Will Gore Run Third Party? --Poll

[TwilightGardener]

Maybe Gore doesn't want to have to slog it out in a Dem primary. Might he run as an Indy and be guaranteed the national spotlight? Could it happen?

[Swamp Rat]

1. No way José.

:)

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Why, when the Dem nomination is his if he wants it? Will Hillary run 3rd party?

[TwilightGardener]

4. Honestly, I don't think he would be coronated--he'd have to fight for it,

just like everyone else. The reason I'm wondering is that he refuses to rule out a run, but he's really too late to run in the Dem Primary, but NOT too late as an Indy.

[Selatius]

7. Al Gore himself said it wasn't too late. To paraphrase what he said:

Why the hell should I run a 600 day campaign? Because the corporate news media wants to coronate a candidate early? I would rather do things on my own terms.

[TwilightGardener]

9. If he thinks that, he's wrong. Unless he's Bloomberg, and can self-finance,

it's getting late in the game. The other candidates have organization, money, and a well-honed stump speech.

[Selatius]

12. You think Al Gore has a shortage of capable campaign staff and no money-raising power?

[TwilightGardener]

15. He will need to fight for the nom--Hillary, Obama, and Edwards aren't going

to suddenly quit the race. He's way behind.

[Blue Belle]

17. He's not way behind...

He is polling very well and he's not even in the race. So what if he doesn't land Bob Shrum or James Carville as advisors - from their records as of late it's probably time to get new blood anyway. It's not like he doesn't have a willing staff of political professionals waiting - all he has to do is give the word.

[Blue Belle]

16. It's not too late to run as a Dem...

Neither Hillary, Obama, or Edwards has the nomination in the bag and fund raising wouldn't be a problem. Besides, he has a book tour, a concert, and a Nobel Prize nomination to keep his name in the press and in the minds of voters without spending a dime. I think you're buying too much into the MSM Pundit speak to think he doesn't have a chance if he waits to throw his hat into the ring. There are a lot of people waiting with check books in hand to support him. I think it would be advantagous for him to wait and let voters get sick of the candidates who are out now. Despite popular belief, it's still anyone's game until Super Tuesday.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Gore in a waltz. I bet Hillary will pull a Lieberman, though when Gore get's the

Dem nomination.

Those two are very close allies.

[mmonk]

3. I think if Gore ran, he would change the whole direction

of the party concerning major issues because they know he can win. If he does it as a dem by the draft Gore movement, he will command respect and attention.

[Selatius]

5. Al Gore running as an Indie could cause a Republican victory.

When you split the vote on the left, you get a right-wing guy in office. This is a two-party system, not a multi-party one. Even if the number of votes for the Democrat and Al Gore outnumber the Republican votes, the Republican could still win by virtue of the fact that his base was not fractured and that he won a plurality and not a majority of the vote.

[TwilightGardener]

8. What if Gore gets a MAJORITY of Dems, PLUS Indies, and a few

Repubs?

[Selatius]

11. That's a big what-if, which is why it is a tactical risk.

Let's say without Al Gore the vote splits 54-44 for the Democrat and 2 percent left for the Independents/third party votes. Now put Al Gore in as a third party candidate and run the numbers again.

Let's say Al Gore won 28 percent of the Democratic vote and 1 percent of the Independent/third party vote and 1 percent of the Republican vote. That leaves him with 30 percent of the total votes cast. To be sure, he beat the Democratic nominee for president, but he loses to the Republican because he got 43 percent of the vote. Gore loses.

[TwilightGardener]

14. Agree that he risks putting a 'Pug in the WH, but if the nominee is Hillary

we'd be doing that anyway, LOL! He seems to have such a big following, I just wonder if there wouldn't be enough votes from BOTH sides of the aisle for him. I don't know how rank-and-file 'Pugs feel about him (Freepers hate him)--if he ran Unity '08 with a 'Pug, might that make a difference?

[philosophie_en_rose]

25. What if monkeys flew out of his butt and voted democratic?

I highly doubt Al would pull a Nader.

[arcos]

22. And it will always be a two party system if someone doesn't try to break it...

My country had a two party system, but it has rapidly changed in less than ten years and now we have at least four important parties and several minor ones, on all sides of the political spectrum.

[Selatius]

26. Well, your country uses the D'hondt voting method. We use first-past-the-post voting method.

Our voting system doesn't give us the practical option of voting for third parties.

[arcos]

32. Definitely you are in a disadvantage in that aspect...

But at the same time the way the Internet has changed US politics makes it the perfect country for a grassroots, third party to start moving. I'm not saying this is necessarily the best time to do it, but maybe in a few years. A multiparty system is healthier for democracy and allows for much more accountability as well as debate and new ideas... it is definitely worth it, fear shouldn't be the deciding factor.

[Selatius]

33. The internet has turned up the heat on the two parties, but there are still structural roadblocks

The simple truth is third parties in US history have only really served as spoiler parties, the phenomenon itself now since named Duverger's Law. What people can do is push states like California to switch over to systems such as party list proportional representation or MMP representation to avoid Duverger's Law. Such systems would effectively break the two-party system by liberating voters to vote for third parties without punishing themselves with candidacies like Bush, which is what happened when people in swing states voted for Ralph Nader and the Green Party. Otherwise, third parties will only continue to be spoilers in major elections.

Our system of representation is SMDP (single-member district plurality) where candidates are chosen based on who won the plurality of the vote and not necessarily the majority of the vote. There can only be one person representing the district in Congress at a time, 435 seats in the US House in total.

If a state had ten seats in the US House, it currently has ten districts each represented by one person, typically from the two dominant parties, again Duverger's Law in effect. For instance, with proportional representation, the ten districts would be combined into one state district but represented by ten seats instead of one. If the Green Party only won 10 percent of the state's votes, it wins one seat. With a large state like California with 53 seats in the US House, the threshold would be lower, only 1.89 percent of the popular vote to get just one seat.

[arcos]

40. But don't you think that even under these circumstances...

A credible, third party could gain steam? Yes, money is needed, but again online fundraising has changed the way candidates raise money.

Ever since becoming a democratic country we've had two strong parties, some rising and some falling until the second half of the 20th century, where they pretty much settled down until 10 years ago that a new breed of politicians began to earn the votes of the people with credible third parties. Each country has different roadblocks and circumstances, but that doesn't mean they can't be overcame.

Maybe if a well funded, progressive third party started winning local elections they can start changing the winner takes all system in favor of some kind of proportional representation, or even a mixed system like the German. I'm not saying a third party has to start by winning the White House, in fact no third party has won a Presidential election here yet, but we were within 1% last time around, and all new parties (10 years or less) combined gathered 57% of the Presidential vote.

[Selatius]

42. Short answer no. Regional parties would have a better chance, but not 3rd parties on a nat'l level.

The issue here is the incumbency rate in the US is over 90 percent. Some say it's up around 98 percent. There are few elections that are truly competitive, and open elections are rare. What makes it worse is the two viable parties in the US control how districts are drawn. This leads to the issue of gerrymandering, which has been used over the years to dilute the power of minority voters and suppress movements that threaten the underlying power structure, like third parties.

The next big problem is contribution limits. Under current law, an individual can donate a maximum of $2300 to each individual candidate per election, $28,500 to national party committees each year, $10,000 to local and state party committees each year, with total contribution limits set at $108,000 each year.

As you can see, one wealthy individual in the top half percent of the population can burn $108,000 each year on lobbying efforts working alone. The question is how many average working class people does it take to match the buying power of that lone wealthy individual?

Whatever the answer is, it's true to say that in some cases working class people can outspend wealthy individuals given large enough numbers of people participating, but it is also true to say that it is extremely difficult to gather that number of working class people together even with the internet than it is to gather only a small handful of wealthy individuals who can outspend several thousand workers apiece. The game is stacked in favor of those with the biggest wallets. In non-contentious elections such as those that don't occur during unpopular wars like Viêtnam or Iraq, it will be difficult to energize enough people to donate in the numbers they usually do so in times of national distress.

If you asked me, the two ways a third party could ever become viable at the national level in the United States and not become a regional party is if one of the existing parties were destroyed, like the American Whig Party in the 1850s, or if the third party gets support from wealthy individuals who can donate lots of money. In the first case, you've failed at establishing a third viable party, as you now have gone back to square one with just two choices again. In the second case, you're back at square one with a party that is disproportionately influenced by wealthy individuals at the expense of commoners.

What is needed is structural reforms like MMP representation or party-list proportional representation or something that easily allows more than two parties to exist at the same time. Without striving for such structural reforms, you're setting yourself up for a lot of needless pain and anguish by trying to establish a third party under our system here in the US. On top of that, a constitutional amendment is needed to switch to a mandatory public financing system. As it stands, mandatory public financing would be ruled by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional because it is likely an infringement on the 1st Amendment right to donate money to candidates and parties as established in the Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo.

[Phredicles]

6. I love the idea but I just don't see it happening.

I mean, I admire Gore immensely and I am EXTREMELY disgusted with the DLCratic Party right now. But I haven't seen even the barest hint to suggest he's interested in going this route.

[Bucky]

39. You love the idea of splitting the Democratic vote in half in 2008?

That's a bit... odd.
.

[CTD]

10. After today, I can't see how anyone with Gore's integrity would want to run as a Dem

What a party of spineless pieces of shit. I am so angry at the Dem leadership for, once again, rolling over for Bush and the war machine. Disgusted. Appalled.

[ThomWV]

13. Al Gore Will Run, and Win, As A Democrat.

[helderheid]

18. I'd vote for him no matter WHAT party he is. Given the current disgust in both Dems and Repubs I

could see him win in a landslide as an Independent (or any party including D or R)

[DearAbby]

19. At this point

I don't care what party he will claim...I am writing his name in.

[LSK]

21. this is funny

No

[Canuckistanian]

23. Gore was born and raised immersed in the Democratic party

1. He's shown no dissatisfaction that I can see with the party.

2. And if he's had some differences with other Dems, they've deserved it.

3. Creating a new party - practically a new political MOVEMENT will take time.

Time none of us have.

And then there's the little matter of funding......

[philosophie_en_rose]

24. Absolutely not. And he already has "the national spotlight."

Why would Al Gore run third party? He already has the national spotlight and has shown no interest in running at all. If he does run, he'll run as a Democrat and be a strong contender.


He's not Pat Buchanan or Joe Lieberman. :scared:

[Jacklyn75]

27. No he won't run at all, but I sure wish he would! n/t

[RestoreGore]

28. Oh yes, this is the point of his book ,,,

And here I thought the Internet was better than the corporate media.

[depakid]

35. It would make some sense, wouldn't it?

And wouldn't it be something is Wes Clark joined him?

If things continue along as they've been going, I can see a LOT of voters fed up with both parties- and if the current slate on botrh sides is all there is to offer, a LOT of people may otherwise stay home.

Not to say I believe this will happen, but it's an intriguing possibility.

[Perky]

29. His support would absolutely evaporate on DU if he did.

He would pull enough votes away from the nominee that a Republican would win...

[helderheid]

34. Not from me! He'd get my vote.

[depakid]

36. Just to play what if's...

Say Hagel & Bloomberg also ran on an independent ticket?

[Bridget Burke]

30. No.

Gore's already in the national spotlight.

And he remembers what Nader did in 2000.

Do you?

[MrSlayer]

31. Absolutely not.

No way in hell. Though it might make things interesting if he did. If say Rudy and Hillary are the major party candidates and Bloomberg throws his billion into the fray as an Indy and then Gore runs as a Green or somesuch with a lot of financial backing we could have something we have needed for a long time as a Nation.

[Bucky]

37. Are you insane?

Did Skinner declare May 23rd "Take a Break from Reality Day" and nobody bothered to tell me?
.

[Initech]

38. Unless Gore would put his own money toward running, he wouldn't get as much funding 3rd party.

Like they say - money talks, bullshit walks.

[Pastiche423]

41. What a dumb question

Why in hell would Gore switch parties? He is a DEMOCRAT.

When he is ready, he will run. And he will win.

[Lil Missy]

43. No. Fucking. Way.