Absolutely correct, DJ. The whole "third party" thing assumes near-mythological status.

In the fantasy, the grassroots common guy talks plain senses to plain folks and comes from nowhere to win without money or organization.

People think it's going to be a cross between Mr Smith Goes To Washington and H. Ross Perot.

The odd thing is {besides Perot himself, I mean} that the little wacko might actually have won! He was actually leading in the polls in late May 1992, when he suddenly withdrew with clearly insane ranting about "Republcan plans to disrupt my daughter's wedding" by publishing a "fake Lesbian photograph" of her . . .

Remember the 19% he ended up winning was AFTER that paranoid episode, and the wild tale of "Black Panthers attempting to kidnap" him but being "scared off by a neighbor who was out walking his dog" and also after Admiral Stockdale's inept debate performance.

Scary stuff!

But, close doesn't count in Presidential contests, and the history of third party candidates is simply this: with a strong performance, they can sometimes tilt the election from one side to the other, but never enough to win it.

DJ is here now, too???

Where's Jayson???

Seriously, it's good to see the old gang together on one blog. Now, it they could do something about the threads here ;-)

Now, it they could do something about the threads here ;-)

In progress. A new design is in the works.

Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate from the, then, untried Republicans. Still, the Wigs had pretty much abandoned any real position on the issue of the day. The current Republican party is not that weak and it should be remembered that the issue that is causing Mr. Bush's polling problems is immigration and the Republicans that are up for election are House members and they are free to stake out a more correct position. The party that most resembles the Wigs of the 1850's are the Democrats; a party divided and at war with itself and the American people.

Welcome, DJ!

Great to see you guys together in the same place again!

Glad to see the gang is back together.

Just need to get RCP to put this link on their links section now.

So, you want to keep taking shots at what you call the self-proclaimed "base"? Way to build bridges and prop the big tent.

3rd parties/indies can be very effective at moving the major parties as they force them to take on their issues. If one of the major parties does not take on the issue feeding a 3rd party growth, the one closest to the issue will suffer. Financial conservatives going to Perot in '92 influenced the message that won the '94 revolution. That was pretty darn effective. If the republican party had not made that move to accommodate the financial conservatives, the political landscape would look much different. The same could be said for the green effort in '00 with Nader. Look at the dems movement on global warming after that 3rd party effort.

Heck the republican party started and grew because no party would support their views on stopping slavery, a huge topic at the time. Immigration could be that huge depending on what happens next with laws, enforcement and amnesty.

Amazingly, it is a majority of republican citizens that want the House version and not the Senate version of this bill. The repub leadership moves against what the majority wants at its own peril. If they continue to move against it, a 3rd party effort would gain strength, but would likely be pulled back into the republican party within a couple of years after the republican party realized it needed to change message and accommodate them after all.

Shorse makes a good point. Whether or not a third party can be "successful" depends on how you deinfe "success". If success simply means winning elections and putting a tthird party candidate in office, then it's extremely unlikely and requires something of a perfect storm. But taking the long term view, these candidacies can be effective in changing the policies of one or even both major political parties. Sometimes this can be worth short term electoral failures.

Open question about a hypothetical: If Perot's candidacy put Clinton in the presidency but was the driver behind the 1994 electoral gains by Republicans, would it be worth it? Note: I'm not saying Perot was the reason for 1994 - I don't think he was.

Congratulations Mr. Drummond on your return to the company of Ms. Byrd, and Mr. McClure...

outstanding !

in San Diego, this extreme base seems to be less than 5% ?

i noted a recent RNC poll of Conservative Republicans, hard to know what that means, but they stated 75% of those questioned wanted a Comprehensive Immigration Reform package, like the President's, and only 25% wanted a pure Border Security Bill.

i just found the entire idea amazing.
especially after all of the hysteria...

i still firmly believe, with the Economy in such good shape, little will change this November.

There isn't anything that I know of in the US Constitution that says we have to have two major political parties. As I understand it, the Founding Fathers, especially George Washington, were against organized factions (ie political parties). Recently, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said about passing the Immigration bill that "we (republicans) own(!) the government" and that there shouldn't be any problems with passing the legislation.

Also, check out the corrupt Commision on Presidential Debates. You'll discover why third party movements will be snuffed out of our politics.