Joshua Spivak: Bloomberg would be a spoiler
[Joshua Spivak, a lawyer and public relations executive, worked for State Sen. Seymour Lachman (D-Brooklyn) from 1996 to 1998.]
With the news that he has dropped his Republican affiliation, Mayor Michael Bloomberg continues to play a highly public game of flirting with an independent presidential run.
This meshes with the intense speculation that a noted independent political figure, the self-financing Bloomberg or someone else, such as the antiwar Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, will jump into the race.
Pundits argue that, for a host of reasons, including the growth of Internet fundraising, the mood of the country or the impending death of the campaign finance system, a third- party candidate has a real chance.
The 2008 presidential election may be different from its predecessors, but we can be sure that it will not be because of a third-party victor. There is only the same infinitesimal chance for a successful third- party run as in years past. And every smart politician knows it.
Third-party runs are important, as they can radically reshape an election. Everyone remembers Ralph Nader's three runs, especially his 2000 bid that cost Al Gore the presidency. Ross Perot may have fatally damaged the first President George Bush in collecting 19 percent of the vote in 1992. But these spoilers never came close to the White House.
In fact, the last third-party candidate to garner an Electoral College vote was Southern protest candidate George Wallace in 1968. And you have to go back to 1912 for the only time a third-party candidate ever came in second: Former President Teddy Roosevelt, who ran under the banner of the Progressive Party, received 88 electoral votes and 27 percent of the popular vote to beat out Republican William Howard Taft. Of course, Roosevelt finished a distant second in the race to Woodrow Wilson....
The two parties have ideologies that serve a real and important function. Most voters do not follow the political process all that closely, instead relying on the parties to operate as signposts for contentious issues. Just by looking at the candidate's party, voters are aware of the candidate's likely position on a diverse array of wedge issues.
Third-party candidates upset this structure and, as the race is run, voters discover that the candidates may hold positions that are anathema to them. Therefore, while they may initially win support for a few exciting ideas - such as Perot's stance against free trade - they lose voter support once the candidate is forced to reveal stands on other controversial problems.
Since third-party candidates must draw their support from disaffected voters from both major parties, any position on hot-button issues such as abortion or Social Security is sure to alienate some potential voters. Each stand pushes more voters back into the waiting arms of the Democratic or Republican parties. By Election Day, the third-party candidate has been written off and can only hope to play the spoiler role.
Read entire article at Newsday
With the news that he has dropped his Republican affiliation, Mayor Michael Bloomberg continues to play a highly public game of flirting with an independent presidential run.
This meshes with the intense speculation that a noted independent political figure, the self-financing Bloomberg or someone else, such as the antiwar Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, will jump into the race.
Pundits argue that, for a host of reasons, including the growth of Internet fundraising, the mood of the country or the impending death of the campaign finance system, a third- party candidate has a real chance.
The 2008 presidential election may be different from its predecessors, but we can be sure that it will not be because of a third-party victor. There is only the same infinitesimal chance for a successful third- party run as in years past. And every smart politician knows it.
Third-party runs are important, as they can radically reshape an election. Everyone remembers Ralph Nader's three runs, especially his 2000 bid that cost Al Gore the presidency. Ross Perot may have fatally damaged the first President George Bush in collecting 19 percent of the vote in 1992. But these spoilers never came close to the White House.
In fact, the last third-party candidate to garner an Electoral College vote was Southern protest candidate George Wallace in 1968. And you have to go back to 1912 for the only time a third-party candidate ever came in second: Former President Teddy Roosevelt, who ran under the banner of the Progressive Party, received 88 electoral votes and 27 percent of the popular vote to beat out Republican William Howard Taft. Of course, Roosevelt finished a distant second in the race to Woodrow Wilson....
The two parties have ideologies that serve a real and important function. Most voters do not follow the political process all that closely, instead relying on the parties to operate as signposts for contentious issues. Just by looking at the candidate's party, voters are aware of the candidate's likely position on a diverse array of wedge issues.
Third-party candidates upset this structure and, as the race is run, voters discover that the candidates may hold positions that are anathema to them. Therefore, while they may initially win support for a few exciting ideas - such as Perot's stance against free trade - they lose voter support once the candidate is forced to reveal stands on other controversial problems.
Since third-party candidates must draw their support from disaffected voters from both major parties, any position on hot-button issues such as abortion or Social Security is sure to alienate some potential voters. Each stand pushes more voters back into the waiting arms of the Democratic or Republican parties. By Election Day, the third-party candidate has been written off and can only hope to play the spoiler role.