Okie doke.
Dear sinkspur,
You also realize that in saying "other than Ross Perot," the standard you set for "some success" is not actual victory, or even permanent establishment of a thriving third party, but basically - "has a significant impact on the outcome of the election."
Here are some elections in which third party candidates had significant impact on the outcome of the election:
2000 - Ralph Nader - although he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, it's a reasonable argument that if he hadn't run, Al Gore would have been elected.
1996 - Perot
1992 - Perot
1980 - John Anderson took, if I recall, about 7% of the vote, thus turning a fairly close race into a fairly decisive Reagan victory (thank you, John Anderson).
1968 - George Wallace - probably elected Richard Nixon.
That's five out of the last 10.
We can show a couple more since the end of World War II, if you'd like.
Establishing a third party that is successful in the long-term, and can elect its own presidential candidates is difficult. As far as I know, it's only happened twice - when the Federalists went out of business and the Whigs picked up the pieces, and when the Whigs subsequently imploded with the rise of the Republican Party.
But third party movements that affect the outcome of presidential elections (either by determining the winner, or by substantially altering margins of victory) are relatively common, all things considered.
However, even the establishment of a long-term successful third party is not out of the question. It's happened twice before.
sitetest