I agree with this. And I also agree with the idea that re-in-statement of Glass-Steagall or some other specific measures that the current system could address isn't going to go far to right the wrongs expressed by OWS, or achieve a feeling of justice or resolve. But I do think that it has something to do with an independent candidate. http://www.americanselect.org/ is one way that an independent could get on the national ballot. There remains time for others. But, the point I am making is this: OWS is a populous movement that doesn't have faith in either party. If a third party candidate appeared that validated their grievances more than Obama or the GOP (which wouldn't be too difficult), that candidate might become the ultimate protest vote against the status quo. For example, Tea Party supporters have threatened to vote for the Democratic ticket if they don't get the GOP candidate they approve of. Personally, I think that's an empty threat, but an independent might just get that vote. The majority does feel disenfranchised. As a result, I think that seeing that neither party won the ticket would be a very attractive avenue for this deep feeling of disaffection. It's too soon the shoot the bastards, but an independent would put the screw to both parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec... (Executive Summary - Teddy Roosevelt costs Taft the presidency and ushers in Woodrow Wilson) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat (executive summary - by splintering off from the Democratic party in the name of segregation, Strom Thurmond cost Dewey the election against Truman, while also starting the long slide of the South from Democratic to Republican) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_presidential_cam... (executive summary - for "Strom Thurmond" substitute "George Wallace", for "truman" substitute "Humphrey" - George Wallace put Nixon in office) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#The_.22spoiler.22_c... (executive summary - the "edit war" over whether or not Nader cost Gore the presidency in 2000) I remember Perot. I remember 2000. And I don't see a 3rd party candidate - unless it's Jesus Christ himself - doing anything other than costing Obama the election in favor of whoever the Republicans put against him.
Yeah, I remember these too. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying "Hey, an independent candidate is a good idea." or even "OWS should get an independent candidate." I'm just looking at the state of things, and I'm getting the notion that this is how things might play out considering the circumstances. I'm also not predicting a win for this candidate. I'm just predicting that he/she could be a game-changer, and yes, probably not in a good way for Obama. Personally speaking, I was dismayed at what happened with Nader and Gore in 2000. I had a few Nader-loving friends, and considering GWB, I thought it to be bad timing for a protest vote. That, and as a scientist, I was pretty excited about a Gore Presidency. Of course, maybe my friends were right, considering Clinton signing Glass-Steagall, etc., but I don't think that the Nader supporters I knew were that savvy or prescient. However, this time around, I don't see such a stark difference between Romney and Obama as between Gore and Bush. I know that those Naderites would be more than happy to make a protest vote this time around, and in this case, I don't personally think the timing is that bad. But, my personal politics aside, I'm just saying that I think that there's good reason why an independent candidate could be a big player in this election. Herman Cain is a thorn in Romney's (and the GOP's) side right now? Both parties are trying to wrangle some serious discontent.