TexasCHLforum.com

So, I'm sure I'm going to be called crazy here, but John Huntsman is rumored to be bolting from the GOP very soon, and not without a lot of campaign dollars in his pocket. He will become the second GOP presidential candidate for 2012 that has been cordially UNinvited to the party.

There is quiet speculation that somehow he and Gary Johnson will join together and run on the Libertarian ticket, with some party changes that would directly appeal to the TEA party crowds.

I know how some of you would react to this, so let's just accept that many of you believe that a vote against Romney is a vote FOR Obama. I think we get that. This is more of a thread about who can win the heart and soul of people that are more firmly in the "independent" category (which is statistically larger now than Dems or GOP). Would a pair of governors from Utah and New Mexico be able to pull off the unthinkable, a 3rd party win? What do you think they would have to do? Do you think that they could even work together? (Huntsman's positions here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Jon_Huntsman.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, Johnson's here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

OldCannon wrote: Would a pair of governors from Utah and New Mexico be able to pull off the unthinkable, a 3rd party win? What do you think they would have to do?

I think the only way a 3rd party could win the presidency in 2012 would be if the hypnotoad were on the ballot.
(link for those who don't know what I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W84DLa0CLNE)

Frankly, I think time alone means its far too late. If they'd organized a campaign last year, it might have gained some traction. But we're essentially 6 months away from election day....not gonna happen. (or if it does happen, will be so poorly organized/ran it will be pretty ineffectual).

Oh and in before someone claims Ron Paul, who can't win enough primaries to be the Republican nominee, would certainly win if only he ran third party.

OldCannon wrote:So, I'm sure I'm going to be called crazy here, but John Huntsman is rumored to be bolting from the GOP very soon, and not without a lot of campaign dollars in his pocket. He will become the second GOP presidential candidate for 2012 that has been cordially UNinvited to the party.

There is quiet speculation that somehow he and Gary Johnson will join together and run on the Libertarian ticket, with some party changes that would directly appeal to the TEA party crowds.

I know how some of you would react to this, so let's just accept that many of you believe that a vote against Romney is a vote FOR Obama. I think we get that. This is more of a thread about who can win the heart and soul of people that are more firmly in the "independent" category (which is statistically larger now than Dems or GOP). Would a pair of governors from Utah and New Mexico be able to pull off the unthinkable, a 3rd party win? What do you think they would have to do? Do you think that they could even work together? (Huntsman's positions here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Jon_Huntsman.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, Johnson's here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

They could/would possibly pull enough votes away from the Republican candidate to insure that the current POTUS is reelected. The question for the thinking voters is how much they like/dislike the Republican candidate when compared to the current POTUS.

Oldgringo wrote: The question for the thinking voters is how much they like/dislike the Republican candidate when compared to the current POTUS.

And that's why Congressional seats are important, if not thrilled with the big weevil or the lesser of 2 weevils and won't vote for one and can't ethically/morally vote for the other in good conscience.


H. Ross Perot actually had a chance to win as a third party; sad he didn't take it.

If Paul doesnt win the GOP nomination I'll likely vote for the Libertarian presidential candidate as a protest vote against Romney.

I'd prefer Johnson at the top of the ticket, as I imagine that Huntsman would likely be a bit too pro-China for my tastes.

If Romney somehow were to lose Texas in November he has no one to blame but himself for being such a terrible candidate.

O.F.Fascist wrote:If Paul doesnt win the GOP nomination I'll likely vote for the Libertarian presidential candidate as a protest vote against Romney.

I'd prefer Johnson at the top of the ticket, as I imagine that Huntsman would likely be a bit too pro-China for my tastes.

If Romney somehow were to lose Texas in November he has no one to blame but himself for being such a terrible candidate.

Another one of Obama's second favorite people (second only to those who actually vote for him).

Huntsman could not get enough tea party votes to even make a show in the primaries. And now he is going to win as a 3rd party? RIGHT

Clueless and naive. It is impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win because it requires the kind of precinct-level organization in dozens of states that only the (R) or (D) parties are able to support. Most people have no idea what it really takes to mount a campaign at that level.

Jumping Frog wrote:Clueless and naive. It is impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win because it requires the kind of precinct-level organization in dozens of states that only the (R) or (D) parties are able to support. Most people have no idea what it really takes to mount a campaign at that level.

Yup. Just to add supporting evidence to your point, by the way, let's run the numbers in an imaginary scenario:

Let's assume that Romney does something as politically dumb as Obama (I dunno, I'm just what-iffing here), and the news media goes into a 24-hour news cycle just a couple weeks before elections, then starts focusing on a Johnson/Huntsman ticket as the new "Dark horse" and really talks them up. People start thinking, "Hey, these guys can really do a great job!"

Now let's assume that during the election, their ticket REALLY starts to get votes. Let's just look at raw numbers and the "possibility" of the LP taking different states. Remember, 270 electoral votes to win.

Observation #1: The LP is only on the presidential ticket in 30 of the 50 states. So long 184 votes (yeah, I did all this math while I was munching on breakfast this morning....it's not easy being an Evil Genius ).

Observation #2: Of the "big" states, there's no way the LP can win Texas (solid GOP), NY or California (solid Dem), we know that. So long 122 votes.

Observation #3: Oh, whoops. Now the BEST the LP can do is 232 votes.

Conclusion: This is the LP's face when winning all other 27 states in this fantasy election: Remember, boys, "Second Place" actually means, "First Place Loser"

Again, this isn't about "Maybe they can win." I hope I've just statistically proven that there's no chance at all, in fact. The key conversation is about whether they can influence some fundamental philosophical changes in the GOP. The GOP _wants_ to win. The GOP does _not_ want to have two ex-GOP'ers campaigning around the country this year against the GOP ticket, because THIS is the thing that will help Obama. There's two solutions to this: Form ranks and take a hard line against both parties, or find a way to "loosen" the GOP planks so that the independent voters find Romney (and the GOP planks) to be an acceptable choice.

O.F.Fascist wrote:If Romney somehow were to lose Texas in November he has no one to blame but himself for being such a terrible candidate.

The fact that the Romney supporters are already trying to blame everyone but their candidate and themselves for his expected loss. Well that says a lot and none of it points to the type of POTUS we need to lead us out of the socialist victim mindset into a political and economic recovery.

recaffeination wrote:

O.F.Fascist wrote:If Romney somehow were to lose Texas in November he has no one to blame but himself for being such a terrible candidate.

The fact that the Romney supporters are already trying to blame everyone but their candidate and themselves for his expected loss. Well that says a lot and none of it points to the type of POTUS we need to lead us out of the socialist victim mindset into a political and economic recovery.

Yes, I'm sure Obama will do a much better job of doing that.

74novaman wrote:

recaffeination wrote: Yes, I'm sure Obama will do a much better job of doing that.

He sure won't that is why I'm voting in the Republican Primary for the best candiate, however it looks like regardless of who Texas chooses the rest of the nation has foisted Romney on us.

I expect Romney to win Texas in November, but as I said before if he manages to fail at that only him and his primary supporters are to blame for his defeat.

I was sure this would be the year that the Republican Primary voters would be serious about defeating Obama, but I may have been wrong about that.

O.F.Fascist wrote: I was sure this would be the year that the Republican Primary voters would be serious about defeating Obama, but I may have been wrong about that.

I'm assuming you're alluding to the fact that you thought this year the Republicans might nominate Ron Paul. If not, feel free to ignore this next statement.

Paul has some good ideas, and the Republican party/the country as a whole needs to become more libertarian in our approach to govt or we are all in deep deep trouble.

That being said, it never ceases to amaze me the delusional attitude some Paul supporters have regarding Ron Paul: that a man who has failed repeatedly to even win the nomination from his party would somehow manage to waltz past his general election opponent. That's some pixie dust and unicorn farts, global warming is real, pot at the end of the rainbow type thinking.

Huntsman was my choice. But since we have to choose between Bevus and Butthead, heres an interesting article about Butthead. http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-1 ... -parasite/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Finally an explanation about where his money came from.

2firfun50 wrote:Huntsman was my choice. But since we have to choose between Bevus and Butthead, heres an interesting article about Butthead. http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-1 ... -parasite/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Finally an explanation about where his money came from.

That is a lefty anti-free-market slash job on what private equity really does. Bunch of crap. That kind of market restructuring was a large factor in turning from the stagnation of the '70's to the booming 80's & 90's.