What's the best a 3rd party candidate has done?

[Jeremy]

And I mean since the Republican and Democratic parties have been the two bigees.

 

[CoreyBowen999]

Ross Perrot did very well.

 

[JSCHAFER1337]

Yeah, Perot's 19% in '92, I believe.

 

[Jeremy]

, he received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes - (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election

Hmm... we could beat that if we needed to

 

[scandinaviany3]

Perot at his peak

Perot in 92 at his peak reached 40% of the polling, then dropped out and got close to 20% in the end.

 

[Mystile]

Perot in 92 at his peak reached 40% of the polling, then dropped out and got close to 20% in the end.

damn...we were so close to destroying the two party system...

 

[nate895]

Perot in 92 at his peak reached 40% of the polling, then dropped out and got close to 20% in the end.

That must have been an even worse campaign than Giuliani's. Drop out with 40%, come on.

We could make it their though, I think we could get most of the same vote + some if we had $100M.

 

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

The model to look at is of course Perot in 1992. A lot of people on this forum are too young to remember the Perot race, but he was actually leading both Clinton and Bush in 1992. Out of curiosity, I went to a MASSIVE rally in Denver for Perot, just to see what it was all about. Perot was literally on the way to possibly winning the White House when he suddenly dropped out of the race and sabotaged his own campaign. Ed Rollins' book details the bizarre behavior of Perot during this time. If he had not flipped out, Perot could have WON that race. Even after all his bizarre behavior, he still pulled 20 million votes!!

 

[blaumittwoch]

3rd party will not get Ron Paul elected. Even Perot couldn't do it with his billions. FOTGOP.

 

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

3rd party will not get Ron Paul elected. Even Perot couldn't do it with his billions. FOTGOP.

Perot was independent in 1992, not third party.

Also, see my post above.

 

[blaumittwoch]

Perot was independent in 1992, not third party.

Also, see my post above.

Oh, I was replying while you posted that. I thought 3rd party = any other party than R and D, including independents? And Ron Paul still doesn't have the money or media coverage to do that.

 

[Jeremy]

3rd party will not get Ron Paul elected. Even Perot couldn't do it with his billions. FOTGOP.

Sounds like he was very close...

and he didn't even have the internet

Also, supposedly the Libertarian and Consitution parties would both back RP... and if McCain wins reps, more conservatives. And if Hillary wins dems, Obama supporters and... we wouldn't be competing on the net.

 

[constitutional]

oh god please, no this shit again. This thread is already given 5 star, it only means one thing: the independent trolls are at it again.

 

[amonasro]

The model to look at is of course Perot in 1992. A lot of people on this forum are too young to remember the Perot race, but he was actually leading both Clinton and Bush in 1992. Out of curiosity, I went to a MASSIVE rally in Denver for Perot, just to see what it was all about. Perot was literally on the way to possibly winning the White House when he suddenly dropped out of the race and sabotaged his own campaign. Ed Rollins' book details the bizarre behavior of Perot during this time. If he had not flipped out, Perot could have WON that race. Even after all his bizarre behavior, he still pulled 20 million votes!!

So what happened? I read somewhere (unconfirmed, going by memory) that his family threatened. Establishment shenanigans??

 

[Jeremy]

oh god please, no this shit again. This thread is already given 5 star, it only means one thing: the independent trolls are at it again.

Troll would mean I registered here to cause a disturbance... now you're just being silly.

 

[Eponym_mi]

George Wallace did pretty well also

 

[noztnac]

If Perot had not dropped out he would have won.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

Sounds like he was very close...

and he didn't even have the internet

Also, supposedly the Libertarian and Consitution parties would both back RP... and if McCain wins reps, more conservatives. And if Hillary wins dems, Obama supporters and... we wouldn't be competing on the net.

Excellent points, StormCommander.

 

[AlexMerced]

Ron Paul doesn't have the billion Ross Perot did but he does have the internet and:

- A growing and awesome precinct leader program

- a crumbling economy, which would make americans look to unlikely candidates, it's how Reagan won the first time after Jimmy Carter

- he'd be better funded than any 3rd party candidate other than Ron Paul cause of us, so he could put a fighting shot, plus his book will get him a lot of publcicity, and if Bloomberg and Nader join the race. The three might have enough star power to entice a MSM 3rd party debate.


Just saying it's possible, I'd rather have the GOP nod

 

[constitutional]

Troll would mean I registered here to cause a disturbance... now you're just being silly.

Not you but watch how this thread will be shamelessly bumped by someone until it has no shame left.