Howard Fineman sees 2008 as possibly being the year of the “Third Force.” With the possibility that the major party candidates will be determined by February, there is plenty of time for buyer’s remorse, and for people to look at any third party candidates who might decide to run in early 2008.
If I were a GOP strategist – or a Democratic one – I would be worried by Arnold’s body language. He and other major independent actors on the political scene – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Vice President Al Gore, chief among them – comprise a Third Force that could upset two-party politics as we know it in the 2008 presidential race.
Indeed, although there is no formal alliance, Schwarzenegger, Bloomberg and Gore have formed a mutual admiration society that has huge potential implications for 2008. They have come to share similar visions on the urgency of the global warming and health care crises, and a similar impatience with politics as usual.
One problem with many articles on the possibility of a third party candidate is that they predict a desire for another choice, but fail to take into account the different views amont those seeking alternatives. Desiring a third choice does not mean there is agreement what the alternative choice should be. The media looks at third parties from a horse race perspective, ignoring the fact that people choose third parties based upon what they support.
Feinman suggests that Gore might support a third party bid by someone else as opposed to running himself. Besides Gore, Schwarzenegger, and Bloomberg, Feinman suggests others could be involved:
Other key players who could be part of this Third Force include Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a man without a comfortable home in his own party any more. And Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, an anti-war activist who was on the verge of announcing for the GOP nomination, but changed his mind at the last minute.
If you hear that Lieberman and Hagel are getting together to hash out a common position on Iraq – not an easy thing to achieve, to be sure – then you know something is up.
I don’t see that this group would make for a third party which would excite very many people. Gore’s views on the war are so different from those of Lieberman. While Hagel might differ from Repubicans on the war, he is conservative on other issues. If Gore has any interest, he’d be better off running as a Democrat than running with those whose views differ so much from his. If he is looking to back a third party bid, I would not expect him to back one involving Lieberman or Hagel.
Dear Ron
Howard Fineman is in the twilight zone the only name mentioned that may remotely run as an a “third party” candidate might be Sen Hagel, because of lack of party constituency support for his opposition to the Iraq war and even with that chances are slim, granted when Ross “I Cannot See Above the Podium” Perot ran in his reform party for for President he led in the polls for a short [pun intended] time before checking into Fantasy Island with Mr Rourke, but because of the two party dynamics its exceedingly difficult for an independent to win, unless he or she is a mega millionaire.
I believe people that run as independent are more concerned with making a political statement rather than winning the White House.
We always go through this third party theme almost every presidential election. After all Howard Fineman even though a political editorial writer has to write articles that generate interest to his readers despite knowing how diminutive the chances of a “third party” candidate will be, let alone winning.
Side note….Chrish Matthews interviewd Hillary’s Communications Director last night and literally tied to get him to commit to an issue and by his own admission, to make the 2008 election “exciting” But he would not take the bait Matthews offered.
Heather™
Heather,
There are two issues–who might run as a third party and the chances for winning. Simply throwing out names like Gore, Hagel, and Liberman as a third party makes little sense as they stand for such different things.
Chances for victory are also obviously poor. We can’t entirely go by the Perot experience as there were reasons beyond being a third party that he lost. If Perot hadn’t done some of his off the wall things it is still unlikely a third party would have won, but the chances would have been better.
A third party mgiht have a better chance now for a variety of reasons (with chances of victory still poor, but not impossible). The internet makes it easier to raise money and mount a campaign without the traditional party establishment. It is also much easier to organize supporters into a coherent organizaiton nationallywithout a party using the internet to first form local organizations (as Dean did in 2004).
There may be more people interested in a third party. There are a lot of people who voted Republican in the past but don’t agree with their current policies, as well as independents who are not satisfied with either party.
As for possible candidates, Hagel could b e a possibility since he couldn’t win his own party’s nomination. Lieberman is in sort of the reverse situation, but I bet he would prefer to stay in the Senate as opposed to running for President on a third party with little chance to win. I see absolutely no reason why Gore would consider a third party as opposed to going for the Democratic nomination. Bloomberg might be a possibility, and he’s given out conflicting signals. Last signal suggesting he is considering running is that he reopened his personal web site.
You’re exactly right, Ron. I think Germany is as good a place as any to take a look at — they essentially have 5 viable parties you can vote for Social Democrats (SPD), Christian Democrats (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party (CSU), the Greens, and the Free Democrats(FDP). But, of course, it is a parliamentary system where your vote counts for any of those parties. It is not a winner take all. The CDU/CSU are conservative, FDP is largely libertarian, the SPD is our definition of liberal, while the Greens are self explanatory. The extra parties are both of left and right persuasions. We have the same problem in this country — but it won’t work, at least on the presidential level. Maybe in Congress it would work, but it usually just hurts one party, being the Republican party in the ’90s, and the Democratic party with Ralph Nader.
“I believe people that run as independent are more concerned with making a political statement rather than winning the White House.”
That has often been true. But if Bloomberg runs in ‘08 he’ll be in it to win. And it might not seem like such a long shot after the early primaries give him a seven-month window to launch a campaign. (A campaign that would, by the way, be much better financed than the others.)