Most successful 3rd party candidate

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

By most successful, I mean having the most impact on the election, and affecting the policies of the major parties - not necessarily which one got the most votes.

[© tweed]

Well, how do you define successful?  None of these tipped the election, which may have been their goal.  (Other than TR in 1912, he probably tipped it to Wilson.)

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I should mention that, although TR got a whopping 88 EVs, and 27% of the popular vote in 1912, Wilson would have won anyway, with or without his help.  So he really didn't have an impact on the outcome.  Although he may have given the Democrats a progressive "nudge."

[© tweed]

I disagree, Taft would have won without TR.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Well, how do you define successful?  None of these tipped the election, which may have been their goal.  (Other than TR in 1912, he probably tipped it to Wilson.)

Perot most certainly tipped the election in 1992.

Actually, Nader did too, although he got less than 3% of the popular vote, so I didn't include him.

[© tweed]

Perot most certainly tipped the election in 1992.

You want the evidence?  Yes or no.  'Cause I got the evidence.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I disagree, Taft would have won without TR.

Looks like an electoral landslide for Wilson to me.  How many of those red states flip to blue without TR in the race?  I can't imagine it would be enough to win it for Taft.

[PBrunsel]

John Bell hs to be it. His Constitutional Union Party nominated Bell, a former Speaker of the House, and Edward Everett, the famed orator.

His party was able to win votes in ever state (strange for the Election of 1860) and he appealed to border states.

[© tweed]

Combine the split GOP votes, and subtract a little bit (maybe 5%) from discontented progressive Republicans.

[© tweed]

Ending the Perot garbage, Part 21097023752:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=48;start=2355

Read up for a few pages.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Perot most certainly tipped the election in 1992.

You want the evidence?  Yes or no.  'Cause I got the evidence.

Sigh.  I've been over this before.  Perot votes were overwhelmingly Republican.  I'll have to dig up the evidence, but I can show you very convincingly that 1. Perot excelled in Republican areas, and 2. Democrat numbers in those Republican areas were not affected at all by the presence of Perot.

Let's go by popular vote:
If you split the Perot vote 2-1 (which is being very, very generous to Clinton), Bush wins the popular vote, 49.93%-49.25%.

The following states would probably have gone to Bush, had Perot not run:
Montana (3)
Nevada (4)
Colorado (
New Hampshire (4)
Maine (4)
Wisconsin (11)
Iowa (7)
Kentucky (
Georgia (13)
Ohio (21)
...That gets him up to 251.  I'm sure a few others also would have flipped as well to get him over 269.

[ijohn57s]

I have to vote for TR just because he got 88 EV's and finished 2nd instead of third in the election.

BTW, PBrunsel, in your opinion as a resident historian, if TR had not said in 1904 that he only wanted one more term, would he have won the GOP nomination in 1912?

[gorkay]

Why isn't Martin Van Buren included in the poll? His 1848 candidacy on the Free Soil ticket probably tipped the election to Taylor.
T.R. has to be the winner, though. He got a higher percentage of the popular or electoral vote, finished first or second in more states, and was perhaps the only third-party candidate in history who actually had a shot at winning.
There is an excellent book out entitled 1912 which is essential reading for anyone interested in that election. I highly recommend it.
The person who said that Taft would have won the election if not for T.R.'s candidacy is way off base. He should read the book.
Incidentally, according to the book, T.R. may have been the Republican Presidential candidate in 1920 had he not died suddenly a year earlier.

[© tweed]

Beef,

Please read this:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=48;start=2355

Carl Hayden gave me the numbers of how Perot voters split.  In your numbers you are not factoring in the very high percentage that would have stayed home.

[MasterJedi]

TR, one of the best Presidents ever!

[PBrunsel]

Ultimateb irony:

Martin Van Buren ran for president in 1848 to oppose slavery. His campaign, garnering 10% of the vote, directly elected a slave holder, Zachary Taylor, by spliting the Democratic Vote.

[??????????]

Wallace. He had a real shot if he had won the nomination in 1972.

[Akno21]

Perot and TR helped put great Democrats in the White House, so I really like them, even if I don't agree with them.

[© tweed]

Wallace. He had a real shot if he had won the nomination in 1972.

But that would have been as a Democrat and not as a third party candidate.

Plus Nixon would have won every state ouside of the south and maybe even DC.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wisconsin (11)
Iowa (7)

this alone proves that illogical. These states voted for Dukakis! Why would they vote for a weak candidate over Bush at a time when he was rather popular, and then reject a much stronger candidate over a much more unpopular Bush? Makes no sense.

Also if you portion the Perot vote that way in St. Louis county, Minnesota, the most Democratic predominately white county in the country, Clinton would've still won but barely done any better than McGovern! Why did Perot run strong here? Maybe his anti-NAFTA views appealed to normally Democratic union voters?

I do agree with Beef though that Wilson would've won without TR.

[zachman]

Anderson. He built from nowhere. All these other guys were superstars, or faded quickly.

[Dr. Cynic]

William Jennings Bryan is credited with gaining the victory of the Democratic party in 1912, here's what happened:

Bryan's Neb. delegation was pledged to Champ Clark, a Conservitive Missouri Congressman. Clark had gotten into the majority of delegates, and Bryan feared with two Conservitives in the race, a Liberal tidal wave would carry Roosevelt to victory, so Bryan switched Nebraska's vote to Wilson, and the rest is history.

I don't count Roosevelt as a 3rd party candidate.