Third Party-ism - Why the Democrats Need to Wake Up

[truedelphi]

I'm not going to comment greatly on Third Party-ism and its possible effect.

I am going to ask that people direct their computers to this site:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/5/102932/8097

And scroll down to where you can vote.

After voting, the results are revealed - Currently about 52% of all Dems will vote for a Democratic Candidate

However 31% will vote for a third party candidate for President - and most important -
29% MIGHT!

If you add the Twenty nines with the Thirty Ones - Well, it is a bit less optimistic than just thinking that the 52% leaves the Democratic nominee in the clear

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Historically this country has never been more ready

why?

Look at the rise of independents, (I am one of them. and I used to be registered democrat)

The anger AT BOTH parties is palapble.

[rinsd]

2. I wouldn;t worry about a self selected audience in an obviously biased poll.

Not that I dismiss the issue entirely. Fewer and fewer people are identifying themselves as Democrats and preferring the label independent. The Republicans have seen as great if not a greater decline in self identifiers though they had a smaller amount with.

[mdmc]

3. In NYS, a third party can cross endorse

I bet Hillary Clinton will run on the Democratic Party Line, the Independence (reform) Party Line, and the Working Families Party Line.

All close elections are decided on the third party lines (Chuck Schumer and AG Candidate Eliot Spitzer won their elections due to these third party endorsements).

I had posted a thread about how Democrats could win elections by utilizing third party lines, but DU locked the thread because it mentioned "third parties".:eyes: If a political tactic, like securing a third party line, can help Dems win elections, we should be able to discuss it on DU (imho).

The thread is still on my journal if you care to take a peek.

[Progressive Friend]

38. True, but Fusion only exists in several states (IRV is even better)

The best thing would be to implement Instant Run-off Voting (IRV), where you rank the candidates rather than vote for only one (the system is used in Australia). We would never have to worry about losing close elections due to support for smaller left-wing parties again if IRV were implemented.

[mdmc]

39. kick

for IRV

[Totally Committed]

4. Jeezuss........ have you checked the numbers NOW?

If the Democratic "powers that be" are not watching that poll in horror and shame, they know something we don't.

Even I -- as angry as I am -- would never have guessed I'd see those numbers.

Yowza!

TC

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

6. People are still very upset today, maybe even more upset

because what just happened has started to sink in.

[welshTerrier2]

7. recent Wall Street Journal poll: only 11% would rule out voting 3rd party

"Most Americans favor a third-party White House bid," according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

"Some 53% back the idea of building a third party to mount presidential candidacy. Support is strongest among men, those younger than 50, professionals and Northeasterners."

"Seven of 10 say an independent would enhance the presidential campaign, and just 11% say they wouldn’t consider voting for an independent. Yet in hypothetical independent bid against Clinton and Giuliani, New York City Mayor Bloomberg draws just 16% from self-described independents."

[Totally Committed]

8. Did you see the numbers on that poll?

At present, only 39% will definitely vote for the Democratic nominee.

39%!!!

Holy shit!

TC

[rinsd]

10. What poll? The Kos poll? Who cares about a biased internet poll?

[welshTerrier2]

16. actually ...

i'm discounting this poll for now for two reasons ...

one: it only has 148 votes. i'm all for looking at trends but the sample size is meaningless thus far.
two: whoever made up the poll is an idiot. look at how they asked the question ... will you "A" or will you you "B" ... then the answers are "No" and "Yes" ... how can you answer "A or B" with a "No or Yes" response?

so, at least for now, I'm dismissing this poll ...

HOWEVER, having said that, there is very little doubt that the Democratic Party is once again inviting a disaster next year. Everyone is just all so comfy with the "common wisdom" that the country is fed up with republicans and that this will virtually ensure a Democratic landslide next year. My belief is that the common wisdom will likely be true when it comes to Congressional races. I expect Democrats to make solid gains in both the House and Senate. But in the presidential race, it's not at all clear what will happen.

The presidential race, in my view, will be much more vulnerable to left-wing "leakage" in the Democratic Party. In swing states, this leakage could easily mean the difference between winning and losing all of the electoral votes for any given state. It's not about whether a third party could win next year; even a somewhat credible Bloomberg candidacy seems to have almost no chance of succeeding. On the other hand, as things stand now, the Democrats are going to lose some percentage of their "old reliables." I'm likely to be one of them. I've been "true blue" all the way back to George McGovern. I never strayed off the reservation. Absent some new candidates, I will not be voting for a Democrat for president in 2008. Am I alone? I strongly doubt it.

The Democrats abysmal failure to stop the war is going to cost them in a very, very big way with the anti-war left. Civil liberties after this last idiocy? The same. Many of us are sick and tired of being sick and tired. Increasingly, we have come to believe that "lesser of the evils" voting is just not going to bring about the changes we so desperately need. It's not about whether Democrats are better than republicans; it's about whether Democrats will bring about real change. The answer, in my view, and I believe the view of many others, is that they will NOT. We need not look beyond their funding of Iraq and their empowering of non-court supervised wiretapping to see that all too clearly.

So, while I put little or no credence in the poll cited in the OP, I think the problem the current results indicate are likely to be very indicative of what will happen next year. As an aside, I'm almost finished reading Al Gore's The Assault on Reason. Allow me to say I'm very impressed. Let's say I'm extremely cautious but I'm creeping closer and closer to an endorsement. Will he run? Who knows. I think the "make or break" date will be on or around Labor Day. If he's not in by, say, mid-September, I'll assume he won't be running and I'll turn my attentions elsewhere. That elsewhere will likely be to certain local issues like wind energy and local power companies. As for third parties, I have no current plans to energetically either support them or oppose them. In the presidential race, absent a candidate I could support, I'll either abstain, write in a candidate (maybe myself :rofl: ), or maybe even vote for a third party.

[Gman]

9. Some people are so incredibly stupid

that they don't remember 6.5 short years ago and a guy named Nader who is single-handedly responsible for Bush being president.

[BridgeTheGap]

11. Single handedly?

How about those members of the SCOTUS that ended the recount in Florida?
As I remember, Gore actually won that election.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. The people who voted for Nader wouldn't have voted

for Gore... and you forget, conveniently mind you, the 5-4 vote at the SCOTUS.

Gore won that election... and the SCOTUS aided and abbeted a coup d'etat...

I call you a fool for forgetting that history

That said... this info should scare the Dems, who are increasingly seen as the mild side of the Corporatist party

[Gman]

24. Isn't it interesting how you simply disregard the fact that

had Nader's ego not gotten him into the presidential race, Bush v Gore, hanging chads, etc. would never have happened. Everything that has happened to this country since January 2001, including all the blood spilled is because Nader is an idiot.

So who's the real fool? The fool Nader or the fool that followed Nader?

[High Plains]

26. Oh, Jesus Christ, that's stupid! Democrats need to do better...

...than blaming Nader for 2000. How about earning some more votes?

[Gman]

27. Are you a Democrat?

[dugggy]

28. I hate to burst your bubble but,

I recall many prominent newspapers & TV stations conducted
a recount of their own using the actual ballots. Without
a single exception the final result was the same, which is
that Bush had a small majority in Florida.

I think the butterfly ballots had more to do with Gore losing
Florida than the SCOTUS. If you recall, Buchanan received many
votes in a precinct with elderly jewish population, a highly
suspect occurence. The butterfly ballot confused the old folks.
And what is really ironic is that the butterfly ballot was designed
by a democratic supervisor.

[LoZoccolo]

33. Yeah they would have, the surveys differ with your assertion. n/t

[Solon]

15. The Democratic campaign fails to win over some voters, and somehow...

its someone else's fault? Uhm, that makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Gman]

25. I believe your response is called "dissembling"

[Solon]

31. I believe your excuse is called "passing the buck"...

You know, I've heard of a guy who said the buck stops here. Also, as far as I'm aware of, I'm NOT lying, so don't try that bullshit on me. The fact of the matter is that blaming Nader doesn't do anything constructive in exposing the faults of the 2000 campaign. The whole POINT of campaigns is to win votes from as many people as possible, no candidate is OWED votes, period, they have to EARN them. Gore's campaign failed in this regard, blame his campaign managers, not the competition.

[Gman]

35. No, it's not an excuse and

if Nader had not been stupid enough to run and if the people that voted for him had not been even stupider, Gore would be president.

[Solon]

41. You are assuming that all the people that voted for Nader would have voted for Gore...

if Nader didn't run. In reality, some probably would have, and some would have stayed home that day as well. The fact is that it wouldn't have made that much of a difference, Bush most likely would have been in the White House, thanks to the shenanigans of Baker, the SOS of Florida, in addition to voter suppression and election fraud. You might as well have blamed EVERYONE who was qualified to vote but didn't in Florida for not voting for Gore, or anyone else, it makes just as much sense, after all.

[BonnieJW]

17. Well...

I think the supremes had a bit to do with it and the fact that the counting was stopped in Florida. Gore won.

[truedelphi]

12. Numbers now stand at

37% will vote Democratic

33% plan on voting for third party

28% might vote third party

[rinsd]

14. Its a Kos poll, It is meaningless.

[truedelphi]

18. It's approaching a three way split

What is interesting about that is that when this nation came into being, about one third of the country were Tories, one third American Patriots and about one third just wanted to ignore politics and live their lives in peace and quiet.
Some two hundred years later, in college towns all across the USA, people again were following the one third concept: 1980 election in college towns - one third for Carter, one third for Reagan and one third for John Andersen.

Those collete "kids" are now the aging Baby Boomers. If they all get off their collective butts and vote, I believe we will see a real one third split.

[Totally Committed]

19. Who ever would have thought????

I am astounded.

TC

[CK_John]

20. IMO, it will be Romney, Bloomberg, Clinton, and a very tight race. n/t

[Totally Committed]

21. Romney? Really?

I just don't see the RW Evangelicals allowing that Party to nominate a Mormon. I think they are going to put up a stink if he gets the nom.

But, who knows? You could be right. As someone who has had that idiot as their governor, I can tell you he's a jackass.

TC

[dugggy]

30. Not many mormons in Iowa, and Romney is going to win there

so I would not be surprised if Romney is the eventual nominee.
He is very glib and can think on his feet and has plenty of his
own money, a deadly combination.

McCain is almost finished with his Iraq war stand, and Freddie
has many skeletons with 3 marriages, and rudy is pro-choice and
divorced twice. Romney is the only candidate married to the same
original wife for many decades, made his own fortune, has been
a governor and saved the Olympics from financial collapse.
Once people start paying attention, he could easily climb up in polls.

I am most worried about Romney at this point.

[Totally Committed]

32. Oh, okay... I get it!

Thanks!

TC

[CK_John]

36. As a generic group these people would rather not vote. They have been led by the nose and scammed

their whole life. They will do what they are told, not what they want to do.

[sandyd921]

34. Great choice...not!

n/t

[Totally Committed]

22. Currently 35% - 35%- 29%

Unbelieveable.

TC

[SaveElmer]

23. All Dems? Hardly...

Just further proof how out of touch the netroots really are with rank and file Democratic voters...a significant majority of whom are quite satisfied with our slate of candidates this year

[LordJFT]

29. Im sure that poll's about as accurate as the one here that says kucinich has 57% of the primary vote

[AtomicKitten]

37. A kickass Democratic candidate is the cure for this malaise.

[Totally Committed]

40. Yup.... Al could go a long way toward fixing this mess. All he has to do is say two little words:

"I'M IN!"

I'd feel ever so much better if he did. :)


TC

ETA: At present it is now 35% - 36% - 28%. That is astounding no matter how you look at it, imo.