Posted on 08/22/2009 12:04:35 PM PDT by BGHater
Famed trend forecaster Gerald Calente is predicting that a third party candidate will be elected President in 2012. (If you don't know who Calente is, read the postscript below.)
Is he right?
Well, some of the most widely-read liberal writers are saying that progressives are fed up with the Democratic party, and feel that they have been tricked and ripped off by the Democratic leaders.
As Glenn Greenwald writes:
What About the Right?In a superb post the other day, Digby recounted what fueled the Naderite movement in 2000 and warns, presciently I think, that the willingness of Obama/Emanuel so blatantly to disappoint those to whom they promised so much (especially young and first-time voters who were most vulnerable to Obama's transformative fairy dust) will lead them either to support a third party or turn off from politics altogether:
On most fronts that matter -- civil liberties, national security, economic policy, servitude to corporate interests, even rising opposition to Obama's long-promised escalation of the war in Afghanistan -- that defines rather clearly what the Obama/Emanuel approach has been thus far.Rahm Emanuel believes that the key to Democratic success is a coalition in which Blue Dogs and corporate lackeys mitigate progressive change on behalf of the moneyed interests which he believes the political system must serve. Regardless of his malevolent view of how the political system should work, on a political level, I think he's living in the past. . . .
But on a political level, the left has been betrayed over and over again on the things that matter to us the most. The village is pleased, I'm sure. But the Democratic party only needs to look back eight short years to see just how destructive it is to constantly tell their left flank to go fuck themselves. . . .
At the time [in 2000] nobody believed that an incumbent Vice President in a roaring economy would have a race so close that the Republicans could steal it. But we know differently now don't we? And you would think that the Democratic establishment would also know that because of that, it may not be a good idea to alienate the left to the point where they become apathetic or even well... you know. It can happen. It did happen. Why the Democrats persist in believing that it can't happen again is beyond me. . . .
Obama mobilized a whole lot of young people who have great expectations and disappointing them could lead to all sorts of unpleasant results. Success is about more than simply buying off some congressional liberals or pleasing the village. It's worth remembering that a third party run from the left is what created the conditions for eight long years of Republican governance ...
After 2000, what is it going to take for the Democrats to realize that constantly using their base as a doormat is not a good idea? It only takes a few defections or enough people staying home to make a difference. And there are people on the left who have proven they're willing to do it. The Democrats are playing with fire if they think they don't have to deliver anything at all to their liberal base --- and abandoning the public option, particularly in light of what we already know about the bailouts and the side deals, may be what breaks the bond.
It's really not too much to ask that they deliver at least one thing the left demands, it really isn't. And it's not going to take much more of this before their young base starts looking around for someone to deliver the hope and change they were promised.
The fact that just doesn't register with Washington GOP establishmentarians is that the Tea Party Protests seen around the country in April were aimed as much against them as they were against the tax and spending policies of Obama and the Democratic Congress.There are millions of libertarians and traditional conservatives (or "paleo-conservatives", in contrast to Neo-conservatives) in the U.S. who are very unhappy with the direction the Republican party has taken in recent years.
Based on the above trends, I believe that Calente could be right. A third-party candidate could win in 2012.
no, a third party would give Obama a 2nd term.
This is a pipe dream, and a bad one at that. Will the third party be the perfect moderate party that the Joe Scarboroughs of the world think the American people are clamoring for? Or will it be a true conservative party? It definitely won’t be to the left of the Democrat Party. In any case, it’s the Republicans, conservatives and moderates, who will lose.
We could become more like Latin America, where everyone who thinks he has a good idea starts a party and where there are so many parties no one can keep track of them.
Save Sarah Palin, there is no Republican out there I will vote for.
If she doesn’t get nominated, my vote is definitely going to be third party.
All right. This division was partially responsible for our loss in 2008. Try changing things from within the Republican party. Sorry to be so blunt but BO is destroying our country and the people that said they would never vote for a RINO are partially at fault.
Depends on if the third party was conservative or socialist.
Ross Perot deliberately split the conservative vote with his fake party so that Clinton could win. I am sure the Clinton's rewarded him handsomely.
If it's a Dennis Kucinich Party, goodbye Barry Falsewitness.
‘We could become more like Latin America, where everyone who thinks he has a good idea starts a party and where there are so many parties no one can keep track of them.’
Sounds like a plan.
Like RAT control, do you? You’re wanting more of the same.
Oh, I know come election day, everyone will vote Anti-Obama, but the cycle will continue of the lesser of two evils, and that cycle is destroying our country.
Not really. McCain got the conservative vote when he nominated Palin. 2008 was entirely due to a crappy campaign by McCain.
We already have a third party: conservatives. Now if we can only yank the Republican party back from the RINO’s and give it to Palin.
A 3rd party couldn’t get enough votes state by state to secure 270 votes in the Electoral College. Hell Perot got about 19% of the popular vote but zero EC votes.
HANNITY/PALIN OR PALIN/HANNITY WOULD BE FUN!!!!
Perot could have done significantly better had he chosen someone like Sam Nunn instead of “Who am I? What am I doing here?” Admiral Stockwell.
Which is the functional equivalent of voting for the socialist rats.
If a 3rd party could raise at least $200 million, then maybe it can win the White House.
BTW, have any of the 3rd parties (Green, Libertarians, Constitution,, etc.), bothered to report their July fundraising activities?
-shrug-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.