Posted on 10/27/2011 8:24:01 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
American voters have fired two modern presidents after just one term, Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992. Both suffered because the economy was in poor shape, and both faced disaffection within their own parties. But there was another thing those candidates had in common: They both faced relatively strong third-party candidates in the November election.
John B. Anderson in 1980 and H. Ross Perot in 1992 both ran as independent centrists, and while they weren't the only reason the incumbents lost (Ronald Reagan won a majority of the popular vote in 1980), they were certainly a factor.
Until now, handicapping for next year's presidential election has focused on how President Obama might fare in a two-candidate race. Could Obama beat Mitt Romney? Rick Perry? Herman Cain? (In all three cases, the answer is probably yes.)
But there's likely to also be a wild card in this election. Americans Elect, a well-funded "virtual third party," plans to put a centrist presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states, and while he or she is unlikely to win the presidential election, the presence of a third candidate could still have a major impact on the outcome.
Americans Elect is a collection of Republicans, Democrats and independents who say they're fed up with the polarization that has poisoned American politics. Some of its backers have previously contributed to Obama, Romney or other candidates. Several are fans of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has flirted with the idea of running as a third-party centrist. The group's central figure is Peter Ackerman, a wealthy investor and former banker who considers himself an independent and who was active four years ago in a similar effort called Unity08.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I never heard of them. And I read a lot. Hmmm.
What is the guy smoking? Gun-grabber Bloomberg a "centerist". That is utter nonsense.
Whether there is a 3rd Party or not is up to the Republicans. If they "choose poorly" it will happen. What will that mean? Anybody's guess. Under the current situation a real "center-right' 3rd party might actually do the impossible and win the election. (I am not advocating a 3rd Party)
H. W. Bush’s economy was Shangri-La compared to Zero’s.
Generally speaking, this would probably benefit us. A mushy middle candidate will pull more from Hussein than it will a Republican nominee. There are a lot of people that have been trained to hate Republicans, but many of those might be disillusioned with Obama enough to deny him a vote if they had another choice. Looking at the losers this Americans Elect group is excited about, I feel very confident this would hurt Obama far more than the Republican nominee.
Anderson was a Republican. He did not take votes from Carter, he took votes from Reagan.
That group is trouble. They are connected to Soros and his Marxist friends.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2786627/posts
Fox also has a video on this here: http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/1190639298001/group-seeks-third-party-presidential-ticket/?playlist_id=86858
Links:
http://www.americanselect.org/
http://www.americanselect.org/who-we-are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crisis_Group
http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/founder-americans-elect-used-tax-shelter-scheme-11790
Looks like Soros is trying to subvert our elections.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2785812/posts
“Collection of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents” is otherwise known as “Democrats”.
Well it looks like the "no labels" crowd found one.
The only way Obama gets reelected is conservative third Party.
Peter Ackerman and his son, who runs it, are pure insider leftists. And, according to the poll of ‘members’ I took when I joined a couple of months ago, its membership skews way left as well.So they would clearly be interested in helping Obama with a spoiler, but it could be interesting to see how they use an ‘election’ from their membership to get a candidate who would accomplish that.
Americans Elect says it plans to choose a presidential nominee (and a vice presidential candidate, who by the group's rules can't come from the same party) by June."
*********************************
Starbucks CEO calls for political tele-townhall "LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Starbucks Corp chief executive Howard Schultz urged Americans on Friday to join a giant "tele-townhall" next week to discuss ways to break the partisan gridlock in Washington.
In an open letter circulated via email, the head of the world's biggest coffee chain invited "concerned Americans" to take part in a national call-in conversation next Tuesday hosted by the nonpartisan group No Labels, dedicated to fostering cooperative and more effective government."............
fwiw -- It was Carter that Anderson hurt.
" John Bayard Anderson, after being defeated in the Republican primaries, entered the general election as an independent candidate, campaigning as a moderate Republican alternative to Reagan's conservatism. However, his campaign appealed primarily to frustrated anti-Carter voters. His support progressively evaporated through the campaign season as his supporters were pulled away by Carter and Reagan. His running mate was Patrick Lucey, a Democratic former Governor of Wisconsin and then Ambassador to Mexico, appointed by President Carter. Source
[An interesting tidbit from that same source: " The Libertarian Party nominated Edward Clark for President and David H. Koch for Vice President. They received almost one million votes and were on the ballot in all 50 states."...
The goal is bold, but the manner in which Americans Elect is pursuing its aims is highly unorthodox. Although it is attempting to qualify as a new party in California and other states, the group's legal designation is that of a nonpolitical, tax-exempt social welfare organization.
Under that designation, Americans Elect has been able to keep private its financiers, raising questions about what forces are driving the massive undertaking. The group has labored largely under the radar for the last 16 months, raising $20 million while successfully gaining ballot access in Arizona, Alaska, Kansas and Nevada. It is seeking certification in Michigan, Hawaii, Missouri and Florida besides California, with an additional 18 states in the pipeline before the end of the year.
"Elliot Ackerman said Americans Elect does not take any money from special interests or political action committees, adding that it is up to donors to determine whether they want to be identified. "I think that's an unfortunate testament to the status of our political landscape that people feel uncomfortable about disclosing the fact that they're supporting an open nominating process," he said.
Campaign finance reform advocates who are pressing the IRS to issue stricter regulations governing the use of 501(c)4s said they don't buy the notion that Americans Elect is nonpolitical."..... [then it gets REALLY interesting]
....many of the group's experienced political operatives hail from centrist circles: Chief Executive Kahlil Byrd is a GOP strategist who worked for Massachusetts' Democratic governor, Deval Patrick. Pollster Doug Schoen worked for Hillary Rodham Clinton's Democratic presidential campaign, as well as for New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, an independent."...
...”The group [Americans Elect]has an eclectic board of advisors that includes former FBI and CIA chief William H. Webster and Republican strategist Mark McKinnon, a cofounder of No Labels, a group that seeks to advance partisanship-free politics. (Bloomberg has backed the efforts of No Labels, but a spokeswoman for Americans Elect said he is not involved in its project.)”....
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/28/nation/la-na-americans-elect-20110728
[That is the closing thought in the article -- and where the Left could begin to dilute the conservative vote in the U.S. political system -- as they have in South America countries -- as it keeps smaller groups bickering for control, while the strong progressive party solidifies power.]
The votes that Anderson took were not going to go to Carter. The voters might have stayed home, voted Libertarian or whatever, but none of them were going to vote for Carter.
Some of them would have gone to Reagan in a two-man race. None of them would have gone to Jimmah.
If Satan himself had a "D" after his name, he would still get around 40% of the vote, more than enough to guarantee a victory in a three way race.
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.