this list is highly speculative considering there are no candidates yet. I like Green credentials, but I'd never consider a Green Party candidate in the current 2-Party System. Like many, i believe in voting for the best representative of my priorities for America in the Primaries. But if asked who i'd like to see competing in the general election, i'd consider compromising a little in consideration of elect-ability.

i think AOC and Bernie would be exciting "change" candidates but Bernie is too old and AOC may be too young for many Americans to trust. I'd like to see Pete B in the VP slot.

Newsom is the only one dealing with the would-be-king head-on, with a sense of urgency, and a measure of cojones, so i believe he's earned support.

i respect your commitment to a 3rd Party, Mac. And i'm glad there's someone here with that opinion. But isn't the real argument that:

1. you're trying to fit a round peg in a voting system that's built with square holes.

2. if we can't elect the lesser of 2 evils in a 2-party system we will never be in a position to change it?

3. if we don't select the lesser of 2 evils we eventually get the greatest evil. Now our 2-party system is turning into a 1-party dictatorship.

unfortunately, the reality is not that if everyone voted their conscious they'd elect a Green. The will isn't there. The numbers aren't there.

imo, the only viable path is voting for your true candidate of choice in the Primary and voting for the best agent of change in the General Election. Then, push for overhauling the whole election system.

11 minutes ago, macphysto said:

With all due respect, Cap'n, why bother vote then? Blow up the "voting system that's built with square holes," say I!

because not voting is a hand-grenade and we're all in the room

I want change that will benefit future generations of Americans. But, I also want that change for me now.

ironically, the Lyin' King is our best chance at radical change in our lifetime, via the implosion of the Republican Party. Americans should, at long last, understand the risks and demand real change. But democracy must survive the next 2 elections.

My problem with Barack Obama is that he squandered the two years when the Democrats controlled Congress. His bushwacked "hands across the aisle" diplomacy miserably failed.

absolutely. Obama was timid. The Democrats who followed were worse and the Republicans ate them for lunch.

i look forward to your help in building that radical new blue world from scratch in the 3001: A Space Colonoscopy thread. Pick a starship. Get on board.

5 hours ago, BobDylan said:

...Third parties can win...

it's not impossible but it's even less possible now than it was a hundred years ago

it takes voting for the best Primary candidate.
then the best candidate that gives this country a real shot at changing what's wrong with the election system, so we can actually get rid of the 2-party system

for example. even if Nader won in 2000 he wouldn't have gotten much done and we'd still have a corrupt 2 party system today

the framework has to change

and it never will if the messaging is
damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, even if they blow off your nose to spite your face

6 hours ago, macphysto said:

...the majority of Americans don't vote for third-party candidates only because they don't think they can't win."

unfortunately, the majority of Americans don't vote for third-party candidates because they prefer one of the 2-party candidates. i venture to say there has never been a 3rd party candidate that the majority of voters actually preferred. in actual votes, only 8 in 200 years got at least 10% of the vote.

truth is. if more people acted like you, we'd keep getting the wrong candidate elected and humans would be on an even faster path to extinction before a winnable candidate emerged

truth is. if no one thought like you, we might get incremental progress instead of further regression. the path i suggest only requires 5% or 10% more voters to get off their ass and vote, period

your route requires about 45% more voters to vote specifically for the 3rd party candidate next election

tic toc

Americans who aren't at least willing to research and consider third parties get the American government they deserve

they might say you got what you deserve
and you'd both be wrong
we all deserve better

If Nader had won in 2000, I'm certain we would at least not have had the Iraq War or the war in Afghanistan, both of which were costly in money, lives, and with soldiers suffering permanent PTSD and brain injuries. Those things in themselves, count for more than "not getting much done".... And our national deficit would also be much smaller. We also would have gotten something better than the ACA...

On 2/26/2026 at 2:16 PM, BobDylan said:

If Nader had won in 2000, I'm certain we would at least not have had the Iraq War or the war in Afghanistan

that's a good point BD,
but it also makes my point
if Gore won in 2000, I believe we would at least not had those wars
so, it was not people like me voting for Gore that lead to that
it was people like the Nader voters and people like you who support the protest voters by not voting
like i said. regardless of any other talking points on this topic...

there never was, and still isn't enough public support for a 3rd party progressive

IF EVERY VOTER WHO WOULD HAVE PREFERRED NADER HAD VOTED NADER, WE STILL WOULD HAVE GOTTEN BUSH

but if 1% more Nader voters voted Gore we would have likely not had 2 bloody, costly, unproductive wars AND climate policies that could have SAVED THE FRIGGING WORLD 26 years ago!

we can't even get people to stop supporting a pedos
and you think we can get real progressives elected by splitting the progressive vote?

all we need is one trifecta of the 3 branches and we could get real election reform that would pave the way for a ranked voting system that would make your daydreams a reality

3rd parties have been trying to send a message to the Dems all our lives
and they've gotten no where. no where!

you know the definition of insanity. repeating the same behaviors and expecting a different outcome

9 hours ago, BobDylan said:

Way past time for Dem Party supporters and loyalists to give up that 💩, and admit the corruption and faults within their party...

yes. blame the SC, the Dem Party and Nader voters.
all 3 happen can share some blame

like the Republicans, you're both treating this like a team sport, but, as is, there's only 2 sides in this football game. Focus on getting the ball over the goal line until we can change the rules.

the ONLY way a 3rd Party candidate gets in is if it's someone with enough star power to compete -- up against the 2-Party's connections and cash advantages. Then, for example, either the Green Party or the Dem Party needs to concede and throw their voters to the other before the election.

strategy. execution. not rhetoric and purity tests

the time for all idealists, like myself, to put up a fight, is during the Primaries, and independents like Bernie and progressives like the Green Party should participate. But if you sit on your hands while your opposition closes ranks, you ARE part of the problem.

and, btw, though this might be a "portrait of 3 men who have too much time on their hands" -- it's a discussion that needs to take place among 300 million Americans. Though the case could be made, that none of the 3 might change their tune, regardless of the evidence submitted, there are potential readers who have had less time on their hands. They might benefit from this kind of deliberation.

but i concede this conversation has started to loop and is becoming repetitive

Gotta get the corporate Dems out of the leadership, they’re just controlled opposition, they both take money from MIC, Corporations, and Israel.

I agree with both of those, and election reform should include Ranked Choice voting, which would eliminate the two party stranglehold, but the major parties would never allow it..