Soul Strut

Drop image/file

<blockquote class="Quote"><div>LaserWolf said:</div><div>It is doubious at best to suggest that the 1968, 92 and 00 elections final out come was affected by 3rd party candidates. Who are we talking about? Wallace, Perot and Nader? 
	 
	Lets look at 2000. 
	Gore won the popular vote out right. 
	Nader received almost no votes in FL. 
	Gore won the most votes in Florida, but the vote counting was stopped at an arbitrary point when Bush was ahead, by the Secretary Of State who was also on the Bush Campaign. 
	Nader in no way changed the out come. 
	Nor did Wallace or Perot. 
	 
	Perot did influence the debate. 
	 
	Your point, that some people have run as ineffectual 3rd party candidates, therefore we have 3rd parties is undeniable. 
	Please don't try to expand it. 
	 
	If you are going to talk about 3rd party candidates, talk about someone important like Eugene Debbs.</div></blockquote>
	 
	Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida. I know people are using very peculiar definitions in this thread but that's a long way from "almost no votes." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-172525738.html 
	 
	You should probably take a couple of minutes to look stuff like that up before proceeding with an argument based on "facts" you make up. 
	 
	And if Debs was so important why can't you spell his name? I did almost mention him but he didn't have the effect on any particular election that TR, LaFollette, Wallace or Nader did. Debs' best showing was about 6% in 1912, the same election where TR got 27% and came in 2nd as a 3rd party candidate, thus throwing the election to Woodrow Wilson. But the Pope says that wasn't a significant event, either, so I guess my silly old facts don't matter.

Cancel

Community