could we (finally) get a credible third party challenge?

[© tweed]

hear me out before dismissing the idea..

the public is about to give the GOP its second consecutive ass whipping.  this is pretty damn rare in American history.  usually when the electorate demolishes a political party one cycle, they don't turn around and do it again two years later.  what we are witnessing is almost unprecedented..  (or maybe it is unprecedented, but I don't want to sound too absolutist here)

come January we're likely going to have President Obama (D) with something like 58 Democratic-caucusing Senators and 240+ Democratic reps.  that would be quite a stunning turnaround from 2004, when Bush (R) and his fellow (R)s had both houses of Congress...

but the Dems are inheriting quite a difficult situation, with recession supposedly imminent, the credit crisis, massive budget deficits, Iraq (though it is fading as an issue), and so on.  if things don't get immediately better, the public may get restless and won't be able to point their collective finger at anyone besides Obama and his fellow Dems...

all of that leads to my question: if the public turns on the Dems over the next few years, are we really to believe that everyone by default will just switch back to the GOP in '10 and '12?  the same GOP that got destroyed in 2006 and will get destroyed in 2008?  I find that hard to believe...

which could, in theory, lead the door open for a third option to come in and break the duopoly.  obviously, there are giant roadblocks, but I can see people with money (namely, Bloomberg) becoming active on the national scene with a tagline of "the duopoly has failed you!" and people may well be receptive to what's being said.


any chance at all?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The problem is that third parties in the US both refuse to:

1-Create platforms that most people will take remotely seriously.
2-Concentrate on grass-roots growth at the levels parties should begin at instead of throwing everything at quixotic presidential runs.

As some guy on 538 pointed out, Nader will claim he was trying to boost third parties in 2000. But in actuality, he set them behind a generation.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The problem is that third parties in the US both refuse to:

1-Create platforms that most people will take remotely seriously.
2-Concentrate on grass-roots growth at the levels parties should begin at instead of throwing everything at quixotic presidential runs.

As some guy on 538 pointed out, Nader will claim he was trying to boost third parties in 2000. But in actuality, he set them behind a generation.

It's not really their fault; the system crushes them relentlessly. If the Socialists couldn't break through, no party can, really. Unless one of the big two collapses. Which is unlikely because they are politicised arms of the state, rather than "proper" political parties.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

all of that leads to my question: if the public turns on the Dems over the next few years, are we really to believe that everyone by default will just switch back to the GOP in '10 and '12?  the same GOP that got destroyed in 2006 and will get destroyed in 2008?  I find that hard to believe...

1980 came just six years after 1974 (and 1978 wasn't exactly bad for the Republicans...)

[© tweed]

all of that leads to my question: if the public turns on the Dems over the next few years, are we really to believe that everyone by default will just switch back to the GOP in '10 and '12?  the same GOP that got destroyed in 2006 and will get destroyed in 2008?  I find that hard to believe...

1980 came just six years after 1974 (and 1978 wasn't exactly bad for the Republicans...)

they didn't win by default in 1980.  they had a vocal, visible, charismatic leader who even led his own revolution.  I know that if the GOP finds this guy in 2012 and Obama is unpopular, they'll have a very real chance to be successful.  (maybe the guy is Jindal?  who knows)  but that's not quite what I'm asking.

[Daniel Z]

A third party may be able to gain traction if:

1. It is not based off of the presonality of one person (reform)

2. The party does not tare itself apart over petty diffrences (reform, libertarians)

3. The next President and Congress really f-up.

4. Like Detroit said the party focuses more on local and congresional elections, so the party can actualy build a foundation for itself.

[perdedor]

I can't see it happening in my life time. The two major parties have a strangle hold on the system.

[Historia Crux]

My idea is that the Independence Party of America rises up, the Libertarians are in decline like the Reform and the Green Party hasn't been the same after 2000 and if Obama does terrible I think there could be a Mayor/Governor Mike Bloomberg jump into the 2012 Presidential Race to give liberals another major choice over the "Obama Failure", Bloomberg would use his money to fund his campaign and could break the 5% needed for major matching funds and in 2016 we could see them easily taking this and either Bloomberg or his 2012 VP run in 2016 with this and build up the Independence Party in both Congressional and smaller level as they use the Presidential Elections to keep there names in the public eye in a way.

[Smid]

A third party may be able to gain traction if:

1. It is not based off of the presonality of one person (reform)

2. The party does not tare itself apart over petty diffrences (reform, libertarians)

3. The next President and Congress really f-up.

4. Like Detroit said the party focuses more on local and congresional elections, so the party can actualy build a foundation for itself.

All of these, but especially the last. If the party focuses on winning offices in just one state, even, it might be able to win a small mayoralty or two and then use this to target the state house. If it wins a few seats in the state house, it could then possibly hold the balance of power there. That would allow it to improve its position in subsequent elections, but as has been stated, it needs to focus on winning local and state elections to establish a base before turning national (and targeting congressional districts within its base) which would then give it a national profile (if it achieves a similar result of holding the balance of power in the Congress at some point down the track). Might even be better off not running a presidential candidate for a while, to encourage voters to support it while still supporting their own choice for President.

[defe07]

I agree with starting from the bottom up. I favor having the third parties focus on small states (from 3 Electoral Votes on). So, some recognition could be made if a third party won states in the electoral college or a Senate or House seat. I'd also focus on building in Maine and Nebraska, since they have the Congressional District Method to elect their electors. Winning Congressional elections and/or Electoral Votes would prove to the country that there's someone else.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

all of that leads to my question: if the public turns on the Dems over the next few years, are we really to believe that everyone by default will just switch back to the GOP in '10 and '12?  the same GOP that got destroyed in 2006 and will get destroyed in 2008?

Yes.  Right now the middle sees the nation in crisis, and are ready to try Democraty things.  Once the crisis is over, they will go back to being swing voters, and the GOP will be back in business.  In fact, I can almost guarantee that the Republicans will have an extremely good showing in 2010.

Third parties are successful when an established party loses its base.  In 1992 a large part of the fiscally conservative, small-government, deficit-hawk Republicans deserted Bush I.  Enter Perot.  1968, it was the white Southern base of the Democratic Party.  Enter Wallace.  In 1912, it was the progressive wing of the GOP.  Enter TR.

The core of the Republican base has not turned on the party.  In fact, they are rabidly pro-McCain-Palin, and will continue to support the Republicans through thick and thin.  The pendulum of the middle, swing voters will swing back their way.