POTUS - Time for Independent Ticket

[Wyrd of Gawd]

But would Rand tow the line under Sanders?

If the goal is to win the office I think there is enough common ground on major topics to come to a platform agreement and drive the debate to win the election. Where they differ can be dealt with later seeking compromise in Congress using the influence of each for party compromise. A plus in my opinion, but first things first.

Rand has no choice in towing the line. His aspirations to President would be better served as VP under Sanders than continuing to pretend to be a Republican.

You should be a political consultant.  That's some great thinking outside of the box.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I suggest that everyone vote third-party -- a political strike, as it would be.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I suggest that everyone vote third-party -- a political strike, as it would be.

But the third party candidates are Napoleon and Mussolini.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I suggest that everyone vote third-party -- a political strike, as it would be.

But the third party candidates are Napoleon and Mussolini.

[Lek]

They have two totally different philosophies when it comes to government.  Sanders is for a great amount of government control of the lives of Americans, and Paul is a libertarian, desiring minimal government control.  It's a socialist and a free market capitalist on the same ticket.  How could voters reconcile the difference and vote for this ticket?

[Minimalist]

Have you looked at some of the voters?

[Lek]

Have you looked at some of the voters?

Good point Mini.

[Pat Mustard]

The upcoming election for U.S. President has understandably generated many recent threads. When I pondered creating this one a little Minimalist immediately perched himself on my shoulder and screamed in my ear the futility of 3rd party/independent runs for office. Despite the sage advice, I think there is a real potential considering the current candidate pool. What follows is a pipe dream and will never happen.

The independent ticket, if enacted tomorrow, that I think would have a real chance of winning is Sanders-Paul. Despite well ahead in New Hampshire (home field advantage) and having had a great deal of success closing the poll gaps elsewhere Sanders has no real chance of securing the nomination. Anybody that thinks his involvement changes the conversation is smoking better shit than me. Rand Paul is a GOP pariah with the current field, but I think has pull with traditional GOP voters not aligned with the Tea Party movement.

Sanders and Paul are the only two adults in the conversation regarding foreign policy; despite some differences in details they are strangely aligned. Another piece of common ground, albeit for slightly different reasons, are their approaches to the Federal Reserve. 

I'm reminded of the old Tommy Lasorda (baseball hall of fame manager) quote saying that a team wins a third, loses a third, and success or failure depends on the other third. I think a Sanders-Paul ticket would have the potential of not only locking up the middle third, but surprisingly poach enough votes from the other thirds to be viable.

Problem is that Paul, outside of non intervention (the rest of his foreign policy sucks donkey balls, you cannot be an isolationist at least since 1914) and drugs, is a far right christian theocracy wing nut, te exact opposite of what the US needs.