Skip to comments.The Nader Effect In Play After Virginia's Decision [Obama Godsend?]
Posted on 09/04/2012 9:37:06 PM PDT by Steelfish
The Nader Effect In Play After Virginia's Decision By Scott Bomboy
A decision in Virginia to allow Virgil Goode on the presidential ballot could shake up the national election. And Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson has now come into the spoiler picture.
For the past few weeks, Goode, the Constitutional party presidential candidate, and Johnson have been afterthoughts in the national presidential campaign involving President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
But Goode won the right on Tuesday to appear on the Virginia ballot, in a move that could hurt Romneys chances of taking the key swing state in November.
And now Ron Paul has come with some kind words about Johnson, the former New Mexico governor who will appear on many state ballots as a presidential candidate.
Johnson would be a potential factor in states like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, and he could hurt either Obama or Romney, depending on how the political winds are blowing by November.
Republicans have vowed to prove that Goode, who has held various political offices in Virginia, doesnt have enough legal petition signatures to run.
Johnson faces similar challenges. Last week, his campaign said the GOP has challenged his ballot presence in Michigan, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Iowa and Ohio.
In August, Goode lost his quest to get on Pennsylvanias ballot. One national poll had Johnson with 5.3 percent of the national vote in July, while a poll this summer in Virginia had Goode with 9 percent of that states presidential vote.
In reality, even 1 percent of the vote in a battleground state could determine the national election, like Ralph Nader did in 2000.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Goode is a selfish pig.
This is probably how Obama wins re-election. God help us all.
It's also disgusting to think that a candidate can win the presidential election when over 50% of the people might not have been willing to vote for him at all. If we put enough candidates on the ballot, someone could win the election with just 10% theoretically. Maybe a Satanist? Our voting process is inadequate and has the possibility to severely undermine the democratic process, unless a mechanism is put into place to make sure that no one can win without at least 50% of the people voting for them.
The ABR crowd must be orgasmic.
Baraq’s chances at victory just improved dramatically.
If so, we will know who is responsible.
So... the same state that screwed up the Primary, not allowing all the Republican candidates on the ballot, now is letting Johnny Come Lately Goode on the ballot...
Basing the presidency on the popular vote is like awarding the World Series championship to the team that scores the most runs, rather than the team that wins the most games.
Don’t be so selective - so is Johnson (and obama)...
Goode is only there to be a spoiler and anybody that votes for him is a crank and a fool.
I'm not talking about the popular/electoral distinction here at all. This is about when the top vote getter doesn't get 50% of the votes due to 3 or more candidates splitting the vote, a la Clinton in 1992. In that event you absolutely need to have some form of runoff vote, or your election has no connection to democracy at all, it's just a random event or possibly a rigged game if the third party candidate was a plant. A runoff vote should apply to any state where that kind of split happened.
Move along folks, nothing to see here. Immaterial at best.
Perot didn't win a single EV.
And Clinton won a clear majority of the electoral votes.
Why would there be any need for a "runoff"?
third party elects Democrats.
For the same reason anyone has a runoff election where they are mandated by law. A runoff election occurs when no candidate garners 50% of the votes, just as happened with Ted Cruz’s race in Texas. It’s an absolutely necessary step to ensure that a person’s vote means anything at all. Otherwise you can have a Satanist win an election with 11% of the vote if there were 9 other candidates that didn’t exceed 10%. Unless you have a runoff in some form, there is no way to know who the majority people want to elect.
Take the presidential 1992 race in Pennsylvania. Without a runoff, there is no way to no if more than 45% of the voters would have taken EITHER Bush OR Perot over Clinton. A runoff between the top two vote-getters could’ve resulted in a 55-45 split for Bush over Clinton, which would be the true democratic result that reflects the will of the people for who they wanted to be president. Why in the world should someone be elected president if 55% of the people would’ve ranked a single other candidate higher? You don’t know if they do or not without having a runoff.
William Clinton 45.15%
George Bush 36.13%
H. Ross Perot 18.20%
And with a properly formed ballot, an instant runoff can be done that doesn’t require people actually going to the polls again. But even that is a worthwhile expense to pay to ensure the integrity of the democratic process.
This idiot traitor is the worst news yet. Ditto for any third party candidate that has virtually no chance at all of doing anything bu losing and probably causing anyone with remotely similar ideas to lose as well.
This is disgraceful. Statesmanship and patriotism are dead. They are all politicians, just as much a synonym for snake as lawyer is.
Why? Does he have a point other than selfishness?
This is probably how Obama wins re-election. God help us all.
Thanks for nothing, Eternal Vigilance. You're removed from the ping list, and next time I'm in Spirit Lake, maybe I can explain what happened.
This is the only way Obama can win, and these egotistical loons can’t be stopped. What does Goode or Johnson hope to gain by getting Obama reelected. Neither one will be one step closer to the White House come 2016, or 2020.
Additionally, we are not a democracy; we are a republic. Think about it. That is why we do what we do. It appears the educational system did not serve you well.
I think a better use of your time would be spent contemplating the best way to reform our schools.
I suspect I know who will be accused, but I doubt the responsible party will get blamed.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is WORSE than Nader, because at least HE was on enough states’ ballots to win the electoral college.
Goode is ONLY on the ballot in Virginia.
No, the electoral system of the founding fathers works fine.
Why is everyone so concerned? Don’t they remember even before the primaries we were told how the polls showed Romney was the only candidate that could beat Obama. He could win by 5 to 8 percent. The economy is worse, unemployment is still high, Romney is the candidate, so why worry.
And so continues your “subtle” campaign against Romney, the Republican nominee. Things such as Goode being on the ballot of course work in favor of Obama being reelected which, I suspect, is an outcome you wouldn’t shed any tears over.
As Pogo said: "We have met the enemy....and he is us."
That is an excellent analogy.
Keep dreaming because it won’t be that close. Goode’s backers should just cut out the middle man and send their money to Obama.
The Founders knew what they were doing. Popular vote was, and should be, irrelevant. Adams, Jefferson, JQ Adams, Jackson, and Lincoln were all elected with far less than 50%. I have no interest in letting CA and NY elect my leaders.
A runoff. Right. Can you even imagine the litigation after the “first” election? The political season needs to be SHORTER, not longer.
Tell me if I am wrong, but I read your post differently than others who thought you were suggesting replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote. I thought you were saying that, in a given state, the winner of the electors should have to have 50% of the popular vote; otherwise you would have a runoff. I think that is a great idea. Plus, there is nothing in the Constitution about how the electors from a state are selected, so any State could implement this if they wanted. The runoff would have to be quick, since the electors are slated to vote in late December (I think). This way, ABO voters could truly vote for ANYONE but Obama, and it would be fine, as long as it kept Obama from that 50% mark. Then, in the runoff, you could vote for the person other than Obama. The only danger in this is that, if someone like Goode could actually win a state, it could help Obama nationally by keeping those electoral votes from Romney. Of course, it will never happen because it would hurt the two national parties and that is who makes the rules.
If you want on/off the VA Ping List, please freepmail me. Thanks!
Why do you suppose that is?
The GOP has the perfect candidate. If you are for abortion so is he. If you are against abortion so is he. If you are for gay marriage so is he. If you are against gay marriage so is he. If you are for government takeover of health care so is he , if against it so is he, etc. etc. etc. How could he lose? Yes he is the perfect candidate, Don’t be concerned with what kind of President he will be, and be sure not to look at his record as Governor.
Goode was a Democrat when Ronald Reagan was President.
That “uber Conservatives” think he is anything but a Soro paid for Obama stooge is another example of why the 100% club will never be anything but a fringe political movement
Hate to burst your emotion based bubble world but NOTHING in life is ever 100% pure. NOTHING. Sitting on your asses screaming for dogmatic purity is the behavior or petulant children, not rational adults.
You people are the useful idiots of the Democrat Party propaganda machine. You are doing ONE thing, re-electing Obama
That may not be the intent of your actions, it is the result.
That you would actively work against someone who agrees with your agenda 85% of the time to elect someone who is 100% opposed to everything you claim to stand for indicates what complete political imbeciles you all are.
There fixed your tagline for you
Really?! I read he was only in Virginia.
Do you know if he is on enough states to achieve 270 electoral votes??
If you cannot organize enough people to take over the GOP, you are NEVER going to organize enough people to do the much harder work of setting up a viable third party.
Scream and posture all you want, we know the truth. YOUR candidate did not win the GOP nomination so in a fit of childish spite you are doing everything you can to “Get even” with the GOP for not doing what YOU wanted.
That is petulant, childish and stupid. So lie to yourself all you want, the rest of us know full well what the sour grapes choir is doing here
Given the way this looks, Goode is more likely working for the left than anything else.
My opinion is that Goode and Johnson will have no more impact than Anderson.
Obama is going down. It's 1980 all over again.
If I agreed with Romney on 85% of the issues I would be voting for him. Romney agrees with Obama on more issues than he agrees with me. I will be happy to see Obama gone but sad that the liberals will still be in control, and that good well meaning people will think that it is a victory. BTW Chicken Little’s the sky is falling story is a children’s story. Real adults know it is not true.
Either you are Demobot lying about your real agenda in the hope your fake uber conservative posturing will give you a fake gloss of credibility or you are a complete political moron who has NO clue at all how politics in the US works. So which is it? Are you a political fraud or a political moron?
By Ronald Reagan in his autobiography An American Life
When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didnt like it. Compromise was a dirty word to them and they wouldnt face the fact that we couldnt get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you dont get it all, some said, dont take anything. Id learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average. If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and thats what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
Reagan would not satisfy some of these crack pots.
Exactly - the “purists” who rather obama get 4 more years than try something different in the name of so called “principle”.
A bunch of a delusional sickos.