That’s exactly what I was saying, though Steve MB’s modification interests me.
Heck, that sounds good. Just saying “I’ll veto anything that doesn’t get a majority vote from each party in both houses.” would probably fly.
He won’t remain idolized for long once the paid political hacks start sharpening their knives in his direction (or hers). I doubt that the likes of the Koch brothers or Rupert Murdoch would take his appearance on the scene while sitting down for long.
I think we already know what a successful third party Presidential run looks like. Ross Perot led in the polls at one point in 1992. If you can lead in the polls, you can win.
So the ingredients are these:
- Money. Duh.
- A centrist platform, which can be either libertarian or populist(Perot leaned more towards populism)
- A candidate who is seasoned enough or remarkable enough despite lack of political experience to not self-destruct.
- The candidate should bring up an issue which both parties have failed to address. In Perot’s case, it was the deficit. It would also help if there was mass dissatisfaction with both parties. With the Democrats at an all time low in popularity and Republicans somehow even lower than that, will there ever be a more opportune time than 2016?
I even have a proposed independent Presidential ticket for 2016: Mark Cuban/Neil De Grasse Tyson
If he leans libertarian the Kochs will be on his side. And Murdoch backed Ross Perot:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/feb/20/murdochs-politics-david-mcknight-review
Dissatisfaction with the major parties is shared by many of the elites too.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson was exactly who I thought of as a good hypothetical 3rd-party presidential candidate.
Not President. Academics historically make bad Presidents, or at least are too optimistic about the power of experts to shape society. But learning on the job how to actually lead from a guy like Mark Cuban, Tyson could be ready to succeed him in eight years.
It’s not enough to lead in the polls. You have to be able to stay in the lead. Early in the race, polls are almost entirely about name recognition, but that advantage evaporates once the voters become familiar with all of the candidates.
But name recognition is the hardest part for third party candidates. And really, all an election is is the final poll that is taken in November. A lot of elections, historically, would have been very different if they’d been held in October or December. Ross Perot was doing just fine until he dropped out of the race after making weird allegations.
Libertarians are not centrist. They are just a fringe element of the Republicans, whether they admit it or not.
If a candidate is seasoned enough, then he very likely has political experience with one of the parties and would be associated with it, with or without the (I) after his name.
If there was a candidate running on an issue the the other parties failed to address, one or both would pull the rug out from under him by addressing it.
I can’t think of any except Woodrow Wilson. Leaving completely aside the argument of whether Wilson was good or bad, your sample size is one.
Doctrinaire libertarians are not centrists, true. I was thinking more of a candidate that was center right on economic issues, center left on social issues. He’d be a moderate libertarian for lack of a better term.
You could do it with someone who used to be associated with a major party. Perhaps a centrist ticket like Bayh/Snowe could do well if backed by enough money.
That’s what happened to Perot. The Reform party he started just ended up being an anti-trade party since both parties were pro-free trade(And still are, despite occasional election-year rhetoric by Democrats)
I was also sort of counting the Kennedy/Johnson administrations. Not so much because the Presidents were academics, but because their Cabinet and advisors were some of the best academics on the planet and they brought a ton of hubris with them on their way to a massive fail.
Actually, that’s unfair, because Wilson and Kennedy/Johnson had real accomplishments. But those accomplishments had no relation to their theories about their ability to micromanage society(or a war effort). Progressives have mostly gotten over such ideas, but one thing I worry about with a DeGrasse Tyson type is that many liberals still seem to think the government can make scientific advancement just happen and it seems that Tyson believes that too. You need someone like Mark Cuban to keep things tethered to the real world.
I seriously doubt Tyson would hitch himself to an Ayn Rand acolyte like Cuban.
Not really, if he’s an actual libertarian (i.e. opposed to government special favors, including those for Big Business) as opposed to somebody who plays one on TV (e.g. the Kentucky fuzzy weasel riding on top of the bald weasel).
Perhaps. I know little of Cuban’s politics other than that he had disdain for Trump and his Birtherism.
But then again, Cuban is obviously pro-science and I’m pretty sure Tyson cares about that more than anything else. Science would be more non-politicized in a Cuban administration than any Republican or Democratic administration.
Why am I not surprised that you offered as a candidate someone whose politics you freely admit you know “little” about?
- Don’t bail out at the first sign of mud-flinging. Which might be part of 3), but this still bears mentioning.
Because I don’t see the Presidency as an ideological job. I see it as the opposite, actually. Politics is for Congress. I understand the reality of how voters think, but the definition of the executive branch- “Faithfully execute the law” should be a politics-free zone. So I don’t care what Mark Cuban thinks about the issues. What I care about is that Mark Cuban can run a large organization and he’s definitely open to new ideas. He’s also a non-bullshitter, which we’re overdue for in a President.
Are you fricking serious? You don’t care whether the President will sign or veto a minimum wage increase? The ACA? Tax increases/decreases? Abortion restrictions? A million other possible bills? What about foreign policy? Do you care about a candidate’s ideological stances on war and peace?