Some of my leftist friends have declared that if
Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee (and if their favorite, Bernie
Sanders, isn't) they will not support Clinton in the election.
I noted that the Republic Party thanks them for
their support.
This has brought the expected charge that there is
no difference between the two parties, and that if leftists do not support the
Democratic Party that will, somehow, teach the party a lesson.
American politics is structured to be a
two-party system. Third parties almost always spoil the chances of the
party they are closest to. Not voting for one party helps the other.
Sen. Sanders has said he will not run as a third party candidate.
He reads the structure of our system better than some of his socialist
followers. I am sure he will support the Democratic nominee.
3 comments:
Spot on. Just in the last Century, the Bull Moose Party cost the Republican Party the White House in 1912. The DixieCrats turned what could have been a Truman landslide into the squeaker of 1948. Perot probably cost George H. W. Bush the election in 1992 (the jury is still out that one). And don't forget the biggie: The split of the Democrats in 1860 put Lincoln into office. As Lazarus Long said in one of Robert Heinlein's novels. "If you don't have the time to study the issues in order to choose a candidate for whom to vote, just vote against someone. The result will invariably be the same." or words to that effect. Like it or not, ours is not a parliamentary system. (And I am glad ours is not.) Two parties will stay the norm and voting for a fringe third party can only support the other major party.
What is the pervailing opinion on the effect of Curtis in the Ky governor election. It is my impression, that he is not included in the debate at Centre on 10/6
There has been little public polling, so it is hard to tell. I think only die-hard political junkies have even heard of Curtis.
Post a Comment