TIME magazine reports that Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel might run as a third-party ticket in 2008 (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1620821,00.html).
Do you think third-party presidential candidates are viable in the US? More importantly, could these two have a chance?
For the record, here's the article:
QuoteWill Bloomberg Run for President?
Monday, May 14, 2007
By JAMES CARNEY/WASHINGTON
Is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg really thinking of running for President next year as a self-financed independent? Or is he lowering his sights, as one Big Apple tabloid reported last week, and planning to take aim at the Albany statehouse in 2010 instead?
"Did Mike Bloomberg become a multi-billionaire by lowering his sights? I don't think so," says a friend of the popular second-term mayor. "Why would he want to be governor? If he runs for anything, it'll be the White House."
Sources close to the mayor confirm that Bloomberg is not interested in trying to oust newly elected Democratic governor Eliot Spitzer from his job. "He's become the Paris Hilton of politics — people love to speculate about him," says one source, who adds that Bloomberg, a nominal Republican, is preparing to throw himself into the presidential race next spring, if he sees an opening. He's told people privately that he'd be willing to spend $500 million or more to finance an independent, third-party presidential campaign — to collect the signatures needed to get him on the ballot in all 50 states, to buy ads and to pay for staff.
Given the pace at which the leading candidates in the two parties are raising vast sums of money, however, half a billion might not cut it. Of course, Bloomberg, the 65-year-old founder of Bloomberg L.P., has plenty more cash if he needs it. He spent a combined $160 million of his own money to win the mayor's job in 2001 and re-election 2005. But he's a pragmatic man. He may have billions to spare, but he didn't get that rich by pursuing fantasies that had no chance of panning out.
Kevin Sheekey, the mayor's political adviser, says Bloomberg might run if the two parties put forward nominees that play to their base constituencies but turn off the center of the electorate. "It's not impossible that that window could open and he could run a viable campaign," Sheekey says with careful deliberation. "And if it opens, he should consider it."
For now, Bloomberg is spending a conspicuous amount of time raising his national profile, traveling frequently to other states and engaging in national policy debates. Last week he flew into Houston, capital of the American oil business, to announce his own conservation-focused national energy plan, something that's become virtually mandatory for anyone running for President in 2008. This week he and former President Bill Clinton co-host an international climate change summit in New York.
Bloomberg himself says he's not running, has no plans to run, can't imagine running, etc., etc. But that's not the same as ruling it out entirely. He doesn't do that. But he does occasionally do things to suggest that, far from ruling out a run, he's seriously considering one. Or at least he wants the media and other speculators in the political market to think he's seriously considering a run.
How else to explain the conspicuously public dinner in Washington last week between Bloomberg and Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, the Vietnam veteran and G.O.P. apostate who has come out in full opposition to President Bush and the continuation of the Iraq War? Hagel has toyed with the idea of running for the G.O.P. nomination. But he's an outsider now within the Republican family; having attacked Bush, he'd be doomed in a G.O.P. primary. Hagel's only avenue, like Bloomberg's, would be a third-party bid. It doesn't hurt that Hagel happened to make millions of his own as a cellular phone entrepreneur before he won his Senate seat. There had already been some speculation that Bloomberg and Hagel might team up. Their dinner at the Palm Restaurant, a place to be seen by media power players, was clearly meant to fuel even more.
Finally, there is a sign that one of the two major parties is worried about a possible third-party Bloomberg run. The Weekly Standard magazine, the Murdoch-owned bible of the neoconservative movement, has as its latest cover story a cartoon of a diminutive Bloomberg perched in an over-sized, throne-like chair, with the headline: "The Mystery of Michael Bloomberg: Why does a popular but mediocre mayor think he should be President?" Republicans are generally convinced that Ross Perot took a disproportionate share of his 20% of the vote in 1992 out of the hide of the incumbent Republican President, George Bush, thereby ensuring Bill Clinton's victory. Some are worried that a Bloomberg candidacy in 2008 would do the same thing: help the Democratic nominee by siphoning votes from the Republican. Some early polls (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm) suggest there is cause for such concern. Which explains why some Republicans would like to stop a Bloomberg campaign before it can begin.
Sure why not ,...what the hell.
Just remember these "third party" candidate even if they don't win - tend to siphon off votes from the next closest party idealogically speaking.
Some people think that Ross Perot's 3rd party candidacy took votes away from George H.W. Bush and gave Clinton the win in 1992.
Some people think that Ralph Nader's third party thing cost Al Gore the victory in 2000.
I don't know for sure on either one - but the theories are out there and have been.
- Ed C.
No, and no (to your questions, Jong).
The only way someone besides a Dem or Repub wins is if they actually have a viable third party behind them - and we don't have that. And even IF someone managed to buy their way in, they'd have no support in Congress, so no ability to get anything done.
The only way a 3rd party will ever become viable in the US is if they actually start winning seats in Congress. Once they do, they will be legitimate. Until then, they're all just fap-fests.
No, they cannot win. Maybe in 500 years when we're no longer a two-party system and/or people vote their beliefs instead of their parties. I don't think it matters how many seats they hold. There have been many third party seats in the Senate, but none of those parties are/were viable presidential candidates.
Well, I live in Minnesota, so I'd have to say yes. :) Of course, part of the reason why Jesse won was that the other parties didn't take him seriously until it was much too late, which would definitely not be the case here.
I could see it, but I don't think it's likely, mainly because I don't think both parties will nominate people that only appeal to their base (it's going to be very interesting to see who gets the Republican nomination, though, since the only one that stands a chance is Giuliani and the base isn't sold on him).
Quote from: JongWKDo you think third-party presidential candidates are viable in the US?
I've been trying for years, but I'm starting to get discouraged.
Bloomberg, though? All the conservatives I know despise him almost as much they do Hillary. The only Republican votes he's going to get are possibly from the northeastern states whose electoral votes always go to the Democrats anyway.
I agree with WereKoala that a third party candidate won't win a national election but Koltar is dead on about the vote siphoning. Just a personal observation, but it seems to me that the third party candidates who run tend to be disaffected members of the two major parties who often want to play spoiler and siphon off votes from one of the other candidates.
I'm not sure if the third party candidates do it because they think they can beat the odds like former Governor Ventura did, or if they do it to wring concessions or at least attention from their party in exchange for not siphoning votes. I suspect the latter was the case with Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader but I would think it is the former with Ross Perot, Michael Bloomberg, and Chuck Hagel.
i doubt such a thing would pan out in our lifetimes.
that said, i almost always vote 3rd party, unless i feel vehemently against someone and want to do a "lesser of two evils" vote. both 2000 & '04 i had to vote against bush, as opposed to voting for gore and kerry. not that i really had to worry, NJ being quite the "blue" state.
On a National basis TP candidates are not viable. A TP candidate will never win a presidential election with the current campaign financing laws.
On a state level it is very doable.
What if Lieberman ran in 2008? I mean, I think he's officially an independent now, though I'm not sure on that. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was Lieberman and someone considered a rogue repub - like say, McCain?
I bet they could run on a 3rd party ticket and win. In fact, they could trade, as a ticket, on the idea that it's a pox on both houses - which is what most people think about the parties these days, anyway.
And between them, you'd cover the middle 60% of the country -betcha.
In general, the answer would be no. But I think there are times and places and people and circumstances that can coverge. I mean, we weren't even at war in 1991/1992 and if Perot hadn't gone nuts near the end (or, probably more accurately, revealed his insanity), he might have pulled it off...
So it's not unthinkable; just highly unlikely.
Interesting thoughts, everyone. Thanks! :)
Here's an interesting comment from Electoral-Vote.com (http://electoral-vote.com/):
QuoteThere has been a lot of speculation about New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg running for President lately. Charlie Cook had a piece about it and there was an article in the L.A. Times today, among others. Bloomberg had a well-publicized meeting with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) a few days ago, which has fuled speculation about a Bloomberg/Hagel independent ticket. Bloomberg is term-limited as mayor of New York and is unlikely to challenge popular governor Eliot Spitzer in 2010 leaving the presidency as his only serious option.
Third party bids for the presidency always run into a simple problem: money. Each of the major party candidates this year will probably spend something like $200 million on the campaign. The only other billionaire ever to run for President was Ross Perot (in 1992 and 1996), but Perot was a newcomer to politics and a cheapskate. He was more interested in putting on a show than actually becoming President.
Bloomberg is different. He has an estimated wealth in excess of $5 billion and has already been elected to competitive office twice--and running for mayor of New York (a very Democratic city) as a Republican is no mean feat. Rumor has it that he wouldn't think twice about simply writing his campaign a check for $500 million. With more money than the Democrats and Republicans combined, he would instantly become a serious candidate.
But could he win? Unlikely. Remember that to win the presidency outright you have to get 270 electoral votes. This means you have to come in first in a dozen or more states. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have a fair number of hardcore partisans who will never stray, no matter what. How many various from state to state, but it is almost always at least 30% of the electorate for each party. With 60% of the vote off the table, Bloomberg would have to capture nearly all the remaining voters to actually win the state. This will be very hard to do in a dozen or more states, especially the larger states, which have more than 30% partisan Democrats.
It is conceivable, though, that a Bloomberg candidacy could pull in enough electoral votes, say 30-50, to prevent any candidate from getting the required 270. In that case, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, where every state gets one vote. Wyoming gets one vote but so does California. Thus the party controlling the most state delegations could elect its own candidate. Currently, the Democrats control 26 state delegations, the Republicans control 21 state delegations, and Arizona, Kansas and Mississippi are split evenly and presumably would not be able to agree on a candidate (see map below). It seems very unlikely that even a single state would pick Bloomberg, no matter how well he did. If the House deadlocked, say 25-25, the Vice-President, chosen by the Senate (with each senator having one vote), would become acting President until a new House was elected in 2010.
A key question is: who would Bloomberg hurt the most? I think it depends strongly on the candidates. So far, most Democrats seem happy with their choices. My guess is that with Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Richardson, most Democrats would vote for the Democrat rather than any Republican or Bloomberg, who is also a Republican (in name only). Polls have shown that six out of 10 Republicans are not happy with Giuliani, McCain, or Romney. Some of these might bolt to Bloomberg. On the other hand, if Fred Thompson gets the nomination, most Republicans would probably support him. But it is also possible that some liberal Democrats might prefer Mayor Mike, who is probably more liberal than Clinton or Obama.
The most interesting scenario would be a Clinton-Giuliani-Bloomberg race. That would offer a wide choice. Voters could then choose between
- A pro-choice, pro-gay, liberal New York Protestant (Clinton)
- A pro-choice, pro-gay, liberal New York Catholic (Giuliani)
- A pro-choice, pro-gay, liberal New York Jew (Bloomberg)
Diversity galore! Turnout would no doubt be very high in New York, but perhaps somewhat lower in places like Alabama. If large numbers of Southern and Midwestern Republicans just stayed home, the Democrats could sweep the Senate and House races. Although the Republican get-out-the-vote operation is legendary, it could be a tough sell to convince people who abhored all three of the above to go to the polls just to vote for Congress.
Below is a table showing the election results for the top four parties in all presidential elections since WWII. As you can see, Ross Perot is the only third party candidate to have cracked even 15%. Even with his billions, Mayor Mike has a tough row to hoe.
Is it true? The election could go to the House & Senate instead of being decided by a candidate giving his EC votes to another one?
(Also, what a hilarious comment about three candidates from NY) ;)
Quote from: James J SkachWhat if Lieberman ran in 2008? I mean, I think he's officially an independent now, though I'm not sure on that. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was Lieberman and someone considered a rogue repub - like say, McCain?
even that ticket, i'd still say no. it would have an interesting spoiler factor, sure. but neither of them are all that "independent" when it comes down to it, not like a nader anyway. they're still just variations on the same old, same old.
Quote from: beebereven that ticket, i'd still say no. it would have an interesting spoiler factor, sure. but neither of them are all that "independent" when it comes down to it, not like a nader anyway. they're still just variations on the same old, same old.
Thanks for making my point... :D
They would not be the same 1% 3rd party candidate - like Nader. Instead, they would draw from both parties all of the discontented - which, I have a theory, is quite a large number these days.
Neither are independent, but both appeal to the other party in certain ways; and the things that make them unappealing are not important to the other side. It's a weird combination.
But, it's still probably a long long long shot.
There is no way any TP candidate under an circumstances could win. Period.
At best they can help decide which of the other two wins.
If the Dem & Rep candidates some how died, then a TP might have a chance.:D
Quote from: JongWKInteresting thoughts, everyone. Thanks! :)
Is it true? The election could go to the House & Senate instead of being decided by a candidate giving his EC votes to another one?
(Also, what a hilarious comment about three candidates from NY) ;)
Actually the article is correct but you raise a good point (be careful, you can lose some SAN points figuring out US election laws). There is no mechanism for one candidate to directly cede his or her electoral votes to another but in practice what happens is that when a party wins a State they get to send their slate of Electors to vote when the electoral college is convened. In theory those electors are independent and could legally cast their vote for another candidate but the people the party chooses to send are typically hard-core partisans so unless the candidate told them to throw their vote in another direction it wouldn't happen and even if the candidate did they might not do it anyway.
There was actually a democrat activist back in 2000 who tried to convince some republican electors to cast their votes for Al Gore instead of George Bush because of the popular vote so your idea has been floated before.
I have heard it said that some states legally bind their electors to vote for the popular winner.
Quote from: jrientsI have heard it said that some states legally bind their electors to vote for the popular winner.
Interesting, I haven't heard that but I can see why the states would want to since a lot of people get offended by the thought that the electoral vote isn't really the same as the popular vote. Fortunately most of the voting public is less informed than the average RPGsite poster and doesn't even know what the electoral college is anyway.
I think if the state ever tried to enforce the law they would run into problems though since it is a federal election and therefore federal law would pre-empt state law if there is a conflict. It would be an interesting case to watch.
The one that made it's rounds right afer 2000 is the idea of proportional electoral college voting. I think a couple of states have that.
So if a state goes 60/40 democratic, then 60% of it's electoral votes go to the democratic candidate, 40% republican. The idea is to more "democratically" represent the state's voting.
That's not the way the US is set up. It's a federal republic. This "weird" electoral college represents the same things that the split Congress does - if you want to look at it that way. It's a mix of population-based and state-based representation. It's why you have the House based on population, but the Senate based on 2-per-state. It's a neat little balancing act to address the fears of the small states (population-wise) from being pushed around by larger states.
And, as has been noted elsewhere, electors can vote for whomever they want once the college is convened.
In regards to the article in the OP, I don't understand why a Bloomberg/Hagel would even need to go third party. Its not like anyone on the GOP side has a hammer-lock on the nomination. And the bit about "Hagel's out because he talks against Bush and the war in Iraq," seems silly too -- no one, outside of Guilliani in reference to Sept. 11, has exactly endorsed Bush either. Tancredo, admittedly a long-shot at best, in particular has said some anti-Bush remarks in regards to immigration.
For all intents and purposes, the United States--at the federal level--is a strict two-party system and the parties do cooperate to keep it that way.
The reason I relentlessly vote Libertarian is to break the 2-party stranglehold on America. We won't have a shot at a 3rd party candidate until the debates are open to all parties instead of the big 2. And that hasn't happened to my knowledge since Ross Perot, whom I also voted for.
And I think of Ross Perot every election year, because of a cartoon from that era: "I just can't get excited about the elections this year. I wish an insane gnome was running."