Presidential Third-Party Candidates are Spoilers.

[riqster]

There is no case to the contrary in Modern American presidential politics. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Perot, Nader, pick whichever one you fancy, all of them have a negative effect on the ideology they espouse.

So when I read stuff like this:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025541648

I shake my head. Ideology does not win elections: numbers do. And if Bernie does not run as a Democrat but instead takes the independent route, all he'll do is ensure a a Repub victory.

Here's hoping he runs as a Dem. We need him.

[Autumn]

1. Here's hoping he runs. We need him.

We are running out of time.

[ladjf]

2. On MTP, Bernie clearly indicated that running as a Dem would be more feasible than running

as an Independent. He is a brilliant man. He isn't going to do anything that would help the Republicans and big business.
I'm going to support his candidacy but doubt that he will prevail. I will vote for the Democratic Nominee.

Each time I hear from Mrs. Clinton, I more convinced of her shallowness. But, since when has shallowness been a liability in politics. Her recent appearance in Iowa was ,to me, like a hack comedian at the comedy club, all hat and no cattle.

[gordianot]

3. Correct

My opinion of Bernie Sanders would greatly change if he ran third party. He should run as a Democrat.

[HERVEPA]

4. There is zero chance he will run as an independent.

Bernie is neither stupid, nor an egomaniac like Nader.
He may not like the direction Hillary or the like would take us, but he would not want to saddle us with a rethug.
He is a realist.

[riqster]

5. I agree. He is a very smart man.

Would to God that certain amongst his supporters were equally bright.

[HERVEPA]

10. I am astounded bythe lack of political knowledge of some of the posters on this site

And many don't want to learn.

[unblock]

6. i don't think that's true at all

perot lost handily, of course, but he certainly advanced his pet cause of balancing the budget and general loathing of deficit spending, a rhetorical position which the republicans have adopted and continue to use very effectively to the detriment of all.

most others simply have no impact, largely because the structure is so biased in favor of the two established parties.

the idea that they are spoilers is largely a function of the close 2000 election. truth is, third parties usually garner so few votes that the election has to otherwise be a near toss-up anyway for the spoiler claim to even remotely apply.

[JonLP24]

17. Nader in 2000

received the fewest percentage of popular votes of top 3rd party candidates since I don't know when but at-least before 1980.

[unblock]

20. yeah, perot splitting the right-wing vote, allowing clinton to win with 43% of the popular vote

there's a much stronger case to be made that perot's running influenced the outcome of that race than there is nader's running influencing the 2000 race outcome.

that said, it's not clear that perot's run was counter-productive, given that clinton balanced the budget, which was exactly what perot was campaigning for.

[Chathamization]

7. It often makes sense to coalesce around one candidate regardless of party

I know people don’t really pay much attention to primaries, but there are plenty of progressive “spoilers” there – individuals who split the vote and allow for a more regressive individual who’s able to hold together a coalition to win. Of course, there’s always a much larger number of non-voters than “spoiler” voters. And I think many people have a line past which they can’t do “lesser of two evils” (how many here would vote for Gingrich over Santorum?).

[hobbit709]

8. And some main party candidates are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporations.

[stevenleser]

13. If true or not it has nothing to do with the OPs point. nt

[Thinkingabout]

9. Bernie does not have the temperament to handle the presidency.

He tries to be Chris Christie clone but those actions isn't always acceptable everywhere. I know there is some interest in his corporate views but it takes a wide vision to handle the office well. He also claims to be a Progressive Socialist and the socialist word will bring lots of no votes.

[kelly1mm]

15. Someone alerted on your post. Jury got it right:

On Tue Sep 16, 2014, 08:16 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Bernie does not have the temperament to handle the presidency.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5543814

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Saying Bernie is trying to be a Christie clone is ludicrous and unacceptable.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Sep 16, 2014, 08:26 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the poster meant it in the "see, I can work with the other side" way. I do not find this to be TOS. With utter respect to Bernie, he is not currently a member of the Democratic Party, and thus while the alerter may be offended on his behalf, not supporting "Third Party Candidates" is acceptable on this board. Also, the post alerted on did have some legitimate analysis dealing with personality and electability; attempting to hide this seems odd.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Is the alerter serious? Unacceptable because you say so? HAHA. Look, I am a big Bernie fan and will support him if he runs. But just like people are free to criticize Saint Hillary, so should they be allowed to criticize Saint Bernie.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh please. What a ridiculous alert. It's CRITICISM. Deal with it.
Good gawd.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree that the poster's comments, especially the Christie comparison, are beyond stupid, but I think they do not violate the TOS. Why not engage the poster in a dialog and point out how wrong the poster is? That would be better than hiding the remarks, IMO.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Disagreement with a post does not mean its hide-worthy. I'm a fan of Sanders and think the poster is full of it, but that doesn't make it hide-worthy.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The ignorance in this post needs to be refuted not hidden.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Simple solution. Run a candidate that appeals to the Left more than Bernie does.

It's up to the candidate to convince the voters to vote for him/her.

[stevenleser]

12. Correct. It's very simple. nt

[bullwinkle428]

14. He is NOT running for "political advancement"! He is simply running in the

hope that certain issues that have largely been ignored by the MSM will gradually weave their way into the conversation.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. People get to vote for whoever represents them best.

If you want people to vote for your candidate, give people a reason to vote FOR them. "They're better than the Republicans" has played out already. The parties need to respond to the people, not the other way around.

[Maedhros]

21. Yes, indeed.

I will vote for the best candidate, every time. Sometimes that will be a Democrat.

[Xyzse]

18. I thought he was running as a Democrat.

Which is why in that thread, I mentioned that if he runs as a Democrat, I'll register as a Democrat for that particular election cycle.

[riqster]

19. Hopefully he does so. But he's not the one pushing a third-party option. Some DUers are.

[Xyzse]

22. Oh no... I wouldn't vote for him if he runs as an Independent.

It would be too much of a waste for me.

I would register as a Democrat to be able to vote in the Primary if he were to run as a Dem.

[riqster]

23. Same here. I typically only vote on issues unless there is a primary contest.