The noise being made during this election cycle is tremendous. I realize it would be basically impossible for a third party candidate to win.

Basically, I would like to hear opinions from everyone supporting their selection above (I realize the yes/no answer is not cut and dry).

With Republicans and Democrats raising record amounts of money, could any outside person get elected? If you had instant name recognition like a McCain or Powell could you establish a base and get enough money to compete? Perot made a bit of a dent in 1992, but he did not have the necessary political experience (IMO) to garner the trust of those on the fence. Teddy Roosevelt was not even able to do it, and his background obviously negates the "experience" question of Perot's candidacy.

Could an independent person win in today's world?

What would it take? Name recognition AND Kerry-like wealth?

I am trying to be specific enough to start a debate without being too vague; please post any suggestions that may make the idea clearer.

Could an independent person win in today's world?
I don't think so but they can affect the outcome of an election and in my hopeful world help shape the agenda's of the party that wants office. If enough people are fed up with either of the major parties platforms how else will they be made aware if we don't vote our conscience. Also, there are too many differences in the "wants'" of us Indy's and 3rd partier's to combine and get someone in office. We would need to unite in order to have any affect.

What would it take? Name recognition AND Kerry-like wealth?
While I think name recognition could help I don't have faith that it could actually do it. Teddy Roosevelt won 88 electoral votes when he ran for office under the Bull Moose Party in 1912. He had the recognition, heck he had already been President, and that didn't get him in office under a third paty.

By the 2004 election I assume you mean the Whitehouse.

No 3rd party candidate will ever win so long as so many third parties exist to split the vote.

Perhaps if the parties could form some sort of coalition to help consolidate their votes there would be a prayer, but until that happens it is really hopeless.

Well it is hopeless unless Superman or Batgirl suddenly appear and get a 3rd party nomination. And that would still be a close race.




Great point DP. Sometimes you have to "pay the Piper" (pun intended ) in order to get to what you want. (in this case by seeing those you least want in office get elected a few times)

Could an independent person win in today's world?

Somehow, it seems highly unlikely that an independent candidate will be viable for years to come. The Dems and Repubs are so entrenched that unseating them will take some major discontent. I think that many of the younger voters are beginning to become more and more disillusioned with the two major parties: the older voters are rather ossified in their choices for one major party or the other. I think that if some of the younger voters (a major demographic) could be wooed by a third party into voting, they could bring about some decisive third-party victories. In fact, only 46% of eligible young people in the 18-to-24 age range actually voted in the presidential election. In fact, the percentage of young voters participating in elections has dropped by 13% since 1972. (Source: New Millennium Young Voters Project) This demographic represents one which feels that its interests are not only underrepresented, but are becoming increasing more underrepresented due to the shift of the major parties' focus to the baby boomers. In fact, one survey suggests that young voters are less likely to vote because the major parties don't even contact them in the first place. (Source: Project Vote Smart's Young Voter Survey 2002) I think that the independents will have to begin winning at the local and state level before they can ever hope to have a chance on the national stage. In fact, having debate rules for the presidential elections that were not obviously anti-third party (See Commission on Presidential Debates Candidate Selection Process-- Courtesy of Jaime in Presidential Debates) would probably help expedite their rise to viability.

What would it take? Name recognition AND Kerry-like wealth?

I mentioned numerous factors, but I don't think that name-recognition and "Kerry-like" wealth have anything to do with it. Take, for instance, Ross Perot. He had a fair recognizable name and he was stinking rich. Where did that get him? Nowhere-- although it should be noted that I think he could have won a seat in the Congress somewhere. Ralph Nader has plenty of name recognition, although I am unsure of his financial status, and it hasn't helped him that much. I think that it will just take people a while to realize that third parties are a very viable option to the two major parties, but I do think that it will happen.

Could an independent person win in today's world?
What would it take? Name recognition AND Kerry-like wealth?

I wish I could say yes to this, but I'm at a loss as to what it would take. Perot had the name recognition and the wealth, and as a result, he had the best showing of any modern independent candidate (19 million votes), but didn't get even one electoral vote.

In fact, the last time a third party candidate won any electoral votes was iin 1968. George Wallace (of all people) won 46 electoral votes. Nader has the name recognition, but even his die-hard supporters are turning away from him because this election will be so close and contentious, he could be responsible for Bush regaining office.

Ugh-talk about your choice between 2 evils!


Source for statistics

Yeah, it's impossible in 2004, too late to start now. But I don't think it'll be at all impossible for 2008, and Jesse Ventura has said he's seriously thinking about it.

It would take some name recognition and charsma, and Jesse has that.

It would take the right set of issues, and Jesse can do that. He's basically a libertarian-leaning centrist. That seems to play well with swing voters and with habitual non-voters. Motivating those non-voters to vote was a key part of his win in MN.

Great wealth would be nice, but I don't think it's essential if you can raise enough money other ways. Jesse knows how to make good use of the internet for fund raising.

Given the electoral college, the best he could likely do is win a plurality and throw the election to Congress. Wouldn't that be fun?

P.S.:


Incorrect. John Hospers and Tonie Nathan on the Libertarian Party ticket scored one electoral vote in 1972, when Roger MacBride, a Republican elector from VA, voted LP. That made a footnote in history, since that was the first time a woman had won an electoral vote; Tonie Nathan beat Geraldine Ferraro to that by 12 years. It was also one of the rare times an elector didn't vote as pledged. This made MacBride so popular with the LP that he was their nominee next time around.

Election of 1972

I voted yes. Here's why:

According to the Committee for an Independent Voice (CIV) http://www.civca.org/pages/1/index.htm
Independent voters are 35% of the electorate, but have no voice in national politics. We are related to as "swing voters" by the Democratic and Republican parties, with no attention paid to the fact that we are Independents for a reason: we think party politics, i.e. partisanship and corruption, are bad for democracy and the American people.

However, Nadar running as an independent, get's 2% of the vote in the latest Zogby poll and 4% in NBC poll. Why isn't he running @ 35%?
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

"A little noticed USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll done in October showed 35% of Americans consider themselves independents-a plurality of the national electorate. (Republicans comprise 32%, Democrats 31%.) Independent voters are largely misunderstood because they are always examined through a parochial two-party lens as voters who swing to one or the other of the major parties. The fact that these millions of Americans have declared themselves to be other than Democrats or Republicans is considered irrelevant." Jacqueline Salit-Newsday, Seattle Post Intelligencer December 16, 2002

If this is the true, then why when asked to identify support by adding "independent candidate" to polling questions, only 2-4% step up to be counted as "independents"? Answer-Nadar not only doesn't energize the base, most seem to have little interest in his candidacy. If a Dem or Rep candidate doesn't spark the base, it affects turnout of the faithful. When an Indie candidate doesn't spark the base, the faithful vote Dem or Rep. Indies marginalize themselves by not having candidates that can energize the base.

Why then would Dems or Reps want to include Independent candidates into process (debates, ballots, financing, etc.) What does it matter?

Ross Perot energized the base and pulled 25% of the vote in 1992. This is the closest modern day example of a candidate pulling the "independents" out of the Dem & Rep columns.

So let's start there. Let's say that an Indie candidate that sparks the base could pull 25%. Where does the rest come from? The 50% of America who does not vote. Who are they?

A 1998 poll conducted by Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism and WTTW Channel 11 in Chicago identifies five groups:

The "Doers" (29 percent), who are involved in their communities and interested in politics but don't vote; the "Unplugged" (27 percent), who have little knowledge of public affairs and are ambivalent about politics; the "Irritables" (18 percent), who are avid consumers of information and angry at the government but feel their vote doesn't count; the "Don't Knows" (14 percent), who are the most information-deprived and feel ill-equipped to vote; and the "Alienated" (12 percent), who are out of touch with the news, angry at the government and pessimistic about whether they can influence decision making.

http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/journal...ey/prs.rls.html

The "Doers", "Irritables" & "Alienated"-sound like potential "independent" voters?
Could "Unplugged" be converted?

Now Indies need a candidate, a cross between the 1992 Perot who could energize the base and someone....hmm....that could draw from the 50% who don't vote... like Jesse Ventura.

Who voted for Ventura? According to the Minneapolis/St. Paul Star Tribune:

"Throughout the campaign, Ventura supporters said they either hadn't voted in years or had never voted at all." ("Alienated", "Irritables"?)

"He (Ventura) was possibly the decisive reason for the surprisingly large statewide turnout, drawing new voters to the polls -- nearly all of whom voted for him." ("Unplugged"?)

"Except for voters from households making more than $100,000 a year, Ventura dominated all income levels." ("Doers"?)

Put the Perot/Ventura experiences together, develop a national strategy, choose an ideal candidate and Indies could give the Dems & Reps a run for their money.

Sad to say that maybe the political eye-openers experienced by Indies between 1992-1998 were an aberration. How is Nadar close to being the ideal Indie candidate or running a campaign comparable to Perot's or Ventura's?

[quote=Izdaari,Jul 8 2004, 11:35 PM] [QUOTE]Given the electoral college, the best he could likely do is win a plurality and throw the election to Congress. Wouldn't that be fun? [/quote]
Resuscitators may be needed in the halls of Congress. This would make 2000 look like child's play.

He's not. He's a radical leftist. The indy groups you described are libertarian-leaning anti-establishment centrists... just like Ventura. Perot was also a centrist though of a different more populist stripe. Nader's ideas have little appeal to those people, and he can really draw only from the left fringe. Sure, personality is part of Jesse's appeal, but so are his ideas.

Where did you hear this? If he is serious, 2008 could be very interesting.

Here ya go:

Run Jesse Run 2008

I think Jesse could engergize the libertarian leaning folks. But will it be enough?

Yes, an independent candidate could win. The lack of precedent is really meaningless, just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean that it can't happen. We aren't talking about something that would be a physical or legal impossibility. There is no legal requirement for a two party system.

People I know are so disgusted with the two main parties, and the only appeal they have is to convince people that they are the only options. The disenfranchised majority in this country are who need to be convinced to vote.

If more people would do their duty by voting for the candidate of their choice, rather than letting the parties run things, we wouldn't be faced with a series of choices between the lesser of two evils.

Absolutely!!!!

The country is so polarized anymore that people will re-elect someone they can't stand simply out of fear of what would happen if the other party got in power as a result. the parties foster this mentality and it is completely wrong.

This polarization has resulted in the death of compromise and the elimination of Ideology in practice. Neither party legislates according to their platforms anymore, they only legislate based on what is expedient for the elected and their party.

Politicians of each party will oppose legislation they agree with ideologically simply because they don't want the other party to get credit for it.

The most frequently heard words in washington (other then "for the children" or "I do not Recall" ) are "I oppose (enter bill name here) because it does not go far enough.

What a crock. They would rather see America's problems remain rather then give one ounce of credit for fixing the problems to their political opponants. Politicians of both parties these days seem to be completely indifferent to the problems in America and how to fix them. Their only concerns are:

Make our party look good
Make their party look bad
Make every other party look like a joke

And the big one:

Get Reelected.

Where are the Statesman?

From Dictionary.com:


Seems to me all we have are politicians.

From Dictionary.com


We all agree that the system is a mess. What we have to realize is that IT IS OUR FAULT. If we are to fix this broken system we have to be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to repair it.

If a politician in your area is not doing a good job and is not a Statesman. Then vote them out. Show the snakes* that we are willing to do what it takes to get America back, even if it means giving offices to our political opponents.


*From Dictionary.com:


Vote for who will be best for America. If it happens to be a third party candidate and those votes give the office to your least favorite candidate, so what? If enough people do this the parties will wake up to what is going on and possibly change their tactics, and the third parties will get the momentum WE need them to have in America. If enough pople see third parties getting decent percentages of the vote more will vote for those parties next year.

Make the sacrifice, vote your beliefs, not who you think can win or "the lessor of two evils". The lessor of two evils is still evil*. As Grendel72 points out so well, you have a DUTY to vote and a DUTY to vote for best person for America.

From Dictionary.com:


America, try something new. Vote your conscience.

So true. Additionally, our two party system is beholding to their big contributors (mostly corporate) and their PAC minions. This is what drives legislation and perpetuates gridlock.

It is disheartening to listen to the Reps & Dems continue to attack each other over favor given their pet special interest. If each side believed that favoring special interests were so despicable, neither would curry the favor. But we know it's all about the Benjamins.

Thanks to Izdaari above for link to Ventura 2008 article.

He (Ventura) says he'll decide next year, because he'll need plenty of time to get on the ballot. And he won't have a political affiliation -- "No party, no nothing," he says, removing a half-masticated Cohiba cigar from his mouth.
He's already come up with a campaign message. "It would be: Elect someone who truly is not controlled by special interest money. With me, you would get a true check and balance," Ventura said.

I voted yes (although I agree it's too late in 2004 for the presidential) and here's why:

1) The ones most vociferously denouncing the possibility are those politicians that are married to their parties. Of course they want to keep things the status quo.

2) The fact that it's repeated over and over again that one can't win becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It keeps those 50% of potential voters that are fed up with the dems and repubs home on election day. When we more positive minded folks start being heard, we can bring a significant portion of those potential voters to the polls. This is a vast resource that could be tapped but only if we have an open mind to the possibilities.

3) There are several other countries with more than 2 viable parties, so we know it's possible and it can work.

4) As the lines between the dems and repubs continue to blur, they will lose more of their base. For the next few elections we'll still have each side scaring voters with the lesser of evils ploy, but I think we will eventually smarten up and evolve beyond this.

5) There are campaigns afoot to introduce new common sense voting methods such as IRV, which will eventually lead to more choices with a chance of winning.

6) Election years such as this, where few folks on both sides seem to even like their candidate, leaves the field open in the next election to a winning situation for someone like Jesse Ventura -- a candidate that people may choose out sheer frustration at the dismal choices they are given by their parties.

McCain really missed his chance here. He could have destroyed Bush. He definitely could have decimated Kerry.
If there was any time AMericans could have and would have supported a strong Independent (Nader is a sad damn joke) it is now. Although I also believe 2008 will also be a prime moment.
Many people are part of either party simply because there are no other options. Libertarians and Greens just don't have it and will only be for those who have to much free time.
The person who does will have to be media savvy (McCain/Ventura) already have a presence or be able to rapidly build a buzz(this can be done Blairwitch style. Let the hype build itself and offer just enough to keep it going. Again knowledge of the media and how the American public reacts emotionally(Think along the lines of Atwaters 3X5 cards) forget actual policies at first, build the hype and really develop your policy stance firmly so you are always ready for the sneak attack designed to give your opponents Great one liners for constant air play.
Allow your opponents to really build themselves up an then nail them catch them with their pants down and hit their weak spots. completely assault the topics that will cause them to alienate their base but allow you to charge up the moderates and independents.
Force them to come back towards the middle much earlier than they should. At the very least you disturb the waters so much you can accomplish some of your platform by making them pledge to it themselves to head you off, At the least you have ammo for the next time around when they haven't covered any of it in an effort to retain as much of their base as possible. Make them LOOK as much like politicians as possible.

Since you are not tied down by a traditional base that will throw a temper tantrum if you deviate one iota from their rigid demands you have the freedom to speak honestly about your ideas. They are stuck with the preformed platform, basically a complete script they have to follow.
Avoid the talk shows especially the Faux News Channel which belongs heart and soul to the republican party. As a matter of fact I would suggest avoiding the established groups altogether.
Avoid corporations and concentrate on Small business organizations, instead of the NAACP go to the National Urban League.
N.O.W avoid it and speak directly to women as individuals.
give attention to the YOUNG voters. Since they are the future and the ripest for change you MUST have them or at least as many as possible.

Now the 2 parties own the mainstream media so you need to go guerilla and go web and cable TV use original venues as much as possible to get your message out.
MoveON.org style groups are you friends as are entertainment stars. any of these you can get are priceless. BE CREATIVE.
No pictures of you in shirt sleeves mixing with the "Common" folk. How elitist can you be.
Don't insult your oppenents. Ignore them as much as possible outside of debating the ISSUES.
Instead go directly to the people and Focus on talking TO them as neighbors, indiviuals. Remind them of Americas possibilities. talk about how bright the future can and is going to be.
Reagan as far as I am concerned was the KING at this. Go find his old election commercials and you'll see he did just that. Like him or not he spoke of hope and dreams and his belief in the people of this country to succeed.
Carter was a negative whiner and so he got clobbered.

Yeah an Independent could clean up.
But it will never happen if they can only talk policy and philosophy. If they don't have that Kennedy/Reagan charisma they will always be closet candidates who are supported by those outside the mainstream and unable to gather enough support to get elected as Hall monitor.

I really like your ideas for an indy campaign, except for this one: Staying away from FNC isn't a good plan. A serious independent candidate would look GREAT on Hannity & Colmes and on the The O'Reilly Factor, and would probably be treated very well by the hosts. In fact, I think those two shows are ideal platforms for our hypothetical indy candidates, and O'Reilly might even end up voting for them..

Good thought on appealing to young voters. Too many of them don't vote, and a lot of what won for Ventura in Minnesota was motivating habitual non-voters to turn out for him. A successful national independent run would have to do that too.

Sorry Iz I disagree. I think initially you must avoid the established at first. You need to be at the point where their desperation becomes apparent.
Maybe further along the lines such as when you have dragged the 2 party candidates back into the middle before they're ready. Then go and hit them where they cannot go. Alienate their bases or alienate the moderates and swings. Leave them no other choices.
They really have no other options.
Maybe Oreilly but Hannity is a republican puppet and should be avoided. I would also try hard to get on with Maher and Dennis.

Everybody looks good on The O'Reilly Factor so long as they're prepared to defend their positions and don't mind tough questions. Al Sharpton has been a regular there and so has Charlie Rangel. Even though both are extremely liberal, O'Reilly treats them well because they don't mind the heat and always keep their cool. That they can is much to their credit, and I really respect that about them, though I agree with those two gentlemen about very little. But certainly you don't wnat to be on with O'Reilly if you can't handle tough questions.

Hannity is definitely a committed conservative Republican, just as his partner Colmes is a committed liberal Democrat. It has to be that way, it's a debate show, like Crossfire. On net balance H & C does come off more to the conservative side simply because Hannity is the more forceful personality of the two, but bearing that in mind the show is balanced. If we're thinking of McCain and Ventura as candidates, I believe both gentleman have been on with them, and been treated very fairly and courteously by both hosts.

Bill Maher and Dennis Miller are good hosts to be on with IF you can take a joke. And if you can't? We don't to run somebody like that anyway.