Chuck Hagel (I-NE)? - Could he run for POTUS as an Independent?

While there have been reports that Hagel will neither run for President, nor his own Senate seat in 2008:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/29/191534/94

...I believe that Hagel could be viable if he bolts from the GOP. The Republicans will NEVER nominate him, even as Iraq becomes less and less popular. To them, he's no better than anyone on our side. At the same time, if Hagel chooses to run, he should know better than to not run for two offices at once. Lieberman did this in 2000 (he also ran for his Senate seat in addition to VP) and Kerry was hurt by missed votes due to campaigning (albeit, many of those vote were deliberately scheduled by the Republicans to coincide with campaign events.)

Hagel could win, IMO, if two things happen:

1. The Republicans nominate McCain or anyone continuously supporting Chimpy. Someone who has supported Bush too much will not do well in 2008 if the war continues to go badly.

2. If the Democrats nominate someone who turns off red state and purple state voters, such as Hillary or Kerry. Many of the "soft-conservative" people who voted for Tester or Webb in 2006 will be less likely to vote for someone who confirms their stereotypes of "typical" Democrats.

I could see the results being someone like:

Hagel (I): 38%
Hillary (D): 32%
McCain (R): 30%

An independent would be at a huge fiscal disadvantage .

However, in the age of blogs and YouTube, you never know. People thought that Dean wasn't viable in 2002-2003 because the conventional financiers went for Kerry and other candidates.

Divide and conquer. Hagel splits the Rethug vote.

While they may be ideologically populist and opposed to the war, they are NOT liberals or progressives (even if Tester and Webb may be closer to being progressive than they think.) These voters in the Upper South and Mountain West sure as hell won't vote for Hillary (or Kerry, or anyone else who confirms the stereotype of us.) With Hagel, they will vote for someone who agrees with them on Iraq without voting for a stereotypical Democrat.

I think it's too much for him (and most humans).

This isn't 1992 where a telegenic southern politician can walk in a grab the election, as national security is hovering over the public. People will want substance as much as style, and Hagel can present himself as being a "maverick" and seize McCain's old label.

reasons voters didn't gravitate to Reagan (seen as to reactionary) nor Carter (the whole malaise thing, and the hostage crisis) - yet he drew few votes - because most voters viewed a vote to him (not backed by a party) as futile.

Similar scenario with Perot - but Perot built and organization and drew enough votes to be a spoiler.

Just can't see it happening more than a vote siphon from both sides - but not nearly enough for a majority.

Heck, even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't pull that off with his Bull Moose Party - and he was a former president.

He was polling ahead of Bush Sr. and Clinton in the early summer of 1992, but lost a lot of support with his "dropping out" stunt...plus Stockdale was kinda loopy, which hurt Perot's credibility further. Also, Clinton was a likable candidate. With Hillary and McCain, you will have candidates that vast numbers of rank and file Democrats and Republicans don't like.

Imo, in the end folks worry about "throwing away their vote" on a third party (or non party) candidate given the power of the major two parties - and that concern - or "fear" of the worst case scenario leads most folks to vote between the major two party candidates.

Even in a multiparty system such as France, when in one race the three major candidates were Right (Chirac) far right, and liberal - many liberal (or near liberal) voters voted for Chirac, for fear of the far right candidate.

Go through actual election results - and show us where a third party candidate won.

This is a serious problem with our system. I would rather have more candidates than be limited to two. This is why many people prefer the IRV system where there is no "penalty" for voting for a lessor candidate as if the candidate is eliminated, the second choice vote gets counted. It is a really interesting voting system that some cities around the countries have started using. Until such a system exist for national elections - I wouldn't pin any hopes on a third party candidate for any role other than *maybe* a spoiler.

The Front Nationale candidate was never supposed to make it to the runoff, the UMP and the Socialists were and still are the two major parties in France. The Socialists control parliament and the UMP controls the Presidency.

In the 2002 election the Front Nationale candidate somehow miraculously made it to the runoff against Chirac instead of the Socialist candidate. At that point there were two candidates and the choice was obvious. The US equivalent would be an old school Republican like Eisenhower, Ford, or Rockefeller running against Fred Phelps. The left made an obvious choice and support Chirac.

He was pro choice and against NAFTA. He took away votes equally from Clinton and Bush. The only thing Perot did was give Clinton a landslide in the electoral college instead of 280-300 votes.

No way.

Your assumptions are ludicrous.

Hillary as of now is the favorite for the nomination in our party (and I'd like to know who all these Hillary voters are who keep showing up in the national polls and caucus polls) and she has a shitload of cash leftover from her Senate re-election bid that she didn't need to use.
As for the GOP side, if the nominee is not McCain, then someone like Brownback or Huckabee could get it. If Huckabee is the nominee, then Hagel's message may falter, but if Brownback (or even Romney or Giuliani, however unlikely) gets nominated, the we have a similar scenario.

Just about everyone I know feels the same about Hillary as I do. She is crap.

Unless he were to be the putative nominee of a party already on the ballot in each state, he'd have to petition (depending on state) to appear on it. Further, many (stupid) people vote for party, not the person. Lastly, money. Party money.

He'd get 5% of the vote, and the NeoFundie Rethugs would be cast into oblivion.

And he ran in the Alabama GOP primary last year and got crushed. Tancredo would be a better candidate...perhaps bolting to the Constitution Party?

Just because Hagel criticizes the President does not make him an Independent - it makes him a good American. The neo cons have so taken over the Republican Party that people think if any Republicans strays in a bit of the neo con agenda that they are ready to swith parties or become independent.

Remember people were saying the same thing about John McCain in the supposed "maverick" days.

The Republicans will not nominate him. With McCain, he has the "it's his turn" thing going for him that traditionally helps Republican candidate, and he has gone from critic to loyalist. I think that the rank and file GOP voters will try to avoid him and look at Huckabee or Brownback, but they could split the fundie vote, and the corporate wing of the party will have no problem supporting McCain (even if he did vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2001.)

I like his independent mind and his basic decency. If Hillary was the dem choice for 08 I'd definitely vote for Hagel and not remain home as originally planned.
I could see him as an indie.

how did he vote on the 'bankrupting the country' tax "cuts" of Bush.

How did he vote on Cafta and anything relating to exporting jobs in the name of rigid "free trade" policies.

How did he vote on the Medicare Prescription legislation - siding with corps (no bargaining - give the corps MORE money)?

How did he vote on the Bankruptcy laws (still give shelters to the really really rich and to corps, but make the options for everyone else much more draconian)?

How did he vote on the bush enabling legislation to legitimate Torture (even McCain flopped for allowances for the CIA) and to legitimate domestic survellience without FISA warrants?

How about the "Clear Skies" legislation (to allow increased air pollution)?

What about the 2004 Energy Bill (Cheney's 'wet dream')?

There are far too many issues that abetted really awful govt that I do not know his record upon, and have no reason to suspect he asserted independence upon for me to think that he would be "better than Hillary".

How did he vote on Alito and Roberts? Where was he (publically - as in statements, as a vote was never taken) per Bolton and the UN?

Other issues that folks think were important legislative "coups" for bush co that we ought to consider before deeming Hagle as "better than Hillary"?

He seems to be an old fashioned conservative. He doesn't like entitlements and believes people have to make it on their own.

But from what I've seen of him, he is at least a straightforward type of conservative who is at least intellectually honest and rather consistent.

n/t

But he's not. They were both for it when it was popular and they are both against it now that it is not.

Now, lets say Ron Paul versus Hillary. That would make for an interesting debate.

Fuck fake mavericks. It's a pose. He's sane and still went along with the screwy neocon agenda until the last election.

Republican Congress has made it such a rarity for any "disagreement" within the Part (at least seen by the public) that now if there is any disagreement people make as if they are getting ready to jump ship from their party. But as I say that I still think Lincoln Chafee could possibly come back as a Democrat or perhaps Independent.

I am not saying I'm a big fan but, he is one I do have some respect for and he's better than Hillary

I'm not saying he is a toy soldier - but I am saying that just because he is disagreeing with the President does not mean he is going to jump ship and become an Independent - in fact I'd rather he stay a Republican because I think we need healthy debate between two strong sound Parties. The neocons have thrown everything out of whack. Just because I'm a Democrat and most likely always will be doesn't mean I don't like Republicans.

I think we benefit with two functioning Parties.

I remember seeing him in the build up to the war and in the early days of it. Although he didn't oppose it outright, he was always a lot more critical of it and how it was handled than most Republicans ( and some Democratics).

He's the kind to make a lot of fuss but in the end, usually ends up giving the administration what they want.

But to his credit, he's been a CONSISTENT and vocal critic of neoconservative foreign policies.

I wouldn't vote for him, but he's the type of politician I can disagree with, yet still respect, and not hate

I wish we had publicly financed elections, instant runoff voting, parlimentary elections of the president and proportional representation in congress, but we don't, and unless we adopt these reforms of our system we won't see a third party candidate win nationally because the current system is rigged against the rise of a third party.

SO if Nelson is too progressive for you, Hagel is your man.

McCain is also pandering by supporting Bush, but at least Hagel is smart enough not to do that, and I'm sure he realizes that he won't get the GOP nomination as a result.

NAACP 5%
Human Rights Campaign 0%
American Land Rights Association 100%
American Wilderness Coalition 0%
Defenders of Wildlife 0%

And so on. http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031069

Hagel is is just Chimpy with a brain.

(edit typo)

If he fails to tilt the tally quite enough, he can just get back on the board at ES&S.

Well, he'll make history as being the first 3rd party candidate who controls the playing field.

Even the most successful independent to run--Teddy Roosevelt in 1912--lost. Ross Perot led some '92 polls but ended up getting 19% (still impressive for a third party). Unfortunately in this country to win a presidential election you need to be a democrat or a republican.

1. Teddy Roosevelt's candidacy was basically an institutional split within the Republican Party between its progressive and conservative factions. Roosevelt tried to run for the GOP nomination (and won the majority of primaries) but since the convention and party bosses that decided the nomination, Taft still got nominated. He wasn't out to create a new party from the start. Also, Woodrow Wilson was still a popular enough candidate in his own right, as he was just as progressive as TR on economics issues (even if he was a racist douchebag who did much harm to civil liberties this country with his draconian actions during WWI.)

2. Perot blew his lead because he wasn't credible (in the eyes of the public.) He dropped out during the summer and then re-entered the race. Between having Stockdale as his running mate, and his accusations of threats against his daughter from the Bush campaign, he was made out to be loony. Hagel won't have Perot's problems.

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Depending on whom we nominate, I could see them losing a lot of votes to someone like Hagel.

that he'd rather vote for Hagel than Edwards, should either get the nomination.

Wow!

Next.

For Vietnam, RFK, McCarthy and McGovern each supported it early on and yet became staunchly anti-war. I'm willing to be nice to Hagel on this issue, simply because he's not pandering to the GOP (even within the Republican Party, a candidate still has to support the war in order to get nominated.)

I agree that Hagel is independent & taking a strong stance now against the war. He's probably my favorite Republican. Still, as a war veteran, I think he should have known that the reasons Bush was giving to invade Iraq were just wrong. Feingold & Caffee had the courage to vote against it - there's no reason why Hagel, et. al. couldn't do the same thing. When it comes to the IWR, I'm sort of an absolutist. There was no reason to invade Iraq, and anyone who voted for that thing was either ignorant, deluded, or pandering.

Hagel will split the GOP vote-the pro war, pro bush guys will vote for McCain, and the independents will vote for Hagel. Hillary will get the female and minority vote, and that will be enough to win.

She is someone who already has 40%-45% of the voters committed to voting for the purpose of voting AGAINST her. Hagel would grab a segment of voters who voted Democrat in 2006 because the candidates (ie. Webb or Tester) were not Democrats in the stereotypical bicoastal "elitist" sense. Hillary fits the stereotype perfectly, for better or worse. While Hagel may be a conservative, if he plays his opposition to the war right (and possibly selects a more liberal running mate...Lincoln Chafee anyone?) then he would be viable.

You have to be the dumbest idiot on earth to continue to follow the presidents line.

Im willing to bet Hagel is still a Republican on issues such as taxes, abortion, economy, etc.

Hagel siphoning mostly from Republicans, I think she would win. Actually, I think any of the front-running dems would do very well in a three-way race.

I don't see where that scenario would cost us any of the states that Kerry won, or reduce Hillary's chances of winning some of the big battleground states.