Of course Vin Webber wants a third party candidate in the debate

[question everything]

the way Ross Perot was in 2002.

While he demurred about Perot siphoning votes from papa Bush, I think many of us will agree that this time Hillary will be the loser.

Oh, no, he said (on CNN's Smerchanich), I just want to encourage more people in the political process. Of course you want.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Hillary a Loser?

Oh help me lord.

She's only a loser if you want to keep your job.

http://cwalocal4250.org/article?id=a_1047621600-184433&t=h1b&p=304

Let's please have a primary and find a real candidate for the working and middle class.

[DonViejo]

2. Huckabee is threatening to leave the Party and run third party if the GOP

doesn't come out strongly against SSM. I don't think Reverend Huckabee would be a threat to the Dem nominee.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Perot siphoned votes from Daddy Bush in ((1992)).

[question everything]

4. I know. But with so many Democrats, even here, on DU

saying they will not vote for Hillary, no matter what - I can see a third candidate hurting her more than, I dunno - Bush.

[Chan790]

5. It would depend on the candidate.

I am one of the "I will never vote for Hillary" people, because I do not believe she is a real Democrat...but there is no goddamned chance I'm going to vote for GOP nominee Jeb or a 3rd-party "twits-for-a-perverted-interpretation-of-Jesus" candidate Huckabee. My issue is the absence of actual liberals as Presidential candidates and the unwillingness of both party leadership and party rank-and-file to drive out Clintonites and DLC, 3rd-way centrist and corporatists fake Democrats...like Hillary and Andy Cuomo.

Let's look at this dispassionately though...it's not that complex.

If the 3rd-party candidate isn't to the left of Hillary, she's hunky-dory. It's going to hurt the GOP as much or more.

If that 3rd party candidate is to the left of Hillary, she's in deep shit as that candidate is going to siphon votes off her in piles and there is no way she can reconcile those voters back to her (if that 3rd party-candidate withdrew to prevent splitting the vote, many of those voters would likely be irate enough to spite-boycott a vote for Hillary. The declaration of a nationally-or-regionally-viable progressive 3rd-party contender candidate who gets themselves on the ballot in all 50 states is the automatic demise of all Hillary campaign chances for a win.)...so the choice for Hillary is withdraw so she doesn't hand the White House to the GOP or Huckabee or stay in with no chance of a win and a certainty of a GOP president. Such a left spoiler would only have to shift 8-10% of the electorate in a handful of states (and we're talking more CA and NY than IA or CT) to give the GOP a 400EC win.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. DU isn't even close to being a proxy for the Democratic party writ large

Her popularity among rank and file Democrats attest to that, ergo:

[Pakid]

6. I can see it now Scott Walker or someone like him as President

Thanks to people who won't hold there nose and vote for Hillary if she is the Dem nominee. I will vote for her if she is the nominee because no matter how bad I think she will be, she will still be 1000% better than anyone on the Republican side. I'll be dammed if I am going to shoot myself in the foot (and that I am sure that will hurt a lot less than the things the GOP will do to harm us if they have complete control) just because I don't like someone.

[Squantoish]

7. We need a solid Liberal!

[1939]

8. Traditionally

The way third parties have worked is that they have hurt one of the major parties so badly that the major party adopts the polices of the third party (e.g. the Democratic Party adopting the platforms of the Greenback and Free Silver parties) or that the third party replaces a fatally injured party (e.g. the Republicans replacing the Whigs). The question is that should a third party (like a Socialist Party) badly hurt the Democratic party badly in 2016 as a means of forcing the Democratic party to adopt the Socialist Party tenets in the future or just having the Socialist party take over the Democratic Party (Social Democrats anyone?). The downside of course is that the opposition party (i.e. the GOP) will win that election with the third party voters trading short term misery for long term success.

NOTE: I am not advocating a third party, just describing the mechanism.