Third Party & Independents: Archives

I think that there is a partial explanation for Kerry not getting slammed the way frontrunners normally are: he had already been a frontrunner (albeit not for very long), and had taken a lot of heat during that time. His comeback took the wind out of the other campaigns, especially Dean’s.

Changing subjects, I read an article today saying that there was a strong possibility that Nader would run, but as an independent, not a Green.

I think the allusion to JFK’s election is kind of apt- the 1960 election was the closest in history (until 2000). Kennedy’s margin of victory (as well as just about everything about his mediocre, at best, presidency), has been exagerated by the martyr status he has achieved in death. The country is split right down the middle and I see this election turning on two things- which are largely out of the control of Kerry and Bush: (1) if the economic recovery’s kick will really be felt in the swing states before november; (2) if Osama will be captured. I do not think the other issues that Kerry or Bush are pushing- from “anti-corporation” rhetoric of Kerry to the “anti-gay marriage” tools of bush will do very much to swing many voters one way or the other.

Misha, your assessment appears sound to me. I would add, though, that if June 30 comes and goes without an Iraqi provisional government in control, Kerry will have some devastating rhetoric to aim at Bush.

Robert, Nader has had a test of contributions and support out there for a run for a couple months. I can’t pretend to know what his aim is, but, with battlelines drawn between Dems plus leftie independents and the GOP, my guess is the support he has been feeling for, is eluding him. That is why I parenthetically stated, “unlikely”.

Side observation about Kerry: Pundits like to say he comes across as an aloof aristocrat, but I noticed that in the exit polls he solidly beat Edwards among the lower income voters.

Woody,

That stat from the exit polls last night surprised me as well. I would have thought Kerry’s background would result in his having higher support among the wealthier Democrats while Edwards’s roots and pro-worker platform would draw the lower income voters to him.

I guess this can be taken as a good sign that both candidates appeal to groups that one wouldn’t initially suspect they appeal to. And think of the additional strength that would bring to the ticket should Kerry select Edwards as his running mate…

“Edwards got a majority of the Independent vote, but, lost large to Kerry amongst Democrats”

Don’t you think that is a pretty important stat? Edwards will get all the same dem votes that Kerry will get, and according to that statement, he will bring a larger independent contingency to unseat bush.

It was nice to see that Edwards’s support from the independents reaches outside the south. He could be a key in bringing some of the “NASCAR Dads” into the Democratic fold. While that group might be more inclined to vote GOP much of the time because of their more conservative views on social issues, the economic and job loss issues are of greater immediate concern right now and that could swing those vote to the Dems if Edwards is the nominee for either President or VP.

blipsman,
don’t you think that the vp is pretty much a “don’t hurt me” addition to a canidate? Wouldn’t the dems have a more likely chance to win with Edwards leading the ticket?

Frankly, I think Kerry could run the petrified remains of a Neanderthal as a running mate and STILL win the election! With 9 months to go and Kerry already beating Bush in the polls, I don’t see how anything less than complete economic recovery(not just people’s stocks going up but J-O-B-S) can save Bush. I mean, unemployed people are going to be asking themselves what is more important to me and my family: Gays getting married and Kerry’s Sex Life…or a job to feed my family. They’ll look back at the Clinton years when they had a job and, by comparison, will know what to do! Flashy Rhetoric won’t knock a dent in the impending repo on the family car!!

I don’t mean any insult, but it’s really funny hearing about this demographic of Nascar dads as if this is a new group or a measurable demographic from which the majority of swing votes could be pulled from. I don’t know if there is any actual documentation on their numbers but the media seems to squawk on it quite a bit as if relevent or taking priority. We used to just call them rural or suburbanite males(25-40)am I right?

I do agree with the Kerry steamroller, how can anyone deny the momentum especially in media coverage? But also with Bush doing fairly bad even with Karen Hughes and Karl Rove manicuring every detail. The plain talker seems to be doing just plain aweful.

Now I could be wrong but the innitial schematics of the Bush/Cheney whitehouse was one of Machiavelli’s the prince, with Cheney working behind the scenes (The King) and George as the lovable prince. But Bush has faultered on the roleplay of Machiavelli’s thesis. Bush on constant limelight hiatus and out of the media limelight right now is going to harm him politically. His emergeance to talk to Tim Russert resulted in him looking like a tobacco executive trying to claim nicotine as being a non-addictive substance.

Now I don’t personally agree with Dems, although one myself, that we should be harping on this charge of AWOL I believe there are more charged issues (economy, crony capitalism, healthcare, veteran’s issues, civil liberties etc.) than what he did or may have done as a young twenty something when you are supposed to make mistakes. As self party critique we need to get off of this and onto issues more pressing of this time that are of actual interest to voters, not rehashing dirtylaundry from thirty plus years ago.

Now as for Kerry, I am enthused, a man who served his country when he certainly did’nt have to ($$$) really does show a great deal of character. Although I do believe him wrong on Nafta and PNTR status to China. I see a person who will make the right choices. 20 years experience, served on intelligence and defense commitees. This man would step into office already knowing a great deal instead of awkward learning periods. He would actually know what was going on upon taking office as well as knowing all that has gone on in the past 20-30 years plus.

BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT HELL, WE’LL JUST SETTLE FOR ANYONE WHO CAN PRONOUNCE THE WORD NU-CLEAR.

Regarding Kerry as President, I quote another:

“New boss. Same as old boss.” At least in a host of different ways - special interest pandering, supporting the exclusionary FEC, projecting a strong offensive military as our best defensive posture - simplistic (and ineffective) economic remedies like protectionist posturing. Want a new boss that ain’t the same as old boss, give Nader or Camejo a vote.

88CAPRICE,

I don’t think the “NASCAR Dads” is necessarily a new demographic, I just think that it’s a media-friendly name attached to a group that always been there and overlooked in previous elections because their vote was pretty much accounted for by one party. However this election cycle, because of the issues at hand they fall within the swing voters.

In past elections, with their jobs fairly secure they voted more based on social issues, ie. abortion, morality, etc. This time however, their feelings regarding jobs and the economy may conflict with their beliefs regarding social issues such as gay marriage. That puts many of them in the swing voter group that ultimately decides who wins.

This is similar to the “Soccer Moms” in previous elections who, because of their affluence wanted lower taxes and were looking for a return to morality, but who also were more likely to be pro-choice and wanted money spent on education. Their husbands may have been solidly in the GOP camp, but the Soccer Moms were more likely to gi either way…

David,

Any other time I probably would give Ralph Nader a vote, someone that my father while working in D.C. in the early 70’s actually knew. But in these times, not to contrast your message which I actually like very much, we are in a place of real crisis as I see it. If our problems were just domestic I would and so would others. But Bush has brought us into a place where we are nearly a colonialistic power and completely favoring corporate interests. Bush going into Iraq bi-laterally, US & UK, was a really stupid move on many fronts. We need an international player with experience.

These problems are’nt a matter of consumer activism all of this stuff could blow up in our face. We need to concentrate on our Nation yes, but we have to get there first.

‘Anybody but Bush’ is a hopeful mantra. This will not be the green’s year even for most greens.

As for protectionism, I’m sure what is being advocated is’nt something that is dangerous. The Carter years were strong enough lessons.

88caprice, thanks for your perspective. It is rational and defensible from a liberal point of view. It won’t convince me to change my vote, but, I do agree with your analysis, this will not be a strong year for Greens at the Presidential level.

Protectionism is a very involved, difficult and debatable topic, especially when comparing varying programs which have any chance of passing. I will probably address it in an upcoming article on international trade and jobs.

Thanks for joining us here at WatchBlog.