Would a Third Party hurt the Dems or the Repubs the most ?

[kentuck]

Would a lot of disenchanted Repubs go over to a third Party candidate if he started talking about illegal immigration and huge deficits? or would more disenchanted Democrats go for a candidate like that? What perdentage of the vote do you think a Third Party candidate could realistically get? And which Party would be hurt the most?

[kweerwolf]

1. It depends on the candidate and his issues.

Perot siphoned votes away from * the Elder and Clinton was elected.

Nader siphoned votes away from Gore and ... well, I don't even want to think of that nasty result.

On edit: D'uh! How sexist of me, even if it was unconscious. I should have said "It depends on the candidate and his or her issues."

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

[Pepperbelly]

4. empirically untrue...

run the numbers yourself ... even assuming that ALL Perot voters would have voted for Bush (unlikely according to the exit polling) and those votes added to GHWB's totals, Bill would STILL have won the electoral college by a wide margin.

[Frances]

12. But if Clinton had not won the popular vote

the Repubs would have had the Supreme Court declare the electoral college obsolete. Well, it's possible.

[Ken Burch]

13. I think you meant GORE, Frances.

nt.

[sandnsea]

20. CA, CO, CT, DE, HI

I've barely gotten started, if all Perot voters went Bush, Clinton would have lost everything, even the electoral college.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/elections/96-92electoral-college.shtml

[Yupster]

27. Here's my analysis

First, there were no states that Clinton lost that he would have won had Perot not been in the race. Perot did not cost Clinton any states.

There are three states, Georgia, Montana and Ohio, that I'm pretty sure Bush would have won had Perot not been in the race. Perot cost Bush three states.

There are four more states, Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, and New Hampshire that Bush may have won had Perot not been in the race. Perot may have cost Bush between four and seven states.

Conclusion. If Perot were not in the 1992 race, the electoral college and the popular vote would have been closer, but I don't see any way Bush gets to 270 electoral votes.

You could also say that Perot influenced the issues and debates and such, but that really can't be looked at mathematically so I won't speculate on it.

[Ken Burch]

8. Unfortunately, the 2004 Nader/Camejo campaign was all about RALPH's issues

and I don't mean the political ones.

[Ken Burch]

10. Of course, it would've been easier to get Ralph to consider withdrawing

if the Kerry/Edwards lawyers hadn't pissed away so much time, money and goodwill by filing court cases to force Ralph off the ballots.

Much better to have taken two of his issues(say, the war and electoral reform)and endorsed the Nader positions on those. That way, Ralph might not have felt it was a point of honor for him to stay in the race.

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. Yes, it does depend on that. Exactly. Greens do not attract the same

voters that say, the Constitution party or Natural Law does.

[KingFlorez]

2. The Greens for the Dems, The Constitution for the Repubs

The Greens would most likely hurt us if the Dems go to Republican-lite. The Constitution Party would hurt the Repubs because they are strictly anti-immigration and really far right.

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. If I wasn't a Green I'd be a Socialist, so I would put them in the mix as

well.

[RoyGBiv]

3. As you suggest ...

It depends on what the third party is all about, if by "hurt" you mean take support from. Any party that exists on the fringe of the political spectrum is going to take more support away from the major party most associated with that fringe. The high end estimate for such a party is about 10%, give or take, if it has a strong organization and its closest major party counterpart is having serious problems at the time.

That said, if a political party could frame itself as a legitimate alternative to either party and shape a coalition that stretches across the spectrum ecompassing ideologies within the vast middle, which is what the Reform Party tried to do in '92, the conventional wisdom is out the window. A good populist style ideology could do this if it were controlled and populated by politically savvy individuals who could shape a clear, attractive message.

[sam sarrha]

5. if the party could shed its spineless husk & become a progressive party..

[Bonhomme Richard]

6. I think the Democratic Party need to put together a list of......

absolute basic beliefs and if you can't sign on and believe in those basic tenants then you need to pick another party.
I mean to literally kick out of the party the DINO's in congress. Let them become independents, republicans or whatever but our party needs to stand for something and stand apart or we will never move the nation forward.

[OnionPatch]

7. The illegal immigration thing is big with Repubs

For most of them that I know, this is the most important issue we're facing right now. :eyes: So I think a candidate that took on that issue would hurt the Republicans much more. As for the deficits, I think that one would be a wash. I think most Americans agree that the deficit is a big problem.

[kentuck]

9. So it would depend on the issues of the 3rd Party candidate ?

If they were anti-war, they might take votes away from the Democrat and if they they anti-immigration, they might take votes from the Repubs?

[Telly Savalas]

16. An anti-war stance isn't really a predictor of where the support

would be drawn from. There are a fair number of anti-war conservatives and that number will only grow even more by 2008.

[kentuck]

17. Good point Telly!

Although more Democrats may be "anti-war" at this time, the number of conservatives against the war is growing daily.

[AlGore-08.com]

11. It also depends on the candidate and how close the election is

Check out the difference in Reform Party performance, based on the candidate:

In 1992, with Perot actively running: 18.91%
In 1996, with Perot on the ticket but not actively running: 8.40%
In 2000, with Buchannan actively running: .43%

A third party, conservative candidate could hurt the Republicans only if he/she is a credible figure and only if support among the right wing of the GOP base is unhappy with the GOP candidate. But... that's all moot if the erosion of support is smaller than the Dem candidate's deficit in a state.

If (for example) a Dem candidate were only pulling 33% in a state, and a third party candidate also pulled 33%, a GOPer would only need 34% to win all that state's electoral votes (in almost every state).

[Ken Burch]

14. Could we really argue that Buchanan was ACTIVELY running?

I think he actually took the Reform nomination to deactivate the party and unify Dubya's potential vote. I've heard that suggested by others as well.

An "active" campaign by a candidate who had Buchanan's abilities as a fundraiser and stump speaker should have been able to hold the 8% that Perot took in '96.

[AlGore-08.com]

22. He was more active than Perot was the previous cycle

He was out making speeches and TV appearances - - and unlike Perot in 1992, Buchanan never withdrew from the race only to reenter it later.

I disagree that he should have been able to hold Perot's 8%. I've never seen a poll that suggests the Reform party had anything near that support even before their convention. Bush packaged himself very well in 2000 - - he lied through his teeth, but he promised everybody everything they wanted. At the same time, he organized the far right and made it clear that he was their poodle.

The people who were hacked enough to jump to a 3rd party in 2000 were the far left, who didn't go for actively campaigning Nader - -who got more free air time and press than any Green has ever gotten (and almost all of it positive). Nader got less than 3%

The other major block that might have jumped were the swing state moderates who were disgusted with Clinton's affair and lying under oath. Smirk's pledge to "restore honor and dignity to the White House" netted them in.

How exactly could the Reform Party have gotten 8%? Based on what issues?

[applegrove]

15. Do the words Ross Perot or Nadir mean anything to you? Of course

the neocons are hoping for that. Any third party on the left will just make 40% the only plurality that the neocons need. It used to be 50% with some small areas of voter suppression.

Don't go there. Thinking like Nadir did only hurts us. You don't get everything you want out of government in a democracy. You get - hopefully a little of what you need. That "just so" thinking is what convinces Rich elites they need not sacrifice for war, inflation, community, or anything else with their taxes.

[kentuck]

18. But the media and the conservatives understand this also...

and are not below pushing a 3rd Party candidate to split the political Parties, one way or the other, much like John Anderson, a Republican Congressman in 1980 that ran as an "Independent" and took many votes from Carter, the Democrat. I have always thought that was an elaborate set-up to guarantee the race to Reagan, assisted by the media.

[applegrove]

19. There is nobody in the moderate part of the Dem party talking about

a third party. So it would have to be a left third party. Unles you think the neocons are going to break apart the "big tent" they spend 30 years creating out of various easily controlled groups.

[kentuck]

21. True...

Like maybe an "anti-war" candidate? The situation could be a lot worse by 2008 and we could be in even a deeper quagmire and there would be a lot of pressure from the left to get the hell out. I could see that happening.

[applegrove]

25. Trust me. The Dems want out. They just don't want to do it in a way

that means the whole world will be back there in 2 years..with the draft.

Even if this constitution gets approved - there will be years of discussion. That is how federalism works. And it give the Sunnis a way out if they really cannot take it (but the oil is in non-sunni places).

[Zuni]

23. It depends if they are progressive or conservative

a real conservative party or a far right wingnut party would siphon votes from the GOP. A left wing "labor" party or the Green Party could hurt the Democrats

[KoKo]

24. Okay...just a guess here. Like Ross Perot...it would hurt the Repugs...

I think so because Repugs are still in NO MOOD to vote Democrat...they are going to be feeling deep pain..those who have finally awakened to what Bush is about and their own failed policies in support of him.

So, just like Poppy's crowd figured he was an idiot who couldn't lead and those folks went to Perot...it might work again if a third candidate who appealed to the Bush Bots who can't hold their nose (like we did and vote for for the Repug Nominee--Juliani, etc.

I don't know if a "Third Party" would work for us burned out Dems, though. Our DNC would try to get crossovers from the Repugs and so folks like myself on the Left would be dead.

I'm kind of leaning towards another Gore try...instead of a third party. Leave it to the Repugs to pick a jerk and we might have a repeat of Clinton-Gore/Perot?

I don't know...what I'm saying doesn't make much sense ...but I'll post it anyway. :-(

[mandyky]

26. The GOP is concerned about Judge Roy Moore

He loopy enough to fit into the Constitution party and siphon off some of the fundies.

[Rex]

28. Dems

nt

[Kailassa]

31. Every vote should count, and be counted

What you need is proportional representation. With that, Nader would have done a deal with the Dems so that he could run as hard as he liked without hurting you, because he never had a hope of winning. So before the election he would do a deal with the Dems so they supported some of his policies in return for getting his preference votes, then when the votes were counted and he was knocked out of the race, his votes would have been handed over to you guys.

You can see how this allows a lot of smaller parties to actually make a difference in politics, and makes it much harder for the right to assume a pseudo dictatorship.

Not that it helped last elections, our sheeples were promised lower interest rates (which never happened) and threatened with terror attacks (which I'm sure the gov't would make happen if need be) and now we have the right wing party in control of both houses.

At least our votes are all counted, so far ...

[Kailassa]

32. plan carefully

If you are going to come out against illegal immigration, you need to be very careful about where that stance could lead you. I'm always interested in what Australia and America can learn from each other, and in this case you would do well to see the barbaric way our government has incarcerated illegals, including children and babies, in concentration camps in the desert. The Prime Minister has even sneeringly admitted that it "worked" because it got him re-elected. Our Labor (Democrat-style) party was afraid to lose votes by going against something the polls said voters wanted, so they lost a lot of their traditional base by supporting an utterly inhumane proceedure.

A party has to represent the issues important to its base of loyal supporters, and work from there. I understand your issues with illegal immigration, but beware. You know what the administration is capable of; don't give them the sort of encouragement that might leave them feeling free to emulate our system.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_1787000/1787565.stm

[radio4progressives]

33. Demolish the Un-Democratic Electoral College System - No Party gets hurt

If we demolish this anachronistic system, or at least implement IRV, then any and all third or independent parties would actually be a much more effective democratic force for representation for both parties. Until we put that in place, we will never have a hope for fair representation.

[ladylibertee]

34. If Republicans walked away and Democrats walked away, I think

a third party would emerge or an existing one ie: Independents would split all three into 3 separate parties 33 % each.I suspect this wont happen though for fear that the original party will be weekend and there is such an even split between the retards and the Democrats,that members from both sides would rather see their party grow than take a risk on trusting members from the opposing party to join them in a third.Does any of this make sense ? :shrug: