2008: Year of the Third Party?

Joe Lockhart and Mark McKinnon both mention 2008 as a possible breakthrough year for Third Party candidates in an MSNBC article. Frankly, I agree - and I hope it's true. Here are some thoughts regarding the possible rise of a third legitimate option on the ballot in 2008.


First, let me just point out that there are numerous opportunities for a third party challenge this year. Forget about the usual also-ran suspects like Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, and whoever the libertarians decide to throw out there this year - they are significantly too much of a niche product to be successful in a general election. Instead, there are possibilities for a third party run in a number of other areas:

1.) Unity 08 - This group wants to use a net-based nomination process to create a bipartisan ticket to run for President in 2008. This is not really a third party effort - the folks in charge of this thing are trying to send a message to the establishment in both parties, not create a whole new party. However, the ticket that they plan on putting forward will be running essentially as a third party. With the kind of long-range planning that has gone into the Unity 08 process, they should be able to get on the ballot on the vast majority of states. If the people who come through the online nomination process are compelling enough, the ticket this group puts forward could be a formidable opponent.

2.) Mayor Michael Bloomberg - The Mayor of New York City running for President (or Vice-President) in 2008 might not be the one you think. While early signs indicate that "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani is at least considering running for the Republican nomination, there's a good chance that he'll decide he has no chance and back off. Bloomberg, however, is at least seriously considering being involved in a third party run.

3.) John McCain or Rudy Giuliani (or both!) - Both of these men might make runs for the Republican nomination, but there is a very good chance that neither will emerge victorious. Both are considered too moderate (and Giuliani, really, is quite liberal on most social issues). That may make them unpalatable to the class of persons who actually vote in primaries. Either of these guys could decide that they could garner support from the middle, leaving the base to the presumably more conservative Republican nominee. Call it the "reverse Lieberman" strategy.

Those are just three possibilities right off the bat, and I think any, or all, of them could in fact happen. The internet has revolutionized how elections are conducted - and that process is still carrying forward. I think that one of the ramifications of the increased communication of the "modern era" of politics is that it will be harder and harder to satisfy constituencies with just two parties. That, of course, is in conflict with the structure of the American political system, which makes two parties optimal. Which force wins out is a question for the future, but I think the interim result is going to be a proliferation of serious third party candidates making runs.

Now, the interesting thing to consider is what this means for the 2008 election. All it would take to throw the system seriously off track would be a close election with a third party candidate winning one swing state. If Ohio or Florida had gone for a third party candidate rather than for George W. Bush, the election would have gone to the House rather than be decided on election night. Since elections seem likely to be close for the forseeable future, this is an interesting thing to watch for.

I'm not going to go too much further in depth for now. Suffice it to say that I think there is a substantial opportunity for third party movement in 2008, and that I hope we see a strong challenge - one that actually leads to electoral votes going to a third candidate. That would shake things up!

A Statement of Profound Stupidity

I try to avoid calling public figures stupid, so I'm going to take a pass on the question of whether Sam Brownback, Republican Senator from Kansas and a man who has been named as a longshot Presidential Candidate in 2008, is actually stupid and confine myself to saying that it is merely the statement which he made this morning on "This Week" with George Stephanapolous is profoundly stupid.

The situation involves Judge Janet Neff of the Michigan Court of Appeals, who has been nominated by President Bush to a District Court seat in Michigan. It turns out that back in 2002, Judge Neff attended the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple in Massachusetts. Senator Brownback this morning stated that her attendance may indicate how she views the law in this developing area. It is this statement that I have so much trouble with.

Judge Neff's attendance at a civil commitment ceremony, a ceremony which had no binding legal force and simply served to demonstrate the couple's commitment to each other, was done in a personal capacity. In no way does it even remotely implicate her ability to serve as a judge, and it is offensive and idiotic to suggest otherwise. Look at it from the other direction - if she had turned down an invitation to the ceremony would it have demonstrated that she was a suitable candidate for Brownback? Does a judge who accepts an invitation to speak at an event indicate that he or she is sympathetic to the cause represented by that group? Can a judge with cable TV be trusted to rule on cases involving the entertainment industry?

I don't have much else to say on this. I think it to be so patently absurd that it doesn't justify too much attention. If Brownback were a more viable Presidential candidate, I'd be horrified. As it is, I'm not that worried.