This past weekend on The Chris Matthews Show, John Heilemann of New York Magazine reported that a Newt nomination would result in an “80 percent” chance of at least one major third party candidate entering the race, based on the premise that I and others have been floating in recent weeks that a Newt/Obama race would leave a huge portion of the electorate unhappy with its choices. Heilemann suggested that we could see multiple third party candidates enter the race, including Michael Bloomberg, Ron Paul, and a Blue Dog Democrat such as Evan Bayh garnering the nomination of “Americans Elect,” which plans to be on the ballot in all 50 states. As such, we could actually end up seeing not just a four party election, as I suggested last week, but a five party general election, with the field, from left-to-right, looking something like this: Bloomberg (I), Obama (D), Bayh or Blue Dog equivalent (AE), Gingrich (R), Ron Paul or Gary Johnson (L). In this sort of election, anything could happen, and a hung Electoral College wouldn’t be out of the question. Is this a sign of the fall of the American republic or simply the reasoning of bored political junkies?
December 5th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
I tend to believe that if Bloomberg runs he’ll go for the Americans Elect nomination, seeing as the organization is crawling with former Bloomberg staff/supporters. These are the same Bloomberg folks who pushed Unity 08 last time around.
Per Americans Elect’s rules, if Bloomberg were the nominee, as a Republican-turned-independent he would have to choose someone from the other party as a running mate. This is where Evan Bayh’s name comes up most from people I talk to.
December 5th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
That’s interesting, Max.
I know from my weekly self-flagellation of watching Chris Matthews’ Sunday show that John Heilemann is VERY plugged into the Bloomberg camp. If Heilemann is throwing around a figure like “80 percent,” it means that, as I suspected, a Newt/Obama race is to Bloomberg what the Roadrunner is to Wile E. Coyote.
December 5th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
I believe the “Americans Elect” will have a candidate in all 50 states and it will be great news for the GOP nominee.
The candidate will surly be a Pro-choice candidate that will be acceptable to the Liberal press….which gives the GOP candidate the abilty to win over the splintered Left-Center left candidates.
One other point.
I have enjoyed this site in 2004, 2008 and now 2012. I respect all the people who comment here and have had lots of fun.
But this will be my last post until the “4 comment rule a thread” gets lifted. SMACKDADDY is not able to get into any good back-n-forth commenting with my ROMBOT friends so commenting on this site is mute.
The Romney supporters out number the non Romney supporters by 25 to 1 on this site, and that is fine. But when there is a 4 comment rule…well….what’s the point for a guy like me. I can’t even have a conversation with more than 1 Romney supporter at a time..and that is too bad.
You might as well call this place Romney42012.
I have had lots of fun, and I hope I have made you all smile at one point or another during ths crazy election cycle.
Good luck, God speed.
December 5th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Gimme a break, PLEASE-KWN
December 5th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Gimme a break…-KWN
December 5th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
None of the front page posters care about posting anytrhing positive about Newt, so I ‘ll do it here:
Des Moines’ Darrell Kearney says Gingrich is best leader since Reagan
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/05/des-moines-darrell-kearney-says-gingrich-is-best-leader-since-reagan/
Yes, this has weight in Iowa.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
#3 – so you’re going to pack up your marbles and go home? If so, you might want to lend them to Newt, ‘cuz he’s lost his.
WRT Bloomberg/Bayh, I’ve seen this game before, and let me simply say that the “radical middle” simply doesn’t exist in this country, as much as some in the NY- D.C. corridor would like to believe that it does.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
I’d love to know how he came up with that 80% number. Just made it up. I do think the odds increase with Newt ticket, though.
Smack – no one has followed the 4 post rule so far on any of the threads, and to my knowledge no one has been banned. Kavon is just tired of people spamming and taking over threads. Out of all the non-mitts’ you are typically the most objective, however, you can tend to be a little overzealous with your
SUUUURRRRRGGGGESSS, etc. and BREAKING NEWS, etc. I do appreciate some of the insight, though.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
I hope liberal Bloomberg runs insuring Obama’s demise. Libertarian Paul will likely run 3rd party unless his son talks him out of it. Either way, Newt is the most conservative between our final two IN ACCOMPLISHMENTS, so let’s go with him.
As my friend said today:
“…..other than Ronald Reagan himself, Newt Gingrich has actually helped push through more conservative legislation than anybody else in the last 30 years. This is the man behind the Contract with America, welfare reform, and a balanced budget in D.C. He has a lifetime ACU rating of 90. This isn’t a man who governed as a centrist and is now telling us how conservative he’ll be this time around.”
And Smack, my friend..
Hope you get it worked out and return soon. The 25 to one ratio will only get worse without you.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
I plan on voting Constitution party like I did last time in the GE unless Paul is the nominee of course.
…or Libertarian if they ran someone besides Bob Barr again.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
6 Typical Gingrich campaign – totally overstated. If he’s such a great leader why didn’t he run for Governor or Senate? Short answer: because his own party kicked him out. How are you a great leader if people aren’t willing to follow?
December 5th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Dave,
Bloomberg’s people are pushing him hard this time, with an unpopular President and an uninspiring group of republicans, they really believe with his resources he would have a chance.
This is site that has tracked Americans Elect extensively since it’s creation, and the ties to Bloomberg are obvious and undeniable.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/category/americanselect/
Not a bad plan for Bloomberg either; let’s this corporation get him ballot access in 50 states without him having to spend a dime. This coincides with increased criticism of Obama and Congress. by Bloomberg.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
8. jaaron, Smacks came under the delete hammer in the last thread in a totally arbitrary enforcement of the new rule because he was making effective points for Newt and against His Mittness. Period.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
DaveG,
I think your last question is really intriguing and it makes me wonder. There are a lot of smart people who spend a lot of time going through the ins and outs of every conceivable scenario. A third party run just depends, is it Ross Perot or Ralph Nader? Mostly third party runs are conceived with or without obvious catalysts, and I would contend will or will not be undertaken based on the individual ambitions of those likely to consider it. It’s not a purity test as much as it is a study in practicality. If they perceive weakness, they will enter. Even if they don’t, they still might.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Irrelevant to the post-KWN
December 5th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
The only way a third party has a chance is if the empirical evidence shows that neither the (R) nor the (D) garner 50 + 1% of polling and undecideds run at least 48%.
Bold prediction, but I think the calculus is correct.
American politics were designed from the beginning to consolidate.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
10 I can understand voting 3rd party if you live in a state that’s a lock for one side or the other in order to make a statement, but if you’re in a battle-ground state I’d encourage you to reconsider.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Five is a little ambitious, but I am totally with you on it being a legit three-party race. And I’d be voting for that third party.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
The worst part about a 3rd party run if Gingrich is nominated is the 3rd party candidate could rival Gingrich for endorsements. He would make it all too easy to split the party, as it SEEMS almost nobody in this party supports him. All he’s running on is the image he’s built complimenting himself on Fox News.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Irrelevant to the post-KWN
December 5th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Irrelevant to the post-KWN
December 5th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
3.
Smack – Just one “Rombot’s” ( you should understand that that pejorative gets pretty tiring) opinion but I hope you change your mind. I’m sure there are a few Romney supporters who crossed the line but I’m equally sure you know why this rule got implemented and it wasn’t because of Romney supporters who are for the most part pretty civil.
I don’t like the rule much but I understand why it was instituted. I was about done with this place and the very vocal few who did nothing but toss out insults and spam every thread until they became unreadable. I like the good give and take of politics but if I just wanted to put up with constant mindless insults there are any number of True Conservative sites to visit.
I know much of what you say has a good bit of tongue and cheek so I hope you reconsider. If not, good luck, but not too good.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Irrelevant to the post-KWN
December 5th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Irrelevant to the post-KWN
December 5th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
“10 I can understand voting 3rd party if you live in a state that’s a lock for one side or the other in order to make a statement, but if you’re in a battle-ground state I’d encourage you to reconsider.”
Zero chance I would vote for anyone besides Constitution Party or Libertarian Party.
Even if I did, I would probably be closer to Obama than the GOP.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Irrelevant to the post-KWN
December 5th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
26 That’s pretty normal. Would you hand your hard drive over to democrats. Huckabee did the same thing but I believe Huckabee took it out of the budget whereas Romney’s staff paid for their own hard drives.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Ron Paul is not going to run Third Party. How many times does he have to plainly state it. It would ruin Rand’s chances at the GOP nomination in the future.
I think Bloomberg will run third party, and it will hurt Obama pretty badly.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
28 Really? It would hurt Obama? I have no idea, but what makes you think that?
December 5th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
28.
Kavon,
Did you mean to say, it would ruin Rand’s chances?
Actually, it kinda would…
December 5th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Haven’t they polled a three-way race with Bloomberg, with the Mayor taking away more votes from the Republican candidate than Obama?
December 5th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
28.
I agree. But a Newt nomination will also depress the Republican vote. I, for one, will not vote for Newt and I doubt I’m alone. I’ve been voting every year since I was eligible which is longer than I like to admit but given the choice between Newt, Obama and Bloomberg I would rather concentrate on my own personal well being and that of my family. The country will be done as we know it.
If that seems like hyperbole, watch what happens in Europe over the next few months and how it affects us. I don’t trust any of the 3 to rebuild this country into a place that I will recognize.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Michael Medved had a great article a while ago on the folly of 3rd Parties. The way our electoral system is structured, 3rd parties just won’t win elections.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Your anger causes me to grow a big, rubbery one…-KWN
December 5th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
“I think Bloomberg will run third party, and it will hurt Obama pretty badly.”
Bingo! Like I said in my #9, it would be ideal.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Aspire #28,
Bloomberg is a liberal democrat who had to run under the GOP banner in NYC. There is nothing conservative about him whatsoever. He is the biggest gun-grabbing, nanny-stater in elected office today.
Once people get to know his record, he would serve a similar role as John Anderson did in 1980, namely, a center-left candidate who siphons votes from the incumbent.
He alone can bring New Jersey’s electoral votes in the GOP’s column. Maybe 1-2 other Blue States as well.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
I can definitely see a third party or independent candidate in the mold of Joseph Lieberman or LIsa Murkowski being successful in this election. A choice between Obama and Gingrich is anathema to so many people.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Mitt Romney would depress the conservative republican vote.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
It’s quite simple. Bloomberg and Obama split liberal votes, leaving Newt (or Romney) to cruise to the Whie House, imho.
December 5th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
I meant to say “would ruin” in #28
December 5th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Deleted-KWN
December 5th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Irrelevant to the post-KWN
December 5th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
#38 – Yup, and give lots of conservatives reason to vote 3d party. Obama’s base will be there.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
#38:
No he wouldn’t. John McCain didn’t depress the conservative vote, he still got something like 80% of the vote of self-identified conservatives in an election that was a disaster. We lost that election when moderate and independent voters flocked to Obama in the wake of 8 years of Bush and the collapse of the economy.
Just to speculate but if Bloomberg wanted to get an ideal running mate for a 3rd Party candidacy, I think his best bet would be former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis. The former Congressman has essentially been written out of the Democratic Party. He’s a Southerner, a minority, and someone with D.C. experience, a pretty good balance to a Bloomberg led-ticket.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
43.
I think you missed the point of the post. The hypothesis is that if Newt is the nominee there will be a 3rd party, not Mitt. Bloomberg has made no such claim if Romney is the nominee.
Who will be the 3rd party candidate if Romney is the nominee because I haven’t heard anyone make that claim.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
33 – True in most cases, but not all. The Republican Party was a third party at one point. If the two major party candidates are bad enough, a serious third party candidate or an independent candidate does have a shot. There hasn’t been a serious third candidate in any of our lifetimes though.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
43- LOL … right. Conservatives voting for Bloomberg over Romney. LOL … you are on a role tonight!
December 5th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
#46:
The GOP was in an unique historical position. The political instability in America in the 1850′s caused the collapse and destruction of the Whig Party and the Democratic embrace of the Slave Power left a vaccum for opposition. There were 2 parties that tried to rise to replace the Whigs. One was the GOP but the other was the American/Know-Nothing Party. In the first presidential election the GOP ran in, 1856, the Republicans immediately became the main opposition party to the Democrats.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
36 See what I would fear is Bloomberg would only be popular in the northeaster states where he would be popular with Rockefeller republicans (ironically Newt worked on the Rockefeller campaign), and just strip votes away from the Republican. Again, I know nothing about how he’d play, that’s just what I’d fear.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
48 – Sounds similar to what is going on today
December 5th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Jonathan,
Your commentary on the 1850s is interesting, as I was just thinking about that period the other day. As I often discuss offline with other readers and contributors, the GOP is in a very tenuous position right now as a party that is doing well with demographics that are lagging indicators of where our nation is headed, and doing very poorly with the demographics that are the leading indicators. Somehow I doubt that President Newt Gingrich is the cure for what ails the party going forward. I would say the same about pretty much everyone in the field. I’m not just trying to pick on Newt. I’ve picked on everyone in the field all year because I realize that there’s simply no transformational force present in the field that will be anything other than a sitting duck if they beat Barack Obama. At some point, the GOP is going to have to address these issues and not simply fall back on red meat for an existing, disappearing base.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
#51:
I have faith in the long-term life of the GOP because the political opinions of certain demographic groups change and evolve over time. Look at Catholics. In that 1856 election they voted almost unanimously for the Democrats. After the 1880′s, the GOP slowly began to woo Catholics into their camp. Sure it’s taken a long, long time for the GOP to become competitive for the majority of the Catholic but we have become competitive enough to the point of actually winning the Catholic vote in 2004 with a Texas eveangelical over a nominal Massachusetts Catholic.
December 5th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Bloomberg won’t run. He’ll flirt with the idea but it just wont happen. I could however see a stronger than usual Libertarian party run.
Here’s another thought? But why obsess over one billionaire turned politician when there are two already running. Now. What if Romney or Huntsmann said, screw it, shifted their platform to the left, teamed up with Bayh and ran on that unity ticket? I mean it’s only marginally more left of where Huntsmann is now and several flop-backs by Romney to win over the independents and moderates that want competent management, dont care about the candidate’s religion and dont care about ideological purity.
Have at it…Romney (I) for President 2012? Huntsman (I) for President 2012?
December 5th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Being an independent doesn’t mean you are a leftist. Or even a moderate.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Jonathan,
I did my senior thesis on, in part, the Catholic vote. I concluded the change was attributable to A.) Economics (Catholics moved into the middle class, even ethnic urban Catholics who’d long been poorer), B.) Culture, particularly law and order issues. To this day, Catholics poll as more conservative than Protestants on issues relating to law and order (look at Quinnipiac’s polling on approval of OWS). C.) The Civil Rights movement made Catholics less conspicuously a minority. Generally speaking, as minorities integrate with the majority, their political views more closely resemble the majority (i.e, they become conservative). It’s hard to know what to do with that in terms of appealing to hispanics, blacks, and asians. Culturally, these groups have more in common with conservatism then their voting patterns would suggest, so we ought to be doing better. But persistent poverty (at least among Hispanics and Blacks) hasn’t helped our cause. I suspect our poor showing among Asian voters is more complicated. On the one hand, the party of merit and achievement ought to be fairly appealing to a culture that worships merit and achievement. On the other hand, half of the party believes the earth is 6000 years old (I’m not judging). There are plenty of Christian Asians but I find it hard to envision a party whose Presidential Candidates sing gospel songs at press conferences, ever being a comfortable home for a majority of Asians. I think if we finally saw the transformation at the Presidential Level, which the party has been experiencing for decades at the intellectual level- that is, if the religiosity of the Party was primarily the quiet, intellectual religiosity of Catholics like Paul Ryan and Bill Buckley- that might change, but for now it’s hard to see much compatibility.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
If the race does get thrown to the Electoral College, the House is not obligated to choose from those who won electoral votes. In that case, the person receiving the most endorsements by sitting House members would benefit immensely. Do we have to go back to the endorsement chart to see who is leading there?
December 5th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
9. “This isn’t a man who governed as a centrist and is now telling us how conservative he’ll be this time around.”
Newt never “governed” anything. He legislated and voted. He was the lead legislator, but made a terrible leader. His voting record (rating of 90) sounds great, but is right in the middle of the pack. Being in the middle of the pack when you’re supposed to be the leader of conservative legislation is not a great place to be. And if it weren’t for his last year on the job (where he was so hated that he had no more leeway to step out of line and was pretty much forced to earn a 100 rating that year), he would have been below average overall.
That said, I’m comfortable with Newt’s record (even though it was somewhat moderate). I’m also comfortable with him as a person and I think he’s learned something about leadership since his days in the House. If Newt wins the nomination I won’t have to plug my nose to vote for him. I’ll support his campaign and hope he wins. I don’t think he’s as good as Romney, but you don’t always get what you want. My biggest reason for really disliking Newt right now is that he IS NOT the best option and I have a very hard time seeing his pathway to victory. I don’t think he has a chance in the general. I think we’d be better off pushing Huntsman or Paul.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
57 – If you are comfortable with it, you don’t know what it is. Newt does not have a good record.
December 5th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
if we’re going to start moderating every comment, can we moderate posters like adam graham when they say dumb stuff?
December 5th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
My problem with Gingrich is as much psychological as ethical. I don’t trust him with his role as Commander In Chief. For that reason, I will vote Libertarian if Newt gets the nomination. But I’ll vote Republican if anyone else gets it.
Full disclosure: the only other person who CAN get it is Mitt.
December 6th, 2011 at 2:06 am
Original post: Is this a sign of the fall of the American republic or simply the reasoning of bored political junkies?
Bored political junkies. I would be surprised if there is even one prominent third-party candidate in 2012, much less three of them.
#56 asparagus: If the race does get thrown to the Electoral College, the House is not obligated to choose from those who won electoral votes.
Yes, it is. “… the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.” U.S. Constitution, 12th Amendment.
General comment to Kavon: The moderation in these comments is looking kind of heavy-handed. I’m willing to follow the comment policy myself, but I’d prefer if the moderation were limited to objective criteria (such as deleting only the fifth and later comments by a person in a particular thread, not their first four comments).
December 6th, 2011 at 9:28 am
Mitch Daniels/Evan Bayh 2012!
On a different topic, I have a big problem with people trying to articulate the political spectrum as one-dimensional from left to right, because libertarians do not fit conveniently on that spectrum. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are to the right of all current Republican candidates on fiscal issues and to the left of all Dems on social/personal liberty issues. Libertarians are the only group truly supportive of SMALL government (Mitt and Newt will both perpetuate the Big Government ideas of the GWB and Obama administrations, in my opinion).
December 6th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 2/3rds of the states that are just ‘spectators’ and ignored.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
NationalPopularVote
December 15th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
January 17th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
antique us coins…
Michael Bloomberg | Race 4 2012…