3rd (minor) parties in 2004: Any effect?

[lopaka]

I'm presupposing it will be a close race for president next year,which at the moment seems to be the general consensus. We now have three consecutive elections ('92/'96/'00) where the winner recieved merely a pluarity of votes cast. I'm not sure when was the last time that happened, but I'm guessing it was a LONG time ago. In two of those one can make the argument that a third party affected the outcome.

I think the Greens/Nader would have an extremely hard time getting anywhere near the ~3% they got last time, as many of their voters have taken an "anybody but Bush" philosophy. I could see, however, a number of ideologically libertarian voters being very disillusioned over the war, civil liberties, enlargening of the Federal government, etc.
 
In an extremely close race, even 1%-5% of the vote in a few key states can tip a national election. Thoughts anybody?

[Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!]

[M]

As I've said before on this site, I think Dean'll be the Dem nominee. If he isn't, might he consider running independently? Even if he doesn't, some of his core supporters might defect to the Green candidate (Nader/Moore). I have no idea what the likelihood of any of these things happening is.

[NorthernDog]

Since the defining issue at this point is Iraq, I think there's only one scenario of a 3rd party affecting the race: If the Democrats nominate a pro-war candidate.  That will infuriate the "Dean" wing of the party and spark a Green Party candidate again.  I don't see a 3rd party candidate Right of center this time (like Perot).

[emergingDmajority1]

Dean won't run independent, he doesn't want to destroy his own party. They'll be a huge push for him as VP though.....that won't happen either.

He'll support whoever the candidate is.

Nationally, the green party has peaked. If they run a candidate in 04, it won't get more than 1.5%. Nader is in his 70's, yea he might run again but there won't be the same energy and enthusiasm.

if the Dean wing can't get behind whoever the candidate is, then we deserve to lose. But I think Howard will do the right thing and endorse Gep or Edwards or Clark, whoever it is. The party must come together!

[NorthernDog]

if the Dean wing can't get behind whoever the candidate is, then we deserve to lose. But I think Howard will do the right thing and endorse Gep or Edwards or Clark, whoever it is. The party must come together!

You're probably right, Dean would endorse the nominee, but I think a lot of his supporters would feel alienated and unenthusiastic.  From what I can see they are mad at the Congressional Democrats too for not staying united against Bush's policies (Like Medicare reform, tax cut, and Iraq war).  They can always just stay home like a lot of liberals did to Carter in 1980.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As Micheal Moore has endorsed Wes Clark I doubt he will be the Green nominee in 2004.

[zorkpolitics]

The press and most Democrats blame Nader for Gore losing in 2000.  But a look at the closest states for each candidate reveals Bush was hurt by conservative third parties (Libertarian and Reform) as much as Gore was hurt by Nader:

States Gore won by less than a conservative third party margin: a total of 29 Electoral Votes:
               Gore margin   Reform       Libertarian
New Mexico   366      1392           2058
Wisconsin       5708   11446      6640
Iowa            4144      5731      3209
Oregon           6765   7063      7447

States Bush won by less than the Green third party margin: also a total of 29 Electoral Votes:
                       Bush Margin   Green votes
Florida               537                 97488
New Hampshire       7211      22188

So in a close election every third party will have an impact!  For 2004 I expect the Greens to run someone (they are already on the ballot in 20 states), but agree that even with Nader they will probably get less than 1%.  The Reform party (on the ballot in only 7 states so far) will also do less well in 2004 without Buchanan, unless Perot returns, which he has alluded to in one interview.  I think the biggest vote getter for a third party is likely to be the Libertarian party, since some of the small government  conservatives will leave Bush to vote Libertarian vote (on the ballot in 27 states so far).   One interesting possibility is that Kucinich could run as the true progressive on the Natural Law party (so far on the ballot in 12 states), since the natural law founder John Haglin is a friend and strong supporter of Kucinich.

[Nym90]

Yes, but there is a flaw in your 3rd party analysis. Nader cost Gore votes in New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Oregon too. Buchanan and Browne only cost Bush those states if you assume that Bush gets all of Buchanan and Browne's votes, but Nader still runs. If you take away all 3rd party candidates, which would be the only fair way to assess the effect of the 3rd parties, then Gore wins those 4 states, as well as Florida and New Hampshire.

[Beet]

Good point, Nym. I didn't notice that until you pointed it out; Nader's margins in Florida and New Hampshire were large enough to allow Gore to overcome any would-be Buchanan pull-out.

Also if you think that a lot of Democrats went over to Wallace in 1968 as a protest vote, you can see that he decided that election and it might have been a landslide for Humphrey otherwise.

[Ryan]

hmmm y'know this topic is like an onion lets peel another layer and see if it makes anyone cry

Independent polling as well as research by the Green party itself showed that in excess of 50% of Nader voters in 2000 would not have voted AT ALL if there was no Green party candidate.

In addition they found that another 15-20% of Nader voters would otherwise have voted for the Libertarian candidate Harry Browne or (esp. if Browne were not there) even for BUSH. Yes yes I know that's ridiculous and all; I wouldnt have believed it myself if I didnt know a couple of Libertarians who voted for Nader because of his extreme social liberalism/libertarianism especially on Marijuana legalization etc. With Nader out of the equation, they disliked both major parties social stances almost equally but would have voted for Bush on economic issues (as the lesser of two evils)

The rest would have considered voting for Gore or maybe the nominee of another left/liberal party like Natural Law if that party(s) made themselves known as such.

Now with all the (non-voting) or (voting for another third party) folks taken out of the equation and taking away (subtracting) the votes (say 5% of total) that might have actually have gone to Bush; Gore is left with a NET gain of only 15-20% of Nader voters, tops.

Now I regrettably cannot complete my argument because I have no figures on how many Reform/Libertarian voters would not have voted and how many would have voted for Bush if their candidates did not run.

Given what I know of these parties and their voters I believe the Bush Net gain would have been enough to overcome the 15-20% net Gore would have got from Nader dropping out.

Thus I surmise that the presence of the Green, Reform and Libertarian third party candidates in the 2000 race ended up hurting Bush a lot more than Gore.

Will look forward to reading the enraged rebuttals.

[Beet]

The thing is, while you meticulously (and liberally) dissect the Green voters, you assume that all of the  Libertarian voters and Buchanan voters (some of whom were actually Gore voters who punched the card too early!) would have voted for Bush. But, unlike with the Green party, you have no polls as to how many of them would have stayed home. Also you're assuming the Natural Law party, which is not even listed on Dave's list of candidates (it might be in ther "other" category, amassing a total of 0.2%) gains a significant number of votes.

There is good reason to believe a lot of the Libertarian voters would have voted for GORE on social issues, because both candidates were campaigning as pro-market candidates. There is more reason to believe that the majority of the rest would have stayed home, because libertarianism is truly a belief system to its own. Ditto for the Buchanan voters; especially in the swing states, if they really cared about Bush they would have voted for him. Any defection from those parties would more than offset any defection from the Nader vote; together they captured only 0.8% of the total vote compared to Nader's 2.7%.

[Ryan]

Okay I'm not going to be debating this topic in-depth cause as you happily point out I lack information to 'seal the deal'

First I didnt "meticulously (and liberally) dissect the Green voters". The main source of my info was Green party releases themselves.

Second, the incident you refer to was ONE SINGLE CASE in Florida accounting for very few votes and if not Buchanan's name they would have mistakenly marked whoever else was on that particular slot on the ballot.

Third as I mention the Natural Law party as AN EXAMPLE - a possible alternative for voters determined to vote for a "progressive" alternative to Bush/Gore and would have actively sought out such a candidate to vote for.

Fourth I very clearly did not assume that ALL Reform and Libertarian voters would have voted for Bush!!!
If one accepts the GREEN PARTY'S own breakup (as supported by others) of how their own vote would break up, Gore would get a net gain of only 0.27% of the national vote. As you pointed out the Reform and Libertarian candidates 0.80% (approx) was small but ONLY about 40% of those would have had to show up and vote for Bush to make up the advantage Gore would have got  from Naders dropping out. Would 40% have DEF. done so, I don't know as don't YOU. Your argument that if they wanted to vote for Bush, they would have in the first place, applies just as well to Nader voters and Gore. U didn't think of that didja??

As I say we really don't know what would have happened but the conjecture is all the fun of being a political junkie and I think my post has at least dented the notion that Gore woulda definitely won but for Nader.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Gore lost Arkansas and West Virginia because he distanced himself from Clinton who is very popular in both states(As well as that Kyoto and guns hurt him in WV)

Now had he won either state he would have won the election.

It was his own fault and I think he is well aware of it.

[Nym90]

Yes, but 2 points Ryan...
I am highly skeptical of the Green party's assessment of how their vote would have broken down, since they definitely want to make it look as though they didn't cost Gore the election. Nader will claim until he's blue in the face that he didn't cost Gore the election at all. So the Green party's own official theories about how their vote would have broken down are probably not accurate because they have an agenda.
Also, I don't see how anyone can say that Gore wouldn't have won if Nader hadn't run, since in Florida, Gore would have needed only about 1/2 of 1% of Nader's voters to vote for him in order to win the election!

[lopaka]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I said "one can make the argument", I was kind of hoping no-one would, otherwise I'd have started a thread under the 'Election 2000' topic. :-)

As to 2004, I think NorthernDog makes a good point. If the Dems nominate Lieberman for example, (extremely unlikely, I think) that would spark an uprising from the 'left'. Or at a minimum cause a bunch of folks to sit on their hands who might otherwise support a 'D'.

I disagree with NorthernDog, however, that one can dismiss the possibilty that Bush's policies will drive the "get the Federal government off our backs" folks into the Libertarian camp. A number of the things this Adminstration has done are anathema to a number of self-described conservatives I know.

Zorkpolitics raises perhaps the most intriguing scenario of all, Kucinich being the nominee of Natural Law. They appear to have some resources. Kucinich has an enthusiastic (if tiny) following, but as a US rep., has a certain credibility that third party candidates often lack. And he doesn't strike me as being someone who is overly concerned about being blackballed by the Congressional Democratic Caucus if he were to run.

Remember, just 1-3% could make a difference.

[NorthernDog]

I am beginning to think that the war on terror will diminsh the likelihood of a 3rd party attracting many votes.  There's been quite a few terrorist attacks in other countries in 2003.  Most people won't be in a mood to make a political statement by voting Green or Liberterian if they haven't done so in the past.  It's either support Bush's war policy or supporting "_______" (Democrat nominee's).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Question: If Perot runs what % of the vote would he get? And would it be hacked out of the GOP, the Dems or people that abstained in 2000?

[DarthKosh]

Question: If Perot runs what % of the vote would he get? And would it be hacked out of the GOP, the Dems or people that abstained in 2000?

Perot will get less then one percent.

[Nym90]

Well, I think Perot would do better than one percent, but probably no more than 4 or 5 percent. He could perhaps still get a decent amount of the vote if he dusted his deficit charts and used them again, and also if he was once again willing to spend a lot of money. It would be interesting to see what he has to say about the current state of the budget deficit. His vote, like 1992 and 1996, would be split fairly evenly between the two parties and from nonvoters in 2000, perhaps slightly more from the Republicans than the Democrats..

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting... Perot is a phenomenom that I still don't really understand and every bit of information helps.

[DarthKosh]

Interesting... Perot is a phenomenom that I still don't really understand and every bit of information helps.

Perot cam e along just at the right time.  That is why he got the votes he did and wouldn't come closse now if he ran again.

[Paul]

I heard about a move by a Libertarian-minded group to attempt to build a plurality of voters in a small state, probably NH, and attempt to change public policy there.
1) Has anyone else heard about this?

2) What, if any, effect could this have in 2004?

[zorkpolitics]

In 2000 exit polling asked:

If these were the only two presidential candidates, who would you vote for? (Bush got 49%, Gore 48%, and not voting 2%) Of those who picked Gore, 2% were Nader voters, of those who picked Bush, 1% were Nader voters, and about 1/3 of the not voting group were Nader voters.

So it looks like Gore would have gotten a net excess of about 20% of Nader votes, enough to clearly win FL (of course), but not NH or any other state.

However, if more votes from Nader would go to Gore than Bush, why did Bush get more votes in the exit poll than Gore? Because, strangely (amazingly?), if Nader was not running, 2% of the Gore voters said they would have voted for Bush!

See MSNBC for additional polling results:
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=N1

[Ryan]

A group of some five thousand libertarians have committed to moving to NH (and supposedly 40,00 more considering it) with a view to encouraging libertarian tendencies already present and building a true libertarian state (whose success is expected to encourage libertarianism nation-wide)

I wont comment on their goals but as to actual political impact............5000 (assuming they all do move there) is not a huge number even in NH and anyway they are likely to vote for the libertarian party candidate.

Even when libertarians vote for one major party or the other they split their vote depending on whether economic libertarianism (GOP-advantage) or social libertarianism (DEM advantage) is more important to them.

Hence they will either throw their vote away to a libertarian candidate or split it between the two parties so I dont believe they will make any huge difference in NH!!

I heard about a move by a Libertarian-minded group to attempt to build a plurality of voters in a small state, probably NH, and attempt to change public policy there.
1) Has anyone else heard about this?

2) What, if any, effect could this have in 2004?

[Flying Dog]

nader didnt take away that much away from gore.  Nader probably caused gore New Hampshire.  But now that you think of it if gor won new hampshire he would be our president.





FEAR THE TURTLE!!!!!!!!