What would happen if a far leftist ran for President as an Independent in 2012?

[Anarchist420]

Would he be thrown in jail like Eugene V Debs was, or would he siphon enough votes off of Obama to throw the election to the Republican. or both, or neither?

I think the far leftist would be thrown in jail while not being allowed to siphon enough votes from Obama, because if Wilson threw Eugene V Debs in jail, then the Obama Admin would throw poor Dennis Kucinich/Bernie Sanders in jail.

I still think Obama deserves to lose votes to an independent far-leftist for not being more explicit that he wasn't a Marxist during the 08 campaign. Some people just didn't get it. I did though because I knew what his voting record looked like (he always voted to fund the Iraq War, and he always voted for the PATRIOT Act). However, most people fell for the media painting him as a marxist when he said he would have voted against the Iraq War Resolution.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Been there done that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Hall

 

[irishScott]

Nothing of significance. Moderates made Obama, they'll unmake him if things swing that way.

 

[wuliheron]

There is no organized far left in the US. You might as well ask what would happen if grandma moses ran for president. Some 40% of American's identify themselves as conservatives, half of that as liberals, and a vanishing minority as radical leftists. Compare that to the one third of the country identifying with the Tea party. Hence the reason republicans now refer to any democrat as "liberal" or even "commie" because there's no one else around to call those things!

 

[Zebo]

Nixon would be far left since goal post moved after RR let alone Ike.

 

[Rainsford]

There is no organized far left in the US. You might as well ask what would happen if grandma moses ran for president. Some 40% of American's identify themselves as conservatives, half of that as liberals, and a vanishing minority as radical leftists. Compare that to the one third of the country identifying with the Tea party. Hence the reason republicans now refer to any democrat as "liberal" or even "commie" because there's no one else around to call those things!

I would have to agree. Although I think the surveys based on self-identification skew right ever since it became more acceptable to identify yourself as a conservative rather than a liberal. Still, liberals in America would be center or even center right in many other countries, and the bulk of the organized left in the US isn't very far left at all, conservative TV shows to the contrary. Someone running as a communist, for example, would receive very little support in the US.

 

[Siddhartha]

George W Bush 2000 and Ralph Nader are constant reminders of what happens and could happen if anyone split the non-GOP vote in the next election.

All you have to do is point out to someone that if Ralph Nader had not split the vote Mr Gore would have won in 2000. The US would not have invaded Iraq and maybe not Afghanistan. Mr Gore probably would have kept up Mr Clinton's efforts to knock out Osama bin Laden. Mr Gore definitely would not have put in place Mr Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest.

 

[Kadarin]

The goal post is still moving, given that Obama (aside from healthcare) acts a lot like a 2008 era Republican.

 

[Zebo]

I guess handouts to insurance companies, pharma and hospitals, forcing people to buy their faulty way overpriced monopolistic products is a good thing leftist thing to do now. Yeah it's moving alright.

Until HC is fundamentally restructured in this country we will be at a huge disadvantage compared to rest of the world. 3x cost per capita should tell you that, and corps know it too moving to low cost Canada and the like.

 

[wuliheron]

I would have to agree. Although I think the surveys based on self-identification skew right ever since it became more acceptable to identify yourself as a conservative rather than a liberal. Still, liberals in America would be center or even center right in many other countries, and the bulk of the organized left in the US isn't very far left at all, conservative TV shows to the contrary. Someone running as a communist, for example, would receive very little support in the US.

Communist hell, even the damn Green Party can barely get out of the starting gate. The right wing bitches about the liberal media, but except for a few comedy shows the far left is virtually silent. There's almost no Rush Limbaugh's and certainly nothing like Fox News for leftists.

Its not a good sign when one side in a fight is constantly yelling and screaming and the other is silent.

 

[Anarchist420]

George W Bush 2000 and Ralph Nader are constant reminders of what happens and could happen if anyone split the non-GOP vote in the next election.

All you have to do is point out to someone that if Ralph Nader had not split the vote Mr Gore would have won in 2000. The US would not have invaded Iraq and maybe not Afghanistan. Mr Gore probably would have kept up Mr Clinton's efforts to knock out Osama bin Laden. Mr Gore definitely would not have put in place Mr Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest.

9/11 happened because of Clinton's foreign policy, if it wasn't an inside job.

We need to get something straight here:
Al Gore wanted to completely disarm civilians.
Al Gore's running mate was Joe Lieberman who was kicked out of his own party because he supported the Iraq War.
Gore voted to get the whole Iraq War started in 91.
Governor Bush was against nation building in y2k, Gore was for it.

Anyone who thinks Gore wouldn't have had the exact same foreign policy needs to get the facts straight.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I guess handouts to insurance companies, pharma and hospitals, forcing people to buy their faulty way overpriced monopolistic products is a good thing leftist thing to do now. Yeah it's moving alright.

Until HC is fundamentally restructured in this country we will be at a huge disadvantage compared to rest of the world. 3x cost per capita should tell you that, and corps know it too moving to low cost Canada and the like.

Restructure? Hell, no one even wants to understand it. The Dems claim they know it all and the Reps are Palinized

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

S/He'd lose.

 

[Schadenfroh]

A Communist candidate or even someone who calls themselves a socialist would get obliterated, likely not even getting 2% of the votes.

 

[wuliheron]

A Communist candidate or even someone who calls themselves a socialist would get obliterated, likely not even getting 2% of the votes.

The last survey I saw on the subject showed that about as many people now think socialism is OK as favor the Tea Party. Its also become a favorite research subject as the economy continues to stumble. I doubt a socialist could provide any serious competition, but they might do better then you think. Unfortunately if they had any real success it would probably turn really ugly if not violent. If the economy continues its 30 year slide into oblivion though someone will suggest the obvious sooner or later.

 

[soccerballtux]

it would be Hillary given Obama's mismanagement of the economy and generally everything regarding being a president.

She didn't run as VP because she didn't want to be associated with him. Knew he wasn't going to make it to a 2nd term.

Palin would run, and Hillary would grab enough swings + republicans + dems disenfranchised with Obama to take the office.

 

[Rainsford]

The last survey I saw on the subject showed that about as many people now think socialism is OK as favor the Tea Party. Its also become a favorite research subject as the economy continues to stumble. I doubt a socialist could provide any serious competition, but they might do better then you think. Unfortunately if they had any real success it would probably turn really ugly if not violent. If the economy continues its 30 year slide into oblivion though someone will suggest the obvious sooner or later.

I wonder if surveys like that tell the whole story though. The problem isn't the percentage of people who support socialist ideas, it's the strength of the opposition. The TEA Party seems like a complete joke to lefties, but nobody is going to tar and feather you for saying you support it. On the other hand, it feels like righties are absolutely rabidly opposed to anything that even seems slightly socialist. Look at the "Maoist/Marxist/Communist" dislike directed at President Obama for talking about universal health care, despite the fact that he's hardly a liberal role model across the board. Can you imagine what would be said about someone who actually CALLED themselves a socialist?

 

[Siddhartha]

9/11 happened because of Clinton's foreign policy, if it wasn't an inside job.

We need to get something straight here:
Al Gore wanted to completely disarm civilians.
Al Gore's running mate was Joe Lieberman who was kicked out of his own party because he supported the Iraq War.
Gore voted to get the whole Iraq War started in 91.
Governor Bush was against nation building in y2k, Gore was for it.

Anyone who thinks Gore wouldn't have had the exact same foreign policy needs to get the facts straight.

You missed the point of my post. Anyone who would think of voting for someone who you would consider to be "far leftist" would know that Mr George W Bush led the US into unnecessary wars, pushed major tax cuts for the wealthiest which are the main cause of the current budget deficits, and basically followed the Reagan agenda. Also they would know that if Mr Gore had won he would not had led the US like Mr Bush did.

 

[wuliheron]

I wonder if surveys like that tell the whole story though. The problem isn't the percentage of people who support socialist ideas, it's the strength of the opposition. The TEA Party seems like a complete joke to lefties, but nobody is going to tar and feather you for saying you support it. On the other hand, it feels like righties are absolutely rabidly opposed to anything that even seems slightly socialist. Look at the "Maoist/Marxist/Communist" dislike directed at President Obama for talking about universal health care, despite the fact that he's hardly a liberal role model across the board. Can you imagine what would be said about someone who actually CALLED themselves a socialist?

I would compare the situation to the buildup before the civil war. Conservatives have been steadily loosing ground for half a century. Abortion, civil rights, big government, entitlements, and now even gays in the military. They've won a lot of concessions, but lost most of the big issues and now the country has become polarized around the economy.

In the civil war the vast majority of the north as well as the south did not want to end slavery, yet it nonetheless became the polarizing issue of the day. Now it is socialism that is the center of attention even though the vast majority of the country doesn't support the idea and many are even reluctant to speak the word out loud. It wasn't idealism that drove slavery to the forefront and its not idealism that is driving socialism to the forefront now. In both cases it is the relentless progress of technology that is forcing the country to change against its own wishes.

Lincoln entered office as a moderate on the slavery issue espousing containment rather then abolition. Likewise we can expect a democratic president who enters office as a moderate, but is forced at some point to make the necessary difficult decision that the whole country has been dreading that will redefine the democratic party. If we're lucky all hell won't break loose in the process.

 

[nageov3t]

I'm sure a far leftist candidate will run with a third party in 2012.

they'll likely lose, given that 95% of the country votes straight down their party lines one way or the other.

 

[ElFenix]

the green party candidate managed to get under 150,000 votes in 2008. nader got nearly 750,000. neither of them was tossed in jail.

 

[Anarchist420]

You missed the point of my post. Anyone who would think of voting for someone who you would consider to be "far leftist" would know that Mr George W Bush led the US into unnecessary wars, pushed major tax cuts for the wealthiest which are the main cause of the current budget deficits, and basically followed the Reagan agenda. Also they would know that if Mr Gore had won he would not had led the US like Mr Bush did.

The deficits were because Bush spent too much, not because he slightly decreased taxes. He also had nearly as much revenue as Clinton.

Reagan raised taxes and had deficits due to massive spending increases over Carter's already large-scale spending.

Also, Bush did not lead us into unnecessary Wars by himself, in fact, it was Cheney who was the mastermind of them. Al Gore would've waged just as much unnecessary wars as Bush considering that he would've had a VP (i.e., Lieberman) every bit as hawkish as Dick Cheney was.

the green party candidate managed to get under 150,000 votes in 2008. nader got nearly 750,000. neither of them was tossed in jail.

Not a fair comparison to 1916 or 2012, because those were years in which a lame duck was in the WH. And even clinton hadn't been a lameduck, he made sure that people knew he was a moderate, unlike Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

it would be Hillary given Obama's mismanagement of the economy and generally everything regarding being a president.

She didn't run as VP because she didn't want to be associated with him. Knew he wasn't going to make it to a 2nd term.

Palin would run, and Hillary would grab enough swings + republicans + dems disenfranchised with Obama to take the office.

Clearly Hillary didn't want to be associated with Obama, which is why she became his secretary of state.

I have no idea where you people get your ideas about politics.

 

[fskimospy]

The deficits were because Bush spent too much, not because he slightly decreased taxes. He also had nearly as much revenue as Clinton.

Reagan raised taxes and had deficits due to massive spending increases over Carter's already large-scale spending.

Also, Bush did not lead us into unnecessary Wars by himself, in fact, it was Cheney who was the mastermind of them. Al Gore would've waged just as much unnecessary wars as Bush considering that he would've had a VP (i.e., Lieberman) every bit as hawkish as Dick Cheney was.

Not a fair comparison to 1916 or 2012, because those were years in which a lame duck was in the WH. And even clinton hadn't been a lameduck, he made sure that people knew he was a moderate, unlike Obama.

Clinton pushed a health care plan far more leftist than Obama did.

You are seriously the stupidest person on this forum, and that's a position with a lot of competition.

 

[Thump553]

9/11 happened because of Clinton's foreign policy, if it wasn't an inside job.

We need to get something straight here:
Al Gore wanted to completely disarm civilians.
Al Gore's running mate was Joe Lieberman who was kicked out of his own party because he supported the Iraq War.
Gore voted to get the whole Iraq War started in 91.
Governor Bush was against nation building in y2k, Gore was for it.

Anyone who thinks Gore wouldn't have had the exact same foreign policy needs to get the facts straight.

I kind of missed your total nonsense posts replete with made up facts. Welcome back.

BTW I'd like some authority for your claim that Lieberman was kicked out of the Democratic Party. I'm extremely familiar with the situation-there was a try (at the state level) to kick him out that went nowhere. I'd like to see the GOP keep someone as a member who gave a keynote speech at the other party's convention and endorsed an extremist flake like Palin.