Are 3-rd Party Runs an indicator of destructive political narcissism ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

and a cautionary tale for Democrats? (I really don't care about the republican party and wish more of their candidates would mount 3rd party runs).

I was watching Up with Steve Kornecki, who was interviewing the Kansas 3rd-Party candidate for Senate, Orman (sp?). He is far from the candidate that I would like to see in the Senate with his "fiscally sensible, socially tolerant" tag line and, based on his answer to the "Keep or scrap the ACA" question; he sounds more like a libertarian than a Democrat (which he ran as in a previous election, before ... I believe ... running as a republican in a prior race).

The polling has him beating the republican candidate by 9 points in a head to head contest. The segment didn't show how the Democratic candidate would fair against the republican candidate; but with Orman polling at 25% of likely voters, the republican candidate is polling ahead of, both, Orman and the Democratic candidate (Orman is currently polling last).

I suspect that were he to drop out, the Democratic candidate would walk away with the race; but in the interview, Orman came across to me as saying, "screw the two party system, my ideas are better than anyone's (even though I can't get the requisite support of enough of the electorate within the 2 party system)."

I would think that politicians ... that care more about the country than their political ambition ... would say, "we really do live in a two party system and my ideas aren't gaining enough traction to win; but my presence only serves to be a spoiler, so I will step down."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Kornacki has a strong Dem lean, he doesn't tend to boost 3rd parties.

If polls had suggested that the Dem could win by an even stronger amount than the Dem turned Indy, he would have asked Orman during the segment if he would be willing to drop out to ensure that the Dem won. Given that he gave the other way round, I think there's a really strong chance that Orman is projected to do better than the Dem in a two man race.

I suspect that if the Dem drops out, Orman neatly scoops up pretty much all of the Dem votes, but if Orman, whose politics seem to actually be between the two parties, drops out, his votes simply get split between the Dem and the Repub, and the Repub wins.

(Edit: And, btw, that makes the Dem the 'spoiler' in a 3 way.)

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. I think you may be correct ...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/kansas_senate_race.html

{Note to self: No posting before at least an hour at that 1st cup of coffee.}

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. I'm halfway through my first pot of coffee ;)

Do I 'like' Orman? No. If he was a Dem, he'd be a Blue Dog type. But if it's simply a matter of whether we get a Republican or someone who'll caucus with the Dems, I'd rather have the Indy. I suspect I'll find him infuriating if he does get in, but he does break the hold of the Republicans on the seat, and a Dem can maybe take him out next cycle.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. I'm on my third cup and can feel the synapes beginning to fire ...

Yeah. I agree.

[brush]

5. Could be narcissism . . .

It most likely is, although political naivete and impatience could also play a part.

And by political naivete and impatience I mean an unawareness — either real or feigned — of the need to build a base of support.

Often times third party candidates complain that the system is rigged by the prevailing two parties to keep others off the ballot, without having done the actual field work themselves required to get on the ballots, such as the needed fundraising to pay registration fees or the building of a robust field operation to gather enough valid signatures on petitions to meet ballot requirements.

The impatience part of it is that building a field operation and a base of support takes time — way more than one election cycle. Too often third parties run candidates for the high-profile offices such as president or governor or mayor without having built an awareness of their party's platform, viability or even existence through winning lower and then progressively higher offices.

This can be done by running for school board or city council or other attainable offices that over time, and with success at winning those offices, build awareness among voters of the party's previous successes and what it stands for.

But where's the glamor in that when you can pull a "Nader" and get all kinds of media play by complaining about the other two parties rigging the election — and maybe even quietly getting something under the table to be a spoiler who insures certain candidates (most often dems) don't win?

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Well put ...

and I would suggest that the political naivete and impatience is boils down to the narcissistic belief that "I don't have to do all those things because I'm special/right."

[brush]

7. Absolutely

The "I'm special" mindset surfaces quite a lot in politics. If one suffers from it and is a third party candidate, ignoring the political reality of the need to build a field operation is closely related and comes quite easily.