March 3, 2008
-
"Spoilers"
As you may have noticed consumer advocate and corporate analyst Ralph Nader made an announcement recently to run again for President of the US...
Since Nader is philosophically closer to Democrats than Republicans he has sometimes been accused of taking votes from Democrats and even swinging the 2000 election Bush's way.
While Barack Obama has admired Nader's past consumer advocacy efforts, he has also been critical of Nader recently. "My sense is is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive," he recently stated (link).
In a US News and World Report interview last week, Nader responded to the claim that he is simply a spoiler. "We all have to recognize: This isn't about candidates first and foremost, it's about the voters, and we should never have laws that obstruct voters from having their free choice of candidates," he argued (link).
Of course Republicans have had their fair share of "spoilers" as well, probably most notably Ross Perot, who ran against Bush and Clinton in 1992.
This election ended with Bill Clinton winning with 43% of the votes. George H.W. Bush came in 2nd with a close 37.4% of the votes while Ross Perot had 18.9% of the votes (link). Many conservatives accused Perot of being a spoiler at the time, a claim he refuted.
Republicans could potentially have another "spoiler" this election with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Like Ross Perot, Bloomberg is an independent billionaire who would attract fiscal conservatives and independents to his cause. Needless to say this would likely be devastating for John McCain, which is why he's probably praying that Bloomberg doesn't choose to run any time soon...
edit: Last week Bloomberg announced he's not running, but that he'll be backing another candidate. As he said in the New York Times, "If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — andembraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll joinothers in helping that candidate win the White House" (link). Though he's not running for President it looks like he's still positioning himself as somebody whose influence can possibly sway this next election...
Would you like to see more third party support in US elections or do you consider third party candidates to be spoilers?
Comments (14)
I suppose they are spoilers, but I still wish Ron Paul would run under the Independent ticket. I'm sure that would help a Dem win though...
we can't look at third party or indepentent candidates as spoilers or wasted votes. even if a third party candidate doesn't win, all the votes are still counted. if the polls show an unusually high percentage of voters cast their ballots for something other than a democrat or republican, that should send a message to the two major parties that they need to change. though, maybe i shouldn't be so optimistic. it seems the only real change that took place after the 1992 elections was to exclude all other parties from the televised debates. that's probably at least part of what Nader was talking about in that quote. i was only in 4th grade, but i still remember seeing Nader and Perot debating right along with Bush and Clinton.
bloomberg announced that he's not running... but that he may back one of the existing candidates!
hey pete,, on another note... unrelated to politics..
i really like the photo on your past post..
a lot... be well man.
peace *~matthew~*
Haha, thanks. Scary...
@bleuzeus - Thanks much! Hope your weekend goes well..
Thanks, but I only used that word because it was the only one appropriate
I agree with aristarchrus. And although it's doubtful, at least now, that a 3rd party could ever win, what people forget is that the U.S. is not a 2-party system! The whole point of our government is that we can choose who we want, not strictly be limited to 2 choices! And especially in a non-swing state, such as NY, votes cast to 'spoilers' show where the public's concerns lie without affecting the end result.
~S
A few of you may recall, and others may have learned from history, of when Dwight D Eisenhower first ran for president of the USA. He was so immensely popular after World War II, in which he was the Supreme Commander, Allied Forces in Europe, that there was never a question that he would win. Both the Democratic and the Republican parties were wooing him. Of course he chose Republican, but I firmly believe that had he run as an Independent, he still would have won.
On another note, the legendary (and scholarly) Woodrow Wilson, who won the White House in 1912 and again in 1916, is said to have replied when asked when he knew he would be president *When I first entered college!* Although unable to read until the age of twelve, Wilson soon made up for his slow start. He became a professor at Princeton University, then president of the institution for a number of years. Moving on, he was elected Governor of the state of New Jersey, and finally President of the US. He took the leading part in establishing the League of Nations, forerunner of the United Nations, following the first world war. I think he was another giant who might well have won as an independent.
Teddy Roosevelt who had successfully served as President of your country, I think as a Republican, had another go later on as the founder of the Bull Moose Party, but lost.
Hi Pete!
I don't really consider them spoilers. I'd like to see more third party involvement.
Please come see my latest post it is an amazing movement that is happening in the next few days!!!
@Grampa_David -
Thanks for the insight here! I think there's a lot to learn from some of these previous leaders. Pete
You must be blessed; I made a 104.
Hi! I’ve been subsequent your site for a long time now and at last got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Atascocita Texas! Just wanted to say keep up the excellent function!