Third-party threat: It's not just Nader

Christian Science Monitor ^ | April 20, 2004 | Lawrence R. Jacobs

[TBP]

ST. PAUL, MINN. – The hot topic in handicapping the presidential election is whether independent candidate Ralph Nader will be the spoiler - again - by winning a small but decisive percentage of the vote in an evenly divided country. But Mr. Nader is not the only third party candidate who could sway the electorate significantly enough to change history - as he did in 2000 by siphoning off liberal voters from Al Gore and as Ross Perot did in 1992 and 1996 by taking conservative votes from the GOP candidate.

A Humphrey Institute Survey found in February that 20 percent of voters are disaffected fromthe two major parties, and a significant number of them could be tapped by gifted candidates running as independent or Libertarian - if these candidates received the kind of press attention that Nader has attracted.

While Nader hurts the presumed Democratic nominee John Kerry, voters open to conservative third-party candidates who promote small government and criticize ballooning government budget deficits pose a significant threat to President Bush's reelection effort. Pundits have ignored the importance of the third-party swing vote, but the White House has not, working hard to head off damaging defections.

Indeed, these small-government conservatives who are disenchanted with the major parties made a real mark in the 2002 elections: 2 percent or more of voters in 15 gubernatorial and US Senate elections in 2002 cast their ballots for the Libertarian Party. And candidates running as independents cleared the 2 percent mark in seven other states. Numbers like these could be a decisive factor in a close contest between Messrs. Bush and Kerry.

Third-party candidates will have their greatest impact in critical battleground states in this year's presidential election.

While recent successes of the Green Party in New Mexico, Oregon, and elsewhere dominate political talk of Nader as a Kerry spoiler, far less attention has been devoted to the potential of Libertarian and independent successes to drain conservative votes from Bush in swing states. In Wisconsin, where Bush narrowly lost in 2000, the Libertarian candidate in the 2002 gubernatorial context took an impressive 10.5 percent, enough to help Democrat Jim Doyle break the four-term Republican hold on the state house. In Nevada, where the president prevailed by just 3 percent in 2000, the Libertarian and two candidates running as independents took a total of 4 percent of the vote in the 2002 gubernatorial race. Bush took New Hampshire by about 1 percent in 2000 - but votes for Libertarian candidates in the 2002 gubernatorial and US Senate races there totaled more. And in Missouri, another battleground state expected to be narrowly decided in November, the Libertarian candidate's 1 percent in the 2002 US Senate race nearly upended Republican Jim Talent's razor-close win over Democrat Jean Carnahan. In Ohio, the US Senate candidate for the Natural Law Party took 4 percent in 2002. Minnesota's unusually strong support for Ross Perot's campaigns in the 1990s and its election of Jesse Ventura as governor in 1998 far surpass Nader's showings there.

These recent elections demonstrate an overlooked but potentially decisive reservoir of support for third-party candidates who run on a small-government platform.

Third-party candidates pose quite different threats to Kerry and Bush, according to the Humphrey Institute's February poll conducted by the University of Connecticut. Bush perhaps has the most to lose in the third-party trend because a conservative third party would erode his GOP base of support. Meanwhile, the threat to Kerry is less to his Democratic base than to the critical base of independent voters who might otherwise swing toward him in the absence of a third-party candidate.

The poll showed that in a one-on-one race with Kerry, Bush would win 87 percent of the GOP vote. But when given the option of Bush, Kerry, and a conservative third-party candidate, GOP support for Bush dropped to as low as 75 percent.

Surprisingly, the poll found that in a Kerry-Bush-Nader race, Kerry lost relatively few votes among Democrats - he'd win 72.8 percent of Democrats in a two-man race and 70 percent of the Democrats when Nader was in the race.

In a three-way race, the poll found Nader damaged Kerry most among independent voters. In a two-candidate race against Bush, Kerry enjoyed an eight-point lead among independents. But he came in slightly behind Bush among independents when those voters were offered Nader as a third choice. Even the mention of a generic third-party candidate sapped Kerry's support among independents by about 19 points; it depressed Bush's share by just 12 points.

The support of voters for third-party candidates from across the political spectrum raises three challenges for pollsters, journalists, and other critical players in the presidential election.

First, pollsters who fail to offer voters the opportunity to indicate support for conservative third-party candidates run the risk of missing the dynamics of the race and providing an inaccurate picture of the evolving campaign.

Second, the press should expand its coverage to encompass the campaigns of potentially influential third-party candidates besides Nader. Access to state ballots is a telling issue that the press has yet to investigate seriously. Nader was able to get on only 43 state ballots in 2000 and is struggling again this year to qualify on all state ballots. But by contrast, the Libertarian Party successfully placed its 2000 presidential candidate on the ballots of every state and is likely to have its candidate on many more state ballots than Nader will this year. And, if there's a question in the media - and within the Presidential Debate Commission - about whether Nader should be included in the debates, then the Libertarian nominee most certainly should be considered, too.

Third, conventional assumptions about the electorate as polarized Republican and Democratic camps misses the trend of the last three presidential elections - third-party candidates are tipping the outcome of presidential elections.

Expect the 2004 election outcome to be scrambled by liberal and conservative third-party candidates.

[TBP]

It looks like the third-party movement is increasing.

I notice, however, that the author left out completely the third-largest party in terms of registration, the Constitution Party.

[goldstategop]

I think giving voters more choices is good for the country. It keeps the major parties honest.

[Mamzelle]

Both parties support unregulated, unlawful immigration, thinking that they'll get the votes. But I predict that illegal immigration and amnesties will also bring in the first powerful (as in, other than spoiler) third parties.

Conservatives are very tired of hearing the comment, accompanied by a shrug--"Where're ya gonna go?" whever we're shafted by a pol. Tax cuts aren't our only issue.

[McGavin999]

In Wisconsin, where Bush narrowly lost in 2000, the Libertarian candidate in the 2002 gubernatorial context took an impressive 10.5 percent, enough to help Democrat Jim Doyle break the four-term Republican hold on the state house.

Doesn't that make you proud? Support liberals, vote third party!

[ex-snook]

As the campaign progresses, Bush convinces us why we shouldn't vote for Kerry and Kerry convinces us why we shouldn't vote for Bush. Guess that leaves a third party or stay home.

Confucius Say:
"Neocon Chickenhawk for War like Liberal Cuckoo for Welfare. Both wants to freeload."

[goldstategop]

I think issues matter. And people want smaller government in this country and sometimes the GOP forgets where its from, voting for the Libertarian/Constitution Party is enough to get it to reconnect it with its roots. Its a healthy thing.

[TBP]

Both parties support unregulated, unlawful immigration

And so do the Libertarians and so does Nader and so do the Greens.

But the Constitution Party does not.

[goldstategop]

For idealistic people, the status two party quo isn't cutting it anymore. Today more people are independents than are affiliated with the two major parties which are increasingly seen by the public as part of the problem rather than the solution.

[ServesURight]

Both the Constitution and Libertarian parties won't have any impact on Republicans this year. Most of the GOP candidates this election are solidly conservative. Bush has signed two pro-life measures and AWB will die in Congress.

This article is just spin that attempts to drag down the GOP just because the Greens will hurt the DemocRats.

[rdb3]

Conservatives are very tired of hearing the comment, accompanied by a shrug--"Where're ya gonna go?" whever we're shafted by a pol. Tax cuts aren't our only issue.

You're right. For example, I want the complete abolishment of the Department of Energy, the NEA, a complete rollback of OSHA, the end of the Department of Education and the IRS, a complete overhaul of the INS, the separation of business and State, and lastly, a stratospheric increase in military spending.

Where am I gonna go? Sounds like I have to choose which of these are most likely to be achieved given a candidate who has a truly realistic chance of winning.

What I don't want is to vote in a manner that would increase the likelihood of a candidate winning who I know would give me everything that I don't want.

None of us can have everything that we want. So my mind and heart tell me to choose wisely and act accordingly.

A.K.A. Sleepy Brown

[ServesURight]

Please don't remind us here in Wisconsin. Ed Thompson ran strictly out of anger and revenge because his supper club was raided for illegal gaming machines.

Plus he had name recognition, giving the fact that he's Tommy's kid brother. If his last name would have been Schmuck we wouldn't have to worry about Bingo Doyle and his corrupt AG Lautenschlager a.k.a Goldschlager.

[Hank Rearden]

I have zero interest in bigger and more expensive Big Stupid Government, so yep - the Libertarian candidate will get serious consideration.

I suppose now I'll hear from those who think the survival of the Republic depends on continued power-mongering, debt-burdening and government growth by the Republican Party.

[Mamzelle]

Me neither. I was a 'tarian in college, even had my "Taxation is Theft" button. By standards back in those days, I'd have been horrified by some of the "populist " stances I take these days...

The Dems have built a successful coalition--but I don't think they'll hold it together when hispanics start competing with blacks within their own grievance politics--

Repubs have to realize that throwing the "tax cut" bone to conservatives won't solve all problems. There's also the antiabortion lobby, the particular interests described by conservative Christianity, those suddenly displaced by outsourcing, loss of mfging jobs, and having to compete with illegal slave labor. The Repubs had better not sell out their constituents for the happiness of a few corporations.

What about "dance with the one what brung ya" does the GOP not understand?

[BlkConserv]

It looks like the third-party movement is increasing.

You mean they'll get .00001% of the vote instead of .0000001%?

[BlkConserv]

I have zero interest in bigger and more expensive Big Stupid Government, so yep - the Libertarian candidate will get serious consideration.

I'm sure the Libertarians will keep our nation safe from the terrorists too.

[ChuckHam]

As the campaign progresses, Bush convinces us why we shouldn't vote for Kerry and Kerry convinces us why we shouldn't vote for Bush. Guess that leaves a third party or stay home.

Ya think? Kerry hasn't convinced me of anything but the fact that he's an idiot. If Kerry can convince you to not vote for Bush then you probably shouldn't vote at all.

[TBP]

Most of the GOP candidates this election are solidly conservative.

Solid conservaties like The Specter.

You should try out for open mike night at the local comedy club. This is one of the funniest things I have rad here lately. They vote for 8.2 percent annual increases in annual discretionary domestic spending, McCain-Feingold, open borders, and you think they're "solid conservatives!" Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Remember that Ed Gillespie, the RNC chairman, told the Manchester Union Leader that limited-government views are no longer welcome in the GOP.

[ex-snook]

"Today more people are independents than are affiliated with the two major parties which are increasingly seen by the public as part of the problem rather than the solution. "

Got to agree with that. You have to vote for the party that agrees mostly with you. It's the only way your vote can count.

If you vote for one of the majors because their candidate 'can win' - it means you lose.

[rdb3]

I don't think anyone believes that any of the 3rd parties can win the White House, the votes are just in protest.

They can't win the White House. But let's suppose for a moment that one could. The House and Senate would still belong to the Pubs and RATS. So then what? Whatever that this third-party administration would desire would not be achieved.

A party fielding a candidate for the White House without even a footprint in the House or Senate is akin to building a house. But instead of starting with the foundation, this party starts with the roof.

This is not to say that these parties don't have legitimate concerns. They do. I'm just questioning their tactics because they appear to me to be bass-ackwards. And in the end they'll get what they want, but forfeit what they had. That's a net gain of a big fat zero.

A.K.A. Sleepy Brown

[Hank Rearden]

I'm sure the Libertarians will keep our nation safe from the terrorists too.

Damn straight. We're the opposite of pacifists (national defense is one of the very few legitimate activities of the feds) and have no problem blowing terrorists straight to hell.

[blackie]

My wife and I are Independents and we support GWB 100%.

We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, .05% third party fringees, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!

~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~

[Sofa King]

As the campaign progresses, Bush convinces us why we shouldn't vote for Kerry and Kerry convinces us why we shouldn't vote for Bush. Guess that leaves a third party or stay home.

Actually, Kerry is convincing us why we shouldn't vote for Kerry and Bash is convincing us why we shouldn't vote for Bush.

[KevinDavis]

I understand that one of the candidates of the LP party is that is oppose to the WOT. Is that true or not. I due know that the Constituiotnal Party candidate is more of a cut and run type.

[ex-snook]

"Ya think? Kerry hasn't convinced me of anything but the fact that he's an idiot. If Kerry can convince you to not vote for Bush then you probably shouldn't vote at all. "

Nah Kerry couldn't convince me. If was Cheney-Chalabi. If Cheney is on the ticket, no way Jose. BTW I will vote.

[Lancey Howard]

I heard a radio ad in the Philadelphia market today with a narrator (who sounded distinctly black) urging blacks to send a message to the Democrat Party about being taken for granted. He urged black voters to vote for Lyndon LaRouche.

[WhiteGuy]

"Most of the GOP candidates this election are solidly conservative."


Ha! Good one!

[ex-snook]

"Actually, Kerry is convincing us why we shouldn't vote for Kerry and Bush is convincing us why we shouldn't vote for Bush."

I accept your amendment.

[litany_of_lies]

Perot could have won, or at least thrown the election into the Hous, in 1992 if didn't freak out. He got 19% of the vote even after he freaked out. If he doesn't freak out, he gets 30% or more in some Midwestern or Western states, and maybe even wins a few.

He successfully tapped a sentiment that is still out there, then he blew it.

I'm seriously thinking we need a third party in Ohio. I hear today (but haven't researched) that current Republicans are attempting to smear Ken Blackwell, the Forbes-style conservative black man trying to get a repeal of the recent ridiculous 1% sales tax increase. If they knock him out, it's time for a third party.

The Dems are so weak in OH (crossing fingers) that a third party candidate could conceivably win the statehouse. The fact that they are so weak is a big reason why Bush will probably survive in OH vs. Kerry (fingers again crossed).

Don't tell me W isn't perfect. I know it already.

[eleni121]

I'm sure the Libertarians will keep our nation safe from the terrorists too.

Yup...about as much protection from terrorism as the ACLU would provide.

[society-by-contract]

I notice, however, that the author left out completely the third-largest party in terms of registration, the Constitution Party.

I like Howard Phillips and The Constitution Party, but have a question: In light of the fact that constitutions do not effectivly limit the state, how is limited government possible?

[TBP]

The Federal government has simply ignored the Constitution and the state governments have done the saem with the state constitutions.

We must elect limited-government conservatives of whatever stripe to as many positions as possible. We must fight to enforce the limites in the Federal and state constitutions. We must let our elected officials know what we think. We must save the Constitution from those who would totally eliminate it, AKA the Republicrats.

[ServesURight]

Solid conservaties like The Specter.

Wrong. I don't support RINOs like Specter, I support real conservative Republicans like Pat Toomey and Tim Michels, who's running for Feingold's seat here in Wisconsin.

You should try out for open mike night at the local comedy club.

Maybe I should. Unlike you, I wouldn't get produce thrown at me.

[TBP]

And the Constitution Party would get us out of the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and the UN.

[Owen]

If these conservative third parties were serious about party building rather than ego indulgence, they would not be running candidates for office higher than state legislature until they hold, say, 25% of the seats. This squandering of money by running for higher office is not only silly, it is immoral. They are in effect stealing their donors' money and paying their microscopic campaign staffs who are utterly guaranteed to fail.

The money should be hoarded, spent on party building, spent acquiring state legislative seats, then congressional seats and only then the presidency. As is, a 3rd party candidate would have no one to staff the positions he has to staff of political appointees. Look at Ventura.

He did nothing for a 3rd party. He was singular and individual. As soon as his time was past, the situation reverted -- and this is entirely because party building wasn't done. It wasn't done because no one is willing to dedicate themselves to an activity that may NEVER see a personal reward.

[rdb3]

And the Constitution Party would get us out of the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and the UN.

No, they wouldn't. First, the CP would have to get elected. And that just ain't happening.

A.K.A. Sleepy Brown

[eno_]

I won't vote Libertarian, ever.

Big-L Libertarians are too-often tiresome and doctinaire. I'd prefer it if the Constitution Party were stronger.

[BlkConserv]

Damn straight. We're the opposite of pacifists (national defense is one of the very few legitimate activities of the feds) and have no problem blowing terrorists straight to hell.

How are you going to blow terrorists to hell when the LP opposes pre-emptive strikes against them? So you're going to do what the Democrats do - respond AFTER the fact, maybe not even that.

But first you have to win elective office. No, I'm not talking about a seat on the Village Water Board or the Town Council of Nowhere, USA, unincorporated. Get some seats in Congress or a popular Presidential vote total of more than 100,000. Then we'll talk.

[WhiteGuy]

You're right about Ohio..................

With the exception of Ken Blackwell, I won't vote for a single goper above the local level.

[ServesURight]

No, I'm not talking about a seat on the Village Water Board or the Town Council of Nowhere, USA, unincorporated

LOL! Gimme me five! On the black side! In da hole...YOU GOT SOUL!

[society-by-contract]

The Federal government has simply ignored the Constitution and the state governments have done the saem with the state constitutions.

Agreed.

We must elect limited-government conservatives of whatever stripe to as many positions as possible. We must fight to enforce the limites in the Federal and state constitutions. We must let our elected officials know what we think. We must save the Constitution from those who would totally eliminate it, AKA the Republicrats.

I am less optimistic that the majority will not vote to steal from the minority. Have you noticied the contemperory worship of democracy, as if unlimited majoritarian rule were good and just? US foreign policy promotes the "spread of democracy abroad"; the word republic is dying and will soon be gone. When a generally reasonable constitution like the US Constitution is turned into the fed-gov state of today, it re-enforces my notion that the state cannot be limited by constitutions or anything else. IMHO --

[TBP]

As I've always said, it is the official political party of the klan/militia.

If you really believe that, then you're the wack job.

If it were any of those things, constitutionalist conservatives would not be in the party or welcome in the party.

This is simply a smear to benefit the Gang Of Prostitutes.

[GoLightly]

How right you are. If the legislative branches on the state level started filling up with 3rd party people, the issues of their party would likely gain better traction.

Going after national offices leave independents stuck choosing which of the big two parties to go along with & even then, they can't expect any plum committee positions.

[ServesURight]

Post #37 - spot on.

I don't understand why the CP and the LP just don't join forces and work from the bottom up. Instead both of these parties are putting their money on a longshot bid to win the Presidency and some Congressional seats. This is like doubling-down on a 16 in Blackjack.

[LowOiL]

I notice, however, that the author left out completely the third-largest party in terms of registration, the Constitution Party.

Yep, seems the author only wanted to hawk one Third Party, but if numbers have it, the Constitution Party would of been mentioned.

[Cacique]

ping

[jocon307]

Media bias alert!

"The poll showed that in a one-on-one race with Kerry, Bush would win 87 percent of the GOP vote. But when given the choice[of]...a conservative third-party candidate, GOP support for Bush dropped to as low as 75 percent.

Surprisingly, the poll found that in a Kerry-Bush-Nader race, Kerry lost relatively few votes among Democrats -he'd win 72.8 percent of Democrats in a two-man race and 70 percent of the Democrats when Nader was in the race.

So at his best Kerry does worse among his base than Bush does at his worst. But he's the comer Kerry, he really is. Because Bush=Hitler, don'cha know! Pathetic. It's really pathetic.