Redstate

1. He drew 19% of the vote
2. That 19% greatly affected and probably swung the election
3. Much of his agenda, with the exception of trade, was swiftly co-opted by both parties.

Perot's opening came when Bush raised taxes, leaving a race with nobody who was credibly against taxes and spending.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

OK, by that standard the Progressives were successes, too. When TR did his thing, the Democrats nominated a moderate Progressive of their own and got handed the election (the D blip between McKinley and Coolidge).

But I guess I had a higher standard of success than you did. I was thinking in terms of electing members of Congress in order to influence national policy beyond just a single Presidential election as Roosevelt and Perot did.

Running is one thing. Winning something is another.

Run like Reagan!

I just love talking about US Political history. I especially love reading about third parties. It's a good day when I get to talk about the American party or Free Silver. In fact Free Silver would be a good name for a band (first album: Cross of Gold, naturally).

Run like Reagan!

That's the other way a 3rd party can find any success. It was the driving force behind Perot. I don't think it applies in 2008.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I can't speak from an EC standpoint. It's quite possible that a state-by-state analysis of Perot's impact would show that a head-to-head between WJC and GHWB would've come out differently.

But I've seen more than one national poll from that time -- which admittedly may not be reliable -- suggesting that Perot "took" votes roughly equally from both Bush and Clinton. The popular vote difference between them was 6% (Clinton's 43% to Bush's 37%).

Even assuming a huge deviation from these polls showing a roughly even split, it's hard to imagine that kind of gap being made up from 19% of votes cast. That would mean that 13% of Perot's 19% (or nearly 7 out of 10) would've voted for Bush had Perot not been there (assuming that they all would still have voted).

Considering that a lot of Perot voters wouldn't have voted without him there (thus being a net zero impact on the gap) I find it hard to find enough votes to make up the final difference -- a gap that, in a head-to-head matchup without Perot goes to 53.5%-46.5% (in other words, 43% of the total vote comprises 53.5% of the two-party vote...excluding Perot's votes).

I tend to think that the "Perot gave Clinton the presidency" line is more of a self-medication for distraught Republicans than an actual reflection of reality.

George HW Bush was an incumbent who could only muster 37% of the votes cast. He wasn't going to be reelected in just about any possible scenario.

At least 50% of his voters would have abstained if he had not run. Most of them did abstain in 1988. There is a big constituency for not being Democrat or Republican. In fact the not-voting ticket always wins.

The rest, I agree, would have split pretty evenly between Bush and Clinton.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

After all the major two parties before the Republican Party was formed were the Whigs and the Democrats. I will concede that the Democrats were a successful third party in their day, though it could be that they were one of the original two (Federalists and Democratic-Republicans). The Federalists disappeared, and we became a one party nation for a little while (see Madison and Monroe's presidencies). Then during the Jackson era the Democratic-Republicans split into the Whigs and the Democrats. All the rest is history...

The Republican Party was not a third party. The second party system (Whig/Democrat) was gone already. The Whig Party was mortally wounded by the Compromise of 1850, and finally killed as a national party in 1854 when the American party raided its membership.

That's also the year the Republican Party was founded. The 1856 election saw the Republicans as a minor party behind the Democrats, Americans, and Whigs. And of course in 1860 the American party had collapsed, the Whig party had kept right on bleeding, and so the Republicans pretty much swallowed them both up in the north.

The Republicans never challenged an established two party system though.

Run like Reagan!

I think that the NYC major would not get 1% of the vote outside of the NE. Nobody outside of NYC cares about NYC...

That frankly that's pretty much the definition of the current Republican party as expressed by our leadership in Washington.

Truth to tell, our current crop of leaders *are* the mysterious "Third Party".

I would say anti-war, anti-spending, and anti-immigration. I think those are the three most populist positions. Voters are definitely unhappy with both parties on spending and immigration. There are enough democrats that think congress has not gone far enough to stop the war and some anti-war Republicans who wouldn't feel comfortable enough voting pure Democrat.

Strongly anti-war gets you the left fringe, anti-spending gets you both some disgruntled righties along with moderates like the Concord Coalition people, anti-immigration gets you anti-illegal immigration people plus the Buchananites.

It's a crazy quilt of a coalition but it could get votes.

Run like Reagan!

I don't see that platform catching fire.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

After posting those issues, Ron Paul did come to mind. His problem is that he is running in the Republican primary. He would have a greater impact running as an independent. I don't think he would win, but he would have a bigger impact.

He placed third in the popular vote (with 431,750 votes - 0.47%).

Which is just another exclamation point as to why he has no business on the stage at a Republican debate.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

That was before the Republicans lost the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It was also before we invaded Iraq.

A tax hike, an amnesty bill, Iran-Contra hearings, S&L fallout, and a stock market crash. And we had a very weak candidate for office, who just happened to be not as weak as his opponent.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

....are unhappy with the Democrats on the issue of immigration?

I don't see it. While I do see a majority (or at least a plurality) of Democratic voters opposing the current bill bouncing around Capitol Hill, I don't think the issue energizes those voters much at all.

After all, you have to remember that most of these voters are motivated by a kind of altruism -- whereby they see the role of government, and their own generosity, as the way from poverty into sustenance. And what better way to demonstrate that profound kindness and compassion than by giving legal status to poor people (and, better yet, brown-skinned ones in most cases)?

Immigration is to many people just as much a race issue as an economic one or one pertaining to the primacy of law or sovereignty.

So, I think an anti-illegal-immigration third party candidacy takes votes away from Republicans, but not many from Democrats. It just isn't a huge issue with those voters -- not like it is with us.

I don't think most rank and file union Democrats are happy about immigration. The union leadership might back the Democratic position on immigration, but I think there is a dissatisfied undercurrent. Call them Lou Dobbs Democrats.

It takes a heck of a lot to move union voters. Most of them are single issue in the extreme. They vote Democrat because they are the union party. It doesn't matter how much of the rest of the platform they hate (and chances are it's most of it). They still vote for the Democrat. I don't see this issue moving them any either, especially with immigration being a mixed bag. It is in the best interests of unions, after all, who desperately need the membership.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Union workers -- and other blue collar workers -- don't vote Democrat in lockstep. Most estimates are that Democrats get about 65% of the union vote or so.

But moving it to 60% or 55% has proven to be difficult. There's no question that Democrats have cost themselves some support among this voting bloc with their anti-gun stuff. But it's a limited number.

Keep in mind that the AFL-CIO has endorsed the amnesty bill. I'm sure that a healthy percentage of their members don't like that. But do you see any popular uprisings against the union leadership for this?

I don't. Keep in mind that most union voters these days are motivated by basically one thing: the health of unions. And I think they see amnesty as an opportunity to bolster their membership rolls.

I mean...you're talking about 12 million newly legal, blue-collar, non-unionized workers ripe for the taking. And while one would think that unionized Americans would look at that and see wage depression and competition, they've been told in no uncertain terms that their future health is dependent more on the power of their unionization than anything else...and that this power has diminished along with their anemic numbers.

There is a certain percentage of (perpetually confused) Democrats whose latest confusion is the immigration issue. One of the things they will look at when considering immigration is how much the current immigration bill upsets many many republicans. These Dems will think to themselves "If it enrages the Republicans SO much, it might just be a good thing", so they are not very inclined to oppose it. I am not saying ALL Democrats would follow this line of thinking, but a measurable percentage would.

Aren't you the one who's been saying that a Hagel candidacy could throw a monkey wrench in the GOP primary -- because he'd be able to woo all these anti-war Republicans into his fold?

You've noticed by now, I'm sure, that Hagel isn't going to be running in the GOP primary. And while I'm sure his reported overtures from Bloomberg have a lot to do with that, I'm also sure that Hagel's poll numbers did too (they weren't good).

Trust me on this Kyle: there is no blossoming anti-war Republican contingent out there. Not, anyway, in the way you're suggesting.

To be sure, there are plenty of Republicans who are dissatisfied with the handling of the war, are glum about its prospects, think it was a mistake, think we need to be finding a way out, etc. etc. But this notion that they'd flock to somebody who sounds like a Democrat on the war is just folly.

Have you looked at Ron Paul's numbers? Did you look at Hagel's when he was toying with the idea of running?

And, more importantly, have you paid attention to the messages on Iraq/WoT being put forth by the 3 or 4 guys who, between them, account for roughly 85% of Republican support?

You may have me confused with Kyle8, but you are right about anti-war Republicans. I was probably thinking more about anti-war Republican-leaning independents.

You can understand why that would be confusing.

I agree with you that having two anti-war candidates on the ticket hurts the one with the best chance to win. There are anti-war Republicans out there -- but I sense that it's a very different kind of "anti-war" than what we typically think of.

They may be dissatisfied with how we've fought the WoT since 9/11 -- but that doesn't necessarily mean that they think a defensive strategy makes sense. And they're probably less apt to respond positively to rabid anti-Bush rhetoric -- even if they're "opposed" to the war.

Granted, I think there's a lot of space there for separation with the Bush Administration. And you're seeing that from most of the leading GOP candidates now. They're certainly not embracing him with open arms -- but neither are they sounding like John Edwards.

And that's key. Because I don't think Bloomberg will be able to employ enough nuance to appeal to those voters who are dissatisfied with the Iraq War but not rabidly anti-Bush or anti-GOP while also doing what it takes to get noticed as an independent.

You can understand why that would be confusing.

I agree with you that having two anti-war candidates on the ticket hurts the one with the best chance to win. There are anti-war Republicans out there -- but I sense that it's a very different kind of "anti-war" than what we typically think of.

They may be dissatisfied with how we've fought the WoT since 9/11 -- but that doesn't necessarily mean that they think a defensive strategy makes sense. And they're probably less apt to respond positively to rabid anti-Bush rhetoric -- even if they're "opposed" to the war.

Granted, I think there's a lot of space there for separation with the Bush Administration. And you're seeing that from most of the leading GOP candidates now. They're certainly not embracing him with open arms -- but neither are they sounding like John Edwards.

And that's key. Because I don't think Bloomberg will be able to employ enough nuance to appeal to those voters who are dissatisfied with the Iraq War but not rabidly anti-Bush or anti-GOP while also doing what it takes to get noticed as an independent.

If he is anti-war then he would likely split the anti-war vote with the Democratic nominee. Maybe not enough to be a viable independent, but enough to enable a Republican win.

Bloomberg would more likely play the role that Ralph Nader played in 2000.

I think his net impact would be the same (he'd hurt the Democrat).

But Nader ran as a far-left candidate, protesting the (from his perspective) centrism of the Clinton/Gore Democratic Party. When he siphoned off votes from people who would've otherwise voted (many voters for these kinds of candidates wouldn't vote at all were their candidate not on the ballot), the vast majority of them came from Gore.

But it was from the far left, not the center-left. I think Bloomberg will almost certainly be a center-left candidate protesting (what he sees as) the extremism of the Republican Party -- which looks a lot more like what John Anderson did in 1980.

Anderson was the quintessential Rockefeller Republican -- and his kind was losing out to the ascendancy of the Goldwater/Reagan wing of the party. There used to be gobs of Republicans like Anderson. But Reagan's rise represented a shift to the right that Anderson felt compelled to combat.

And he did it by leaving the GOP and running as an independent on a center-left platform.

It's hard to say how much he actually impacted the race. I think Reagan would've won comfortably with or without him there. He probably got more Republican votes (from Kevin Phillips, John Dean, and Lowell Weicker types) than Democrat votes.

But that was a very different time.

I agree that like Nader, Bloomberg would attract more otherwise Democratic votes than Republican. He might appeal to some in both parties as a clear eyed technocrat, but his nanny-state mentality would be liked mostly by Democrats.

In being able to get enough actual votes to tilt the outcome though, Bloomberg falls far sort of Nader. Most Democratic and Republican inclined voters, even those dissatisfied with their party's nominee, take their vote seriously, to influence which of the the two candidates their country will be stuck with as President of the United States for the next four years, rather than venting their angst with a 3rd party vote.

Third party candidates mainly find their votes among black helicopter theorists; the fringes of the two parties far out enough to think there's not a dime's worth of difference between the nominees; and too-clever-by-half types with some 3-cushion bank shot scheme to realign American politics with their vote for a vanity candidate. Nader was the perfect guy to appeal to the Democratic segment of those groups. In contrast, Bloomberg would appeal to mainstream or even centrist Democratic voters; however much I disdain their ideology, they're not the dumb kooks who got Bush elected with their votes for Nader.

Also 2008 will be a much harder year than 1992 or 2000 for third party candidates to attract votes, even from those types susceptible to their appeal. In 2000 Bush was not the bogey man to inspire fear among leftist kooks, he was just another Republican idiot. They didn't feel the urgency to keep him out of office that would dissuade them from throwing away their votes on Nader. Similarly, Clinton came across as a centrist Democrat who made it safe for otherwise Republican voters to throw their vote away on Perot. In 2008 the war is the 800 pound gorilla in the election; the Democratic kooks who might otherwise vote 3rd party will be determined to prevent whichever war-monger we nominate from becoming President.

I think Bloomberg knows his candidacy would go nowhere, so while he certainly enjoys the speculation about him running, in the end he's smart enough to stay out. On the other hand, with a huge ego, and millions of dollars of pocket change he would never miss, he just might fall for the fantasy.

Bloomberg would more likely play the role that Ralph Nader played in 2000.

Nader played no role in 2000. Though you are probably right that Bloomberg will play the same role in 2008 - though probably with more absolute numbers.

The last time a third party run affected the outcome of the election was 1912.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I find it hard to believe that Nader didn't turn Florida for us.

We won by less than a thousand votes there and I find it hard to believe (given by Perot experience) that there weren't at least a thousand Nader voters who were brought along for the ride by friends who were already going to vote for Nader. "Come on, vote for Nader, Bush has got Florida sewn up already."

Romney or Fred.

The media had been saying for weeks that the election was close and that Florida was one of Gore's target states. Nobody voted Nader expecting Nader to become President. Not even Nader. They knew perfectly well that either Gore or Bush would be President. And they didn't care which. They voted Nader because they hated Bush and Gore equally.

I do accept that when it is this close, it is hard to be sure. If it had been a preferential ballot you would have seen some - possibly hundreds - voting in some bizarre ways:

1. Nader
2. Bush
or

1. Nader

2. Buchanan
   
3. Browne

Most likely the large majority of them would have voted:

1. Nader.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I'll part with Quentin on this one.

Given the closeness of the Florida count, I think it's almost a foregone conclusion that Nader's exclusion from at least that particular state would've put Al Gore in the White House.

There were only about 500 votes separating Bush and Gore, depending on which count you wanted to consider (537 officially). Well, Nader got over 97,000 votes in the state. And I have to imagine that, had Nader not been there, it would've meant more than enough Gore voters to overcome Bush.

Moreover, I also believe that more voters went to the polls in Florida that election day intending to vote for Gore than intending to vote for Bush. That Palm Beach County ballot almost certainly threw a bunch of unintended votes to Pat Buchanan.

PJB attracted 0.29% of the statewide vote -- but did better than double that percentage in PBC. The difference between his statewide average and his PBC average would've eclipsed the 537 vote margin.

There were only about 500 votes separating Bush and Gore, depending on which count you wanted to consider (537 officially). Well, Nader got over 97,000 votes in the state.

I do understand this. It was so close that any number of random factors could have thrown it. My rule that at least 50% (much more in this case, where the election was expected to be close) of those voting third party would not have voted otherwise still leaves more than enough to swing the election. But the assumption that most or all of those voting Nader would otherwise have voted Gore needs to be challenged. Many were voting for him because they specifically disliked Gore.

If you have ever seen votes counted in a preferential voting system, you will know what I mean. Voters shift from the Marxist to the conservative and from the libertarian to the fascist. People vote in all sorts of weird ways.

I will accept that without Nader it could have gone either way, but not that Gore would necessarily have been ahead.

PJB attracted 0.29% of the statewide vote -- but did better than double that percentage in PBC.

This was a line being widely pressed by the media at the time, but I think it lacks credibility. CNN - based in Georgia - took the ballot onto the streets of Manhattan to ask people if they thought the ballot was confusing. Most did. But then, I suspect CNN chose Manhattan because they were looking for Democrats. Georgia might have given them a different answer. All those Manhattanites thought people might have been confused, but they all correctly spotted how to vote Gore. They just thought it might have confused other people.

I seem to recall that the Reform Party candidate for Senate also got a higher vote in PBC - in fact higher than Buchanan's. Not only that, this was the only county in Florida where a Republican, Democrat or Reform Senate candidate got a higher vote than the Presidential candidate of the same party. Looked at in that light, Buchanan's vote was suspiciously low.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Ohio? Yes. But I don't see Bloomberg as the kind of guy who connects with the typical Ohio swing voter.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

That's why a lot of Dems who live in liberal enclaves see this -- incorrectly, in my view -- as a potential blow to the GOP. They figure: a high-profile, well-financed Republican leaves the party...he's bound to connect with at least some significant number of Republican voters everywhere.

But, as Rudy Giuliani is finding out, the Republican Party is hardly monolithic. It's a very different party in places like Iowa and South Carolina than it is in New York. Romney understood this, too, and changed some positions accordingly -- opening himself up to legitimate charges of waffling.

There just isn't much of a constituency here in Red State America (I'm in Indiana) for a Republican or ex-Republican like Bloomberg...not from Republican voters, anyway.

I suppose it all depends on what his platform is. It's very possible that he could put together an ideological calico campaign that takes the populist planks from each major party and crafts a very targeted message to appeal to a strategically important subset of voters.

So I wouldn't count out his ability to woo people in Ohio. Let's not forget, Chuck Hagel is a staunchly conservative Senator who just happens to be vehemently anti-war. And Bloomberg has made overtures to Hagel to form a ticket.

But, in the end, I think Bloomberg's true nature will be hard to mask. He's a lefty who only wore the Republican label for short-term political expediency.

For Bloomberg to have a real effect at 2% he'd have to draw very strongly from one party.

Most here would believe that Bloomberg is going to take more from the Democrat than the Republican, but he isn't Nader. Every Bloomberg voter isn't an automatic Dem or non voter. Bloomberg at 2% won't be as easy of a culprit for either major party as Nader in 2000.

In any case, if Bloomberg spends a half billion dollars, I think he will be in the 7-10% range. We'll see. It'll be interesting.

I'm not as sure as you are that money on its own translates into votes so predictably. I think it's a very necessary fuel to power a campaign -- but I don't think it's a car all its own.

In other words, I think he first needs to tailor a narrow message that resonates with a frustrated part of the electorate. He also needs to build nationwide organization.

Money can help with the latter, of course. But it's no substitute for loyalty and dedication. And both major party candidates will enjoy this network and loyalty as a matter of birthright.

He, OTOH, has to start from ground zero -- and he may well seek the help of none other than Ross Perot himself to see if Ross's old Rolodex might be available.

Of course, that's two big egos clashing -- which means that may be unlikely.

Anyway, I'm wholly unconvinced that sheer money translates into votes like that. I'm also wholly unconvinced that Bloomberg will spend that kind of money on the campaign. He's a wealthy guy -- but he's not Buffett-wealthy. Moreover, the amount of money available for dead-end campaigns is always more limited than you'd think.

All this talk about him having access to Wall Street dough cracks me up. Just how much are people going to give to a candidate who can hope for little more than playing spoiler...particularly if it's not clear who he'd be spoiling?

On most things. Money doesn't replace message and folks on Wall Street aren't going to flush money down the toilet.

I just think that depending on the nominees (Hillary vs. Thompson for example), a message of pragmatism, unity, bipartisanship, etc. backed up by money would be one that would appeal to a whole lot of moderate, upper middle class voters.

I guess the major thing we disagree on is how willing Bloomberg will be to spend tons and tons of money. He has dropped I think around $150 million in his two NYC mayoral runs. In any case, Bloomberg is worth $5.3 billion. He has shown he is free spending in political races. He's a smart businessman who has to know he faces high odds. He thinks he's the guy who can fix America, and he's running in spite of the high odds. I think he'll shell out the dough.

"My heart was here...I feel like I have unfinished business here." - Roy Hibbert

Depending who the nominees are, he could get 5-7% in NY, CT, places like that, esp. if the GOP candidate is Fred (hence, won't be competing in those places) and the Dem candidate is the Wicked Witch of the Midwest (hence, disliked intensely by moderates). Maybe. I'm just saying whatever he gets will be single digits at best.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Didn't you know?

I'm not pro-choice -- but neither have I ever closely identified with the pro-life movement. I tend to think that abortion should be left up to the state legislatures -- which inherently means that I think that abortion ought to be legal where the electorate so wishes.

Moreover, I'm moderate-to-liberal on a number of other issues. I support gay marriage, I oppose the death penalty, I support the decriminalization of many drugs, etc.

My primary motivator has long been fiscal concerns, not social concerns.

And I couldn't possibly imagine, being a staunch fiscal conservative, being moved by a high-taxing, trans-fat banning politician. Bloomberg is a nanny-stater more than anything. I've never seen any passion from him, either way, on issues like abortion and other social causes.

So what about his government-knows-best approach to governance is going to appeal to fiscons?

A billion dollars will buy a lot of media in a lot of states. Probably not enough to swing the election to Bloomberg, but enough to allow congress to vote on it and the Dems to hand the presidency to Hillary.

Romney or Fred.

I mean to reply to DonCheney immediately above me.

Run like Reagan!