Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

PPP: Third-party bids would help Obama

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-11 03:59 PM
Original message
PPP: Third-party bids would help Obama
Edited on Thu Aug-25-11 03:59 PM by ProSense

Third-party bids would help Obama

Some have suggested that with an unpopular president who's got a somewhat dissatisfied base and suffers from a weak economy, and with a Republican nominee who inevitably will either struggle with the middle or who is not conservative enough for the right, there is room for a strong third-party bid for the first time in at least 16 years. But we took a look at seven possible independent candidates against Obama and his strongest GOP challenger, Mitt Romney, and found that the chances of defection by GOP-inclined voters are stronger than are cracks in the Democrats’ armor. Despite their grumbling, Democrats remain pretty united behind Obama, and six of the seven possible independent candidates would hurt Romney more than the president.

Head-to-head, Romney and Obama are tied at 45% in the national popular vote, per Tuesday’s release. Against Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the major-party candidates are still knotted at 42%, with Bloomberg at 10%. Faced with a well-known moderate who leans more left these days, this is the only instance in which Romney is able to hold more of his base than the president does of his (82% versus 78%). But Obama treads water by holding a six-point lead with independents, 13% of whom go to Bloomberg.

With a challenge from his left by either Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders or perpetual Democratic thorn Ralph Nader, Obama would remain at 45%, with Romney falling to 41% and Nader getting 7% and Sanders only 5%. Partly because Democrats hate Nader and aren't familiar with Sanders, Romney would still win more Democratic support, in double digits, than either of these liberal candidates would. But Obama again leads, this time by ten against Sanders and 13 against Nader, with independent voters.

Jon Huntsman has spent a lot of time criticizing both parties lately, and if he takes his iconoclasm from his quixotic GOP primary bid to the general, he would earn 7%, with Obama prevailing, 46-40. Huntsman is the second-least-known of these candidates after Sanders, so he essentially serves as a "generic centrist independent" in more than half of poll respondents' eyes. Romney still pulls more Democrats than Huntsman does, but Obama leads by 18 with independents.

more

Interesting!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-11 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. Very interesting.
In spite of all the MSM's doom and gloom about the President, it's the Right that's in danger of destabilizing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-11 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oh here we go
Why are all of these pollsters and Bos-Wash media establishmentarians so obsessed with a Bloomberg candidacy that will never happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-11 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Obama loses only if the economy tanks again.
imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-11 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. A "strong third party candidacy" is like the flying car. It's always right around the corner.
Despite the reality that it hasn't happened in about A HUNDRED YEARS.

And yet people still love to write about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-11 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Very True, But It's Only Because Enough Money Has Never Been
there to make it effective. The two-party system sucks all the money one way or another, and any PERSON who might want to run as a third party candidate MUST be a BILLI0NAIR to compete.

Ergo, TWO Parties always dominate! That does NOT mean that many millions would LOVE an alternative!

PIGS don't fly, another good analogy... still I would LOVE to see it!

JMHO!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-11 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Not really the case.
We have two parties because most people tend to gravitate into a couple of basic world views. Even libertarians tend to be either right-leaning or left-leaning. Money follows people.

As far as millions wanting an alternative, I don't see it that way. I see it as "millions think they want an alternative, because the grass is always greener on the other side." If the country actually elected a third-party candidate, they'd rapidly find out that said person was no more popular or effective than a major party candidate, probably less so. Take Bloomberg for instance: he's ostensibly socially liberal (although quite a hypocrite on that count), but for the most part he's a solid Republican. If he were elected, the right wing would hate him for being socially liberal, the left wing would hate him for being so far in bed with Wall Street he might as well be a mattress, and the center would hate him for being an autocratic egomaniac.

The "third party is the way" thing is a fallacy, as much so as the belief that if we just got Dennis Kucinich elected president our worries would all go away and we'd be riding unicorns around the Big Rock Candy Mountains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-11 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. OK, whatever it takes to help the President.
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-25-11 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Isn't that better than whatever it takes to hurt the President? n/t
Edited on Thu Aug-25-11 05:44 PM by ProSense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC