Swing Voters Deliver Harsh Verdict

[JSRG]

It’s considered that because that’s the accurate depiction of what it is. No third party is making a serious attempt to build a real alternative to the two major ones. They waste their resources on moonshot campaigns for president rather then doing the boring work of building a voter base and governing at local levels to demonstrate their ideas.

You build a voter base with a presidential campaign because that's the only way people actually hear of you. "Govern at the local level" is the sort of thing people say that sounds kind of good but actually means best-case scenario you maybe get yourself better known in a rather small area. At least the presidential attempts get attention which could help elect people on the lower levels, which some third parties have managed. But again this was done by starting high and going lower, not starting at the lowest level and climbing up. I've never seen anyone who claims they have to go from the local level first ever able to point to any case of success of this. If this is the proper way to go, why is there no apparent evidence it can work?

Indeed, the last time a third party candidate managed a big win was Jesse Ventura when he won Minnesota as the Reform Party candidate, a party that started on the national level rather than the local one (it collapsed soon afterwards, though, because it turns out that Ross Perot: The Party doesn't work so well when Ross Perot quits). And the last time a party rose up and became a major force in American politics was when the Republican Party became a thing, which again didn't start on the local level, it worked much more nationally.

Maybe,whichever way someone goes (starting nationally or locally) won't work and there's not any real route to becoming a major force in American politics under the current voting system aside from one of the current major parties imploding; the Republican Party became a major force largely because the Whig Party (the major opponent to the Democrats back then) collapsed from internal division on the issue of slavery and the Republican Party, many of whose members were former Whig members, therefore took its place. But I've noticed that whatever little success third parties have managed has all been from those who worked nationally to try to gain attention and then used that to win some more local contests, not any that worked locally and tried to rise up.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You build a voter base with a presidential campaign because that's the only way people actually hear of you. "Govern at the local level" is the sort of thing people say that sounds kind of good but actually means best-case scenario you maybe get yourself better known in a rather small area. At least the presidential attempts get attention which could help elect people on the lower levels, which some third parties have managed. But again this was done by starting high and going lower, not starting at the lowest level and climbing up. I've never seen anyone who claims they have to go from the local level first ever able to point to any case of success of this. If this is the proper way to go, why is there no apparent evidence it can work?

If they don't put up candidates, of course they're never going to win anything. I can't tell you the last time I saw a non-whackadoodle 3rd-party candidate for local office. Local politics are weird - you have plenty of non-partisan offices, and people tend to run on reputation more than the letter after their name on the ballot. If parties like the Greens put resources towards local races rather than throwing them away on moonshot presidential campaigns, they could absolutely win elections. They'd just have to use a little strategy - target races without incumbents or established frontrunners in areas where their policies have traction. Win some mayoral races or state legislative seats, and that gives them a springboard to move up to higher offices. It'll take a few election cycles to build anything on a national level, but it definitely can be done. The only real impediment is the election system itself, which strongly favors a two-party system, but again, that's less of an issue at the local level.

 

[rjs330]

The thing is Trump is such a terrible candidate that if the Democrats actually put up somebody that was younger and less of an establishment type I think they could win.

 

[JSRG]

If they don't put up candidates, of course they're never going to win anything. I can't tell you the last time I saw a non-whackadoodle 3rd-party candidate for local office. Local politics are weird - you have plenty of non-partisan offices, and people tend to run on reputation more than the letter after their name on the ballot. If parties like the Greens put resources towards local races rather than throwing them away on moonshot presidential campaigns, they could absolutely win elections. They'd just have to use a little strategy - target races without incumbents or established frontrunners in areas where their policies have traction. Win some mayoral races or state legislative seats, and that gives them a springboard to move up to higher offices. It'll take a few election cycles to build anything on a national level, but it definitely can be done. The only real impediment is the election system itself, which strongly favors a two-party system, but again, that's less of an issue at the local level.

You refer to the Green Party, so let's go with that. The Green Party does win local elections. Maybe not a whole lot, but there are currently 137 Green Party members who were elected (there's 144 in office, but 6 of those joined the party after their election and 1 was appointed). People act like third parties only run for presidential election, and while that's true for some, others do run a bunch more local candidates.

But again the argument is made that if they win, this will (somehow) "springboard" to higher offices, despite no one being able to offer any evidence that this kind of bottom-up campaigning works; you say "it definitely can be done" but don't offer indications of how this is possible. Suppose you win a mayorship in a small town (you're sure not going to win it in a larger one). How does that get you to something larger, like winning a state legislature seat, let alone things like governor? At least "run people for President and other large offices to get attention to the party, which can lead to more votes and attention, causing a growth in popularity, allowing you to repeat this only more successfully and also get people who are willing to run for local office along the way, gaining more popularity, and so on until we're a major force and can win tougher offices" has some kind of logic to it and seems to be paying dividends, even if it's extremely slowly (I can say the main way I learn about third parties is through their presidential candidates). "Win a mayor or legislature seat somehow, and that will lead to higher offices somehow" doesn't seem to have much logic to it.

 

[Pommer]

You build a voter base with a presidential campaign because that's the only way people actually hear of you. "Govern at the local level" is the sort of thing people say that sounds kind of good but actually means best-case scenario you maybe get yourself better known in a rather small area. At least the presidential attempts get attention which could help elect people on the lower levels, which some third parties have managed. But again this was done by starting high and going lower, not starting at the lowest level and climbing up. I've never seen anyone who claims they have to go from the local level first ever able to point to any case of success of this. If this is the proper way to go, why is there no apparent evidence it can work?

Indeed, the last time a third party candidate managed a big win was Jesse Ventura when he won Minnesota as the Reform Party candidate, a party that started on the national level rather than the local one (it collapsed soon afterwards, though, because it turns out that Ross Perot: The Party doesn't work so well when Ross Perot quits). And the last time a party rose up and became a major force in American politics was when the Republican Party became a thing, which again didn't start on the local level, it worked much more nationally.

Maybe,whichever way someone goes (starting nationally or locally) won't work and there's not any real route to becoming a major force in American politics under the current voting system aside from one of the current major parties imploding; the Republican Party became a major force largely because the Whig Party (the major opponent to the Democrats back then) collapsed from internal division on the issue of slavery and the Republican Party, many of whose members were former Whig members, therefore took its place. But I've noticed that whatever little success third parties have managed has all been from those who worked nationally to try to gain attention and then used that to win some more local contests, not any that worked locally and tried to rise up.

There’s a reason parties are never formed during “good times”.

 

[hislegacy]

Trump is not a viable option, as far as I'm concerned. So no problem. If it's Trump vs Biden, then I vote Biden.

That is why we are polar opposites. My sentiments are the same, but the names are reversed.

Biden is not a viable option as far as I am concerned. So no problem, if is a bag of hammers vs Biden, my vote goes to the bag of hammers.

I find myself re living 2016, the Democratic alternative is so repulsive, anyone else will do. I wish the Republicans had a chance with someone else, but I will take Trump over Biden any day of the week.

 

[KCfromNC]

The thing is Trump is such a terrible candidate that if the Democrats actually put up somebody that was younger and less of an establishment type I think they could win.

To be fair, they also managed to win against Mr. Trump using the candidate they're putting up this time.

 

[Yttrium]

That is why we are polar opposites. My sentiments are the same, but the names are reversed.

Biden is not a viable option as far as I am concerned. So no problem, if is a bag of hammers vs Biden, my vote goes to the bag of hammers.

I find myself re living 2016, the Democratic alternative is so repulsive, anyone else will do. I wish the Republicans had a chance with someone else, but I will take Trump over Biden any day of the week.

We're not polar opposites unless you're a Trump-only person who wouldn't even accept other Republican candidates.

You seem to me to be a strong social conservative, which would make pretty much any Democrat candidate unacceptable. I'm an independent swing voter. I prefer a balance between conservatives and liberals. Trump doesn't fall below my standards because of his political positions, he falls below them because of his character.

Yes, I realize that there's a dopey conspiracy theory that imagines all sorts of corruption perpetrated by Biden. You don't need that lame excuse for him to fall below your standards, though, since you have all sorts of social conservative stuff that makes him unacceptable. Meanwhile, I don't follow any conspiracy theories at all. Trump makes his character very clear with every speech and tweet he makes.

 

[rjs330]

To be fair, they also managed to win against Mr. Trump using the candidate they're putting up this time.

Yes but that candidate isn't doing so well now. If they wanted a guaranteed win they would choose someone else.

Same goes for the Republicans by the way.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Suppose you win a mayorship in a small town (you're sure not going to win it in a larger one). How does that get you to something larger, like winning a state legislature seat, let alone things like governor?

Name recognition. If you're successful as a mayor (and 3rd party candidates can absolutely win mayoral races in larger towns - of the three mayors on the list of Greens you posted, one of the cities has a population of 20,000 and another has a population of 30,000), then you can parlay that into a run for the local state legislature seat. If you do well there, that can be parlayed into a run for an administrative branch position (AG, governor, etc). The most important thing in local races is name recognition - if you get enough advertising out and meet enough of your constituents that they remember you, they'll vote for you. That requires a certain attitude, and it requires money.

The Greens are one of the more successful 3rd parties in the US, but they still don't do a great job of building a base - they tend to run about 300 candidates per year, which sounds like a lot, but there are over half a million election officials in the US. Not all of those are elected every year, of course, but there are somewhere around 150,000-250,000 elected positions up for grabs in any given election year, which means that the Greens are present in maybe 0.1-0.2% of all races nationwide. That's practically nothing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes but that candidate isn't doing so well now.

Yeah, that's the story being shopped by Russian sources and other outlets.
But which one of them recently said Obama is currently in office?

 

[hislegacy]

You seem to me to be a strong social conservative, which would make pretty much any Democrat candidate unacceptable. I'm an independent swing voter. I prefer a balance between conservatives and liberals. Trump doesn't fall below my standards because of his political positions, he falls below them because of his character.

Until 2016 I was a conservative LibertArian and stated so a number of times.

I didn’t like certain character traits of Trump - nor do I like certain character traits of Biden. Both of them fail miserably as decent human beings. If Character was an issue, Bill Clinton could not be elected dog catcher, let alone President.

In today’s world character (unfortunately), only get trotted out when there is an election involving a person not liked.

Intellectual honesty prevents casting accusations at one candidate while completely ignoring or dismissing similar accusations against your candidate of choice. IMHO that is disingenuous if not dishonest at best.