They're Looking In The Wrong Place

  Video Links: [TikTok] [YouTube]

A few months ago (15-Mar-2024), toward the start of the current political cycle, the predominantly Republican-leaning propaganda machine, Faux News, suggested the Democrats fear that third party candidates were going to be "the single biggest threat" to swing the election toward His Orangeness. I have little doubt that Republicans think that third party candidates will swing the election toward Sir Senility, but there's something I think that Old Party strategists and stuffed shirts seem to be missing: I think they're looking in the wrong place.

"When they turn the pages of history, when these days have passed long ago, will they read of us with sadness for the seeds that we let grow?"

Since the 1970s, it seems that the ONLY purpose of either of the Old Parties appears to be to stand in opposition to each other, to be polar opposites behind which ALL American voters must march - goose step - into the voting booth to cast a vote for one of their party's hand-selected candidates. Anything else is to be considered suspicious and avoided with extreme prejudice. 

I'm a statistics guy, so here are a few statistics that make me nervous. In the 2016 election (since we are looking at His Orangeness as a challenger rather than an incumbent), 19.8% of the total voting population voted Democrat, 19.5% voted Republican, 2.2% voted for an alternate party candidate, and 28.6% were ineligible to vote (for whatever reason). All of this information is readily available, but apparently, in looking at this data, the Old Party strategists and stuffed shirts missed two very important points.

"Cities filled with hatred, fear and lies. Withered hearts and cruel, tormented eyes."

The first idea that seems to have escaped them is that 29.9% of the total voting population in 2016 who could have voted, didn't. That almost one-third of people in the country did not vote suggests (at least to me) one of two looming possibilities: either that NONE of the 2016 candidates, regardless of party affiliation, represented enough of their values for them to want to cast a vote in a major election, or that those voters didn't know that an alternate party candidate who might share their values even existed (due to the propaganda machine either not reporting on alternative party candidates, or deliberately making the alternative party candidates appear foolish).

The second idea that seems to have escaped them, and one that I find particularly offensive, is their unmitigated gall to believe that the 2.2% who voted for an alternative candidate would have voted for one of their uninspiring candidates instead of staying home; not very effin' likely.  

"Scheming demons dressed in kingly guise beating down the multitudes and scoffing at the wise."

But that's where Old Party strategists and stuffed shirts are not looking, and where most of us who run under alternative parties tend to focus; the disenfranchised voters who are no longer entertained by the sheer buffoonery of Old Party candidates striking poses and shouting, "gotcha!" I look at running for office as an extended job interview for a contract position. To my way of thinking, ALL politicians (myself included) should represent the values of the people who elect them to their office. Maybe you do as well.

"The hypocrites are slandering the sacred halls of truth. Ancient nobles showering their bitterness on youth."

Here's my hope: that some of my views are similar enough to the Republicans that I will siphon off some of their votes, and that some of my views are similar enough to the Democrats that I will also steal some of their votes. But mostly, that my views are appealing enough to independent and/or disenfranchised voters (those who do not vote according to partisan ideology) that I will get them into a voting booth to finally be able to vote for a candidate that they can support.

"Can't we raise our eyes and make a start? Can't we find the minds to lead us closer to the heart?"

Of course the Democrats are panicked; they should be. But so should the Republicans because, yes, Libertarians (and other alternative party) candidates are deliberately coming siphon votes away from their Statler and Waldorf candidates, and there's a good reason, at least from our perspective. At the risk of sounding cliche, there's a "giant sucking sound" coming from both of the Old Parties that their supporters seem to be able to ignore but that the rest of us find particularly annoying. Their policies suck ... more crap than the vacuum on a sanitation truck.

Some of my other opinions regarding third-party candidacies:

• Protest Voting [Article Link]
• Spoiler Candidates [Article Link]
• Loyalty Politics [Article Link]
• An Abusive Relationship [Article Link]