Would the Democrats take a hit from a stridently anti-war 3rd Party?

[denem]

I have asked this before. One issue, corporatism, was enough for Nader. Take some Green who takes takes the line: troops out yesterday. Add a little charisma, a reasonably telegenic presence, and boilerplate anti-corporate rhetoric. An unwelcome second front? Do the republicans fund it, or is it counterproductive? Is iy pure idle speculation? I'm asking.

[rjones2818]

1. Does a cow moo?

Are baby polar bears cute beyond belief?
Did chickens come before the egg? Ummm...scratch that one....
Is the Pope German?
Is Missouri #1 in football?

You get the idea!

[LSparkle]

2. Someone mentioned Dennis running as an independent ...

That would be a Dem nightmare scenario.

Didn't Ron Paul run for president as a libertarian while keeping his Repug House seat?

[denem]

6. I want to keep this thread separate from Kucinich / Paul.

- that's stillborn.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I think the Republicans would take a bigger hit

because every Republican I've asked around here is sick of the war. They're talking of voting Ron Paul in the primary. If Paul isn't the nominee but runs on, say, the Libertarian ticket, a LOT of Republicans who would never vote for a Democrat will vote for him.

[ORDagnabbit]

4. if there was a democratic party then no.... but its a demopublican party and has been for a while

[Telly Savalas]

5. Just what the world needs: more boilerplate rhetoric.

[denem]

8. It never rains , it pours. nt.

[cuke]

7. Not much

One issue candidates usually don't go very far. Nader is an exception, but he had a longstanding reputation and I do think it's a bit of an oversimplification to say that he was simply about corporatism.

But of course, nothing is written in stone. The right candidate, pumped up by the media, could do damage. And the repukes will definitely fund it

[denem]

12. That seems right to me.

Still, if a one off emerges, it seems obvious to me that they will turn their guns on the Dems. Cindy and Code Pink have form here.

[TwilightGardener]

9. No. Richardson wants ALL the troops out TOMORROW, and he's not leading in the polls.

Why would a fringier, less-qualified third-party candidate do a better job against Hillary than he does?

[denem]

10. Richarson has performed poorly in the debates.

IMO he is not an effective standard bearer for "troops out now".

[jody]

11. I believe the Libertarian Party is stridently anti-war. Have they hurt the Dem Party? n/t

[denem]

13. I can't see the Democrats being outflanked on the right.

There's little crossover.

[LSparkle]

14. Imagine Al Gore running an "internet-only" campaign

That'd hurt us ...

[Mme. Defarge]

15. Anti-War stand?

Maybe. But, IMO, the candidate who can tap into our national rage over the violence done to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and our national honor by the Bush administration, and who promises to hold them accountable for going to war based on lies, outing a covert CIA agent working on WMD's, illegal spying on American citizens, engaging in torture, etc., etc., etc., can win hands down.

[denem]

17. BIDEN has shown plenty of passion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-jP4XkZ8xc, but when the the last time a Presidential election was decided on rage - 1932, 1952?

[Kucinich4America]

21. 2004?

Although that was half the country raging against the Chimp who fucked up the country, and the other half raging against the fictional boogieman who the Chimp had convinced was hiding under their beds.

Technically it was decided by DIEBOLD, not rage though.

[bluetrain]

16. Could you have Ron Paul running as a Libertarian v. Mitt Romney running as a Republican v.

Hillary Clinton running as a Democrat v. Dennis Kucinich running as a Green or Independent? Could that be the ballot in every state? If that were the scenario, you'd have Clinton in 1st, Paul in 2nd, Kucinich in 3rd and Romney last -- provided everyone's votes were counted.

[denem]

18. If Ron Paul runs as Libertarian, the Democrats win, period.

He's got nearly 10% of the Republican vote, and hard core fanatical supporters. Kooch won't desert the Democratic Party - it's his life and his podium.

[bluetrain]

19. I wouldn't count on that.

More than him not turning his back on THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, I wouldn't be surprised to see many VOTERS turn their backs on the democratic party and never return -- if another corporate hack is the nominee.

[rufus dog]

20. Nah!

Wrong time. You have the worst President in history that is there because of a third party candidate. Won't happen, too soon.

[Kucinich4America]

22. The worst president in history is there because his crime family appointed 5 judges

on the Supreme Court who selected him. That selection was made possible by the outright theft practiced by his brother and his brother's dogfaced girlfriend who deleted nearly 100,000 voters from eligibility based on deliberately faulty software, which flagged anyone who had a "similar name" to a convicted felon.