3rd Party Win %?

[downtown]

So it appears that we may have the most credible 3rd party candidates running in a long time. Gary Johnson is the odds on favorite to win the nomination of the Libertarian Party. Johnson was the former Gov of New Mexico.

The Constitution Party meanwhile, nominated former US Rep Virgil Goode (R-VA). Goode is a bit of a creep, but his party may be gaining in respectability. Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party in 2008, for what it's worth.

The Green Party has not decided who they will run, although I believe Roseanne Barr is the odds on favorite.

Obviously none of these guys are going to win, but with Congressional popularity at an all time low, satisfaction with the status quo very low, and with libertarian-ish views unlikely to be represented much in this race, how much do you think they can win?

Will all three combine to take 7% of the share? 10% Will either Obama or Romney finish 3rd anywhere? What may make a 3rd party surge more or less likely?

 

[Bootstoots]

I think they might crack 3% of the vote, and reach 10% in one or more states (perhaps Johnson in New Mexico or something like that). I don't foresee much more success than that, however.

 

[emzie]

Posting what I posted in the Tavern version.

If Gary Johnson is able to get a real campaign going, I can imagine him coming in second in some outlier states like Alaska. I think the ground is there for him to mount a Perot-esque campaign. 10% if things fall his way.

This is also contingent on Johnson actually getting invited to the debates. If the media screws him ("sorry, you didn't poll high enough despite never being included on any polls"), then he'll have a much harder time.

 

[zjl56]

With Superpacs, pretty much anything is possible with enough donors..

 

[Lord Gay]

Wiki link on SOME 3rd parties (there are a lot more out there)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012

 

[jtb1127]

With Superpacs, pretty much anything is possible with enough donors..

But no one will donate to a third party campaign because they'll never win. The winner take all system pretty much prevents any third party from ever winning. If the US was proportional then we'd at least see third parties in congress.

 

[Samson]

But no one will donate to a third party campaign because they'll never win. The winner take all system pretty much prevents any third party from ever winning. If the US was proportional then we'd at least see third parties in congress.

Is there any argument for some sort of 2 round election, like france has currently? It seems to me it would address some of the issues with the current system.

Posting what I posted in the Tavern version.

If Gary Johnson is able to get a real campaign going, I can imagine him coming in second in some outlier states like Alaska. I think the ground is there for him to mount a Perot-esque campaign. 10% if things fall his way.

This is also contingent on Johnson actually getting invited to the debates. If the media screws him ("sorry, you didn't poll high enough despite never being included on any polls"), then he'll have a much harder time.

If that happens, which candidate would he take votes from? I would guess Mittens, but he is not exactly very libertarian.

 

[say1988]

Is there any argument for some sort of 2 round election, like france has currently? It seems to me it would address some of the issues with the current system.

Not really. The two main parties have too much money and influence and the media seems to prefer it that way (although one would think they would be ebtter off with more candidates to reveal scandals about).

Such an electoral system might get the third party candidates a few more votes. But since they aren't in a position to win most people will still ignore them especially when so much effort has to be put in to find out about the third party candidates.

The only way to make a third party viable at the Presidential level would need to start in the legislature to get the party the media attention, power, and money to make a move. The most likely way to achieve this would be to adopt some form of proportional representation in the House, which neither party will support.

 

[Quintillus]

So, I looked these people up, and I can't honestly say any of them strike me as a candidate with much of a chance. Then again, I didn't find the ones 4 years ago to be very credible, either.

Goode might be okay, except it looks like he's prone to comments that would be inflammatory to Muslims. Even if the public at large might not care, if he ever looked credible, the major parties could use that to squash him. I'd hope the public at large would care, but then again Santorum got an awful lot of votes. Barr doesn't strike me as credible as a politician.

Johnson obviously is credible as a politician. He seems kind of too libertarian to get a considerable amount of votes, but if he's been a governor he might do okay for a 3rd-party candidate. I'd be very surprised if he pulled a Ross Perot, though.

However, if Ron Paul had been the Libertarian candidate this year, I think the Libertarians would have had a good shot at 5%, and thus access to improved campaign funding in the future. I suppose that if Paul endorsed Johnson, he might have an outside chance at that.

 

[Antilogic]

Pulling a Perot gets tougher all the time, because even if you have one rich multi-millionaire idealist to fund your campaign, there are at least five other pragmatic multi-millionaires to fund a major party's candidate. And in a world where people aren't put in polls because they aren't popular enough in other polls where they weren't listed, and then they don't get invited to debates because they don't poll well, it's difficult to see how any non-Dem or non-Repub candidate can get enough media attention to beat one of the major parties. They can be eccentric to get attention, but then they become perceived as a traveling circus and unelectable.

Ross Perot has been the most successful 3rd party candidate since Wallace or Thurmond (and only they get named because of their electoral votes, otherwise we got to go back to names like Roosevelt and La Follette). And even he didn't receive a single EV and failed to get within 15% of a major party candidate. Not even within striking distance.

 

[Wilks johnson]

So it appears that we may have the most credible 3rd party candidates running in a long time. Gary Johnson is the odds on favorite to win the nomination of the Libertarian Party. Johnson was the former Gov of New Mexico.

The Constitution Party meanwhile, nominated former US Rep Virgil Goode (R-VA). Goode is a bit of a creep, but his party may be gaining in respectability. Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party in 2008, for what it's worth.

The Green Party has not decided who they will run, although I believe Roseanne Barr is the odds on favorite.

Obviously none of these guys are going to win, but with Congressional popularity at an all time low, satisfaction with the status quo very low, and with libertarian-ish views unlikely to be represented much in this race, how much do you think they can win?

Will all three combine to take 7% of the share? 10% Will either Obama or Romney finish 3rd anywhere? What may make a 3rd party surge more or less likely?

Just a small nit-pick here. Jill stein has won every single primary the Green Party has had so far. Or in other words, 62.5 out of 84 total delegates. Rosanne Barr has done surprisingly bad, although I do think it would be interesting if she decides to fund Steins campaign.

Oh and as for the % of votes? I have absolutely no idea.

 

[mangxema]

This is also contingent on Johnson actually getting invited to the debates. If the media screws him ("sorry, you didn't poll high enough despite never being included on any polls"), then he'll have a much harder time.

Johnson was on The Daily Show last night. I thought he came across rather well. It didn't get too deep into policy, but he looked very comfortable talking about his basic strategy, which is to say 'the stuff you like the other parties for, I can do better'. Granted, that's a bit of an oversimplification; social conservatives will probably hate him with a passion.* But I think it's a pretty good opening act.

* - I do wonder though how much anti-Mormon prejudice will play a role.

 

[JollyRoger]

When Johnson was in the GOP debates, I liked him - up until the point he endorsed the Fair Tax.

 

[Bootstoots]

He is a libertarian - I'd have been very surprised if he had good ideas about taxation. I wish he supported a flat tax over a consumption tax though.

One thing I'm wondering: will Johnson take more votes from the Republicans or the Democrats? I saw one poll that indicates he'll take more from Republicans, but they may not be aware that he's really serious about his social views.

 

[say1988]

The problem is that most Republicans who would think before voting probably don't think Romney is serious about his social views. And the remaining fiscal Conservatives probably don't believe Romney about that stuff either (the Republican presidents have a worse track record that the Democratic presidents over the past few decades).

 

[Yui108]

The thing about gary Johnson and the libertarian party is not that they, obviously, have any chance at a win but if they can poll well enough they could get the political mainstream to listen to some of their good ideas. ( drugs, immigration, eminent domain) Perhaps they could finally allow the GOP to jettison the evangelicals.

 

[GenMarshall]

With the disappointment in how Obama is handling the job market, I'd suspect there would be an uptick in third party percentages, especially if the voters cannot stomach Rommey.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Johnson was on The Daily Show last night.

Sadly enough, that's the only reason I know his name. I may not agree with third parties, but I think that they should get more recognition.

 

[mangxema]

When Johnson was in the GOP debates, I liked him - up until the point he endorsed the Fair Tax.

Yeah, there is that.

The problem is that most Republicans who would think before voting probably don't think Romney is serious about his social views. And the remaining fiscal Conservatives probably don't believe Romney about that stuff either (the Republican presidents have a worse track record that the Democratic presidents over the past few decades).

Well, if you really want to gut the budget, Libertarians are the way to go. The question is whether Johnson can come across as credible on those issues, and not as a nutball (which is Ron Paul's problem).

The thing about gary Johnson and the libertarian party is not that they, obviously, have any chance at a win but if they can poll well enough they could get the political mainstream to listen to some of their good ideas. ( drugs, immigration, eminent domain) Perhaps they could finally allow the GOP to jettison the evangelicals.

This is what I'm really hoping for.

 

[Quintillus]

The thing about gary Johnson and the libertarian party is not that they, obviously, have any chance at a win but if they can poll well enough they could get the political mainstream to listen to some of their good ideas. ( drugs, immigration, eminent domain) Perhaps they could finally allow the GOP to jettison the evangelicals.

I'd be pretty happy with that outcome. If it weren't for the whole dominated-by-evangelicals aspect of the GOP, I might find them semi-acceptable as a political party, since that's the part of their platform that most consistently turns me away.

Just a small nit-pick here. Jill stein has won every single primary the Green Party has had so far. Or in other words, 62.5 out of 84 total delegates. Rosanne Barr has done surprisingly bad, although I do think it would be interesting if she decides to fund Steins campaign.

Oh and as for the % of votes? I have absolutely no idea.

Interesting. Taking a quick look, Stein looks like she might be a decent alternative to the establishment, and I don't see any obviously strange stances. And she is officially the Green Party candidate now. So, worth keeping an eye on.