Would an 3rdParty candidate be good for the Democrats ?

[kentuck]

Especially if it were a populist, liberal candidate? Would that not force the Democrats to take more populist, liberal positions themselves? Or would that just take votes away from the Democratic candidate, a la Nader?

[Kahuna]

1. Excellent!!! Just what we need!

:wtf:

[HillDem]

2. If it's a guy like Ross Perot

Or Pat Buchanan. Otherwise no.

[FreedomAngel82]

3. No

Right now my guy is Warner. I really am liking him and he has a great presence about him. I think he's going to be the guy in 2008. Of course anything could happen from now till than and there's a broad range of canidates this next election I think.

[HillDem]

18. Warner is my guy too

I'm just saying a conservative 3rd party would ensure a democratic victory, as it did in 1992.

Did you see Mark Warner in South Carolina on CSPAN?

[win_in_06]

27. Exactly. Let's find one and start sending money.

[bowens43]

4. yes, of course just like Nader helped us in 2000.....

[rumpel]

5. I would like to a 3rd party in Congress.

[FreedomAngel82]

13. Yes

I'd like more indies so that way things can really be checked and balanced.

[Chicago Democrat]

6. Case by Case Congressionally quite useful... President? nope

impossible due to Electoral College system.

[emulatorloo]

7. no. Just vote for the Dem, ok?

OTOH I am all for a fundy wackjob candidate to split the Repug vote.

[tx_dem41]

8. Huh?!?

That would be the death knell of the Democratic candidate.

[wyldwolf]

9. no.

Look back over the history of third party challenges to the Democratic party. Did it help or hurt?

[MrBenchley]

10. Only if it was somebody like Pat Robertson

[Ravy]

11. No, not with a liberal 3rd party candidate.

I think in your scenario someone like McCain gets the middle and the right of middle vote, and the dem and the progressive 3rd party candidate split the liberal vote (assuming the Dem runs to the left).

[calico1]

12. Well, it helped in 2000, didn't it?

Now we are losing rights, our standard of living is going down, jobs are disappearing. Yes, I think we should keep splitting the anti- Republican votes. :eyes:

[ultraist]

15. LOL

Yea, we should keep splitting up the swing votes. That will ensure a win for us.

:sarcasm:

[McCamy Taylor]

14. KKK Candidate, Pat Robertson, Neo-Nazi--rob the Right Wing Base.

[HillDem]

19. Exactly

I hope Robertson and Falwell run together on the reform ticket in 08.

[AlinPA]

16. No, but a cross between Falwell-Robertson-David Duke-Moore(Alabama)

would split the repukes.

[madeline_con]

17. No, it would cause the Repugs to "win" again. n/t

[recoveringrepublic06]

20. Third party

Let's ask ourselves if it would be good for the country

[newyawker99]

31. Hi recoveringrepublic06!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[radio4progressives]

21. First Abolish the Electoral College System - That Eliminates the "Spoiler"

issue.

But realize there are a lot of different parties which run the full scale of the political spectrum. There are a few, sort of progressive parties such as the Green Party or the Peace & Freedom party..but neither of these really represent progressive populists types, as they are more in sync with the old democratic party (FDR/JFK/LBJ) than any of the other progressive party's.

but so long as the DLC continues to control the DP, progressive third party like the Green party will continue running candidates in national elections, just as they do in state and local elections, thereby risking being accused of becoming the so called "Spoiler factor" - and despite the hypocrisy of those who insist that progressives populists should shut up and fall in line with the DLC, that kind of insult and dehumanization is not exactly conducive to solidarity if you know what i mean.. And given no other choice, progressives only have the Green party to go to in this political environment.

However, if the electoral college was abolished and IRV was implemented, the entire issue around the so called "Spoiler factor" is immediately eliminated, and people can actually vote their choice, instead of their fears.

A constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college was nearly passed in the Senate, i think it might have been in the seventies or eighties, and it lost by only a few votes from what i remember.

Given the current political climate, i think an amendment abolishing the electoral college would pass almost unanimously. Remember the RP has their problems too, with the Neo Cons hijacking their party, and the extreme right fundies (they need their own party).

Abolishing the electoral college system, would be a very healthy step forward toward a participatory democracy as opposed to this current anachronistic, anti-democratic system in place now.

After all, it was designed for white male land barons - because they were the only people allowed to vote. The current system is not conducive to the socio-economic and political culture of today, and it is not democracy.

So help abolish the electoral college system,implement IRV then the DLC types can have their own party - and the progressive populists can have theirs, and so on. And then maybe we can all get along better as a people and a country..(?)

[Clarkansas]

22. I voted third party and let me say

the only third parties I will support in the future are ones that takes votes from republicans. I like the Pat Robertson idea alot.

[mmonk]

23. Good for Americans to have a choice, but no,

not good for the democratic party. What would be good for the democratic party is if there is a third candidate that represents the rightwing.

[LWolf]

24. No.

Might be a good reason for Democrats to field a populist, liberal candidate that can carry liberal voters themselves.

[MrBenchley]

25. The Green party had a populist liberal candidate in 2004

and he was so toxic to the voters he couldn't even get ON the ballot in liberal NYC.

He wasn't a speck of help to the Democrats either....and many people considered him AND his party a GOP dirty trick.

[LWolf]

26. How "populist" can a candidate be

if they don't get on the ballot?

What categorizes NYC as liberal? Their mayor, Michael Bloomberg?

You might have noticed that my suggestion was to run a populist liberal Democrat, not a Green.

[MrBenchley]

29. Are you really saying NYC isn't liberal? Really? REALLY?

"You might have noticed that my suggestion was to run a populist liberal Democrat"
But the thread is discussing how a third party helps the Democrats.

[LWolf]

32. Yes.

You replied to me, not the OP, in post I'm referring to. That means a reply to my suggestion to run a populist liberal Democrat.

Really, really, and really. :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

33. You're really telling us people in NYC aren't liberal--hokay.

And yeah, I know I replied to you. That's why I asked you to repeat your preposterous statement.

And by the way, the reason that Cobb and the Greens couldn't get on the ballot in NYC (and the Socialist Workers party COULD) is because voters in NYC know what a piece of shit the Green party is.

[LWolf]

34. Can't you step out of the

green-obsessed box long enough to discuss liberal and/or progressive Democrats? Why do you keep trying to insert them into my remarks about Democrats?

Preposterous is your opinion, which you are welcome to. If NYC is so liberal, why do they keep electing non-liberal republican mayors, and why did they vote Hillary Clinton into the Senate?

[obreaslan]

28. Absolutely!!!! I am in favor of keeping the Repugs in power....

For what little time the U.S. has left!

:sarcasm:

[mtnsnake]

30. Yeah, real good for us! Maybe we could convince Rush to run 3rd Party

candidate on our behalf. He wouldn't get any of OUR votes, but he'd get most of the Repuke vote, thus giving our Dem Party nominee a better chance at winning! :crazy: