politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think you’re making a mistake here. You’re gonna wanna stick with stuff like you had before where you imply nothing can change.
Perot 92 and 96 were extensively studied and had far reaching effects on domestic policy, campaign strategy and both gave rise to the spoiler/throwing your vote away discourse in the modern day and were also proof that it was false after people had time to study the results.
I remember after 92 people would spit on the ground when you brought up nafta. They didn’t know about it before the election that year and the deal was all but signed at that point. Perot dragged that thing into the light and that campaign is the reason trump could speak to people’s memories when he said how bad it was and talked up how good the usmca would be (even though it’s basically a continuation).
I like when people bring up the reform party because there were lots of well studied measurable effects and they didn’t come from serious disciplined parties like one might think of psl or something as but from the abstract, goofy reform party. They even fucked up in 92 and had a little will-they won’t-they drop out.
There’s some study or article in the 92 Wikipedia article that references people’s exit poll sentiment that they “would have voted for Perot if they thought he could win”. Not just in passing either, but reaching the conclusion that he could have won if those people had voted for him.
Did they not vote for him because they didn’t think he was for real after the drop out?
Would the reform party have been able to make more of Perot clowning on hw and Clinton if it had been running candidates in downballot races?
On a more touchy-feely level, I wouldn’t be bringing up how the American political system is most vulnerable to third parties when its sclerotic leadership is struggling to differentiate some of its two parties policies.
Not if I wanted to convince people not to vote third party at least.
LOL - Perot, and his charts, changed nothing. He became a punchline in '96 with his "Ok, I dropped out, no, wait, I'm still in."
His supporters went on to Ron Paul, who was equally ineffective.
Perot absolutely had an effect on American politics. I already brought up nafta which is the obvious thing for anyone who remembers that time, but did you know that his particular type of outsider conservative populism has been compared to trump?
I didn’t, but it’s easy to see him as a precursor to 2016.
Like I said before, you’re making a mistake saying third parties can’t be effective. One of the legs of the argument against third parties is that they’ll have an effect on the election! Not to mention the obvious truth that third parties have pushed and pulled major party platforms!
It’s better to stay with the mopey, “nothing can change” argument instead. At least people who already believe that will agree with you. Suggesting third parties don’t have an impact is both provably false and undermines your point.