ADVERTISEMENT

Repulsed by Biden vs. Trump? Tough.

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,442
58,934
113
By Gail Collins
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
The presidential race sure does seem like it’ll wind up coming down to Biden vs. Trump — and a whole lot of people would rather have an alternative.
Here’s an important early message: Even if you aren’t thrilled by the Republican and Democratic options come Election Day, don’t vote for anybody else.
We’re talking here about the attraction of third parties. So tempting. So disaster-inducing.
The lure is obvious. Donald Trump’s terrible and Joe Biden’s boring. Much more satisfying to go to the polls and announce you’re too far above the status quo to vote for either.
The way so many people did in 2016, when Trump won the presidency thanks to the Electoral College votes of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Which Hillary Clinton would probably have carried if the folks who were appalled by Trump had voted for her instead of the Libertarian or Green Party candidates.
Story continues below advertisement
Continue reading the main story


OK, ticked-off swing staters, how did that work for you in the long run?
This brings us to No Labels, a new group that’s warning it might launch a third-party candidacy if it isn’t happy with the two major party nominees.
“We care about this country more than the demands of any political party,” No Labels announces on its website. Its founding chairman, Joe Lieberman, told interviewers that his group believes the American people “are so dissatisfied with the choice of Presidents Trump or Biden that they want a third alternative.”
Yeah. But let’s stop here to recall that Lieberman is a former U.S. senator, Democrat of Connecticut. Who ran for vice president with Al Gore on the Democratic ticket in 2000, hurt Gore’s chances with a terrible performance in a debate with Dick Cheney, then made a totally disastrous attempt to run for president himself four years later.

Hard to think of him as a guy with big answers. And about that business of voters wanting a third choice: A lot of them do, until it turns out that option throws the race to the worse of the top two.
Remember all the chaos in the 2000 Florida vote count? The entire presidential election hinged on the result. In the end, Ralph Nader, the Green Party nominee, got more than 97,000 votes there. In a state that George W. Bush eventually won by 537.




Now Nader had a phenomenal career as a champion of consumer protection and the environment. But this was a terrible finale. His candidacy gave Floridians who felt that Gore was not very exciting a chance to declare their disaffection. It gave them a chance to feel superior. It gave the country a new President Bush. And a war in Iraq.
I talked with Nader about his role much later, and he basically said the outcome was Gore’s fault for being a bad candidate. This conversation took place when the country was bearing down on the 2016 election, and Nader vowed not to vote for either Trump or Clinton. “They’re not alike,” he acknowledged, but added, “they’re both terrible.”
Think that was the last time I ever consulted Ralph Nader.
The third-party thingy also comes up in legislative races. Remember the 2018 Senate contest in Arizona? No? OK, that’s fair. The Democratic candidate was Kyrsten Sinema, who seemed to be in danger of losing because the Green Party was on the ballot, capable of siphoning off a chunk of her supporters. Even though Sinema had a good environmental record! Well, a few days before the election the Green candidate — have I mentioned her name was Angela Green? — urged her supporters to vote for Sinema. Who did squeak out a win.
As senator, Sinema became an, um, unreliable Democratic vote. Who you might call either principled or egocentrically uncooperative. In any case, it didn’t look like she’d have much chance of being renominated. So now she’s very likely to run as … an independent.
Another senator who frequently drives Democratic leaders crazy is Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who hasn’t announced his own plans. But he’s started to flirt with a presidential run. On a No Labels ticket? “I don’t rule myself in and I don’t rule myself out,” he helpfully told an interviewer.
Story continues below advertisement
Continue reading the main story


Sigh.
Politicians are perfectly well aware of what effect a third option can have on elections. Back in 2020, a group of Montanans who’d signed petitions to put the Green Party on the ballot discovered that the Republicans had spent $100,000 to support the signature-gathering effort — undoubtedly in hopes that the Green candidate would take votes away from former Democratic governor Steve Bullock when he ran for the Senate. The irate voters went to court and a judge finally ruled that they could remove their names.
Didn’t help Bullock win, but it does leave another message about the way too many options can be used to screw up an election. Really, people, when it comes time to go to the polls, the smartest thing you can do is accept the depressing compromises that can come with a two-party democracy. Then straighten your back and fight for change anyhow.
Don’t forget to vote! But feel free to go home after and have three or four drinks.

 
  • Haha
Reactions: DolphLundgren
mrz072822dAPR_s2048x1488.jpg
 
"Vote for the lesser of the two evils so the greater of those evils doesn't win!" is a terrible message. Sometimes voting for someone else - even if it means the bad guy wins because of 3rd party votes, sends a clear message that the losing party is doing something really wrong. Maybe it even helps to jumpstart some change that will flow through and help in the long run. Probably wishful thinking, but still a better option than falling in line with one of the two horrible candidates just so the other terrible guy doesn't win.
 
I stopped reading after this:

“The way so many people did in 2016, when Trump won the presidency thanks to the Electoral College votes of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Which Hillary Clinton would probably have carried if the folks who were appalled by Trump had voted for her instead of the Libertarian or Green Party candidates.”

Why do Democrats insist on perpetuating horseshit theories like this? There’s no evidence she would have carried any of those three states, let alone all three, which she would have needed to do in order to win.

The vast majority of third party votes in that election went to the Libertarian ticket of Johnson and Weld, both former Republicans. The Libertarian Party historically pulls more votes from Republicans than from Democrats.

Hillary just simply lost those three states.
 
By Gail Collins
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
The presidential race sure does seem like it’ll wind up coming down to Biden vs. Trump — and a whole lot of people would rather have an alternative.
Here’s an important early message: Even if you aren’t thrilled by the Republican and Democratic options come Election Day, don’t vote for anybody else.
We’re talking here about the attraction of third parties. So tempting. So disaster-inducing.
The lure is obvious. Donald Trump’s terrible and Joe Biden’s boring. Much more satisfying to go to the polls and announce you’re too far above the status quo to vote for either.
The way so many people did in 2016, when Trump won the presidency thanks to the Electoral College votes of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Which Hillary Clinton would probably have carried if the folks who were appalled by Trump had voted for her instead of the Libertarian or Green Party candidates.
Story continues below advertisement
Continue reading the main story


OK, ticked-off swing staters, how did that work for you in the long run?
This brings us to No Labels, a new group that’s warning it might launch a third-party candidacy if it isn’t happy with the two major party nominees.
“We care about this country more than the demands of any political party,” No Labels announces on its website. Its founding chairman, Joe Lieberman, told interviewers that his group believes the American people “are so dissatisfied with the choice of Presidents Trump or Biden that they want a third alternative.”
Yeah. But let’s stop here to recall that Lieberman is a former U.S. senator, Democrat of Connecticut. Who ran for vice president with Al Gore on the Democratic ticket in 2000, hurt Gore’s chances with a terrible performance in a debate with Dick Cheney, then made a totally disastrous attempt to run for president himself four years later.

Hard to think of him as a guy with big answers. And about that business of voters wanting a third choice: A lot of them do, until it turns out that option throws the race to the worse of the top two.
Remember all the chaos in the 2000 Florida vote count? The entire presidential election hinged on the result. In the end, Ralph Nader, the Green Party nominee, got more than 97,000 votes there. In a state that George W. Bush eventually won by 537.



Now Nader had a phenomenal career as a champion of consumer protection and the environment. But this was a terrible finale. His candidacy gave Floridians who felt that Gore was not very exciting a chance to declare their disaffection. It gave them a chance to feel superior. It gave the country a new President Bush. And a war in Iraq.
I talked with Nader about his role much later, and he basically said the outcome was Gore’s fault for being a bad candidate. This conversation took place when the country was bearing down on the 2016 election, and Nader vowed not to vote for either Trump or Clinton. “They’re not alike,” he acknowledged, but added, “they’re both terrible.”
Think that was the last time I ever consulted Ralph Nader.
The third-party thingy also comes up in legislative races. Remember the 2018 Senate contest in Arizona? No? OK, that’s fair. The Democratic candidate was Kyrsten Sinema, who seemed to be in danger of losing because the Green Party was on the ballot, capable of siphoning off a chunk of her supporters. Even though Sinema had a good environmental record! Well, a few days before the election the Green candidate — have I mentioned her name was Angela Green? — urged her supporters to vote for Sinema. Who did squeak out a win.
As senator, Sinema became an, um, unreliable Democratic vote. Who you might call either principled or egocentrically uncooperative. In any case, it didn’t look like she’d have much chance of being renominated. So now she’s very likely to run as … an independent.
Another senator who frequently drives Democratic leaders crazy is Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who hasn’t announced his own plans. But he’s started to flirt with a presidential run. On a No Labels ticket? “I don’t rule myself in and I don’t rule myself out,” he helpfully told an interviewer.
Story continues below advertisement
Continue reading the main story


Sigh.
Politicians are perfectly well aware of what effect a third option can have on elections. Back in 2020, a group of Montanans who’d signed petitions to put the Green Party on the ballot discovered that the Republicans had spent $100,000 to support the signature-gathering effort — undoubtedly in hopes that the Green candidate would take votes away from former Democratic governor Steve Bullock when he ran for the Senate. The irate voters went to court and a judge finally ruled that they could remove their names.
Didn’t help Bullock win, but it does leave another message about the way too many options can be used to screw up an election. Really, people, when it comes time to go to the polls, the smartest thing you can do is accept the depressing compromises that can come with a two-party democracy. Then straighten your back and fight for change anyhow.
Don’t forget to vote! But feel free to go home after and have three or four drinks.


Establishment Much? My God....Did the two parties write that together?
 
  • Love
Reactions: NDallasRuss
"Vote for the lesser of the two evils so the greater of those evils doesn't win!" is a terrible message. Sometimes voting for someone else - even if it means the bad guy wins because of 3rd party votes, sends a clear message that the losing party is doing something really wrong. Maybe it even helps to jumpstart some change that will flow through and help in the long run. Probably wishful thinking, but still a better option than falling in line with one of the two horrible candidates just so the other terrible guy doesn't win.
And that is total bullshit.

Nader threw the election to Bush and we got Iraq. What change was "jumpstarted"? None. And what, exactly, did Gore do "really wrong"? He was Clinton lite and Clinton would have walked to a win over Bush. So we got ruinous tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the first president to preside over a net job LOSS in 8 years. That is 100% on Nader and Nader voters.

Biden was Obama's right-hand. Possibly the most engaged VP ever. And idiots who voted third party may have handed the election to Trump (though that's a closer call) and we got a president who lied every time he spoke and encouraged a violent attack on the Capitol in an insane attempt to remain in power. We also got a SC that is hell-bent on rolling back Constitutional protections for the most marginalized people in the country.

Third party voters did that because they might be the most selfish people in the country. They want EVERYTHING their way and will sell out their core beliefs in an idiotic attempt to get it all. And then preen and pat themselves on the back like they did something noble. Neither Gore nor Biden are "the lesser of two evils" for the very simple reason that they aren't evil. The very idea is ludicrous. Bush wasn't evil but his policies sure resulted in evil - unless you made a boatload of money on Iraq. Trump IS evil and third party voters may have put him in office.

The choice for president in this country is absolutely binary, whether you like it or not. No amount of hand-wringing or self-justification changes that and a vote for a third party is a vote for the actual candidate and party that least aligns with your views. It really is that simple.
 
Third party voters did that because they might be the most selfish people in the country. They want EVERYTHING their way...
Man, the NERVE of people for daring for vote for who they think is the best option, rather than just voting for one of the two shitty candidates from the two major parties!!

Do you even recognize how ridiculous that sounds? To say that anything other than voting for the R or D candidate is "selfish" and "preening" goes against the exact purpose of our system or government. That's truly unbelievable that you'd feel that way, and completely indicative of how the politics in this country have gotten as screwed up as they are!

Both parties have worked long and hard for you to see it as a completely binary choice. so, congratulations to them, because it's clearly worked!

If I think the two main candidates suck, and I vote for someone that I see as a better option, and your preferred candidate loses, that's a THEM problem, and not a ME problem. THEY should take a long hard look at where they screwed up and lost my vote, and the votes of people like me. Don't blame me for the Rs and Ds putting up horrible, shitty candidates.

Jesus - for this upcoming presidential election, let's simplify it: ONLY vote for candidates that you think are still mentally and physically able to survive on their own without a team of people making sure they don't die. That immediately rules out both trump and biden. They're horrible choices to give people to pick from! Don't blame that shit on me!
 
The vast majority of third party votes in that election went to the Libertarian ticket of Johnson and Weld, both former Republicans. The Libertarian Party historically pulls more votes from Republicans than from Democrats.

LOL...the Dem ticket carried PA in 1994, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012. Their LOWEST margin was in 2004 against an incumbent Republican when Kerry won the state by 144,000 votes - and that was 50.9% of the total PA vote. And that was WITH Nader AND the Libertarian party on the ballot. In 2008, the Dems, with Obama, won by over half a million. In 2012, Obama took 52% of the PA vote. Even if EVERY LIBERTARIAN VOTER had voted GOP, the Dems still carry the state every presidential election in the 21st Century.

Then, in 2016, Trump took PA by 44,000 votes - or just north of 0.7%. And he won the normal GOP percentage of the vote with 48.2 percent statewide. Bush, in 2004, captured 48.4% of the vote. So your claim that the third party voters would have voted GOP is...not historically accurate. Third party voters likely cost Clinton PA.
 
Vote your conscience.

IMO, we should be looking at candidates who weren’t alive when Russia launched Sputnik.

If Trump is the R nominee, Biden gets my vote. If Trump isn’t in the race, I’ll consider my options carefully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2
Man, the NERVE of people for daring for vote for who they think is the best option, rather than just voting for one of the two shitty candidates from the two major parties!!
LOL...the best option? Are you kidding? The best option - pay very close attention here - has to have some REMOTE chance to win. Voting Libertarian is likely betting on a high school football team against the worst team in the NFL. And we're not even talking about a good high school team.

And then claiming you took "the best option". 🤣 😂 🤣 😂 🤣 🤣
 
Last edited:
LOL...the best option? Are you kidding? The best option - pay very close attention here - has to have some REMOTE chance to win. Voting Libertarian is likely betting on a high school football team against the worst team in the NFL. And we're not even talking about a good high school team.

And then claiming you took "the best option". 🤣 😂 🤣 😂 🤣 🤣
Or, voting just for Rs or Ds because they have the chance of winning is like saying your favorite sports teams are whoever won the titles last year.

Or are you REALLY saying that trump and biden are the two BEST choices for who should be president? Two senior citizens - who couldn't manage to live on their own if they had to - are the absolute best choices for president: just because that's who the two main parties gave you? You really don't ask or expect any more from a candidate or a political party than that? That'd be pretty sad.
 
Or, voting just for Rs or Ds because they have the chance of winning is like saying your favorite sports teams are whoever won the titles last year.

Or are you REALLY saying that trump and biden are the two BEST choices for who should be president? Two senior citizens - who couldn't manage to live on their own if they had to - are the absolute best choices for president: just because that's who the two main parties gave you? You really don't ask or expect any more from a candidate or a political party than that? That'd be pretty sad.
I never said they were the best choices. But to claim there is no difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party would mark you as an idiot. The point is that you betting on that high school team makes it less likely that the TEAM you want to win, actually wins. The president controls the agenda and you throw your team under the bus because you don't think the qb is any good. Your third party vote makes it more likely that the team you hate the most wins. And that's the sum total of it's effect.

Vote for a third party candidate. Vote for your mother. Vote for yourself if you want to support a candidate who actually shares every one of your views - it'll have exactly the same impact on the outcome no matter which way you go. Just stop pretending you're doing something thoughtful and noble. Best choice? That's about the dumbest thing you could possibly say.
 
I never said they were the best choices. But to claim there is no difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party would mark you as an idiot. The point is that you betting on that high school team makes it less likely that the TEAM you want to win, actually wins. The president controls the agenda and you throw your team under the bus because you don't think the qb is any good. Your third party vote makes it more likely that the team you hate the most wins. And that's the sum total of it's effect.

Vote for a third party candidate. Vote for your mother. Vote for yourself if you want to support a candidate who actually shares every one of your views - it'll have exactly the same impact on the outcome no matter which way you go. Just stop pretending you're doing something thoughtful and noble. Best choice? That's about the dumbest thing you could possibly say.
So basically Americans are just trapped and have to keep taking it. Sure we're given a choice, but it's left or right. You can't go straight, up, down, or backwards. Nope! You may turn left or right and nothing more. Ever. The End.

Oh, and btw, when you turn left or right, both roads are old, full of pot holes and the ride will suck. Enjoy!
 
Last edited:
So basically Americans are just trapped and have to keep taking it. Sure we're giving a choice, but it's left or right. You can't go straight, up, down, or backwards. Nope! You may turn left or right and nothing more. Ever. The End.

Oh, and btw, when you turn left or right, both roads are old, full of pot holes and the ride will suck. Enjoy!
I totally agree with you....but unfortunately Tarheel is correct. It's basically the reality of our system

I'd add that the 2 parties hate each other but they hate the thought of a viable third party more. In combination with the hurdles the constitution provides they've done everything in their power to ensure it never happens.


The problem for third parties is compounded by restrictive ballot access laws and other barriers that the major parties have erected to protect their de facto monopoly. Single-member congressional districts and first-past-the-post election rules also tend to favor the two-party system.


Finally, expansion of the federal government in the 20th century tended to snuff out third parties that were active at the state and local level in the 19th century. As national concerns increasingly dominated elections, voters were less inclined to support parties that only had a local focus. At the same time, the major parties worked hard to co-opt third party issues and fold their supporters into their membership.


 
  • Like
Reactions: alaskanseminole
The choice for president in this country is absolutely binary, whether you like it or not. No amount of hand-wringing or self-justification changes that and a vote for a third party is a vote for the actual candidate and party that least aligns with your views. It really is that simple.
This is a terrible, terrible take. This is how you end up with only two parties, and shitty old white dudes to choose from. Telling people they have to pick one or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkeyeShawn
Notice that attitude is only from the Democrats. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Republican against a 3rd party vote.

There are always cries for better options or 3rd party candidate. Yet Democrats seem to be the ones against it the most. Why?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Rudedolph
This is a terrible, terrible take. This is how you end up with only two parties, and shitty old white dudes to choose from. Telling people they have to pick one or the other.
LOL...the US CONSTITUTION limits us to two parties. Imagine three candidates. All popular. No one would EVER win the Electoral College so EVERY presidential election would go to the House. Every state gets one vote - no matter it's population. Wyoming doesn't just get a disproportionate influence - it gets absolutely equal representation with every other state. A Libertarian candidate carrying the House where there are exactly ZERO Libertarian representatives? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wait! you say. We can ELECT Libertarian representatives!! Great. Now you have a dead-locked House so back-room deals will be made to get the votes of those representatives for either - you guessed it - the Republican or the Democrat. And to make it even better, the Senate elects the VP. Imagine a divided Congress where you get Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

One of those parties has to get marginalized. The political structure of the United States does not have any mechanism for a coalition govt. One of those parties will be co-opted by one of the others. It's written in the history of this country. Republican Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Bull Moose (Progressive Party) in 1912. He took about a fourth of the vote and handed the election to Woodrow Wilson (D). Four years later his party no longer existed and today the GOP is diametrically opposed to everything Roosevelt stood for. Quite the agent for change.
 
Notice that attitude is only from the Democrats. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Republican against a 3rd party vote.

There are always cries for better options or 3rd party candidate. Yet Democrats seem to be the ones against it the most. Why?
Well, that's because third party advocates appear to be simple-minded (see the previous post). And the GOP elected and still supports Trump so we KNOW they're simple-minded.
 
Notice that attitude is only from the Democrats. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Republican against a 3rd party vote.

There are always cries for better options or 3rd party candidate. Yet Democrats seem to be the ones against it the most. Why?

 

Exit polls where voters were asked to rank their choices pretty much crushed this story. Among Perot voters who said they would have voted even if Perot had stepped aside, they split evenly between Bush and Clinton as second choice.

According to the Voter Research & Surveys estimate, without Perot in the race, Clinton would have won with 51.4 million votes to 45.6 million for Bush. The EC vote would have been 349-to-189 for Clinton with Ohio's vote possibly shifting to Bush. Total turnout would have been smaller, because many Perot supporters said they would not have voted if the independent had not run. However, in the other states Clinton won, the Perot voters were solidly in his camp as a second choice. The states Bush won, he would have won by more without Perot. The overall results wouldn't have changed.

And the important question...what impact did Perot have on ANY policy after the election?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudedolph
Exit polls where voters were asked to rank their choices pretty much crushed this story. Among Perot voters who said they would have voted even if Perot had stepped aside, they split evenly between Bush and Clinton as second choice.

According to the Voter Research & Surveys estimate, without Perot in the race, Clinton would have won with 51.4 million votes to 45.6 million for Bush. The EC vote would have been 349-to-189 for Clinton with Ohio's vote possibly shifting to Bush. Total turnout would have been smaller, because many Perot supporters said they would not have voted if the independent had not run. However, in the other states Clinton won, the Perot voters were solidly in his camp as a second choice. The states Bush won, he would have won by more without Perot. The overall results wouldn't have changed.
I was just pointing out to Shawn that Republicans do sometimes complain about third party candidates.
 
Well, that's because third party advocates appear to be simple-minded (see the previous post). And the GOP elected and still supports Trump so we KNOW they're simple-minded.
That's a BS take...sorry. I agree with your overall position but the way you frame it is BS.

Folks have absolutely legitimate gripes with the 2 party system...it hasn't served us well lately...
 
Last edited:
See? Simple-minded. You couldn't have more effectively proven me correct.
I read the rest of your post- looking for sarcasm. If you wanted to illustrate that the constitution doesn't limit us to a two-party system in actual words, but creates an environment where its the only reasonable outcome- then say that. Don't lead off with something so blatantly incorrect that I question if you had a coherent thought after typing it.
 
That's a BS take...sorry. I agree with your overall position but the way you frame is BS.

Folks have absolutely legitimate gripes with the 2 party system...it hasn't served us well lately...
They can have all the gripes they want. The reality is that the choice is binary. Period. Full stop.

Want to change it? Rewrite the Constitution to give us a parliamentary system. That's what it will take.
 
I read the rest of your post- looking for sarcasm. If you wanted to illustrate that the constitution doesn't limit us to a two-party system in actual words, but creates an environment where its the only reasonable outcome- then say that. Don't lead off with something so blatantly incorrect that I question if you had a coherent thought after typing it.
The US CONSTITUTION limits us to two parties. It is baked into the structure of our govt BY THE CONSTITUTION. Anyone who knows the Constitution knows it - it's so obvious. That the Founders didn't see it is their greatest failing.
 

30 years ago. What I’m talking about is currently, as in the last 5-10 years. And, here on this board. It’s the left that always ridicules 3rd party voters. Called simple minded above, so yep, checks out.
 
Certainly repulsed by Kamala, and that is what is so unfortunate. She will almost certainly become President when Joe is reelected as the chances of him being able to complete the term is very low. We will be in uncharted waters. Heck who know if he will even be able to finish his first term.
 
30 years ago. What I’m talking about is currently, as in the last 5-10 years. And, here on this board. It’s the left that always ridicules 3rd party voters. Called simple minded above, so yep, checks out.
Well Republicans won 7 years ago and in 2020 they claimed election fraud. It's not like they accept the results no matter what happens.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT