Third party in 2006?

[CARLHAYDEN]

An interesting pattern has developed in the United States Presidential elections over the past fifty years with respect to third party Presidential candidates.

Essentially if there are two consecutive elections with relatively low percentages achieved by third party Presidential candidates, the following election has seen a strong showing by a third party Presidential candidate.

1960 and 1964 were followed by 1968 (Wallace).

1972 and 1976 were followed by 1980 (Anderson).

1984 and 1988 were followed by 1992 (Perot).

It seems to me that this is much more than a coincidence.

Essentially, I believe that the major parties became complacent/arrogant and thumbed their noses at a major segment of the electorate, which responded by supporting a third party candidate.

It seems to me that given the likely actions of the Republicans in Washington, we are bound for a repeat.

Now, I don't know who the candidate will be (did anyone believe Perot would be a candidate in 1991?

However, it would be interesting to read your speculation in this matter.

[Padfoot]

1996 and 2000 were followed by 2004 ...... and the two major parties pulled in 99% of the vote.  So much for the pattern.  Having said that the only person/party who would matter is Bloomberg but it doesn't seem to me like he's all that interested as long as both Clinton and Guliani are still in the race.

[CARLHAYDEN]

1996 and 2000 were followed by 2004 ...... and the two major parties pulled in 99% of the vote.  So much for the pattern.  Having said that the only person/party who would matter is Bloomberg but it doesn't seem to me like he's all that interested as long as both Clinton and Guliani are still in the race.

First, in 1996 third party Presidential candidates total vote was 10.05 per cent of the vote.

Second, like the FEC, I use the five per cent threshold.

So, that threshold was met in 1968, 1980, 1992 and 1996.

In 1972, and 1976 that threshold was NOT met.   It was not met in 1984 and 1988.  It was not met in 2000 nor 2004.

[Gabu]

I don't think you're going to get a strong third party in the 2006 presidential election, because no such election exists.

As for 2008...

I can't immediately think of a reason why this pattern would necessarily continue forever.  It has done so three times in a row, yes, but what happened before 1960?  In 1956 and 1952, there also was no strong third party candidate.  That's four elections that went by without one - it's not until 1948 that you get Strom Thurmond winning a few states.  Then before that you had FDR cleaning up for four consecutive elections, and again in 1928 there was no strong third party candidate.  You have to go back to 1924 to find the next one, which was Robert LaFolette.  That's five in a row without a strong third party candidate.

My main point is that you shouldn't just assume that since a pattern has continued for this long that it indefinitely will.  Maybe there will be one in 2008.  But maybe not.  There have been cases where you get a strong third party candidate two elections in a row, and there have been cases where you can go ten or twenty years without one.  It all depends on the national mood and who the candidates are.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I don't think you're going to get a strong third party in the 2006 presidential election, because no such election exists.

As for 2008...

I can't immediately think of a reason why this pattern would necessarily continue forever.  It has done so three times in a row, yes, but what happened before 1960?  In 1956 and 1952, there also was no strong third party candidate.  That's four elections that went by without one - it's not until 1948 that you get Strom Thurmond winning a few states.  Then before that you had FDR cleaning up for four consecutive elections, and again in 1928 there was no strong third party candidate.  You have to go back to 1924 to find the next one, which was Robert LaFolette.  That's five in a row without a strong third party candidate.

My main point is that you shouldn't just assume that since a pattern has continued for this long that it indefinitely will.  Maybe there will be one in 2008.  But maybe not.  There have been cases where you get a strong third party candidate two elections in a row, and there have been cases where you can go ten or twenty years without one.  It all depends on the national mood and who the candidates are.

First, Mea Culpa.  Yes, I entitled this thread incorrectly. 

Thank you for pointing out my error.

Second, I maintain that the national political system has dramatically changed during the period cited, making prior comparisons invalid.

Let me provide some specifics.  Prior to 1968, many states made it extremely difficult for a third party candidate to qualify for the ballot. See Williams v. Rhodes, 393  U.S. 23 (1968).

Further, the electorate has radically expanded relative to prior elections.  Do you really want me to cite all of the expansions over nearly 180 years?

Additonally, the change in the communications system radically altered the system.   Wallace skillfully used hecklers on television appearances (see TH White's, The Making of the President, 1968).  Perot effectively launched his campaign on Larry King. Television was in its infancy in 1956 (remember DuMont).

[WalterMitty]

mike bloomberg.  he could get 10% easily.

[minionofmidas]

mike bloomberg.  he could get 10% easily.

Bloomberg could do well with the right Rep and Dem candidates, but I doubt he's interested, actually. As for a far-right (or maybe just anti-immigration and otherwise standard right wing) candidate - that'd not bomb as fantastically as it did in 2000, but I doubt it could get far beyond Nader 2000 territory. You'd need a fantastically bad Republican candidate - one who is too moderate for that electorate but also cannot win nationally.

Just my two cents - I could be wrong of course.

[CARLHAYDEN]

mike bloomberg.  he could get 10% easily.

Bloomberg could do well with the right Rep and Dem candidates, but I doubt he's interested, actually. As for a far-right (or maybe just anti-immigration and otherwise standard right wing) candidate - that'd not bomb as fantastically as it did in 2000, but I doubt it could get far beyond Nader 2000 territory. You'd need a fantastically bad Republican candidate - one who is too moderate for that electorate but also cannot win nationally.

Just my two cents - I could be wrong of course.

Thanks for you imput.

Things are rather fluid right now so nobody really knows.

[adam]

I don't see one coming. Even if Bloomberg were to run, I could see him bombing out...perhaps 3 or 4 percent nationally. As  the man with the name too long to type out said, I don't think a one issue immigration candidate would far much better.

The best third party fans are probably going to get in 2008 is 3% between the Green and Libertarian Parties.

[Verily]

The President elected in 2060 will also be assassinated. (In other words, no. It's just a coincidence.)