In the latest Trump Thread, no one seems to really take seriously the idea that Trump will run as a third party. Still, there are a few in that Thread mentioning a strong possibility of someone running as a third party.
I don’t have a strong opinion as I hadn’t really thought of it until just now reading some speculation here and remembering having read previous speculation. I’m wondering who thinks there’s a good chance we’ll see a third party candidate. Of course there are always a half dozen or so third party candidates, but who here thinks we’ll see:[ul]
[li]Third Party Candidate with support similar to Nader in 2000?[/li][li]Third Party Candidate with support similar to Buchanan in 2000?[/li][li]Third Party Candidate with support similar to Perot in 1992?[/li][li]Third Party Candidate with support similar to Wallace in 1968?[/li][li]Third Party Candidate with support similar to Thurmond or Wallace in 1948?[/ul][/li]
Consensus seems to be that if there is a third major candidate that it will be a Tea Party candidate. I don’t imagine anyone coming at Obama from the left will get much support (I imagine there will be some very minor players who will be to the left of Obama, but no one with great support).
Thinking of the (then) incumbent Republicans who faced Primary challenges in the 2010 election, I could imagine a segment of self-described Tea Partiers wanting their own candidate- but what heros do they have who have enough weight to be a major candidate yet are not part of the Republican establishment? Are there really any major players in the Republican Party who would break ranks and run as a third party?
The last few questions have me inclined to believe there will be no major third party candidate. If there were to be a third party, I believe it would rely on Tea Party support but I can’t see any major Republican leaving the party.
Is there a successor to Buchanan outside the Republican Party?
No, there will be no third party candidate of any significance, from the Tea Party or anyone else. They know threatening a third party run just splits the Republicans and guarantees an Obama victory, and the one thing the Tea Party and social and religious conservatives want more than anything is to get the black man out of the White House.
To unseat Obama does seem to be the most important goal for the Right, but of the otherwise Republican voters who are anti-Romney is there a signifcant number who simply believe Romney can’t win in the general?
Of the otherwise Republican voters who are anti-Gingrich, is there a signifcant number who simply believe Gingrich can’t win in the general?
If there are enough who believe the Republican candidate is unelectable, they might throw their support behind another guy so that, when the smoke clears, their side will get to say “I told you so” to the other side.
Thing is, I don’t believe “My Party’s Guy is Unelectable” is the kind of thing Republican voters allow themselves to consider- that’s more of a Democrat way of thinking. As much as voters during the Primary denounce one candidate or another, I kind of imagine them rallying around whichever candidate gets the nomination.
So, I can’t see the Tea Party supporting a third candidate simply because they’ll see the Republican candidate as being unelectable. They’d have to really object to the Republican candidate before supporting someone else.
Although I do imagine “Unseat Obama Above All Else” will be the prevailing pledge, I don’t have a clear understanding of:
What kind of numbers are there among the most stubborn “Compromise on NOTHING” wing of the Tea Party?
How much do evangelicals really distrust/object to Mormons* (assuming Romney as the nominee)?
*I really have no grasp on how much anti-Mormonism their is among Eveangelicals- how much, and how intense? This is the whole variable I can’t fully appreciate.
Anyone that runs as a third-party won’t think they’ll split any vote and lose to Obama. They’ll do it because their ego will tell them that they are the *right *choice, and will win. Never mind any previous third-party candidate results; they’re special and carry the banner of most Americans.
I think Romney will do poorly in Southern primaries and without a southern running mate, the Republicans could lose some southern states again even against the black guy.
I think a liberal candidate like nader could help Obama. Noone would vote for Nader and it would highlight how NOT liberal Obama is.
The fact is anyone who does such a thing, no matter their delusion, will remain on the fringe and garner few votes. It’d be a waste of time and money, and anyone with any sense knows that.
Rank and file conservative Republicans may dislike, or even despise Romney, but in the end most will vote for him. I think you’ll even be surprised by how much support he gets from those who consider him too liberal now after Gingrich is knocked out.
Democrats are not Republicans, and many actually would vote their principles and choose Nader. You’re correct that Obama is not a liberal, which would hurt him with the Democratic electorate should Nader decide to run.
You think that if Palin decided to hop in that she’d have trouble raising money or support? Or that her ego would even hold her back from thinking she’d lose? And you think all of these clowns have the sense enough to know it’d be a waste of time and money? Trump? Palin? Gingrich? Paul? Ideological purity trumps all sense for them.
If rank-and-file conservatives despise Romney, there won’t be much energy to make it to the polls, like 2008. I can see someone with a huge ego and a great ability to raise money (or an already-massive checking account) wanting to avoid a repeat of 2008 where Obama took the WH.
I think this is correct. They’re fearful that Romney, a Republican flip-flopper with no conservative bona fides, will win the nomination and then lose the general because he wasn’t conservative enough.
Sure there are.
Nope. Never happen.
This is correct.
And not even then.
Not enough to matter.
Less than they do the prospect of having a black man retain the presidency.
I think Republicans, for the most part, see Palin for who she is. The party may be desirous of someone to bear the conservative standard, but that person needs to have something other than cotton between their ears.
Again. Never happen. The rank and file will support Romney in the end.
Missed the edit window to correct my tags in the above post. Corrected below. As this is just a fix to the layout for clarity and not a change in content, can a mod delete post #10?
I think Republicans, for the most part, see Palin for who she is. The party may be desirous of someone to bear the conservative standard, but that person needs to have something other than cotton between their ears.
This is true, but what’s the electorate to do? They have to play the cards they’re dealt, no matter how bad they are. It’s not like anyone begged Trump to run.
Again. Never happen. The rank and file will support Romney in the end.
I really think that the far-right believe that ideology before all else is their mission right now. I’m not saying a third party candidacy *will *happen, I’m just saying that after the “mandate” elections of '10, and the manufactured debt-ceiling crisis that almost brought our country’s economy down in '11, this is the ideal environment for a third-party wackadoo to think he or she is “saving the country” and has the will of God and the people behind him or her to pull this off.
ETA: Never underestimate the arrogance and stupidity of the far-right wing power brokers right now. Just when you think they’ve hit their limit, they plow right through it like the Nazis plowing through the construction signs in “The Blues Brothers.”
[ul]
[li]Third Party Candidate with support similar to Nader in 2000?[/li][li]Third Party Candidate with support similar to Buchanan in 2000?[/li][li]Third Party Candidate with support similar to Perot in 1992?[/li][li]Third Party Candidate with support similar to Wallace in 1968?[/li][li]Third Party Candidate with support similar to Thurmond or Wallace in 1948?[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
No to all of the above.
There’s a pseudo-centrist outfit called (IIRC) Americans Elect that the both-sides-do-it pundits are in love with. It has some secretive big money behind it, and is trying to get on the ballot in a lot of states. They might sucker 2-3% of the electorate into voting for them, but I think that would be the high end, and I don’t expect even that.
Well, depends on what you mean by serious. Nader announced in February of 2000, Perot in February of 1992. I’d say a third party candidate has a month or two still. And the Libertarians and Greens and such don’t nominate anyone till the summer, so if someones popular enough in those circles to sweep in and get the nomination from those parties (Ron Paul for the Libertarians, for example), they could probably wait till late spring to announce.
Not that I think we’ll have a serious third party challenger this time around, but I don’t think the limiting factor is time constraints.
The far right-wing power brokers don’t have nearly as much power as they like to believe and assert. The party is controlled by financial conservatives who play the far right social and religious conservative base like a fiddle, giving them just enough red meat to keep them passive and loyal, but not enough of anything to allow them to fully effect a truly conservative agenda.
I believe the Tea Party was an aberration financial conservatives didn’t anticipate, but ultimately its impact will also wane as the true power brokers of the Republican party adjust to deal with it.
The trick to a third party would be if a TeaPartier were nominated that did not have a hope of beating Obama; then a moderate Republican could run. Sure they would lose but the Reps were going to lose anyways. The real trick would be to beat the Teapartier in the popular vote to demonstrate that people want a centrist Government and not a Bircher.
I could see two potential third party candidates who might get more than 1% of the vote: Ron Paul and/or Sarah Palin.
Ron Paul because he doesn’t care about the Republican Party, he cares about the issues, and Sarah Palin because she doesn’t care about the Republican Party, she cares about Sarah Palin.
Ron Paul could chug along happily giving speeches and hitting the November finish line and getting 1% of the vote.
Sarah Palin would jump in, get beaten to hell by the Right Wing Media, and quit in tears.