You're forgetting the suppression of black voters.
US 3rd party win %?
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
You're forgetting the suppression of black voters.
1991. Louisiana elections are in weird years.
Roemer killed himself by switching to the Republicans; the fact that Duke was ahead of him meant little except that Roemer had basically destroyed his own constituency. Duke didn't have a serious chance in the general election - Edwin Edwards, a notoriously corrupt (even for Louisiana) candidate, wiped him out even though he barely campaigned.
_random_
Jewel Runner
Well, if he's in a Republican primary, black voters aren't gonna matter a whole lot anyway. I just figured that by the 90s most white people would have had strong reservations about a guy like that.
Duke polled higher than Edwards, the ultimate victor, in the general election among white voters - something like fifty-five percent, I think. (Which was good for slightly less than forty percent of the total. He got creamed.) That still is pretty sad, of course. And having said that, his showing was actually worse in many ways than the previous year, when he ran for one of Louisiana's Senate seats.
*bump*
So we just about have all the results from 2012. Here is how 3rd parties did:
Combined national vote share: 1.68%, with Gary Johnson leading the way at .99%.
Highlights:
Gary Johnson hit 3.5% in New Mexico, 2.9% in Montana, 2.2% in Wyoming and 1.9% in Indiana. Maine had 3.2% of the vote go between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Stein did not crack 3rd place in a single state.
Virgil Goode only got .4% in Virginia, or 13,677 votes.
Thoughts? In what could have been a strong year for 3rd parties, the candidates once again underperformed.
So we just about have all the results from 2012. Here is how 3rd parties did:
Combined national vote share: 1.68%, with Gary Johnson leading the way at .99%.
Highlights:
Gary Johnson hit 3.5% in New Mexico, 2.9% in Montana, 2.2% in Wyoming and 1.9% in Indiana. Maine had 3.2% of the vote go between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Stein did not crack 3rd place in a single state.
Virgil Goode only got .4% in Virginia, or 13,677 votes.
Thoughts? In what could have been a strong year for 3rd parties, the candidates once again underperformed.
I think this will hurt Downtown politically.
Serious answer. While the country is as polarized as it has been for awhile now, I just don't see a new John Anderson or Ross Perot coming along. People are too invested in making sure the other guy loses, which means for most voting for not-the-other-guy main candidate instead of a 3rd partier.
I figured Johnson going against a charismatic figure like Obama would make getting his message out there difficult, but I thought the relative unlikability of Romney would have countered that. Maybe the Libertarians will fare better in 2016, when the choice is between two unlikable suits, instead of a suit and Hawaiian Jesus.
you use the word 'underperformed'. I'm wondering what results would have caused you to use a different word.
I admit I was surprised at the low vote numbers for the Green Party, but I suppose I live in a confirmation bias bubble.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I think your message before about building local "machines," so to speak, has more merit than any of the parties seem to give it. We can whine all day about the poor quality of the candidates, but to be honest, even great candidates wouldn't have won substantially more votes, would they? Blaming the candidates is kicking the dog.
I'm not sure Stein got 3rd in any state? That is a pretty disappointing performance, for sure.
3rd Party % went down from 2008, despite the fact that nobody liked either candidate (whereas in 2008, both guys were fairly popular). I think 5% combined share would been pretty good, all things considered.
Gary Johnson apparently raised enough money to get on TV near the end.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Yep, and you can also count on Fox to give him and anyone with the lable 'libertarian' plenty of air time too.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I hate when I legitimately can't tell if people are being serious or not
I don't know Fox News all that well (I mean, I know they're biased towards the right but I don't know THAT much about them) but I know there are plenty of conservatives who hate libertarians far more than liberals.
Not in real life of course, but all the talking heads, yeah. Same thing with Wall Street I'm sure. They'd kill before they'd accept a free market. They want a system that specifically panders to them, and gives them wars for oil to boot.
I don't know Fox News all that well (I mean, I know they're biased towards the right but I don't know THAT much about them) but I know there are plenty of conservatives who hate libertarians far more than liberals.
Not in real life of course, but all the talking heads, yeah. Same thing with Wall Street I'm sure. They'd kill before they'd accept a free market. They want a system that specifically panders to them, and gives them wars for oil to boot.
Similar threads
