[WebFocus]

Clinton won in 1991 getting just 43% of the vote. REASON: Ross Perot ( Not sure if Theodore Roosevelt sabotage William Howard Taft, but that was too long ago for me to remember ).

There were a few races in 2010 where third parties ruined the chances of Republicans to gain more seats.

[samtheman]

There’s more than one way for a Moron to vote for a Democrat.

[ivyleaguebrat]

And this is why, for better or worse, we will always have a two-party system.

[Jemian]

Message to the republicans: IF YOU WANT MY VOTE YOU MUST RUN A CONSERVATIVE. I WILL NEVER, NO NEVER VOT FOR A RINO AGAIN.

It is their own fault if they don't get my vote. They must run someone I can support. Period. No compromise. I've done that schtick before and it got us Caligula beating McLame. I ain't going down that road again. Get it?

[MNDude]

You forgot Minnesota’s governor race with Independant Hoffman.

[goldstategop]

There are a few things I didn’t like in my state and other things I did like.

The main thing is the Rats are no longer the majority in the Mountain West.

[PGR88]

The problem with this argument
- 3rd parties also take votes from Democrats

- No 3rd parties means people like Arlen Specter get elected again. What use is that to the Republicans? Indeed, its harmful.

- 3rd parties (he doesn’t dare say Tea Party, but that’s what he means) are the REASON Republicans won big this election. No Tea Party means no real debate, no turn-out, and no difference between the beltway Dems and RINOS.

[rellimpank]

—I’m not that old either but ,yes, Teddy Roosevelt —the original RINO—gave the country Woodrow Wilson—IMHO the cause of most of the problems of the twentieth century-—

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Clinton won in 1991 getting just 43% of the vote. REASON: George H.W. Bush’s RINOism and betrayal of Reagan’s agenda.

[Question Liberal Authority]

He forgot Arizona 7, where Raul Grijalva, who called for a boycott of his own state beat the rocket scientist by 500 votes and change. The libertarian got about 900 votes.

[Kahuna]

Why not play the same game by funding 3rd party minority liberal candidates? IE. Rainbow party

[MNDude]

nevermind, you mentioned it.

[ZULU]

What has happened to the National Review? Are they no longer a conservative magazine? Is their interpretation of victory installing another Demcorat who just HAPPENS to call himself a Republican?

Perhaps Carl Rove and Dana Perino are on their editorial board.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Clinton won in 1991 getting just 43% of the vote. REASON: Ross Perot ( Not sure if Theodore Roosevelt sabotage William Howard Taft, but that was too long ago for me to remember ).

Of course, GHW Bush is blameless, right?

Do you remember his famous quote, "Know New Taxes"?

[sourcery]

Winner-take-all elections mean there can be ONLY two viable, "major" parties. That's a mathematical fact. Third parties, and those who vote for them, hurt their own cause. Taking over one of the major parties from within--by running candidates in the primaries and participating in primary elections--is the only strategy with any reasonable chance of success. How do you think the anti-Constitutionalists got where they are today? Not by forming any third party!

If you don't want to compromise your principles—not even as a tactic of political war—then democracy with winner-take-all elections will not work for you. At all.

[misterrob]

The bipolar choice is unacceptable. People should have the right to choose whomever they want to vote for. If voting Libertarian, Green or Constitutional is what you want then have at it. Remember, Nader played a huge role in Gore losing FL.

[a fool in paradise]

I cannot think of too many cases where a Democrat lost a winnable race because of too many left-of-center votes drifting to a liberal third party, other than Ralph Nader’s role in the 2000 presidential election.

The dirty little secret in the Florida vote wasn't "just" that Nader got enough votes to push Gore over the edge, even without Nader, if you combined up the different Communist parties there (Socialist, Socialist Workers, Workers World) WITHOUT the Green (reds), it would have been enough.

The Democrats strive to get "enough" of the hardcore communist vote while masking their agenda enough to appeal to church going yellow dog democrats without them getting wise.

We are told the terms "socialist" and "communist" are divisive, but it is very clear that the Democrats seek their vote. No Republican seeks any "fascist" support. I don't even see a "fascist party" on the ballots.

[Notary Sojac]

A great response on the original NRO page:

"Jim, it sounds like you're suffering from Republican Entitlement Syndrome (RES).

This is a common condition afflicting Republicans, making them believe they're entitled to independent conservative/libertarian votes by virtue of being "less bad" than the Democrat.

The only known cure is therapy to throw off the delusion that you live in a binary world, followed by the realization you have to actually compete for the votes of these people."

[DM1]

“Theodore Roosevelt sabotage William Howard Taft”

well sort of yes
he splie the R vote with his BUll Moose party although Taft probably would have lost in a two man race anyway
had Teddy been patient he could have backed Taft and campaigned for him then after Taft lost he could have run against Wilson in 1916 and probably won

[No_More_Harkin]

Don’t give me that cr@p about “thanks for electing a democrat” - Republicans need to put up a decent candidate, then there won’t be any 3rd parties. If I have the choice between lesser of two evils, and a decent candidate - I’m picking the decent candidate, and if the liberal fre@k gets elected, then the only difference is driving into the abyss faster with a D behind the wheel than an R.

[I see my hands]

Such a perspective reminds me of a blackjack player getting angry because a player to his right misplayed.