A 3rd Party may tip the election in 2016

[LearningCurve]

For those around in 2000, 2016 has the potential to give some a feeling of deja vu. For those not around, Gore lost the electoral college by a small margin. One of the reasons, many claim, is that the Green Party siphoned enough votes that otherwise would have gone for Gore. Had the Green Party and Ralph Nader not been on the ballot, the argument goes, Gore would have gotten enough votes to win at least one more state, if not several.

The position of those who supported Nader and the Greens in 2000, is that on issues that they cared about, Democrats were just as beholden to the corporatocracy as Republicans. Those who voted Green were chastised by those on the left, for effectively allowing Bush to become president. Mostly cowed, those who supported Nader in 2000 did not do so in nearly the numbers in 2004. The Greens effectively disappeared as an option for the left.

End of generalized and truncated history lesson.

Approaching 2016, we have the exact same sentiment among a certain section of the populace that led to a 3rd party getting enough of a vote to tip the scales. Only this time, it won't be the Greens. It will probably be the Libertarians. Now thought doubtlessly has some Democrats not only not bothered by the possibility, but excited about it.

The reasoning here is, that this time, it will be the Republicans who lose votes to the 3rd party, thereby ensuring a Democrat wins the presidency. The theory here is, most of the people who are likely to vote Libertarian are those in the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Sure, a few Dems who really want pot legalized might vote that direction, but the net gain will be for the Democratic nominee.

I suspect this line of reasoning, only holds true for the moment. This theory is based on seeing someone perceived as a libertarian-leaning Republican at the top of the ticket. If that indeed holds up, say a Rand Paul defected (and I don't for a moment believe he would) from the GOP, Democrats would have good reason to think the election was in the bag.

There is another possibility however. What if, the Libertarian candidate is someone like Penn Gillette? At that point, I think it becomes unclear who the most votes get siphoned from. It could be a wash. Or, it might actually pull more votes from the Democrats. At which point, Democrats would then blame those who voted for a 3rd party for losing the election, rather than blame the policies that caused progressives to look for alternatives on issues that were paramount to them.

The important lesson of 2000 and the Greens is not the outcome, but the conditions that allowed for that outcome. Both parties are ignoring a passionate part of the electorate right now at their potential peril.

[Robb]

1. Doesn't just about everyone think Penn Gillette is an asshole?

[LearningCurve]

2. Didn't hurt Donald Trump

I think more people like Penn Gillette than The Donald.

[Robb]

14. Did Trump win something and I missed it?

[LearningCurve]

24. I was referring to his high poll numbers in 2012

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/04/15/poll-donald-trump-leads-2012-gop-field

[JHB]

41. Almost all of them had high poll numbers at one time or another

That was part of what made it such a gong show. The cycle was pretty predictable:

Someone says something that gets the teabaggers cheering;
Polls shoot up, suddenly that person becomes the front runner;
Front runner status draws more scrutiny, opponents dig out quotes that take the shine off the gem;
Someone else feeds the teabaggers their red meat, and they start swooning over the next one-hit wonder;
Fold, spin-dle, repeat.

[dsc]

3. If the Democratic party becomes a carbon copy of Penn Gillette then it won't be worth voting for

Gillette is anti environment, anti education, anti pretty much any regulation at all. He is against progressive taxation. He is against programs which help the poor.

[VanillaRhapsody]

4. sigh....must we again point out why this Libertarian shit is just that....shit?

Penn Gillette is a Libertarian...like Rand Paul. End of story...

[LearningCurve]

8. My point isn't that the Democrats should become Penn Gillette

I used Gillette as an example of the kind of Libertarian who could pull votes from the left. I was using shorthand for a type. The reason I suspect it will be the Libertarian Party that is the likely to become the most viable 3rd Party option in 2016, is because of the issues in which many see no difference between Rs and Ds.

Here's who someone like Gillette potentially pulls from the left.

Atheists
Civil libertarians
Those who want drugs decriminalized
Those who want to make a protest vote, and go with the most visible option
Those for whom the name Penn Gillette has higher favorability ratings than either of the other candidates

How big a percentage is that? I have no idea. How likely is that? At this moment, nothing indicates it is likely at all. I throw this into the "be careful what you wish for" category.

[longship]

11. I am in several of those categories and I could never vote for a libertarian.

Least of all somebody like Penn Jilette, who is exquisitely unqualified to be in the White House except as a magician to entertain the occupants.

I'll stick with the Democratic Party. Thank you anyway.

[LearningCurve]

18. Most people would not

Any more than most people who shared solidarity with the Greens on some issues. Not everyone who was passionate about campaign finance reform, for instance, gave Nader a vote that would have otherwise gone to Gore.

I use Penn Gillette as a type of candidate. I seriously doubt Gillette has any interest himself in in a Quixotic campaign.

[longship]

33. Understood. Thanks for your clarification.

I took Jillette as being more or less a generic libertarian.

[randome]

5. Let's keep our eyes on 2014, shall we?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[TreasonousBastard]

7. 2016 means nothing if we don't gain ground in 2014...

I'm already out there working for my Congressman.

But, hey, some people are better at dreaming...

[polichick]

13. Is your Congressman worth working for...

or is he just less of an asshole than a Republican?

[Hekate]

32. He'll add to a Democratic majority, won't he? Plenty of time to hammer him on issues every day...

... if his constituents aren't already doing it.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. No need to hammer him-- he's one of the good guys...

with us on all the issues that count.

[Hekate]

36. Glad to hear that -- so's mine, a quiet hardworking Dem woman through and through

I was responding to >ahem< the other poster anyway.

[TreasonousBastard]

34. Tim Bishop, NY 1...

and while no doubt some around here could no doubt find fault with him over some vote or other, he's definitely one of the good guys.

Even if he wasn't, though, he's still a seat on our side and a good deal better than any of the Republicans running against him.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Gore did not lose because of Nader.

Nader drew as many Republican votes in FL as Democratic votes. Nader throwing the election is a Third Way lie to cow us into voting for Third Wayers.

[dsc]

9. that is utter tommy rot

poll after poll after poll after poll showed Nader drew about 1/3 of his votes from Gore and about 1/4 of his votes from Bush. Applying that to NH, forget about Florida, has Gore winning NH. In addition Nader, in direct contradiction to what he told his liberal donors, campaigned almost entirely in swing states and almost entirely against Gore. He wasn't the only necessary condition for a Gore loss, but he surely was one.

[LearningCurve]

12. Thanks for your post

I am not disputing anything at all about the data you've seen, however I have never seen comprehensive polling on a nationwide scale on Nader's impact. Do you have any convenient references that you could link? I would be most appreciative. By the way, this matches what I feel intuitively, but I'd rather see an unbiased survey.

[dsc]

21. see post 20 I will try to post exit polls tomorrow afternoon

[LearningCurve]

42. Appreciated

Just to be clear, what I'm looking for is nationwide data. Data from an individual state is helpful, but just because something happened in one state, it is not safe to assume the same result applies to others.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Every analysis that I've seen indicates that Gore would have done no better

if Nader had not been on the ballot, e.g. http://my.firedoglake.com/jest/2012/08/26/debunking-pathological-myths-of-the-2000-election-part-1-cnn-exit-polls-prove-that-nader-did-not-cost-gore-fl/

I'm interested if you can point to an analysis that shows otherwise.

[dsc]

20. From your very own link

Even further, according to exit polls, only 25% of Nader supporters would have voted for Gore had Nader not run. Over half of the Nader voters would have stayed home, and the rest would have voted for Bush or another third party candidate.

Now let's parse this out, shall we. According to this, in Florida, 1/4 of Nader voters would have voted for Gore, 1/2 wouldn't have voted at all, and 1/4 would have voted for Bush OR ANOTHER THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE. Now way if just oh, 1,000 of them would have VOTED FOR ANOTHER THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE. Then Gore gains 1,000 votes. He lost by about 750. Again, that is from your link.

I tried to track down their exit polls and the link doesn't work. So I can't comment on them, except to say the following, exit polls are just that polls, not actual elections. The only thing special about exit polls is when they are taken (the votes of voters can't change after they cast the vote). Thus you will have a pretty large MOE with the state ones being larger than the national one. I also have to say, there is an awful lot of assumption about what Perot voters would or wouldn't do with literally no proof offered at all. The fact is both of your links back my numbers on what Nader did nationally. I have to hit the sack now as I get up early but I will try tomorrow afternoon to track down exit polls.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. That's a good point, but

from part 3 of that series...

"CNN’s exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race."

Can we agree that if all registered Dems voted for Gore then he would have handily won?

[LearningCurve]

10. There were many reasons for outcome of 2000

My history lesson was for those who placed the blame solely at Nader's feet. To this day, I have not seen any data that shows what the Nader voters would have done at the polls if Nader were not on the ballot.

[Politicalboi]

16. &quot;There were many reasons for outcome of 2000&quot;

Bush stole the election is the ONLY one I know. They called Florida for Gore then changed it. Bush's brother was governor, and Kathleen Harris worked for the Bush campaign. IMO they should have disqualified Florida and Gore would have won. It's a fact that when all the votes were counted Gore did win Florida. Nadar and the butterfly ballot helped a little, but Gore DID win Florida.

Nadar was the scapegoat. Don't look at me, look over there.

[last1standing]

28. Psst... Gore got more vote than bush in Florida even with Nader on the ballot.

But the same people will always try to blame Nader and those who voted for him. They never question whether Gore should have been more progressive or give people a better reason to vote for him.

Instead they demand our votes and then our silence.

Fuck 'em.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. Libertarian candidate? Penn Gillette?

The Dems would just nominate David Blain.

[LearningCurve]

19. Finally someone is talking sense!

Love your Username.

[polichick]

22. If neither party serves the people, a third party will have to arise.

[madrchsod]

25. the tea party?

[davidpdx]

26. It could happen especially if disaffected Ds and Is weren't happy with either party's candidate

It would be a steep cliff to get on the ballot in enough states though. There would be questions about how to adequately fund someone who didn't belong to a party.

We'll see what happens after the mid-terms though.

[woo me with science]

31. The RNC and DNC changed all the rules after Perot scared them to death,

in order to seize control of elections, debates, balloting, financing...

That's why Ron Paul ran as a Republican, even though corporate Republicans mocked him and he was hated by the establishment Republican Party. It's damned difficult now to get any traction and exposure as a third party candidate, now that the two corporate parties control the game.

[LearningCurve]

39. Thanks for your post

I am curious about some of the things that were changed. If you have time, I'd be interested.

[Initech]

27. Penn Jillette as president? Excuse my editorial laugh. Ha ha ha ha...

[struggle4progress]

29. three years is forever in us politics

[brooklynite]

30. Don't see it...

...a "true believer" third party movement is a fantasy on both the far right and far left, but absent a solidly-based State Party structure behind it, picking a Presidential candidate to rally around is generally an exercise in futility. The 2000 election was close enough for a Nader campaign to affect one state which happened to be even closer. But consider "true believer" Pat Buchanan in 2000. Without Ross Perot's cash, his third party movement crumbled.

[Le Taz Hot]

37. With this:

" One of the reasons, many claim, is that the Green Party siphoned enough votes that otherwise would have gone for Gore." you're done. Good of you to completely ignore all the OTHER ACTUAL FACTS, including a non-precedent-setting USSC ruling, Tammy Faye Harris and vote tampering.

I swear I'm on a <flush> fest tonight. The bozos are coming out of the woodwork.

[LearningCurve]

38. My post was not meant to be a comprehensive analysis of every factor that led to the 2000 outcome

As I've stated up the thread more than once, there were many factors. The point of my OP was limited in scope to a single issue, one I feel is a possibility to be repeated in 2016.

[Demo_Chris]

40. People want someone or something to vote FOR...

The issue wasn't Nader, and the issue wont be the currently unknown yet apparently responsible vote-stealer in 2016. The problem is that our party is offering people little real reason to vote for them.

Gore lost because:

A. He was as exciting as paint drying
B. People were sick of the same old thing

It's hard to get people to the polls under the best of circumstances. It's really freaking hard to do. You need an army of volunteers harassing and helping people to the polls. When there's nothing to vote for it becomes damn near an impossible job. Right now OUR party is the party of insurance mandates, unimaginable domestic spying, drone wars, more wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, chained CPI, continuing the drug wars, and job wrecking free trade. Running against us are the Republicans, who favor all of that and also want a Bible in every classroom and abortion banned.

You might vote against the GOP, but our party isn't offering anything a whole lot better.

[KharmaTrain]

43. Without A Third Party Dominated House And/Or Senate...

...a third party candidate would be a lame duck from the moment they took office. If they didn't cooperate with one or both parties, nothing will get done...any attempts at using executive orders is sure to create a shitstorm as well, including impeachment. So for those who have this utopian dream of some great third party arising that will sweep this country into some glorious age, you better start working on the state and local level and building up a real party, not one around a cult figurehead...

[LearningCurve]

44. This may be true

But it wouldn't stop people from voting for a 3rd party under the right conditions.

[KharmaTrain]

45. Of Course Not...

...but it would be throwing a vote away if that candidate doesn't have a chance to win. I've seen plenty of third parties in my many years on this rock...on the federal and state levels and have seen few that have done well. The problem with a "protest" vote is that the candidate you're "protesting" against doesn't know nor care that you voted for someone else (they don't send a list of who didn't vote to the candidate) and tends to elect the worse of the evils...