Best Third Party Candidate?

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Johnson appears to be the most presidential; ideologically, #ImWithJill or #ImWithGloria.

Hedges of course!

[anthonyjg]

How does Rod Silva not have 100% of the vote?

[RaphaelDLG]

Another great question:  Who was the best third party candidate of the past 20 years?

I'd say Rocky Anderson over Ralph Nader, though I'm not well-versed in third party candidates, and I bet there'd be some people who'd say Perot.

[Kingpoleon]

Another great question:  Who was the best third party candidate of the past 20 years?

I'd say Rocky Anderson over Ralph Nader, though I'm not well-versed in third party candidates, and I bet there'd be some people who'd say Perot.

Probably Perot in terms of performance and Johnson in terms of ideology.

[Santander]

Another great question:  Who was the best third party candidate of the past 20 years?

I'd say Rocky Anderson over Ralph Nader, though I'm not well-versed in third party candidates, and I bet there'd be some people who'd say Perot.

Probably Perot in terms of performance and Johnson in terms of ideology.

[RaphaelDLG]

Another great question:  Who was the best third party candidate of the past 20 years?

I'd say Rocky Anderson over Ralph Nader, though I'm not well-versed in third party candidates, and I bet there'd be some people who'd say Perot.

Probably Perot in terms of performance and Johnson in terms of ideology.

In terms of performance, it's unquestionably Perot - I meant a combination of ideology, character, and actual ability to be President.  Johnson has the gubernatorial experience going for him.

[angus]

"Ah thank gubmit is a bisness, and therefore it should be run like a bisness."

No thanks.  Perot was an excellent candidate in terms of his performance, but thankfully he posed no threat to the establishment candidates in 1992, although many Republicans blame him for Bush's loss to Clinton that year (just as many Democrats just as erroneously blame Nader for Gore's loss to Bush's son in 2000).  Not that I'm a huge fan of either Bush 41 or Clinton, but at least the two of them know what a government is and what it ought to be.  Hint:  it does not exist to extract a profit from those governed.  Perot was a really smart guy in the same way Trump is.  Obviously one doesn't become a multibillionare by not being smart, but I don't think "successful in business" always translates to "good presidential material."

I voted for Hedges in this thread, because I am a "lean Hedges" voter in the Atlasian parlance.  As a practical matter, I think Johnson is an excellent candidate capable of appealing to a large part of the electorate.  He is among those I am considering voting for this November, along with Hedges, Soltysek, Smith, and La Riva.

character:  Hedges
ideology:  don't know/don't care.  I know most of Atlasia regards ideology as very important, and asks questions like "which one is likely to appoint justices who decide cases the way I would?", but I regard it as the least important qualifier.  
ability:  as much as I hate to admit it, Clinton.  She has a more impressive resume than any candidate this year, or any candidate for at least two decades, and although I wouldn't vote for her in a million years, I do think she has more knowledge, experience, and ability than anyone else running.  She'll use that experience to convince us to march headfirst into World War 3, but if your criteria is ability (as in understanding how politics work, both domestic and foreign, and in being able to exploit that understanding to affect policy), and you don't have any problems with the fact that she has narcissistic personality disorder and a criminal psychology, then she's your man.

[RaphaelDLG]

One of my favorite jokes from my favorite book of all time, "America:  The Book," is a picture of Ross Perot in a cowboy hat holding a wad of cash with the caption, "Ross Perot's message of [three gibberish words that the authors made up] appealed powerfully to the nation's disembrained."