I am not sure we have EVER been so polarized politically

Leaving aside the election of 1860 — do you remember the late 1960s early 1970s? In some ways I think we are less polarized now than we were then. We are not nearly as polarized now as we were in 2004, in fact; it’s the Washington political-media establishment that’s breaking up. The question is, what will replace that establishment?

As long as elections are held the way they are, and unless one of the two parties completely disintegrates, the practical truth is that on a national level we’re stuck with two parties. I’d rather put my energy into flushing the dead wood out of the Dems than to waste it on some pipe dream third party.

Yes, people want change, but they’re not in a mood to buy a pig in a poke, either. IMO they’re looking for something fresh and different, but not radical or utterly unknown.

Historically, a 3rd party candidate has been a dissatisfied spoiler who splits the vote of his party, running as an Independent or he has no popular respect or recognition. Perot or Nader come to mind. I am not sure we have EVER been so polarized politically, and the level of dislike and distrust of the professional politician been so high among Democrats AND Republicans. “None of the Above” gets high ratings in all polls. The political status quo is not acceptable, and no one in the top tier is a true advocate of change.

No, it’s mathematics. The way we conduct elections — the Electoral College, combined with winner-take-all results — pretty much eliminates the ability of a third party to become nationally viable, and of a third-party presidential candidate to do any better than split votes. I’d love to scrap both national parties and start over with a new one, but that’s futile until we change how we conduct elections.

It’s also history. There have been myriad third parties since the 1830s, and the best any of them could do is achieve some short-term regional success. The only exception is the GOP, which stepped in to fill the void left behind after the Whig Party had disbanded. Put another way — if Teddy Roosevelt, who was revered and beloved in his day, could do no better than to split the Republican vote and elect a Democrat, how could The Unknown Candidate do any better?

Sounds like dualism, and you know better than that. The only constant in the politcal universe is change. Shall we agree to see what the choices are before we decide? And can we agree that the objective is to change the political landscape, and that the tool used, Democratic or Independent is less important than the change?

Like Ross Perot? Third-party candidates CANNOT win, but they can sometimes “spoil” an election by splitting the votes of larger factions. Or, as Ralph Nader did, peel off just enough votes to swing an election to the other side. This is not always helpful.

Congress has been deterred from ridiculous bad decisions when the outcry from the voter has been clear and loud. If the president was popular, trusted, had the ability to communicate well, lawmakers might well HAVE to change their ways, including legislation to reform the campaign bribery that’s the hallmark of the current system - and has not a hint of being changed by the Dems who shouldered aside the Republicans at the K Street pig trough.

I am opposed to the Republican ethic, but I am not for Democrats; I am for Americans. This Democratic Congress has a LOWER rating in the polls than Bush, and that’s some acomplishment. A third option IS a viable choice to effect fundamental change.

There’s no way an independent candidate could pose a serious threat to the way business is done inside the beltway. The parties wouldn’t have to unite against him; they could just ignore him.

But what if there was an Independent candidate whose contempt for the corruption of both parties threatened the ENTIRE way business is done inside the beltway? But such an outsider would be helpless against the K-Street regime and both parties united against him. The situation would be totally untenable, unless the Prez could and would use the ‘bully pulpit’ and the naked, bald, unvarneshed truth in regular appeals to the voters, to energize and invigorate an apathetic population who feels powerless aganist the moneyed forces that have him tied like Gulliver.

I wonder if there is any significance to this?