candidate, the 3rd party can build its elected base.
This is how a 3rd party becomes a major player in elections, and it is a program that takes decades to pay off, but does pay off, unlike other techniques.
“I’m in Illinois so a vote for McCain here is meaningless as he has zero chance of carrying Illinois and its electoral votes. I can vote for McCain or Howdy Doody, and it won’t make a bit of difference as to the outcome in Illinois. So, I’ll be casting a protest vote and will vote for whomever has the best position on getting rid of the illegals.”
I feel the same here in California. I’m playing with the idea of voting for Chuck Baldwin for President, but the only thing holding me back is the national popular vote.
A protest vote might be counterproductive.
The liberals want to get rid of the Electoral College. I worry that McCain could win the Presidency but a lot of conservatives in Blue States will not have voted for McCain, thus skewing the popular vote. Obama could end up with a large majority of votes, thus opening the door for a serious chance of changing the system.
Still, that’s only a potential battle so I’ll probably still vote my principles this time around, which means Baldwin. I’m more comfortable with the Constitution Party platform than the Republican. The Independent Party is way too far left for me.
Independent = Libertarian /slip
“The question is are you going to throw your vote away on someone who has no chance at winning to give an election this important to a socialist/marxist? The choice is yours.”
Yes, I probably will.
Then we can start the reset revolution while I am still young enough to help.
.....Yes, I probably will.....
That is a mindless statement. To purposely allow the possibility of the Marxist Obama, Pelosi, Reid cabal is dereliction. It verges on spite, hate, bitter vengence. It is the action of a small child, not a reasoning adult.
Aren't there enough knives in the back of conservatism without you adding yours.
To purposely allow the possibility of the Marxist Obama, Pelosi, Reid McCain cabal is dereliction. It borders on illogical rationalization.
Barr is pulling down 8%.
He and Baldwin are the only conservatives in the race.
I could vote for either one and be satisfied that I did the right thing by myself and my country.
“That is a mindless statement. To purposely allow the possibility of the Marxist Obama, Pelosi, Reid cabal is dereliction. It verges on spite, hate, bitter vengence. It is the action of a small child, not a reasoning adult.”
Calling B.S. on the shaming.
As long as McCain wins, it’s Bush all over again....the party remains divided and the CFR’s NAU agenda moves forward pitting non-globalists vs. globalists.
But put a globalist/Marxist in office and let the RESET REVOLUTION begin!!
I will not say what I really think about this.
Vote McCain,or you help elect Obama.
What other issue is there?
that is delusional
“That is a mindless statement. To purposely allow the possibility of the Marxist Obama, Pelosi, Reid cabal is dereliction. It verges on spite, hate, bitter vengence. It is the action of a small child, not a reasoning adult.”
LOL, I just love how moderates try to win friends and influence people. Moderates are really just liberals that are afraid to make a decision.
I’m a member of Numbers USA, but think rating or recommending a Presidential candidate on the basis of one issue is fallacious.
I support immigration reform and control, but ignore us on this one.
Let’s set the record straight here. I’m not a moderate. I am a conservative and I will be supporting John McCain in November with my vote. For all of you conservatives out there who think that by voting for Baldwin or Barr that you’re registering a “protest” vote you are sadly mistaken. If you believe that by your own dereliction that electing the false messiah will somehow “right” the Republican party you are bordering on delusional.
We are currently a nation at war. Having Senator Greenhorn as our Commander and Chief in a time of war is similar to those funny Holiday Inn commercials. “No, I’m not your surgeon, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.” The problem with this is that it’s deadly serious and I for one will not put the safety of my fellow Americans in the hands of this man. You may have plenty of issues with McCain, so be it. But don’t throw your vote away and possibly plunge this country into a black hole that it may not be able to recover from.
Exactly.
“I am going to vote for McCain because I don’t think we can afford Obama in the White House. He would appoint liberal judges and destroy our chances of overturning Roe vs. Wade. I feel we are very close to having enough to overturn it.”
McCain has stated that he would not want Roe vs. Wade overturned. But then he’s hinted otherwise. Take your pick. He’s flexible.
McCain has said “I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade”.
ttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1958293/posts?page=52#52
“I’m in Illinois so a vote for McCain here is meaningless as he has zero chance of carrying Illinois and its electoral votes. I can vote for McCain or Howdy Doody, and it won’t make a bit of difference as to the outcome in Illinois. So, I’ll be casting a protest vote and will vote for whomever has the best position on getting rid of the illegals.”
Precisely. If we’ve learned anything NH picks the candidate and the rest of us don’t matter any way. May as well write in a real American.
The CP has a good platform but the Republican platform is also excellent. The problem is we have human beings doing the governing. The CPers are just as flawed as Republicans and for anyone to believe that those in the CP are more virtuous than Republicans, is not looking at human nature in reality. I know. I was once fooled by them, too.
Republicans Against Maverick McCain (RAMM) announces its formation in response to the presumptive nomination of John McCain for President as the Republican Party’s standard-bearer in November. RAMM is committed to preserving the conservative vision for America as the foundation of the Republican Party. We cannot support John McCain for the Presidency of the United States of America because of his antithetical policy positions and voting record on amnesty, political free speech, expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, global warming, access to domestic oil and gas supplies, e.g., drilling in ANWAR, and a host of other critical issues.
Senator McCain, a self-described maverick, is using the banner of the Republican Party as a flag of convenience to further his own political ambitions and agenda. His views don’t represent those held by the majority of Republicans. It is worth noting that Senator McCain became the presumptive nominee with just 31% of the total primary vote and that he was the only top tier candidate of either party that didn’t garner at least 50% of the vote in his/her home state. Winner-take-all and open primaries have permitted Senator McCain to game the system producing a nominee who doesn’t enjoy the support of most of his party.
The Republican political establishment has struck a Faustian bargain with Senator McCain over the political heart and soul of the GOP sacrificing principle and values in the illusory hope of winning the White House in November. In 1975, President Reagan said at CPAC, “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.” What political party nominates its maverick to be its standard bearer? What does it say about the core beliefs and values of that party? Conservatives are being offered a Hobson’s choice with the presumption that they have no alternative but to vote for the lesser of two evils. Whoever holds that view is sadly mistaken. If John McCain can vote on the basis of principle and conscience over party, so can we.
We will vote in the November 4, 2008 election for all Republican candidates except for the Office of the President, which will be left blank or filled in with a write-in candidate as determined by each RAMM voter. RAMM is a grassroots organization that provides a venue for alienated conservative Republican voters to express their objections to Senator McCain’s nomination. As Conservatives, we are concerned that a McCain candidacy will depress Republican turnout, which will damage the chances of other Republicans running in Congressional, state, and local elections. And many of these Republicans will have to take positions on critical issues that are diametrically opposed to those held by Senator McCain and their Democrat opponents, a sorry spectacle indeed and not conducive to winning elections.
The McCain nomination has taken a number of important issues off of the table during the general election because Senator McCain and his Democrat opponent hold essentially the same positions on immigration, global warming, campaign finance reform, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and environmental concerns as they impact the degree of access to vital sources of domestic sources of energy. Two issues, immigration reform and proposed legislative plans to address “man-made” global warming, deserve a national dialogue. The former has the potential to destroy this country and the latter to wreck our economy and curtail individual liberties.
Immigration, legal and illegal, plays a major role in every significant challenge facing this nation whether it is national security, health care, energy independence, education, the entitlement programs, transportation, infrastructure, taxes, the economy, the environ-ment, etc. McCain’s “cap and trade” legislative proposal mirrors the Democrat approach to unproven anthropomorphic global warming. If passed, our economy will become less competitive globally and the costs will be passed on to the consumer. It will be an unmitigated disaster. The general election could have served as a referendum on these so-called wedge issues, but that will be impossible with McCain at the head of the ticket.
We are also concerned about the future of the Republican Party. An unlikely McCain victory will further marginalize the conservative influence and move the party further to the Left. In 1965, Reagan said, “We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all.” By nominating John McCain, the GOP has ignored Ronald Reagan’s admonition.
Winning elections is certainly important and the sine qua non for the survival of any major political party. However, “winning isn’t the only thing” when it comes to maintaining a viable political party for the long term. The success of the Reagan Revolution and the subsequent Contract with America was based on conservative principles. Unfortunately, this success caused many Republicans in Congress, and yes in the White House, to lose their conservative moorings and become more like our opponents. The nomination of John McCain is just the culmination of the GOP’s descent into mediocrity and irrelevancy.
RAMM is a wake-up call to the GOP. Return to conservative principles or perish.
“if the false messiah gets elected you can bet your life that “the man” and all of his sycophant presstitutes in the media will blame each and every misfortune on George W. Bush. Take it to the bank. “
So? They’ve been doing that for eight years. My vote doesn’t matter, that’s what the Rino’s tell us....so it doesn’t matter who I vote for.
My answer to that is “what conservative isn't?” The question that I have is what is more important, the future of the Republican party or the future of America? It reminds me of that quote during the Vietnam War when a general was asked why some city was bombed and his reply was “We had to bomb them to save them.” So your solution to this election dilemma is to risk the possible short and long term destruction of our country at the hands of a boy amongst men on the world stage to save the Republican party!?
So how mant states will have CHUCK BALDWIN on the ballot?
I wouldn’t like amnesty—but it didn’t destroy the country in the 80s—and it’s not likely to create Armageddon here now. Worrying about illegal immigration to the exclusion of more important problems is my definition of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Among the issues I think are more important in terms of saving our way of life are:
Stopping the Democratic liberals
Supreme Court appointments
Our Energy future and a sensible policy to get there
Muslim extremism/terrorism
Our changing role in the global economy
If McCain wins, he will move the GOP further to the Left and marginalize conservatives even more. After all, he proved he could win the Presidency by appealing to independents and moderate Dems. As I said, it is a Faustian bargain. If you sacrifice principle to be more like the Dems, what do you have left?
That’s what I like about this site. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
You obviously don't understand the issue. First of all, the 1986 amnesty was supposed to be a one-time amnesty for an estimated 1 million illegals who had to be here for five years, i.e, prior to 1982. The reality is that 2.7 million appled for amnesty. And today there are 12 to 20 million illegals in the country. Repeating an amnesty is not going to solve the problem. And imagine if the USG estimates are off as much as in 1986.
Impact of Amnesty:
In analyzing the 2007 CIR bill, Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation stated, “The main fiscal impact…will occur through two mechanisms: (1) the grant of amnesty, with accompanying access to Social Security, Medicare and welfare benefits, to 12 million illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly low skilled; and (2) a dramatic increase in chain immigration, which will also be predominantly low skilled.”
“The bottom line is that high school dropouts are extremely expensive to U.S. taxpayers. It does not matter whether the dropout comes from Ohio, Tennessee, or Mexico. It does matter that the Senate immigration bill would increase the future flow of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S. and grant amnesty and access to government benefits to millions of poorly educated illegal aliens already here. Such legislation would inevitably impose huge costs on U.S. taxpayers.” Heritage research has concluded that the cost of amnesty alone will be $2.6 trillion. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who will join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, will approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. If there are 20 million illegals here, then another 100 million or more legal immigrants will enter thru chain migration.
Even without an amnesty, the population of this country will increase by 164 million by 2060 with 105 million coming from immigration, i.e., we will have a population of 468 million. Currently immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In about a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest in our history and by 2050, one in 5.
An amnesty will make the Reps the permanent minority party. Most immigrants vote heavily democratic. They come primarily from socialist countries in Latin American, are undeducated, and have a different view of the role of government. Here are some facts about the profile of immigrants in the US today:
-- The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.
--Overall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.
--Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.
--Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent.
--The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households.
--The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.
--34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.
--Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.
An amnesty will drastically change the demographics of this country in very short period of time. The 1965 Immigration Act has already changed our demographics. In 1965 Hispanics were 1% of the population, today they are close to 16%, and by 2050, 29%. And this is without an amnesty. By 2050, non-Hipanic whites, the Reps political base, will be just 47% of the population. An amnesty will just speed up the process of making non-Hispanic whites a minority.
Stopping the Democratic liberals
An amnesty will make the Dems the permanent majority party for many, many years to come. Even without amnesty, current demographics are on their side. Half of the children under 5 are classified as minorities. Hispanics and blacks have the highest school dropout rates, nearing 50%. And Hispanics have out of wedlock birthrates of 50% exceeded only by the black rate of 68%. This is the social pathology of failure in our society and the formation of a permanent underclass who will become more dependent on government services and welfare.
Supreme Court appointments
First, you assume that McCain can appoint conservative SCOTUS judges and have them confirmed by the Demn-controled Senate. Ain't going to happen. And if the country is overrun with immigrants who vote overwhelmingly Democrat, the liberals will take this country down through the ballot box and our own democratic institutions.
Our Energy future and a sensible policy to get there
McCain is a cap and trade guy just like Obama, which will wreck our economy. We have increased our population by 100 million since 1970 and will add another 164 million by 2060, which is equal to the combined populations of Great Britain, France, and Spain. The 105 million from immigration by itself is equal to 13 additional New York Cities. An amnesty will add another 70 million to 100 million to those projects. All of these additional people require energy, water, housing, infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc. In terms of energy, we are going to have to run to stand still. Since 2000, we have added 23 million people, which is more than the population of Australia and equal to the population of Texas.
Muslim extremism/terrorism
We have open borders now with terrorists being able to enter either thru Mexico or Canada or from visa overstays. An amnesty will make it easier for alien terrorists to operate in the United States by allowing them to fraudulently create “secure” IDs with ease. We would be conferring blanket legal status to millions of unknown and unknowable persons, thereby facilitating the movement and access of terrorists who entered the country illegally.
Our changing role in the global economy
Importing poverty and the uneducated does not make us competitive in the global economy. It does just the opposite. An amnesty will bring in tens of millions more uneducated people mostly from Latin America. The effect will be a Balkanization of the US along cultural and linguistic lines. We can't absorb and assimilate these kinds of numbers,. Get it?
This man has a very slim chance of winning, so I feel freed up to vote for my conscious this year, and that is for a CONSERVATIVE not a RINO (and certainly not for a Democrat Socialist either) but to vote rather for a slate of electors pledged to either Mr. Barr or Mr. (Pastor) Baldwin. In fact, I would say I probably would have much more in common with these fellow American citizens, these electors for the LP or CP in my state, than I would for the RINO or Democrat electors.
And also, since McCain never had my vote to begin with, the proof is on the RINOS or their supporters to some claim a principled vote, such in my case, is a "vote for Obama". It was never a vote for McCain to begin with. And finally, I do NOT vote for Democrats. I don't care if they even have a (R) after there names, I will absolutely NOT vote for Democrats, and I wont be voting for either of the two of them on the ballot this year as well.
Any more questions?
And guess what?
I totally DISAGREE.
So there.
Our votes cancel each other out.
Anyways, as I have always said here, I dont vote for RINOs or DEMOCRATS, as they are only a difference in speed toward the eventual movement in the direction fo socialism, big nanny state government, political correctness, and open borders.
I vote for Conservatives.
To each his own. If enough people do not come over to the principled vote this year, but stayed with the rationalized vote due to scare tactics (the big bad boogey man Obama!) when then it is not the fault of the Conservatives of us that DID vote principled vote. Obama being in the White House will be a result of such a lowlife candidate the GOPers nominated who sucks, plain and simple, and no other cause or blame can go around. I will live with my vote regardless.
We are voting for slates of electors, ratified by the Secretary of State of each individual state, to stand as representatives (i.e. "electors") in the Electoral College, which will be counted by the US Congress assembled on 3 January 2009 in Washington, D.C. Some elector slates are composed of our fellow Americans who will stand for Barack Obama, some who will stand for John McCain, some who will stand for Chuck Baldwin, and some who will stand for Bob Barr (and/or others).
To be honest before you and God and not a liar, (particularly as relates to this thread and the issue of Immigration, the key to our country's future in my estimate) in fact I will have more in common with my fellow Americans who are in the final two pledged groups. So at this stage, my vote will go there, in support of a principled campaign, candidate, and most importantly, the campaign platform. It will be no more a throw away vote than one cast for McCain.
In fact, the real "PROTEST VOTE" which you talk about, if it does exist, is those of Conservatives voting for RINO/Liberal JOHN McCAIN. Because it is a PROTEST of Barack Obama, more than anything else, and not in SUPPORT of anything FOR McCain, as far as I can see these days.
Am I clear? Do you see that there is more than just one perspective to see this thing?
Good question! You could research that on the internet and get back to us. Thanks!
Barely computer literit; what’s this research on the internet thing and how do it work?
>3rd parties cannot win with either just Presidential candidates<
and your attitude will make sure it remains so.
At this date, 37, I believe.
I ‘get it’ that you all are very passionate about the immigration issue. Good.
What I’m not ‘getting’ is how voting for a Constitution Party candidate will help get what we all want in a rational immigration policy that will protect our nation’s self-interest.
Not now, not next year, not in twenty years if the Dems get total control of the country.
But the numbers of folks that vote for the Constitution party probably won’t decide the election so have at it.
..;...He and Baldwin are the only conservatives in the race......
You are delusional. Neither is in the race. Both are but pretenders and trivial pretenders at that.
You "get it" like John McCain gets it about amnesty and the will of the American people. To him, it is now about about sequencing, i.e., securing our borders and then amnesty. He still doesn't get the message that we don't want amnesty period.
You are confusing my passion with the substance of the message and why I responded to your minimization of the immigration issue, which affects and/or drives every major challenge facing this nation. It is the Mother of all Issues. You still fail to grasp that message. An amnesty will destroy this country with the stroke of a pen. It is irrevocable. Amnesty is forever.
What I’m not ‘getting’ is how voting for a Constitution Party candidate will help get what we all want in a rational immigration policy that will protect our nation’s self-interest.
I never said I was voting for the Constitution Party. I will not be complicit in the destruction of my country by voting for anyone whose policies will end in that result. It is my intention to leave the office of President blank in November and vote a straight GOP ticket otherwise, as I have for the past 40 years. If John McCain can vote on the basis of principle and conscience over party, so can I.
Not now, not next year, not in twenty years if the Dems get total control of the country.
An amnesty will give them total control of the country for many generations to come. And our current immigration policies have already drastically altered the demographics of the country since 1965 to do that without an amnesty. More and more states will turn purple and then blue. It is just a matter of time.
Well said sir.
My attitude has nothing to do with it. It is based in our constitution and the reality of elections.
To start with, the US president is not popularly elected. He is elected by the electoral college. Electors are not generally required to vote for a particular candidate, though they do so in practice, at least for the first vote they cast. If subsequent votes are needed, they become free agents. This means that it is far more likely for a non-ballot candidate to be elected by the college. It also means that the two dominant parties could agree to exclude a third party candidate if they wanted, as they could combine their vote against him, which they probably would.
President and Vice President are selected in two different ballots, so the college may also choose a non-intended ticket. (i.e. a Republican President and a Democrat Vice President.) If no candidate for VP has a majority of votes, the choice is made by the US Senate.
To make matters even less democratic, States are free to change how they want to select electors, until election day itself. Several States have “changed the rules in the middle of the game”, when filling seats of deceased congressmen, and there is little doubt they would hesitate to do so if a third party candidate showed prospect of winning in their State.
This current election, the States gleefully changed the primary rules as well, which could also strongly disadvantage a 3rd party, for example opening it up to non-party voters.
John Murtha ran unopposed by having two Democrats stand in the open Republican primary, then telling Democrats to vote for them instead of voting for him or the single real Republican. Once one of the Democrats was chosen as the Republican candidate, he dropped out of the race. So Murtha ran in the general election unopposed. The Republican tried a write-in ballot campaign as an independent, but those rarely if ever work.
Add it all up, and the two major parties will not allow a 3rd party candidate to be elected President.
However, this does not mean that a 3rd party is a fruitless idea. In fact, were a 3rd party to use a different approach, it could dominate the congress of the United States with a small bloc, and be as powerful as if they had won the Presidency.
And this is what I recommended. To explain:
Instead of fruitlessly trying to get a president elected first, third parties should concentrate on running strong candidates in congressional districts with small populations, where the two main parties are weak. This maximizes their effort, because they can focus their resources where they will do the most good and overwhelm both the major party candidates.
With just 10 congressmen and three senators, a 3rd party has “marginal” control over both houses of congress, as long as the two major parties are about evenly balanced.
This is because most important issues are party line votes, and the 3rd party can haggle support for *its* platform from both the major parties, in exchange for its deciding vote. This is very real, and happens all the time in parliaments around the world. Right now, this marginal position is occupied by centrist Democrats and RINOs, who force concessions from their own and other partiy for their votes. A 3rd party could displace them and have tremendous control.
And what is more important for a 3rd party? Electing a person, or getting their platform turned into law? If the Libertarians wanted marijuana legalized, this would be the way to do it.
This exact thing most recently happened in Israel, when a small religious party held marginal control between Labor and Likud. Whoever ruled had to give the religious party far more control and money than it deserved, and did so for many years.
And nothing would prevent the Constitutional or Libertarian parties from doing exactly the same thing in the US today.
From there, with real power and money, either 3rd party would grow in size and strength overnight. In turn, they could expand their marginal bloc, taking seats from both the Republicans and Democrats. And *that* is how they finally become powerful enough to win the Presidency, and to thwart all the tricks the other two parties would use to stop them.
How many states will Baldwin win?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.