If Hagel runs Third Party, how well would he do with Democrats?

[kentuck]

My opinion is that he would better than expected if he is speaking out against the war and the Democratic Party is more or less silent on the issue. Then the question would be, how well would he do with Republicans? Could he get 25%? If so, then 15% of Democrats and Independents could give him him a majority in a three-man race? What would you think of his chances as a Third Party candidate?

[wli]

1. it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes

Check his controlling interests in the voting machine companies.

[calico1]

2. I think he'd pull more votes from the

Republicans but it also depends on who is the Dem candidate.

[NewJeffCT]

3. it's a ploy to make him seem more moderate

Just like the media has bought into the moderate McCain idea... both are really very conservative, but they don't always agree with Bush.

[Mojambo]

4. It would depend entirely on what the new party platform looked like.

Iraq is but one issue.

[kentuck]

I think an Independent would run very strong in next election....

very similar to Ross Perot in '92. Maybe that's the only way Democrats can win?

[LoKnLoD]

5. I don't think

a third party could ever win an election in the US. It's sad, but probably a reality.

[Tesha]

14. Thus sayeth the Whigs some time ago. (NT)

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. If the DLC gets their way again with another pro war, pro corporatist.....

.....I could see Hagel doing very well. He could equal or exceed Perot's numbers (and that's not counting the states that use Hagel's voting machines ;) )

[karynnj]

11. If the Democrat is at least as anti war as he is I don't think he'll run

In the last few weeks, there seem to be conservative pundits complaining about the war coming out of the woodwork, so Hagel might even have a chance in the primary. (Most were pretty silent last year or like Buchanan continued his Nixonian demonization of Kerry in parallel with being anti-war.)

However, assume the Republicans pick a Conservative Pro-war candidate, Hagel runs as an Independent, and assume the Democrats pick a candidate like Feingold, Kerry or Clark who have plans to get out of Iraq and do not want permanent bases. Looking at Kerry's and Bush's votes, it would seem that, the Democrat would get almost all of Kerry's votes, except for people who were concerned about Bush's RW agenda who might be less scared by Hagel. Kerry got 48% (even after any suppression etc) - I can't imagine a candidate similar to him could get less than 40% with 8% going to Hagel. (The people who voted for Kerry by and large preferred the his domestic agenda vs a RW one- so I think "giving him" 1/6 th of Kerry's vote is generous.)

Hagel would get no more than 8% of the total vote from the Kerry voters plus some part of the Bush vote To tie the Democrat, he needs 8 + 32 =40. this means he would need to get 62.7% of the Bush vote (32/51, where 32 is from the amount needed and 51 is the total % of the vote Bush got.) Even accounting for independents, to get this percentage he would have likely won the Republican primary - which is not our scenario. So, he likely can't beat a Democrat who is perceived as at least as anti-war as he is.

The Republican candidate is unlikely to get a significant % of the Kerry vote, so his percent would be 51- (those voting for Hagel). If Hagel gets 25% of the Bush voters (12.75 of the total vote), the Republican would get 51- 12.75 = 38.25 % losing to the Democrat. If less than a fourth of Republicans are anti-war I doubt Hagel would run. (A danger is that Hagel could pull less from the Republican than the Democrat - but this seems unlikely. )

If the Democrats take a Pro-war candidate who tries to get to the right of the Republican, it is much harder to guess numbers - how many would choose a very conservative candidate who wants to get out of Iraq versus someone they agree with on most domestic issues who is more pro-war. If the candidate is Hillary, I can't see her gaining that many Bush votes against 2 Republicans - but more of the Kerry vote could go to Hagel or the Green candidate.

If Hagel agreed with Kerry's statement (which at the risk of being wrong, I believe is Feingold's and Clark's too) on immediately saying "No bases" and Hillary refused to - I would have a problem deciding who to vote for. (I have never voted for a Republican for President since they let me vote in 1972. I think Hagel is way too conservative, but I think PNAC is the issue (bases would be the clue Hillary is in on it.)) So, from a sample of one - I conjecture that the % of Kerry's vote that could go to Hagel might be significantly greater than with an anti-war candidate.

[kentuck]

12. That's a big "IF" but....

I tend to agree with your assumptions...

[RDANGELO]

7. good news bad news

The good news is he would split the republican party. the bad news is he would take some moderates with him, but it would probably hurt the Repubs more. If he wanted to really screw the Neocons that would be the way.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

8. I really want to dislike Hagel due to the voting machine deal but

he looks and acts so sober and statesmanlike compared to the other GOP thugs and mopes. I'd worry about him splitting off.

[NEDem]

19. I agree

as much as I try to dislike him, he just isn't that offensive of a repub.

[Inland]

9. Just well enough to elect a pro-war republican, again.

I mean, that's the correct answer, isn't it?

[kentuck]

10. That's only if you think he would get more Democrat votes than Repub votes

If he could take only 4-5% more Repubs, it would be very similar to Rossw Perot in '92, I would think.

[Doctor_J]

13. He won't

[WI_DEM]

15. He would ensure a GOP victory

[gokar]

16. If Hagel is in a 3-way race, Repubs are screwed....no doubt bout it.

But since Hagel has ties to black box machine manufacturer,
he could end up counting himself a winner.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. If we nominate a dem that was against the war from the start...

Then we would almost have an absolute victory in this scenario. Blue states would stay blue, Repukes would be divided in swing states and red states.

[Booster]

18. He'd win in a landslide because of the voting machines. Isn't

that what happened with him before; something like 83% of the votes. This man can not be trusted.

[Arkana]

20. It would depend on the Democrat--if he/she was a hawk or a dove.