Do you think it might be advantageous for any '08 Presidential candidate to switch to the Independent party?

Question

I mean an aweful lot of people will not vote for the big two party's anymore. They just don't vote. Independants could do very well in the next election. How well will they do in '08 in your opinion

Answer 1

A viable third party, one that represents the middle class would do very well in theory. It would be a party that beleives gorvenment should have a social consience within reason, but also that the right to bear arms is what protects every other right in the constitution. The major problem is that if an independent were elected as President he would have to deal with a Congress and Senate made up of Republicans and Democrats he would have no political allies there and would in effect be a lame duck from the get go. A viable third party would need to start at the sate level win Senate Seats, Congressional seats and governorships. Once they had an established power base in Washington then they could run a candidate for President.

Unfortunately no such party exists.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, no. Any third party would bleed votes from one or the other parties causing the party with the least support to possibly win the election.Often, a third party candidate is very closely tied to a party but could not get the nomination. When they go independent, they usually draw just enough votes from say the democrats, to allow the other party to win. Our county can't afford a third party candidate now especially since so few people vote. Maybe the future will change that.

Answer 3

There really is not an "Independent Party." That is an oxymoron. If you are independent, you don't belong to a party.
Independent or third party candidates do not do well in presidential elections. Ross Perot got about 12% of the vote, which was the best anyone did in a long time. Are you familiar with guys named Anderson and Wallace? They did not do particularly well.

The established parties raise and spend multi-millions of dollars on campaigns. One person alone cannot compete in the money race.

Answer 4

Independent candidates do not do well in national elections, there is historical evidence for this. Think: Ross Perot. Had all the money in the world, and still could not win.

Independents might do well in local or even statewide races, but more people than not will still vote for the 2 major parties.

so no, I don't think it would be advantageous for any Presidential candidate to switch.

Answer 5

Respectfully, I disagree, I think there are still more people that align themselves with a party and most of these would not vote for a independent candidate. There is always the suspicion that this candidate cannot win so to vote for the lesser of two evils is better because they do stand this chance.

Answer 6

Independents are what's needed in office instead of Democrats or Republicans for one of the biggest reasons....the two major political parties have such opposing concerns and viewpoints, not to mention an inability to analyze things from other perspectives, that the government has become top-heavy, ponderous, and supremely inefficient. Independents, by contrast, typically have moderate viewpoints/concerns and are much more capable of being open-minded to see things from others' perspectives. The only way for the government to overcome the exceptionally poor performance is to limit the influence of right and left wing lobbying as well as more sharing of influence with Independents and other minor political parties.

Answer 7

No. People vote for social issues nowadays. A 3rd party would have to make clear its social issues.

Answer 8

yes john McCain as an independent.

Answer 9

I think so, look at Liebermann, and he would even step out on a limb and defend America.