Thursday, June 23, 2011

A survey of America's third parties and Independents and the 2012 general elections

I find it newsworthy, that there has been little published in many of America's important news periodicals and recent research about roles or influence third parties may exert in the 2012 general elections.

From Friedman, Thomas L, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times  |  100 Days (June 21, 2011)  |
Maybe it is just my friends, but I find more and more people completely disgusted by this situation and looking for a serious Third Party candidate who could run in 2012 and deliver the shock therapy to the corrupt, encrusted, two-party duopoly now running the show in America.

Such a Third Party would have a simple agenda: 1) Inject a short-term stimulus. 2) Enact Simpson-Bowles. 3) Shrink our presence in Afghanistan. 4) Raise automobile mileage standards. 5) Impose a gasoline tax to pay for a massive increase in government-supported scientific research and a carbon tax to pay for new infrastructure and stimulate clean-power innovation.

Do I think such a Third Party can win in 2012? Not likely. But it doesn’t have to win to be effective. If such a party attracted substantial voters on such a platform, it would shape the agendas of the Republicans and Democrats. They would both have to move to attract these voters by changing their own platforms and, in so doing, might even create a mandate for the next president to govern for an entire term — not just 100 days. 

From Charlie Rose  |  Interview with US Senator Evan Bayh (March 1, 2010)  |
CHARLIE ROSE: Do you believe that a third party candidacy -- not for you, but a viable third party candidate could win in 2012?
EVAN BAYH: Well, let me be clear, because there are all sorts of rumors running around. I support the president, and I think he’s got a good chance of being reelected for a number of reasons.
CHARLIE ROSE: And you will not run as a third-party candidate?
EVAN BAYH: No, I will not. But I do think the level of frustration among the American public is such that following the last administration, there was a big vote for change, as we know. If Washington remains stuck, even though it’s not the president’s fault, even though most of this may rest at the doorstep of Congress, that frustration may fester and grow, particularly in the economy remains somewhat sluggish. And it would create an opportunity for someone with the sort of resources that Ross Perot, for example, had a decade or decade and a half ago to make a case to the American public that, look, we need someone from just completely outside of all this to come in and really shake things up. So there is that potential.
CHARLIE ROSE: How about someone like Michael Bloomberg?
EVAN BAYH: Well, he might fit that bill. He certainly has the resources.
EVAN BAYH: He’s been a thoughtful mayor of New York City.
CHARLIE ROSE: Resources and public experience.
EVAN BAYH: Correct.
CHARLIE ROSE: And an appeal to both Democrats and Republicans because of some positions he has which are Democratic, some -- certainly on fiscal issues, some positions that are conservative.
EVAN BAYH: Correct.
CHARLIE ROSE: So that’s the profile of somebody, a lot of money and an appeal to independents. And it’s in your judgment knowing politics doable if certain convergences take place?
EVAN BAYH: If you look at our history it’s unlikely. And I still believe the president will be reelected. But under the right set of circumstances, if the economy is sluggish and Congress remains stuck, someone with those sorts of resources and an executive back ground of proven accomplishments, that’s always attractive to the American public.