lol. Seems like Republican propagandists trot that line out every couple years. Go ahead, throw your vote away.

“Dems are taken over by the progressive global communist shadow corporatists like Soros,”

AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! This is probably the funniest thing I’ve read all day, probably because of its inherent contradictions. Communists cannot be corporatists (that’s fascism, an ideology that is a very strong enemy to communism). I will agree, however, that the Democrat Party has been taken over by corporatists. This is why the Democrats and the Republicans are the exact same, it just took a little longer for the Democrats to be taken over (friends of labor, my ass).

Look around at the front page and all the other posts.

The way things are set up, third parties are automatically unsuccessful.

False.

Two examples –

1. Republican Party started as a third party, became a major party

2. Socialist Party a hundred years ago. They did not become a major party, but they were successful enough to put enough pressure on the major parties to enact most of he changes they wanted.

perhaps the GOP should be purified and made to stick to their actual platform

Have you read their platform? No way I would want to enact anything like that kitchen sink of warmongering, social repression and corporate welfare.

conservative voters

Many of us are libertarians, not conservative.

sick of both parties.

Finally, something we agree on

Both our ideas and marketing are getting better.

The best thing to do is to infiltrate and reform a current party. Since the Dems are taken over by the progressive global communist shadow corporatists like Soros, et al the rest of the banking oligarchy, perhaps the GOP should be purified and made to stick to their actual platform.

This is being done successfully already by the majority of conservative voters who are just sick of both parties.

Tea Party people beware — 3rd party is no good…

The democrats are no better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Agran#Presidential_candidacy

PEACE

We have seen it multiple times in our limited history, and particularly in times of great strife, the one or two major parties break into many pieces and realign again.

There is hope outside of the two old parties.

Subversion attempts will only lead to disappointment again. See also: Goldwater, ’68.

Well if things did not ‘gel’ in P2008 then 2010 and 2012 [Oh no!] will probably be a wash. But the herculean task of taking over an entire major organization is guaranteed failure!

It is not true that Ross Perot preferred George H. W. Bush to Bill Clinton. In all 3 general election debates in 1992, Perot attacked President Bush mercilessly and didn’t attack Clinton at all. Also, when Perot pulled out in July 1992, he hinted to people that they should vote for Clinton. He specifically said how the Democratic Party had refreshed itself by nominating Clinton.

Minor parties can have major impact on policy even if they only get 2% for president. The Prohibition Party spoiled the Republican Party’s presidential chances twice, in 1884 and again in 1916. The first time, Republicans burned the Prohibitionist in effigy, or hung him in effigy, in hundreds of cities, after the election results were known. But the 2nd time, in 1917, Republicans in Congress voted for the prohibition amendment to the Constitution (although they didn’t expect the states to pass it). They were simply sick of losing presidential elections to the Prohibitionists, who never got more than 2.2% for president. The prohibition amendment had been pending in Congress since 1875 and it had never made any headway thru any committee at all, until 1917.

The only way a political movement can get control of anything is to first get control of one of the two old parties. Elections are stacked in their favor. They have immediate ballot access and the electioneering infrastructure to run candidates.

The only thing the most successful populist third party movements do is tip the election in the direction they don’t want it to go. Witness Perot tipping it to Clinton and Nadar tipping it to Bush.

Any new political party will spend all of their resources on arcane ballot access while the two old parties fight the fight.

Don’t try to take a general election away from the two parties. Try to take the party itself. The primaries offer much more opportunity than a general election. Its easy to get your candidate into a primary debate. It’s next to impossible in a general election debate if he hasn’t won the primary.

The electioneering infrastructure of either party is what has to be taken over. Once you get that you have a 50-50 chance. And you take that over by winning a primary.

Here’s a good example. Ron Paul was on the ballot in all 50 states in the 1988 general Presidential election as the Libertarian Party candidate. Nobody noticed.

Ron Paul also ran for the 2008 Republican nomination. He lost. But that exposure gave his cause incredible exposure and he is way more recognised as an expert for what he stands for than he ever was before. Sometimes the movement can be moved forward even though the candidate can’t.

I want to hear about a back room meeting between a certain OB-GYN docter and a woman named Sarah.