Has Anyone Done The Math On The Effects Of Third Party Candidates? (Bloomberg? Nader?)

[Blackhatjack]

When you look at the most recent polling numbers, it is apparent that if nothing significant changes Repubs will not only lose -- but lose big in Nov 2008.

So if you were a Repub stratgist how do you 'peel away layers of support' for the Dems?

Third Party candidates usually do not garner enough support to turn an election. However, Nader's past candidacies have had an effect that was discernible and substantial on support for the Democratic candidate.

IN today's political environment, a Bloomberg/Hagel third party candidacy would likely draw significant support from moderate Democrats AND would appeal to disaffected Republicans who are unsatisfied with the present slate of Repub candidates. Throw in a Nader run, and you have a changed political environment.

I do not pretend to have any idea what the numbers would be for Dems and Repubs if these third party candidacies materialize. However, my inclination is that the margin of Democratic preference over Republican preference would shrink.

And if the Bloomberg/Hagel campaign ran hard on the issue of bringing the troops home because the Democratic Congress could not, they could use $1bil of Bloomberg's money to siphon off a lot of votes.

Has anyone seen polling for 2008 that includes the possibility of a Bloomberg/Hagel candidacy?

A Nader candidacy?

Or both?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. The more choices the better.

It's called democracy and prevents wear and tear on one's nose.

[jpgray]

2. Nader and other 3rd party candidates indirectly hurt Democrats, and split the progressive vote

It isn't their fault precisely, and they have every right to run, but without IRV the Republicans would be stupid not to use their splitting of the vote to their best advantage. So long as Nader adds something good to the debate (he certainly can!) and doesn't promote nonsense about the two parties being exactly the same (though they are too much the same), I think it's great.

[Lasher]

3. Independent Bloomberg Candidacy Would Be GOP Spoiler

Rasmussen looked at this back in April.

Friday, April 06, 2007

Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys show New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) essentially tied with both former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and Arizona Senator John McCain (R).

However, when Bloomberg is added to the mix, Clinton leads both GOP hopefuls by nine points. Against both Giuliani and McCain, Clinton attracts 47% of the vote in head-to-head match-ups and 46% in a three-way race.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/independent_bloomberg_candidacy_would_be_gop_spoiler

[Blackhatjack]

5. This is the type of info I am looking for, but it is dated (April 2, 2007)...

For example, it shows McCain and Giuliani at 37% each in head to head matchups with Hillary(46%), and 8-9% for Bloomberg. That ship has already sailed for McCain.

That poll also shows 46% of respondents would definitely not vote for Hillary(her high negative unfavorable number).

The accompanying article says Bloomberg would siphon votes from Repubs, but that was before the slate of Repub candidates could only reach 39% approval by Repub voters satisfied with their choices.

I wonder how $1 billion to spend on a Bloomberg third party campaign would change the race?

[Lasher]

7. I was careful to point out the date of the article.

I failed to find more recent poll results that included Bloomberg in a 3 way race.

Things have changed as you have pointed out but the information is not useless. Back in April it was noted that a Bloomberg third party run would hurt the Republican candidate and I see no reason to believe that is no longer so.

[Blackhatjack]

8. I ran into the same problem on finding recent polling information...

It may be a situation where the siphoning of votes might come from both the Dems and Repubs.

It certainly is a fluid situation, and one that bears watching.

[Lasher]

15. We must glean what we can from the tea leaves we find.

I am convinced that a Bloomberg candidacy would result in a significant net advantage for Democrats. In that belief I am not alone in this thread.

[Blackhatjack]

18. You may be right, but keep your eyes on the Candidates' unfavorability numbers...

Unfavorability numbers have a rough relationship to how many independents/undecideds and unaffiliated voters you can gather in the General Election.

If that is the case, it might make it more difficult for a Democrat to compete for these votes in the general election if they have high unfavorability numbers.

[phantom power]

4. Any 3rd-party candidate increases the odds of electing their ideological opponent.

For instance, Nader increased the odds of electing Bush in 2000. In the other direction, Perot helped elect Clinton in 1992.

In our system of government, 3rd party candidates are very very unlikely to win at the national level. The odds seem to be better at the state level.

Anybody who votes for a 3rd-party candidate for President should do so with the understanding that the odds of that candidate winning are vanishingly small, and that the odds of the vote being thrown to their least-favorite major party (Dem or GOP) are very significant.

That is simply a consequence of how our electoral system plays out. It's kind of like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We all sometimes wish things were different, but it's most productive to understand how they really are.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Numbers that I saw in June showed Bloomberg drawing more off

of Repubs, which is a comfort, because I believe he will run. Both David Broder and Carl Bernstein have been predicting it (see the Bill Maher show), and there was a recent article in the New York Observer about how Hagel didn't really intend to run for Prez--he and Bloomberg long ago decided that he would be Bloomberg's Veep, and they're just waiting to spring it on the unsuspecting public when the time is right. Note how Hagel "Larry Craiged" about not running for office:

http://www.observer.com/2007/conditional-retirement-chuck-hagel

Hopefully, this will whoop the shit out of Republicans if this ticket emerges--they have no one of Bloomberg and Hagel's caliber running.

[Blackhatjack]

9. The advantage of a 3rd Party Late Entry with $1billion to spend cannot be ignored...

Right now Repub candidates are doing a wonderful job of 'demoralizing' Repubs, which works to Bloomberg and Hagel's interests.

I think if I was advising Bloomberg and Hagel, I would counsel waiting until November to 'jump in.'

However, that depends upon a serious problem they will face -- even if you have the money to blitz the media it will do you no good unless you 'lock up' available tv spots, and that would tip your hand if you begin buying up those tv spots.

I don't think they can make it work logistically if they are not in by late Nov.

[TwilightGardener]

12. Actually, they don't have to get in until winter, since they don't have

any party primary concerns--their only real concern is getting on the ballot in all fifty, and with a billion dollars, you can buy a lot of organization. From a Nebraska paper, I found out that Hagel has recently finished a book that is due to be released in December. Is it a reminiscence of his time in the Senate? No--it's a book about his vision for the future of America. So then he'll make the talk-show rounds, right about the time that Bloomie would start making his move--how convenient. I would be very surprised if they did not take advantage of a wide-open contest and a weak Repub field.

[Blackhatjack]

16. The question Bloomberg strategists have to answer about when to jump in ....

Do you want Dems and Repubs to know Bloomberg is running as they gather together to vote in caucus and primary settings to select a Party Nominee?

THis is just a guess, but the Bloomberg people would sample head to head matches with the top 3 Dems. If Bloomberg polling indicates he would fare better against HRC, he would likely wait to jump in.

If it looks like Obama may be on track to grab the nomination, Bloomberg would come out early to draw votes away from Obama and get to HRC as the preferred candidate to run against.

If Edwards moves out of Iowa strong with a win under his belt, Bloomberg would definitely come out early. There is only one race Bloomberg has to win and that is the General Election. IMHO Edwards would be the candidate Bloomberg would most like to avoid in the General Election.

As far as Repub candidates, I don't think any of them can dictate Bloomberg's actions. The only Repub who could exact some control over his announcement date would be Giuliani, and that would be only if Giuliani has a large lead over Romney and it appears the Repub Party will accept Rudy as the Nominee. IMHO Thompson will be long gone by then.

Just my opinion. I think Bloomberg would prefer to run against Dem HRC and Repub Giuliani in a three way race. HRC's unfavorability numbers are the highest among top Dems, and Giuliani's positions are least acceptable to a substantial number of Repubs. Bloomberg would have a significantly harder time winning the independent/undecided and unaffiliated voters up for grabs if Edwards or Obama was the Dem nominee. ANd without that voting block breaking for Bloomberg he cannot win.

[TwilightGardener]

21. I disagree that Bloomberg would not want to run against Edwards--

Edwards as nominee would be the leftmost of the top tier, which creates some room for Bloomberg's centrist candidacy. Edwards is also a populist and not known for fiscal conservatism--Bloomberg is very pro-growth/pro-business and a fiscal conservative (would appeal to Repubs)--again, more room for Bloomberg. Obama is the one nominee who could keep him out, because he is more of a centrist, with low negatives, crossover appeal and a lot of charisma. If Obama comes on strong in December and January, I think Bloomberg won't run. Of course, as an Obama supporter, that's my ideal!

Thompson and Romney would be Bloomberg's dream opponents on the R side--Bloomberg would have an "executive" advantage over Thompson (who won't appeal to Indies and Dems), and he would come off better than Mittens (another one who won't draw Indies and Dems). He might take on Rudy pretty well, too, if only because he's considered to be the better mayor. If he runs, his choice of running mate will be key to which party he wants to steal from the most--considering that the R candidates are weaker this go-round, I assume that's why he's interested in Hagel (who could appeal to disaffected R's and some I's/D's). Wouldn't make sense to run with a D when the Dems have pretty strong candidates.

[Blackhatjack]

22. Edwards favorability numbers would cause Bloomberg a problem....

And at present Edwards beats Rudy/Mittens/McCain by an average of 12 points.

IMHO that seems to be the independents/undecided and unaffiliated voters showing up in the polling.

[mod mom]

10. NYT: Bloomberg Insists He is NOT Running:

Bloomberg Insists He Is Not Running for President


By MARIA NEWMAN
Published: June 20, 2007



A day after he announced he was quitting the Republican Party, fueling speculation that he would run for president as an independent, the coy mayor toyed with reporters who had thronged a news conference called to mark the 50 millionth call to his beloved 311 system.

The mayor wanted to talk about the success of the city’s telephone line for residents to call to report problems with city services or to seek information about city government that was set up in 2003. The dozens of local, national and even international reporters mostly came to ask him one question: Is he going to launch a presidential bid, now that he’s shedding his Republican affiliation.

The mayor, seeming like a strict teacher, made the journalists, at least at first, confine their questions to the topic of 311, questions that elicited answers in the minutiae about a program that was started in 2003.

-snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/nyregion/20cnd-bloomberg.html?ex=1339992000&en=7c42fd50fef7f71a&ei=5088

[mod mom]

11. Bloomberg Supports Al Gore (BTW he is NOT a Republican):

“I hope Al Gore enters the race; I think it would be good for the country,” the mayor said.



http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/bloomberg-for-gore/

[TwilightGardener]

13. That's political calculation--that's how to get Democrats like us

to think he cares about global warming (which I think he does) and Democratic concerns. He's been banging the non-partisan/post-partisan drum for months now--that will be his theme. He's not going to support Gore--he's using Gore for his own purposes in his own (upcoming) candidacy.

[mod mom]

14. Bloomberg was a lifelong Dem before he ran for mayor of NYC. I believe as a

business man he understands the significance of what Gore is saying.

[TwilightGardener]

20. I'm not saying you're wrong about Bloomberg seeing the value in

what Gore's saying, but I've seen threads on DU that suggest Bloomberg is going to back a Gore run, financially or otherwise, because he and Gore have been friendly to each other. I don't believe that at all--everything he's done suggests he is going to run himself. I'm saying that Bloomberg is a politician first and foremost, AND an opportunist (hence the party switches)--everything that comes out of a skilled politician's mouth is never primarily for someone else's benefit, it's a calculated move for his or her OWN benefit. If he says something nice about Gore, then he's thought it through beforehand and is furthering his own aims.

[Macchendra]

17. If it ain't Kucinich, it is 3rd party or not voting at all.

This is why I, like 8% of democrats cannot vote for Hill Obama or Edwards even if they get the ticket:
These people have continued the bellicose line against Iran.
I don't care if I'm not voting against the worst, I am still not voting for a criminal.
Your name is attached to them when you vote and you are subject to the repercussions of divine justice.
How can Hillary vote against the clusterbomb amendment? How can her supporters even show their face around here?

[Blackhatjack]

19. Hmmm... and you are a registered Democrat? Been here long?

[Richard Steele]

23. M'kay.

[Lasher]

24. Heh.

Yer kitty 'speaks' fer me.

[Blackhatjack]

25. I like your signature line .....