Posted on 12/16/2011 7:59:19 AM PST by xzins
Antsy Voters Look for a Third Way
When Perot First Ran, 39% Were Dissatisfied; Today It’s 81%. ’Something Is Going to Explode’ •The nation’s dismay with Washington turns up in an array of polling results. To understand why the moment may be ripe for a real surprise next November, consider just these numbers: Ross Perot, who won nearly one in five votes in 1992 to become the most successful independent candidate in modern presidential politics, ran at a moment when 39% of Americans said they were dissatisfied with how the nation was being governed. Today, Gallup reports, 81% say they are dissatisfied. Pollsters and politicians of both parties say those and a slate of similar findings show that voters have become unusually open to an independent presidential run next year. Over half of voters now tell Gallup that a third party is needed, up from 40% in 2003. Seven in 10 think the country is on the wrong track. Faith in the two parties is scraping all-time lows.
So far, no national figure has stepped forward to run outside the two-party system. But some veteran pollsters say public disenchantment is so strong that someone is bound to try to fill the vacuum. And the opportunity is only likely to grow, they say, with the collapse this week of Congress’s bipartisan deficit-cutting committee, which many read as another sign of Washington’s inability to solve problems.
"There’s just too much unrest out there for this to be put back in the box," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart. "Something is going to explode."
Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, told a political forum earlier this month that unless both parties change, an independent "fed-up" candidate is inevitable in 2012.
Enlarge Image
Two of the people talked about as possible candidates are New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire who could fund his own campaign, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a current GOP presidential contender. Both men have waved off talk of an independent run. But Mr. Bloomberg rebuked both political parties after the deficit talks failed, saying the blame lies "on both sides of the aisle and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue." Mr. Paul recently told radio host Sean Hannity that he has "no intention’’ of making an independent run if he fails to secure the GOP nomination—but wouldn’t rule out such a bid.
A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 18% of likely voters would support Mr. Paul in a three-way race against President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, giving the president a wider lead over Mr. Romney than in a two-man race. The level of support for Mr. Paul in that scenario astonished Mr. Hart and Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey.
The country has seen upstart presidential bids before: George Wallace in 1968; John Anderson in 1980; Mr. Perot in 1992 and 1996, to name a few. In 2000, Ralph Nader got less than 3% of the national vote, but his tally in some states—Florida, above all—may have tipped the election.
But by nearly all metrics, the political atmosphere is fouler now than even in 1992, when Mr. Perot ran on opposition to federal deficit spending and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
At one point, a Gallup survey showed Mr. Perot leading then-President George H.W. Bush and then-Gov. Bill Clinton. "What we saw then pales in comparison to the anger and frustration now," said Stan Greenberg, who conducted polling for Mr. Clinton’s 1992 campaign. "Both parties are crashing in popularity at the same time. It’s a race to the bottom."
Pockets of disenchantment appear to be growing across the political spectrum. The latest Journal poll found blue-collar voters, "soft Democrats" and voters under 34 to be the most enthusiastic about a third-party bid. Those most in favor of an independent run by Mr. Paul were rural voters, men and "soft Republicans." Many conservatives fear that tea-party activists could bolt to a renegade candidate if Republicans in coming months nominate a relative moderate, such as Mr. Romney, who fails to stir excitement among activists and voters on the right.
Not everyone believes an outside insurgency is such a given next year. Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster, notes that Mr. Perot’s campaign sprang up amid "rancorous dissatisfaction" among Republicans toward then-President Bush, "and Democrats just don’t feel that way toward Obama."
But there’s a strong possibility that a challenger will emerge to take on the two parties’ nominees, if only because a new group called Americans Elect is working to assure national ballot access for an independent candidate to be picked in June.
Third-party candidates always struggle to gather the signatures and clear the hurdles needed to put themselves before voters in all 50 states. With thousands of volunteers and a bankroll of over $20 million—most of it from rich donors—Americans Elect is doing that work up front. The group is on eight state ballots now and is shooting to be on more than half by the end of the year.
"We are reimagining the way we nominate a presidential ticket," said Kahlil Byrd, the group’s chief executive officer and a onetime Democratic operative in Massachusetts.
Formed by a collection of disenchanted former political operatives and campaign donors, the nonprofit group claims to have aroused interest among dozens of politicians, business executives and former military officers, though it declines to mention any names. The group says it will select its candidate through a public, online convention in June. The winner will be required to pick a running mate from a different party, then fund and organize his or her own campaign.
Republican strategist Mark McKinnon, who is advising the group, said some of the names popping up include former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, none of whom have given any public hint they are eyeing a run.
Donald Trump says he is prepared to fund his own campaign starting next spring "if he is not satisfied with who the Republican nominee is" and doesn’t believe that person can beat Mr. Obama, says the real estate mogul’s aide, Michael Cohen. Mr. Trump has made a number of similar feints in the past.
Talk of third-party presidential bids gives most Republicans a chill. Even a centrist independent, they fear, would sap votes from the Republican nominee and grease the way for Mr. Obama’s re-election.
"I can see very clearly how the ground is ripe for this," says Ms. Conway, the Republican pollster. "But in no way would it be good for us."
I'm one of those who will bolt if Romney is the nominee.
Correct Title: Ignorant Voters Look for a Third Way
3rd party in this election = Re-election of Obama
Voters are antsy to get rid of Obama and they sure as hell don’t want a third party movement. That would guarantee another four years for Obama.
What a bunch of Bull Moose
Let me add to that:
1. Romney must not be on the ticket period as P or VP.
2. After last night, Ron Paul has confirmed he is a wack-job. I knew that sort of, but then this past week I learned of his Anti-Israel views that in the past have been almost anti-Semitic. Last night confirmed that he really, truly doesn’t care if Iran gets a nuke.
Therefore, if Ron Paul is on the ticket in any capacity I will vote 3rd Party.
the ONLY way Hussein 0bama can hope to continue his regime. A third party candidate does just that.
Third party? I’m still looking for a second party.
So you want another four years of Obama? Don’t give me the crap about how you would rather see the country destroyed in order to rebuild it. Vote for the person you want in the primary and if your person wins, great. If your person is the nominee, I will vote for your person in the general election. But if your candidate does not win, don’t go whining off into the dark. Help us defeat Obama. Good God Almighty, we must defeat Obama.
If Mitt is the nominee, he’ll lose against Obama anyway. So then might be the time to form a 3rd party.
I fell for their purity rhetoric and even stupidly sent them some of my hard-earned money.
THEN, I heard their obnoxious radio ads AGAINST Bush. They thought I might be so stupid as to believe them that Bush was more of a danger than either Gore of Kerry.
These cowards know full well, they have ZERO chance of ever being elected to anything and they do not care about the damage they do to our country. If these holier-than-thous think they are more righteous than those in the Republican party, I would urge them to get involved in the Republican party and improve it.
They don't want to improve it, they'd rather sit back and lob criticism. If these cowards think they have answers, then why aren't they running as Republicans? Some of them would be holding office right now. They don't want to run the risk of actually being elected--they'd rather howl.
Not if the third party candidate is Bloomberg. That scenario hurts Obama.
The Obama dream is a third party run. Ross Perot elected Bill Clinton. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a “so-called conservative” third party run secretly financed by Soros and the other left wing financial sources. As of right now, that is Obama’s path to victory.
LOL!
(On both your comment and your tagline.)
Exactly!
Mitt = Obama
Paul = Obama win
Why should I respect your opinion that Mitt is such a bad candidate when you are stupid enough to guarantee 4 more years of Obama?
Amen!
Let’s rid ourselves of the Romney wing of Liberalism!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.