Posted on 10/09/2008 12:16:02 PM PDT by mnehring
Final returns are still weeks away, but it's not too early to acknowledge one of the big surprises of the presidential election of 2008: the disastrous decline of fringe party candidates in a year that once seemed ripe for their efforts.
As recently as November, 2007, CNN's Lou Dobbs flatly predicted that neither a Democrat nor a Republican could win the White House this time: the certain victor, he declared, would be an Independent or the representative of some newly emergent protest party. His book, "Independents Day: Reawakening the American Spirit," became a major bestseller.
On a similar note, Douglas E. Schoen, former campaign consultant to President Clinton, published "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" early in 2008, also heralding a breakthrough year for a third party contender who could plausibly capture the White House. Meanwhile, a group known as "Unity '08," comprised of former officeholders and prominent political operatives from both major parties, promised a "Re-United States of America" and promoted an independent fusion "ticket" that would feature a former Democrat and a former Republican as running mates. For several months, speculation surrounded New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who talked of funding his own campaign to the tune of more than $500 million; before he rejected the idea, Bloomberg reportedly discussed running together with outgoing Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska.
Even after these dreams of some independent "unity ticket" began to fade, energized Third Party activists continued to proclaim 2008 as a potential breakthrough year. The Libertarian Party, which had fielded little-known ideologues (like 2004's nearly invisible Michael Badnarik) as its presidential candidates for more than two decades, finally secured a well-known former Congressman (Bob Barr of Georgia) to head their ticket. On the left, the Green Party welcomed the candidacy of another former House member from Georgia: the fiery and charismatic Cynthia McKinney. The Constitution Party, fanning conspiratorial fears of a "North American Union" and 9/11 as an inside job, selected radio preacher Chuck Baldwin. And two much-publicized perennial candidates – Ralph Nader on the left and Alan Keyes on the right – launched their own vigorous independent campaigns.
Amazingly, despite all the expectations and activity, these minor party contenders have made little headway. In major polls within two months of the election, none of them drew support from more than 2% of the electorate. Since third party candidates always perform better in polls than they do in the actual returns (because citizens feel more reluctant to waste their ballots once they're in the voting booth), most election experts expect that all five of the major-minors --- McKinney, Barr, Baldwin, Nader and Keyes – will draw less than 2% combined.
In this context, it's reasonable to ask what happened to "Independents Day" or "The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System"?
For one thing, both Republicans and Democrats nominated candidates with strong appeal to cantankerous independents: John McCain and Barack Obama each bucked their party establishments while deploying post- partisan rhetoric against the bickering and gridlock in Washington. Both major candidates claim credible credentials as reformers and promise to break with the painfully polarized politics of the recent past.
The exciting and free-wheeling primary season also served to undermine the familiar protest candidate charge that the major parties shut out dissenters and insurgents. For the first time in fifty-six years, neither a sitting President nor a sitting Vice President ran for the White House so that neither party turned to an obvious front-runner. Both McCain and Obama had been dismissed as hopeless long-shots months before the primaries actually began, and both claimed their nominations only after spirited and highly competitive primary campaigns.
At the same time, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel on the far left and Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo on the far right. ran energetic campaigns for major party nominations, earning considerable exposure on the dozens of nationally televised candidate debates. The combination of intense publicity and strictly limited success for these efforts may have sapped some of the ideological energy that otherwise might have coalesced around some of the fringe candidates in November.
Finally, there's evidence that despite all the premature obituaries for the long-established major parties, the public may have developed a more mature and realistic attitude toward quixotic minor party efforts. Ralph Nader's campaign in 2000 almost certainly represented a turning point: Nader won 2.73% of the final vote and his relative strength in several key states (famously including Florida) almost certainly tilted the unforgettably close election to George W. Bush. In the bitter aftermath of the disputed result and Al Gore's defeat, countless Americans learned the eternal lesson of third party efforts: these campaigns always do the most damage to the serious candidates closest to them ideologically. This message came across at a time when voters had already wearied of the disillusioning electoral antics of Ross Perot: he drew 18.9% and 8.4% in his quixotic campaigns of '92 and '96, respectively, but his "movement" promptly disappeared when the eccentric billionaire lost personal interest.
As a result, the votes for minor party candidates plunged precipitously in 2004. Four years earlier, the three major third-party contenders (Nader of the Green Party, Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party, and Harry Browne of the Libertarians) drew a grand total of 3,718,000 votes. But in 2004, despite 10 million more votes cast overall, the top minor party candidates (Nader, again, of the Greens, Michael Badnarik of the Libertarians, and Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party) polled only 1,006,000 between them---barely one-fourth the total of just four years before.
In 2008, with another close contest in a national race universally hailed as deeply significant, the number of votes diverted to meaningless, frivolous minor party adventures will probably shrink even further. Along with the greater openness and unpredictability in the primary process, the embarrassments of recent fringe candidacies have helped convince the overwhelming majority of Americans that they can only make a real difference by exercising their precious franchise within the two party system.
I think he’s a national treasure, one that is being wasted.
Somebody is probably writing a thesis about that right now. It's complicated.
In 1854 former Whigs ran as the "Opposition Party" and they actually won a majority in the House of Representatives. This group became the Republicans. In 1856, they nominated Fremont and came in second in the presidential elections.
Other Whigs joined the "American Party," also called the "Know-Nothings." The Whigs didn't quite die out yet -- Millard Fillmore the "Know Nothing" candidate for President in 1856 ran on the Whig label in many states, and the Constitutional Union Party of 1860 was considered by many to be "the Whigs" -- but they were pretty much a "spent force" by 1854.
In any case, so far no party has gone from being an established third party to one of the two major parties. There has to be a collapse or disappearance of one party for a new one to replace it.
Probably because there was nobody in office anywhere who was worth that much.
You can say the candidates were poor quality, but because this was an "open election" there were more of them than usual.
Also, more of them had held actual elected office (unlike Perot or Forbes or Keyes or Buchanan) and were therefore considered "electable" or "Presidential" or competent.
If you really want a big picture answer, maybe this will help.
Plus his organization started bitter in-fighting which turned off a lot of the grass-roots volunteers.
I can think of two "major" parties that need to be "collapsed" right now.
We will agree to disagree. I think he is a charlatan.
I know better.
Me too.
I don’t like Allan Keyes.
Not that it matters one whit as he isn’t going to be a factor in winning the Presidency during his lifetime but it appears that many others didn’t like him enough to elect him in any of his numerous elective attempts. People make a living in many different ways and once you find a niche to bring in the cash then you keep at it. He has found his niche.
Libertarianism is genetic, there is a libertarian gene, you either get it or you don’t.
The ‘L’ party was once about just getting the message out to those of us who could hear it.
Now they want to win elections. The Libertarian Party is over, it does not exist anymore. Libertarians will stay home for this election.
Bob Barr ? No libertarian would vote for him.
]
Hutchison Whampoa is a Chinese company associated with teh People’s Liberation Army. Thus, if HW is “involved with the ports at Cristobal and Balboa”, then the Chinese are. And controlling those sites at the ends of the Canal is de facto controlling the canal.
Dr. Keyes is one of the most brilliant and articulate advocates for our point of view on the scene today.
It was essentially a merger of the Whigs who didn't join the Republican Party with the American Party (the "Know-Nothings").
A number of errors here. The Federalists were first, and the Republicans ran a candidate in the 3rd presidential election. The Republicans won the fourth election, but they were the ancestors of the Democrat party. The Federalists lost every election through the 8th, getting smaller, and their disloyalty in the War of 1812 led to the Democratic Republicans running unopposed in 1820. In 1824 four regional candidates ran, the election went to the House. The fourth place finisher, excluded by the XII Amendment backed the 2nd place finisher, and the bitterness led to forming a new party, the National Republicans, which lost to the Democrats.
After a couple of additional elections the National Republicans changed its name to the Whigs. From that point until 1852 the Democrats won each election but two, in which Whig Generals were elected President and died in office, The coming Civil War split the Whigs between Northern and Southern Whigs, and the party collapsed after 1852, Northern Whigs along with anti-slavery Democrats formed the new Republican Party, while Southern Whigs, together with the minor Anti-mason party's remnants and some others formed the new American Party (Know-Nothings). Fremont got more votes than ex-president Fillmore, but Buchanan got a majority of the electors. The two new parties in a coalition ran the House, but the AmericanParty died in the crisis of 1860.
The Democrats split between northern and southern Democrats, the remnants of the American party (southern Whigs) formed the Constitutional Union party. Lincoln got a majority of the electors with only about 40% of the vote.
Since the Civil War the democrats and Republicans have been the major two parties. Minor Parties like the Liberal Republicans, Populist party, Prohibition party, Socialist party, and a new pro-communist American party, ran and got a few percentages of the vote, and were absorbed into the major parties. The Progressives under Teddy Roosevelt were a great threat in 1912 and the GOP was 3rd that year, but the Progressives faded away with Lafollete. Dixiecrats in 1948, southern democrats in 1960, and George Wallace's American Independent party in 1968 seemed to threaten the system, and so did Ross Perot.
Believe what you want.
It’s a free country.
I don't see whoever wins this Novembner as more than a one-termer. The last time teh country elected three consecutive two-term Presidents, tehir names were Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1999/nov99/psrnov99.html
“The 50-year leases were awarded to a Chinese Hong Kong corporation named Hutchison Whampoa operating under the name Hutchison Port Holdings.
The billionaire chairman of Hutchison Whampoa, Li Ka-shing, was a business and political buddy of the late Deng Xiaoping and now has the same close relationship with both Jiang Zemin and the Riady financial empire of Indonesia.
Li was China’s chief agent in facilitating China’s smooth takeover of Hong Kong in 1997. Hutchison Whampoa partnered in several enterprises with China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), which is directly controlled by the People’s Liberation Army, and served as a middleman in China’s deals with the U.S. firms Hughes and Loral.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/791620/posts
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff164.htm
“a Chinese firm, Hutchison Whampoa, now controls not only the ports at both ends of the Panama Canal but ports and terminals in Mexico. The company has close ties to the Chinese regime.”
But hey, believe what you want. It’s a free country.
“It’s a free country”
It’s not a free country. America is reallky close to being a socialist police state.
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.