US 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?

For a baseline, 3rd parties won a little less than 3% in 2008.

 

[emzie]

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.

edit: 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.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'd back Gary Johnson in a heartbeat over the fools who are running right now Don't know anything about that constitutionalist guy.

I really hope its enough to make the Republican party really rethink their policies. Probably a pipedream though. I said 5-7%.

 

[Bootstoots]

I hope Gary Johnson pulls off a good Perot-style campaign. He was a popular two-term governor who was elected and then easily re-elected in a Democratic-leaning state, despite the fact that he cut programs right and left and vetoed a high proportion of the proposals that came to his desk. In the end I'd still prefer Obama - I do fundamentally disagree with libertarians like Johnson on quite a few issues (he supports the FairTax, for instance). But the two-party system could use a good challenge.

 

[Antilogic]

edit: 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.

This is the largest problem with third party candidates in the US--the media/campaign system is structured around the two majors, and the minors are often ignored and ridiculed.

Although the two majors suffer from weak approval ratings, they also have Citizens United. Optimistically, I'd say 3-5% because I don't think the minor party candidates will be invited to the presidential debates nor receive sufficient media coverage. I'll revise this upwards later on if they do.

 

[mangxema]

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?

I'm going to ignore the Greens and such and only focus on Johnson since he's the only guy with the faintest hope.

I think Johnson has several openings to gain some some ground in (assuming, like contre said, that he actually gets a voice on the national level):

1.) Healthcare - I think it's fairly obvious at this point that Republicans are going to try to channel hatred for the healthcare reform (or at least, what they perceive it to be) against Obama. And I think it's also fairly obvious that Obama will counter with the fact that it was based on Romney's plan for MA. IIRC this has already started to happen. A Johnson vote could be the best way to voice those objections.

2.) Drug policy - In this respect he seems similar to Ron Paul except without the cranky baggage. He could pick up some of the Paul supporters, who really aren't going to be served well by Romney.

3.) Iraq - I know that this might be viewed as a past issue, but that was part of Obama's appeal in the last election. Some on the left have thought that Obama has been too hawkish; some of those might switch to another strong war opponent in Johnson.

4.) Civil liberties - Similar to (3). If you really care about civil liberties, you can't beat a libertarian. That's what they do.

5.) Budget hawks - He will cut the bejesus out of the national budget.

That said, I doubt he'd get above 10% nationally. Somehow he would have to make the case to the pragmatists that might agree with him on some issues, but would nevertheless view a vote for him a waste, that they should still vote for him, even if it means that Obama might be reelected. This will be a big problem, especially since a strong showing would probably pull more votes from the right. He'd have to come up with a convincing argument that Obama and Romney are basically the same, and thus the real choice is Johnson vs. not-Johnson. I don't know how he does that.

Although the two majors suffer from weak approval ratings, they also have Citizens United.

Citizens United is sort of a double-edged sword though. Yeah, the two major parties can dump their money on him, but on the other hand, if he has his own sugar daddy he could have a 'successful' resistance campaign. If he pulls a Southwest and only goes into the lesser fought markets, and starts making headway, it could snowball.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I have a couple of beefs with Gary Johnson (Abortion being the biggest one) and while that would normally be a dealbreaker with me, Romney and Obama ARE in fact almost identical. Johnson doesn't have to convince me here, I'm already convinced.

Romney MIGHT act a bit more conservative than he actually is, but if the political spectrum was the size of a football field, Obama and Romney are both within a first down of each other

Gary Johnson, like Paul, represents actual change, and I actually like the change. If he gets a serious movement going, I think I'll support him (Keep in mind, I can't actually vote yet.)

 

[mangxema]

I have a couple of beefs with Gary Johnson (Abortion being the biggest one) and while that would normally be a dealbreaker with me, Romney and Obama ARE in fact almost identical. Johnson doesn't have to convince me here, I'm already convinced.

I find that surprising considering that I consider Johnson to be a generally pro-life guy. He may not be as absolutist about it, but I think he's on your side of the fence.

 

[DroopyTofu]

I have no knowledge of any of these guys and I can't vote, but as far as I'm concerned, anything to hurt the two big parties would a good thing. I don't like either of the candidates and I get the feeling many other people feel the same. This will hopefully mean more people voting for third parties.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I remember reading he was pro-choice. Let me look it up

*Looks up in real time*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson#Abortion

Johnson believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned because it "expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution."[23] He believes that laws regarding abortion should "be decided by the individual states."[23]

Johnson says, "Life is precious and needs to be protected."[23] He supports legislation banning late-term abortions and mandating parental notification for minors seeking an abortion.[23] But he "believes that ultimately it is a woman's right to make such a decision during the early stage of pregnancy,"[23] which he defines as up until to the viability of the fetus

So, I was correct that he is pro-choice. However, in reality he's going to try to do the exact same thing the more pro-life Republican candidates are going to do (Banning it at the Federal level isn't happening in the real world) and ultimately, while they differ personally, his viewpoints do not differ substantially from Ron Paul's in how they would actually be implemented on the issue of abortion. When the states are deciding, what the President personally thinks is basically irrelevant. That being said, I'd have no issues with a Johnson Presidency as it pertains to those issues (Or most others, really, at most my disagreements with him are marginal.)

I will admit, while I was technically right, I thought Johnson did support Roe VS Wade (Although I think Romney still does as well, regardless of what crap he says, hence why I would have still supported Johnson) so I was pleasantly surprised in that regard.

 

[jtb1127]

(Or most others, really, at most my disagreements with him are marginal.

Don't you support the death penalty?

 

[pi-r8]

Gary Johnson is "credible"? Yeah right.
The only reason Ross Perot got as far as he did is because he had billions of dollars of his own money to throw around. Gary Johnson does not, which means he won't be able to get on TV in any significant way, so most voters will never even hear his name. Same problem for all the other 3rd party candidates.

The US political system just isn't designed to allow more than 2 parties, and people need to wise up and realize that fact.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Don't you support the death penalty?

Yes. I didn't say I agreed with him on everything, I said I agreed with him enough that I wouldn't have any serious reservations about supporting him.

In the death penalty case, the best he can actually do is ban the Federal Death Penalty (Which I honestly don't care about, I don't trust the Federal government farther than I can throw a 20lb rock. I would rather the states try such cases.) Banning the death penalty nationwide is a liberal pipe dream, much like how banning abortion nationwide is a conservative pipe dream. Texas will never ban capital punishment (At least not for a LONG while.) Ditto with NY or California and abortion.

 

[jtb1127]

I wouldn't have any serious reservations about supporting him.

This might be sort of off-topic, but hey, it's the Tavern.

He supports gay marriage too, government "should not impose its values upon marriage" and "should protect the rights of couples to engage in civil unions if they wish, as well as the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs." He also said "denying those rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple".
That's from the link you gave. I've seen you have enough debates about this issue (and abortion) for me to think that you do in fact have serious reservations about it.

 

[mangxema]

Yeah, the part that jumped out at me on that page, just above the abortion bit, was this quote:

Johnson has stated, "I am not a social conservative in any way, shape, or form."[3] He believes the majority of Republicans are not social conservatives, but rather are fiscal conservatives.[3] He says he respects and understands socially conservative beliefs, but he has a difference of opinion.[3] He says Republicans come together over fiscal issues, which are his primary concern.[3]

 

[sophie]

Why is it that any even remotely interesting topic that Dommy participates in gets derailed into: "Dommy explains his personal political ideology for the 1854574th time"?

 

[jtb1127]

Why is it that any even remotely interesting topic that Dommy participates in gets derailed into: "Dommy explains his personal political ideology for the 1854574th time"?

That's one way to frame it. However, it could also be worded as "political beliefs of Gary Johnson and his relationship to mainstream conservatives".

 

[sophie]

That's one way to frame it. However, it could also be worded as "political beliefs of Gary Johnson and his relationship to mainstream conservatives".

Meh, it's just lolpolitics as usual here at OT.

 

[mangxema]

Why is it that any even remotely interesting topic that Dommy participates in gets derailed into: "Dommy explains his personal political ideology for the 1854574th time"?

No need to exaggerate; he's only had 12k posts.

 

[Cutlass]

Although the two majors suffer from weak approval ratings, they also have Citizens United. Optimistically, I'd say 3-5% because I don't think the minor party candidates will be invited to the presidential debates nor receive sufficient media coverage. I'll revise this upwards later on if they do.

The problem with Citizen's United is that the big money will still go where it can buy influence. So Some candidates may see windfalls, but only to the point where the donors think that they will accomplish their overall goals to get there. With Johnson there's no reason to assume big money goals will be met. With the Greens, even much less so.