If Lieberman wins the nom, will we see a third party candidate?

On another thread somebody said that "Giving Lieberman the nom. would be a slap in the face to the liberal base that has been whipped up by Dean."

In this scenario, could we see Dean, Clark, Kucinich, or maybe Kerry make a third party presidential run? And if so, how successful would it be? I think there are a lot of people out there who would be disenchanted with Lieberman, and would probably stay home rather than vote for him. Many others would go in holding their noses. But just how many would vote for him because they honestly wanted to see him become president?

Nader and the rest of the crew hates his guts. He's just as conservative as George W. Bush.

The only reason his numbers are as high(actually low) as they are is because the "liberal" media likes propping this guy up.

you don't have to do any background, read the press packet, just type in 2000 Vice President Candidate. Simple.

the conservative (no quotes required) media has been propping him up too.

I've read a lot of right-wing bile that suggests if the Dems are smart we'll nominate Lieberman… because he's the closest thing we have to Bush.

God, please forgive me for the phrase I just had to use.

Yes, we will see a third party candidate, certainly energized by a Lieberman nomination.
No, it will not be any of the current hopefuls, who have too much invested in their party.
No, a third party nominee will not win the general election, but he or she will have a meaningful effect for those with the smarts to see it.

Nader certainly had a meaningful effect on the last election, didn't he? He ensured the victory of President Bush. Is that what you mean?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

and the involvement of the grassroots in the process.

Ralph Nader is a polarizing personality. This is not about Ralph Nader. Perhaps a better example could be the success of the Populists and Socialists in the latter 19th century and early 20th. And it's also important to remember that the socialists helped affect the absorption of the populists into the Democratic Party, because the socialism of Eugene Debs and the burgeoning labor movement were on a clear ascendancy in the early 20th century.

I did not refer to the knee-jerk Nader hating, nor did I mean that the electoral fraud of the last election in all its various parts was Nader's fault.

Any reply to the substance of what I wrote, or would you be forced into the intolerable condition of agreeing with me?

Have a nice day.

it's a long, simmering disgust

... for illustrating my point, that is.

Although I'd vote for almost anyone against Bush, I don't think I could vote for Lieberman. Even in this rather desparate situation, principle must outweigh pragmatism at some point. Lieberman occupies that point for me.

!

Canada will see record immigration. :grr:

Dean running as an independent would be characteristic of Vermont politicians (i.e. Jeffords & Sanders), but would it play nationally? He would still have my vote, but the "masses" are conditioned not to look beyond those two little letters "D" and "R" on the ballot.

even if Joe is the nominee. None of our candidates will. They will all endorse Lieberman if he is the nominee. You can bank on it.

If Lieberman gets the nod (which he won't, so all of this is suppositional), there will be a SERIOUS splinter of progressives and leftists from the Democratic Party. It will probably be something on the level of the popularity of socialists and populists in the end of the 19th century and first 15 years of the 20th. This is quite obvious given Lieberman's disdain for anything resembling populism or grassroots politics -- and this grassroots activism is something that has been awakened through the Dean phenomenon.

The Democratic Party will enter the political wilderness if this happens, destined to lose elections (and deservedly so). It will only end when the party machinery is ousted and the progressives and leftists who splintered off are given a serious seat at the table. This is essentially what happened with the absorption of the populists in order to head off the socialists from becoming a major force, which eventually led to Wilson's election in 1910 and, despite the Republican presidencies of the roaring 20's, helped bring about the ascendency of FDR and the New Deal.

ME HANGING MYSELF

democratic party....imho

but in many state polls he is not doing very well.

"Brutus" isn't going to get the nomination; a much-better candidate likely will win it. The fact which will make ANY third-party run (especially by the Greens) look just like what it is: sour grapes.

Anyone who votes third-party (other than those always-steadfast Libertarians, of course!:eyes: ) next year is asking for it--and the problem is, the rest of us would have to "get it", too! x(

Just think of these frightening words if, and when, nothing else is enough:

George W. Bush with a popular mandate!:scared:

B-)

And please, no third party candidates this time.

Wait and see. There is going to be a strong third party candidate. I think you are correct that if Lieberman were to win the nomination (doubtful) that someone would run on the left. Most likely I'd think would be Kucinich running as a Green, or Dean as an independent.

More likely however, is that Dean or Clark wins the nomination. This starts a strong "Dean is a liberal" or "Clark is Clinton" bash from Bush and a "Bush is a hard-core conservative" from the Dems. Then someone comes up in the middle, bashes both as extremists and tries to get the moderates votes. This middle ground could certainly be up for grabs and this candidate could take votes from both and possibly win it all him or herself.

Also, don't be surprised by a strong showing to the right of Bush. Whoever the libertarians put up next year, he or she is going to take some votes from Bush. Real conservatives are getting fed up with Bush and I think he could take a hit from the libertarians.

from my "fringe leftist" vantage point I don't see where he is much different then the crop of other DLC faves that are running for president. I find it amusing that he gets singled out for derision.

Never mind his record which is just as progressive as many other Dems in the race!

Don't for a moment think that there will be no third party run! Nader doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself and he will run again no matter who is the nominee. Does anyone seriously think that a Lieberman nomination but not a Kerry or Edwards nomination would cause Ralph to run? I don't.

The Greens will oppose the most liberal of Democratic nominees (didn't they run someone against Wellstone?) because they don't care who wins, they just want to be visible.

Never mind his record which is just as progressive as many other Dems in the race!

Are you telling me that Lieberman is just as progressive as Dennis Kucinich, co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus? Not by a country mile!

There are many knee-jerk criticisms of Lieberman on these boards, I'll readily acknowledge it. But in speaking for myself, my opposition to Lieberman comes from the fact that he is a centrist (although not as conservative as Sens. Miller, Breaux or Nelson), but moreso because of his complete disdain for anything resembling populism, and his complete lack of passion.

And to refer to him as "progressive" is just a plain slap in the face. He may not be wholly conservative, but he is even further from being a "progressive".

or whatever it is that many so loathe about Lieberman, don't get as much animosity directed at them . How is he different than Clinton who seems to be beloved and almost "worshipped" on here by many (not me, that's for sure)?

Also, most DLC centrist types refer to themselves as progressive. I noticed Sid Blumenthal in his book "The Clinton Wars" used that term to describe himself and his "third way" peers.

And a lot of is motivated by reasons that have nothing do with his acutal political positions.

I hope so.

I doubt that the Greens or whatever third party will do exceptionally well should Lieberman get the nomination. Maybe they might improve over Nader's paltry 2.74% of the vote in 2000. Maybe they might get 5% of the vote. But hardly anything near the performances that TR, LaFolette, Wallace, Anderson, and Perot received.

But they probably would bolt enough to re-elect Bush. Then again maybe I am on DU too much.

I doubt Nader will run again, I bet it will be someone else who is even less charismatic than him, if that's possible. Since they failed MISERABLY in their effort to get 5% of the vote last time around, they will be ineligible for some of the federal bucks that Bush and our nominee will be splitting up. To be honest, I'll be surprised if they even break 1%. The green party is rotting from the inside out and the party is literally going to implode. And for that, I'm glad. Maybe they'll get Michael Moore to run... :eyes:

He is going to run. But as I said I think the Lieberman haters here at DU overestimate their strength here.

That's amazing.

I am not a "Green Party" Insider, but it's clear that Nader is going to run--or is at least toying with the idea.

"April 23, 2003 | Did Ralph Nader and the Green Party put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000? There's only one more hotly debated question on the American left these days: Will Nader and the Greens do it again in 2004?

Nader, who many Democrats and progressives blame for tipping the last presidential election to Bush in key states like Florida (where Nader won 96,000 votes), has not yet announced his decision about 2004. But according to national Green Party officials, Nader probably will run. "I'm getting that sense," says Ben Manski, one of five national Green Party co-chairs. Juscha Robinson, a member of the party's presidential exploratory committee, agrees: "The co-chairs of the committee met with Ralph a couple weeks ago -- it was a very comfortable discussion. It does look like he's leaning in that direction."

The surprisingly bellicose and hard-right direction of the Bush administration has given many Greens pause about running a third-party presidential campaign next year. One prominent Green Party activist -- journalist and former Nader confidant Ronnie Dugger -- has publicly and privately pleaded with his old friend not to run for president, urging him instead to run for senator or governor. Dugger argues that the extremism of the Bush presidency has created a "national emergency" that requires a unified effort on the left to beat the Republican ticket in 2004."

Source: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/23/greens/index_np.html

Toying with the idea is a far cry from being determined to do something no matter what. Maybe pausing before making absolute black-and-white claims would be a good idea.

Irony aside, it's a shame to see any writer cling to the idea that Greens put Bush in the White House, as opposed to the actual causes of electoral fraud and surrender of victory.

Although Gore was your candidate, not mine, I believe that he won the election, and somehow you do not. The term "re-elect" is clear.

Irony aside, it's a shame to see any writer cling to the deluded idea that Greens did notput Bush in the White House, as opposed to the reality that Nader's display of narcissism cost the Democratic nominee 2 states.

That being aside, in all likelyhood we would see a third party candidate in this case.

that's only one party.

We would still need a Dem...

They were already whipped up by stolen elections, outrageous power grabs by the Repubs, etc. Dean just tapped into that anger for his own benefit.

then why didn't your candidate do that?

remember?

It would be seen as a rematch, and this would energize the normal dems.

no matter whom our nominee is. I am convinced it will be Nader who seems to have learned not one whit from the disaster he helped bring us. While this is unprovable as Kucinich won't get the nomination I am absolutely convinced that if he did Nader would discover that Kucinich's flip on abortion was unable to be tolerated. I will say that many people who voted for Nader would behave quite differently.

And that's ALL I'm going to say about that piece of trash.

Gore lost his own state. Gore -- not Nader -- is responsible for Gore's loss.

I do think the Greens will run a candidate. I don't think it will be Ralph Nader.

I supported Nader in 2000. I'm not sorry.