2007-09-28 03:44:59 · 7 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Odds are that at least one third party candidate will enter the race on an anti-war platform. There has actually been an anti-war candidate in most presidential elections. The chances of such a candidate winning are pretty low.
2007-09-28 03:49:25 · answer #1 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And what if they win just three key states and only 20% of the popular vote? The Dems and GOP will split the remaining 80% of the popular vote say 35% to 45% respectively. Should nobody get a majority electoral votes the next president would be decided by congress. We could have a president in office who recieved just 35% of the popular vote.
The stronger the third party candidate is the worse this senario becomes.
(at this time I am one of the 20% who would vote third party)
2007-09-28 03:53:49 · answer #2 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Even if they would they wouldn't have a chance because they probably won't have enough money and the media would ignore them and they wouldn't be invited to the debates. Actually there already are about 8 parties who's candidates should be on the ballot. Maybe I'll vote for the Green Party candidate!
2007-09-28 03:51:39 · answer #3 · answered by Ktcyan 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ron Paul will get a thumping in the primaries and then will run as a libertarian or independant anti-war candidate and will lose there too.
2007-09-28 04:11:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Zero, I hope. Let's not forget the fine, fine contribution that idiot Ralph Nader did in putting Bush in office. Any anti-war party will only hurt the Democratic Party and help the GOP.
2007-09-28 03:50:30 · answer #5 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
About 0%, American needs to keep its Arms economy going.
2007-09-28 05:14:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doubtful!~!
2007-09-28 03:50:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋