If Palin forms a third party to run for the presidency, what happens

[12th Doctor]

Hopefully, I'll be one of the ones taken in the Rapture, along with Mike Huckabee, and won't have to worry about this.

[anvi]

Based on her recent actions, I don't think she wants to hold elected office, anywhere.  I think she wants to be a voice in the party, raise money for Republican candidates and make some money of her own through a book or tv show or something like that.

If she ran in '12, either on a Republican or Independent ticket, she would split the Republican vote and Obama would win a second term in a scenario like the ones aleady on this thread.

[Citizen James]

Third-party candidacies are almost invariably disasters for the party from which the secession comes. The only President who survived a third-party challenge from within his own Party was Harry Truman, who would have won in 1948 by a landslide without the Dixiecrat secession, and then only because the Dixiecrat Party having no appeal north of the Mississippi River. To give some idea of how close Truman was to winning by a landslide, Truman came close to winning Indiana in 1948. For America and Truman the Dixiecrat secession showed that nationwide politicians didn't have to give in to the racists to win elections. In an otherwise-close election, a Third Party secession wrecks a Party that can't afford to lose anything.

 Sarah Palin would cut almost entirely into Republican votes at a time in which the GOP nominee will need every possible vote to challenge Obama in 2012.  For all practical purposes a vote for Sarah Palin will be a vote for Barack Obama. About all that Sarah Palin has to offer as a candidate is sex appeal. She is Ross Perot without a coherent agenda.

The GOP depends heavily upon the anti-intellectual vote, and she will get a big chunk of that. That could split the white vote in such a states as Mississippi and Alabama enough for Obama to win there.     

<Nitpick>
You might be forgetting Ronald Reagan, who survived John Anderson in 1980 quite handily.  And Anderson took a larger portion of the overall vote vote than Thurmond did (6.6% to 2.4%), but was more spread out and thus didn't get the EV's the regionally popular dixiecrat did.

Of course, since Anderson was a relative centrist Rockefeller republican, he may have siphoned some votes off from Carter too.
</nitpick>

But I agree with the overall premise that a Palin third party candidacy would hurt the Republican nominee far more than Obama.  Probably the bigger danger would be in acting as a Nader-like spoiler (interestingly, Nader in '00 also got a larger percent of the PV (2.7%) than Thurmond in '48) as well as forcing the candidate to veer hard right and choose between losing right wingers and alienating moderates.

I don't think Mississippi is likely to go into play, but it would probably flip MO and make PA safe for Obama, and give him a real chance in GA and LA.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Third-party candidacies are almost invariably disasters for the party from which the secession comes. The only President who survived a third-party challenge from within his own Party was Harry Truman, who would have won in 1948 by a landslide without the Dixiecrat secession, and then only because the Dixiecrat Party having no appeal north of the Mississippi River. To give some idea of how close Truman was to winning by a landslide, Truman came close to winning Indiana in 1948. For America and Truman the Dixiecrat secession showed that nationwide politicians didn't have to give in to the racists to win elections. In an otherwise-close election, a Third Party secession wrecks a Party that can't afford to lose anything.

 Sarah Palin would cut almost entirely into Republican votes at a time in which the GOP nominee will need every possible vote to challenge Obama in 2012.  For all practical purposes a vote for Sarah Palin will be a vote for Barack Obama. About all that Sarah Palin has to offer as a candidate is sex appeal. She is Ross Perot without a coherent agenda.

The GOP depends heavily upon the anti-intellectual vote, and she will get a big chunk of that. That could split the white vote in such a states as Mississippi and Alabama enough for Obama to win there.     

<Nitpick>
You might be forgetting Ronald Reagan, who survived John Anderson in 1980 quite handily.  And Anderson took a larger portion of the overall vote vote than Thurmond did (6.6% to 2.4%), but was more spread out and thus didn't get the EV's the regionally popular dixiecrat did.

Of course, since Anderson was a relative centrist Rockefeller republican, he may have siphoned some votes off from Carter too.
</nitpick>

But I agree with the overall premise that a Palin third party candidacy would hurt the Republican nominee far more than Obama.  Probably the bigger danger would be in acting as a Nader-like spoiler (interestingly, Nader in '00 also got a larger percent of the PV (2.7%) than Thurmond in '48) as well as forcing the candidate to veer hard right and choose between losing right wingers and alienating moderates.

I don't think Mississippi is likely to go into play, but it would probably flip MO and make PA safe for Obama, and give him a real chance in GA and LA.

Alaska wouldn't go for Palin, and I think it might even put the Dakotas into play.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't think Palin would get beyond 15% nationally, if 10%.

[The Duke]

As for John Anderson, isn't it probably the case that Anderson took more votes from Carter than from Reagan?

[pbrower2a]

Third-party candidacies are almost invariably disasters for the party from which the secession comes. The only President who survived a third-party challenge from within his own Party was Harry Truman, who would have won in 1948 by a landslide without the Dixiecrat secession, and then only because the Dixiecrat Party having no appeal north of the Mississippi River. To give some idea of how close Truman was to winning by a landslide, Truman came close to winning Indiana in 1948. For America and Truman the Dixiecrat secession showed that nationwide politicians didn't have to give in to the racists to win elections. In an otherwise-close election, a Third Party secession wrecks a Party that can't afford to lose anything.

 Sarah Palin would cut almost entirely into Republican votes at a time in which the GOP nominee will need every possible vote to challenge Obama in 2012.  For all practical purposes a vote for Sarah Palin will be a vote for Barack Obama. About all that Sarah Palin has to offer as a candidate is sex appeal. She is Ross Perot without a coherent agenda.

The GOP depends heavily upon the anti-intellectual vote, and she will get a big chunk of that. That could split the white vote in such a states as Mississippi and Alabama enough for Obama to win there.     

<Nitpick>
You might be forgetting Ronald Reagan, who survived John Anderson in 1980 quite handily.  And Anderson took a larger portion of the overall vote vote than Thurmond did (6.6% to 2.4%), but was more spread out and thus didn't get the EV's the regionally popular dixiecrat did.

Of course, since Anderson was a relative centrist Rockefeller republican, he may have siphoned some votes off from Carter too.
</nitpick>

Anderson, I think, got his votes largely from people who have never voted for Ronald Reagan because they thought Reagan too right-wing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 2008 the Missouri vote for Nader less that for Barr flipped the state to Obama; in North Carolina, the vote for Barr less the vote for Nader flipped the state to Obama. On the net that was a difference of four electoral votes that didn't matter in the end. Palin would likely win more than Thurmond did in 1948 or Wallace in 1968 as she appeals to a more scattered segment of the electorate. Palin would likely take far more voters from the GOP nominee than from Obama, so a state that might otherwise be expected to go  52-47 R without her might instead go 46-44-10 for Obama.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Missouri and perhaps would probably flip to Obama on demographic trends alone. Arkansas? Pennsylvania? Neither is likely to swing unless demographics or core realities of political life change drastically between now and 2012.

[Lunar]

Third-party candidacies are almost invariably disasters for the party from which the secession comes. The only President who survived a third-party challenge from within his own Party was Harry Truman, who would have won in 1948 by a landslide without the Dixiecrat secession, and then only because the Dixiecrat Party having no appeal north of the Mississippi River. To give some idea of how close Truman was to winning by a landslide, Truman came close to winning Indiana in 1948. For America and Truman the Dixiecrat secession showed that nationwide politicians didn't have to give in to the racists to win elections. In an otherwise-close election, a Third Party secession wrecks a Party that can't afford to lose anything.

 Sarah Palin would cut almost entirely into Republican votes at a time in which the GOP nominee will need every possible vote to challenge Obama in 2012.  For all practical purposes a vote for Sarah Palin will be a vote for Barack Obama. About all that Sarah Palin has to offer as a candidate is sex appeal. She is Ross Perot without a coherent agenda.

The GOP depends heavily upon the anti-intellectual vote, and she will get a big chunk of that. That could split the white vote in such a states as Mississippi and Alabama enough for Obama to win there.     

<Nitpick>
You might be forgetting Ronald Reagan, who survived John Anderson in 1980 quite handily.  And Anderson took a larger portion of the overall vote vote than Thurmond did (6.6% to 2.4%), but was more spread out and thus didn't get the EV's the regionally popular dixiecrat did.

Of course, since Anderson was a relative centrist Rockefeller republican, he may have siphoned some votes off from Carter too.
</nitpick>

But I agree with the overall premise that a Palin third party candidacy would hurt the Republican nominee far more than Obama.  Probably the bigger danger would be in acting as a Nader-like spoiler (interestingly, Nader in '00 also got a larger percent of the PV (2.7%) than Thurmond in '48) as well as forcing the candidate to veer hard right and choose between losing right wingers and alienating moderates.

I don't think Mississippi is likely to go into play, but it would probably flip MO and make PA safe for Obama, and give him a real chance in GA and LA.

Alaska wouldn't go for Palin,

wot

[Eraserhead]

It'd make for a really awesome election and obviously I wouldn't have to be bothered with worrying too much about the outcome.

[Badger]

IF it happens, unless the GOP nominee commits apostasy on one or more major social issues, the absolute best case scenario outcome for Palin would be similar to John Anderson in 1980, with a respectable second place showing in Alaska.

Most likely outcome would be similar to Nader 2000.

[Ronnie]

I would be absolutely mortified if this were to actually happen, since I know that there would be a split in the vote totals, and the Dems would be home free.

[Wiz in Wis]

Palin would do well in a number of states, and in others, she would be under 10%. For example, In this scenario she definatly puts most of the South in play. She takes zero from Obama, but a good chunk of the Reps. If they nominate someone who isn't folksy, like Romney, Missisippi flips 45, 30, 25 (Obama, Palin, Romney). She also gives Obama Georgia, South Carolina, Missouri, and puts Texas and West Virginia in play. Florida, Virginia and North Carolina already have gone Dem, so they stick with what they did in 2008. Obama probably also adds Montana and Arizona, has a good shot at the Dakotas, and keeps Indiana fairly comfortably. Palin has a shot at winning Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Alaska. Romney wins Idaho, Wyoming, and the plains states... but its close with Obama and Palin.

Palin represents that honest to goodness ignorance that 30% of the Rep base relies on when making a choice. She might not be much of a factor against Huckabee, or even Jindal, but Romeny has no juice against her mojo in a third party race. All the Obama states in 2008 stay that way.. some, like the Pacific NW and New England, probably shift even more dem... could see Maine, Oregon, Washington... even Wisconsin and New Jersey, at 60% Obama.

[Purple State]

She loses.


That's all. She could harm the Republican candidate slightly, but either way she gets crushed and the third party dies with her career.

[Mechaman]

Palin would do well in a number of states, and in others, she would be under 10%. For example, In this scenario she definatly puts most of the South in play. She takes zero from Obama, but a good chunk of the Reps. If they nominate someone who isn't folksy, like Romney, Missisippi flips 45, 30, 25 (Obama, Palin, Romney). She also gives Obama Georgia, South Carolina, Missouri, and puts Texas and West Virginia in play. Florida, Virginia and North Carolina already have gone Dem, so they stick with what they did in 2008. Obama probably also adds Montana and Arizona, has a good shot at the Dakotas, and keeps Indiana fairly comfortably. Palin has a shot at winning Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Alaska. Romney wins Idaho, Wyoming, and the plains states... but its close with Obama and Palin.

Palin represents that honest to goodness ignorance that 30% of the Rep base relies on when making a choice. She might not be much of a factor against Huckabee, or even Jindal, but Romeny has no juice against her mojo in a third party race. All the Obama states in 2008 stay that way.. some, like the Pacific NW and New England, probably shift even more dem... could see Maine, Oregon, Washington... even Wisconsin and New Jersey, at 60% Obama.

You forgot Oklahoma.
Trust me I live there. When Sarah Palin became big, people were all over here like Opium addicts in an Opium den. THey friggin love her here because she's one of them.

[pbrower2a]

IF it happens, unless the GOP nominee commits apostasy on one or more major social issues, the absolute best case scenario outcome for Palin would be similar to John Anderson in 1980, with a respectable second place showing in Alaska.

Most likely outcome would be similar to Nader 2000.

Except, of course, that John Anderson drew his votes from a demographic that Palin could never touch (educated people with good jobs). Palin would draw more votes than John Anderson from the nativist, anti-intellectual part of the electorate.