An Independent Presidential Ticket Would Rejuvenate Support for the War
By gideon1789 Posted in Archived — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sen. Lieberman has just suggested that there is a good chance a third party candidate could emerge.
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/05/lieberman-thir...
Lieberman surely is not speaking only hypothetically. He himself could enter as a third-party candidate. What would happen then is anyone's guess. Here's mine.
Lieberman announces candidacy as an independent: mostly liberal, perhaps moderate on abortion (pro-choice but with strong limitations), and very pro-war. He invites other political leaders to consider taking the same step.
McCain comes in third in Iowa and New Hampshire after Giuliani and Gingrich. Having refused to run as an independent in 2000 and in 2004, and realizing that he possibly made a mistake (especially in 2000), he decides to take the plunge.
Despite the fact that McCain and Lieberman disagree on the majority of issues, they decide that succeeding in the war is the most important goal. They also agree that to succeed in the war, support for the war must come from more than the Republican Party. The best way to revive support for the war among the country's moderates is to campaign together as independents.
McCain-Lieberman do well in the polls, capturing at least a third of the support of the nation. In the summer of 2008, they face the choice of endorsing the more pro-war candidate (the Republican, naturally), or remaining independent all the way to the election. They decide to go all the way because, even if they lose, they think that endorsing one of the two major parties will end up driving away most of their supporters and leave the country as divided on the war as we are now.
No ticket gains a majority of the electoral votes, and the race goes to the House. The Democratics try to elect the Democratic candidate, but the Republicans manage to prevent the vote until the newly-elected Congress, which is Democratic by only a few seats, takes office.
Well, now it gets just too speculative. Perhaps there is a party-line vote electing the Democrat. Perhaps there is a compromise in which McCain-Lieberman get voted in.
But either way, that McCain-Lieberman ticket would bring back the majority support for the war, and even a Democratic president would have to think twice about pulling out our troops, and the new Congress, reflecting the changed mood of the country, would be slightly pro-war, even if tilted Democratic.
In a nearly perfect world, our choices for President would consist of these two candidates - and Mr. Coolidge would win more often than not.
(In a perfect world, it would be Washington vs. Lincoln every time...)
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
If in the event that no one garners the needed electoral votes, the election of the President of the United States DOES indeed go to the House of Representatives, however not each representative votes. The representatives vote according to STATE delegations, therefore the 13 Democrats from Texas will almost certainly be overruled by the 19 Republicans and that would account for 1 vote to the Republican candidate, not 13 for the D and 19 for the R. As it stands now, that would be 21 votes for the Republican candidate and 26 votes for the Democratic candidate with 3 toss-ups (the delegations are split evenly from Mississippi, Kansas, and Arizona). Of course in that case the higher vote wins and that means we get a new Democratic president.
The Vice-President candidates are sent to the Senate to select, and each senator gets one vote. We would certainly end up with a Democratic VP in that case.
However, I believe it is the NEW Congress that votes on these things, not the current congress. I could be wrong on this. It really wouldn't matter too much in the long run as we would have to retake the Senate and be able to take at least 4 more state delegations in the House. Neither of these possibilities seem likely in 2008.
No matter which way you cut it, this doesn't seem like a positive outcome for the Rs.
You would think that, being a political science major and a law student, I wouldn't have overlooked that rather important piece of information, but when it comes to making mistakes, I am quite remarkable. Thanks again.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
...is that the House members would not be required to vote according to their political party affiliation; or, indeed, for the existing candidates at all. They also have no strong tradition that would dictate that they vote as expected by their party affiliation (such as the one that exists for the Electoral College). Congressmen could - and would - be offered anything for their votes: says in Cabinet seats, political patronage, promotion of favorite causes, the VP slot... anything.
To use a posthumanist buzzword, having the House decide the Presidential election is a political Singularity. You just don't know what will be on the other side of it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
the House chamber just loaded with freezers.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
from the fracas. McCain-Lieberman with some of the more conservative Democrats and a few of the Republicans, and then perhaps a smaller post like Transportation Secretary tossed to appease the far left.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
But most would probably be forced to under party rules. Leadership would probably have a very ugly way of dealing with anyone who voted for the other party. At least the Democratic leadership would. Republicans have a very difficult time keeping their caucus in line.
And, again, the VP slot would NOT be open for discussion. The Senate must vote on the VP slot separately from the House. Cabinet slots would be fair game, though the political damage sustained by such a deal could be too bloody.
Anyone remember a guy by the name of Ross Perot? If he never ran for President, the name "Bill Clinton" would simply be the answer to a trivia question about who GHWB beat in his second election. The only thing a third party candidate does is give someone the Presidency that would not have otherwise won. Therefore, unless the third party candidate is very liberal, I don't want to see it. :-)
come back in. He was polling about even with Clinton and Bush until he quit briefly after Clinton's convention speech.
This is to say that a third party candidate could actually beat the other candidates - at least in the popular vote. Whether a third party candidate could get enough electoral votes to win outright is more questionable. I wouldn't rule it out, though, especially with the big growth in non-affiliated voters nowadays.
But the larger point is that the war matters more than whether the Republican candidate wins. I'm a conservative but I'd vote for a moderate or even liberal pro-war candidate who had shown that he could get support for the war back up to 55% or 60%.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
or you will lose your license to practice punditry. Ross Perot had exactly NO chance to win, even had he stayed in the race from the start. He was an oddity, he livened up the debates, but in the end he was nothing but a "protest vote."
the polling data, at the time Perot dropped out, being split along the lines of 30% for each candidate.
Perot lost a considerable amount of support by the time he got back in the race.
I tend to agree that he had no chance to win on the basis of counting electoral votes.
Perot did manage to interject issues into the campaign - most notably the need for a balanced Federal budget.
:)
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
the Republican chances
1912 Democrat Woodrow Wilson won because Teddy Roosevelt and Willaim Howard Taft split the Republican party.
1992 Bill Clinton won because Ross Perot took 19% of the overall vote. It's obvious that this cost George H. W. Bush the election.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Compared with 1988 the GOP was down by 10 million and the Democrat vote was up by 4 million. Perot got 19 million.
A number of things follow:
Turnout was way up. Extra people voted because there was a bigger choice.
Perot cannot possibly have got even half his votes from Bush. Since some Bush voters had died in the interim and some must have abstained and some must have shifted to Clinton, it is likely that no more than one third were former Bush voters.
While it is just possible that as many as half of Perot's voters were people who would otherwise have voted for Bush - adding ex-Bush voters and new voters together - this is a big stretch.
My estimate of how Perot's 19 million would have split if he had stayed out of the race:
Not voting: 12 million
Voting Clinton: 3 million
Voting Bush: 4 million.
Thus, the election would have been very slightly closer, but Bush would staill have lost. He would not have picked up more than two or three states in the College.
Note, if I am right, the total number voting would have been 1 million up on 1988, as the main parties lost 6 million votes and Perot brought in an extra 13 million.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
you also had the Libertarain party, the Constitution party, and the Reform Party with Pat Buchannon running that took just as many votes from Bush in Florida.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bayard_Anderson
He was fiscally conservative/socially liberal and ate into Carter's support more than Reagan's, though I can't tell from Wikipedia how well he ended up doing.
. . . that more registered Democrats in Florida voted Bush than voted Nader. Maybe Al Gore lost because of, well, Al Gore.
In a tight election, people who vote for third parties do it because they find both of the main party candidates completely unaccptable. If Nader had not been on the ballot his voters would, mostly, not have voted Gore. They would not have voted. It is not as though they were expecting Nader to win.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
it has all of the statistics about every single elec tion it's a great site.
someone at least as conservative as Gingrich to win the presidential election. (Did I say Gingrich? I meant Mr. Coolidge.)
But I put victory in the GWOT far ahead of any other political goals. Whatever it takes to regain majority support for the war gets my vote.
"Do the day's work."