Perot? icymi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v7XXSt9XRM …
-
-
-
@YouTube he got like 10% didn't he? - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
you think Kanye will be one?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Perot was an odd case. 19% in '92, nowhere near that in '96. His 19% was the largest 3rd party vote share since TR got 25% with the Bull Moose party in 1912. Sanders reliably gets ~25% of the Dems, a much smaller number. A 3rd Party Sanders run looks more like Debs than TR/Perot.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
2-party system will always exist in winner take all politics. Too much incentive for losers to align.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'll take the opposite of that bet.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The firewall that the 2-party system has built for itself are the ballot rules, state by state. It was hard to get on as many state ballots as Perot did in ’92 (fewer in ’96), and he started as an independent. If Sanders waits until after the convention, his calendar is tight.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So, for structural reasons, a serious third party run is hard (first-past-the-post systems certainly mitigate against it). Not impossible but hard. You might see some regional small third parties as part of a cyclical party realignment phase, but doubtful more than that.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.