Let's play with the two different scenarios for the General Election (McCain v. Clinton and McCain v. Obama) from a slightly different perspective: the potential impact of third-party candidates.
Scenario One: McCain v Obama. Start with the current Survey USA electoral college predictions (h/t to Delawareliberal for pointing them out) which give Obama a 280-252 electoral victory. Frankly, if I were an Obama supporter I would find these results less than comforting for the following reasons.
1) New Jersey is awarded to Obama despite the survey showing a dead heat (43-43); I suspect that Survey USA listed NJ as Democratic because they ultimately cannot see the state going for a Republican, and neither can I. BUT--here's the rub--any Democrat should have a much larger lead there right now than Obama shows over McCain. The McCain/Clinton poll actually shows McCain winning New Jersey by five points (47-42). This is seriously disquieting news for the Democrats because New Jersey should not be in play for them to win. A McCain upset in the Garden State also gives him a victory over Obama, 273-265.
2) Michigan is another toss-up between McCain and Obama (Obama edge there: 46-45), and with 13 electoral votes an upset gives McCain the election at 271-267.
3) Florida, on the other hand, is a toss-up in the other direction, with McCain showing only a two-point 47-45 lead--interestingly enough, Clinton is shown as defeating McCain in Florida, 51-42, which gives some credence to her argument about her showing in big electoral states.
5) North Carolina and Texas are also in the up-for-grabs column for Obama, with McCain's lead showing at only two and one points respectively.
Point being: if this survey is accurate, the election between McCain and Obama is still very much up for grabs.
Now introduce the following into the mix: Cynthia McKinney for the Greens, Ralph Nader (for whomever), and a reasonably strong Libertarian candidate (flavor A: Bob Barr; flavor B: Wayne Allyn Root; flavor C; George Phillies).
Assuming that Obama is going to have to run back more toward the center in order to keep Texas, Florida, and North Carolina in play, while nailing down Michigan and New Jersey, this opens some interesting permutations if either McKinney or Nader can score even 1-2% of the vote between them. Obviously, the Nader-McKinney vote comes out of the Obama column, and in either Michigan or New Jersey it could be critical (more likely Michigan). The Nader-McKinney factor could also cost Obama any real chance at Florida.
Assuming that McCain can only pander to disgruntled conservatives until about mid-August (because he also has to stay in the center to be viable in New Jersey, Michigan, and Florida), there are some dire implications for him in a conservative Libertarian candidacy.
Flavor A (Bob Barr) stands a real chance of costing McCain enough votes in either Texas or North Carolina to affect the outcome.
Flavor B (Wayne Allyn Root) probably cannot equal Barr's vote totals in either Texas or North Carolina, but stands a decent chance of picking off a critical 1% in Florida.
Flavor C (George Phillies--or Christine Smith--or Mary Ruwart) becomes a real wild card. All of these are Libertarians with strong anti-Iraq war stances but no real national name recognition. But Ron Paul has proven that this barrier can be broken, and all three of these candidates stand to make inroads on the gay vote as well as the anti-war vote. With a little luck in terms of publicity (and for reasons I'll give below I think that's more than possible), any one of these candidates would stand a chance of picking up, say 1% in New Jersey, Michigan, or Florida. Whether that would come from one of the two major candidates or at the expense of McKinney-Nader is difficult to tell. But the real wild card here is that what I might call a traditional Libertarian candidate who is fiscally conservative, anti-war, and pro-gay, stands a chance at taking votes from either McCain or Obama.
In other words, I'm suggesting that there is as much as 2-3% of the electorate in key battleground states willing to vote for a third-party candidate in a McCain-Obama race, and that this minority vote could swing the election unpredictably in either direction.
Scenario Two (McCain v. Clinton) is even more interesting, because Hillary has to run as a centrist to beat McCain, because she cannot possibly retrieve her true liberal credentials after the primary season. I mean, yes, she's more liberal than McCain--at least slightly--but despite her gender this would be a much more orthodox race between two political insiders. According to Survey USA such a race features dead heats in Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington. Clinton does far better than Obama in New Jersey and Florida, but loses Texas by seven points.
Thus the third-party dynamic is different.
McKinney-Nader would probably have less of an effect on Clinton than Obama because her New Jersey and Florida numbers are strong enough to survive their impact; either of them could really only hurt Clinton in Michigan or (just possibly) Washington.
As for the Libertarians...
Flavor A (Bob Barr) potentially costs McCain his shot at Pennsylvania or Tennessee.
Flavor B (Wayne Allyn Root) is unlikely to be a factor.
Flavor C (Traditional LP candidate like Phillies, Smith, or Ruwart) stands a chance at picking up a critical 1% from somebody (not sure who) in New Mexico or Washington.
Ironically, Third Party candidates probably have a smaller impact on a McCain-Clinton race than they do on a McCain-Obama race.
Which means what?
My premise is that the mainstream media is going to place all of the third party candidates far more in the spotlight during this general election than they usually do. Several reasons: (1) the Ron Paul phenomena, even though it burned out, was tremendously fun for them; (2) this has been a bizarre year for presidential politics, and the media wants to keep the story coming from as many different angles as possible; (3) the total third party vote will probably approach at least 1-2% nationwide, and should reach as high as 3% in some key battleground states.
Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, or Naderites could conceivably become--depending on your preference--spoilers or kingmakers from either direction.
And this is a very good development for America politics in the long run.
Neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party has any inherent claim on liberal/progressive or conservative/libertarian voters, even though they have both acted like it for several decades. If some of the third-party candidates receive decent press (or even invitations to some debates), and if the percentage of people willing to vote their consciences rather than for a pragmatic victory increases by only one-half of one percent (which the Ron Paul experience suggests is very possible), then . . . .
We may be seeing some of the first serious cracks in our pseudo-two-party Demopublican system.
Scenario One: McCain v Obama. Start with the current Survey USA electoral college predictions (h/t to Delawareliberal for pointing them out) which give Obama a 280-252 electoral victory. Frankly, if I were an Obama supporter I would find these results less than comforting for the following reasons.
1) New Jersey is awarded to Obama despite the survey showing a dead heat (43-43); I suspect that Survey USA listed NJ as Democratic because they ultimately cannot see the state going for a Republican, and neither can I. BUT--here's the rub--any Democrat should have a much larger lead there right now than Obama shows over McCain. The McCain/Clinton poll actually shows McCain winning New Jersey by five points (47-42). This is seriously disquieting news for the Democrats because New Jersey should not be in play for them to win. A McCain upset in the Garden State also gives him a victory over Obama, 273-265.
2) Michigan is another toss-up between McCain and Obama (Obama edge there: 46-45), and with 13 electoral votes an upset gives McCain the election at 271-267.
3) Florida, on the other hand, is a toss-up in the other direction, with McCain showing only a two-point 47-45 lead--interestingly enough, Clinton is shown as defeating McCain in Florida, 51-42, which gives some credence to her argument about her showing in big electoral states.
5) North Carolina and Texas are also in the up-for-grabs column for Obama, with McCain's lead showing at only two and one points respectively.
Point being: if this survey is accurate, the election between McCain and Obama is still very much up for grabs.
Now introduce the following into the mix: Cynthia McKinney for the Greens, Ralph Nader (for whomever), and a reasonably strong Libertarian candidate (flavor A: Bob Barr; flavor B: Wayne Allyn Root; flavor C; George Phillies).
Assuming that Obama is going to have to run back more toward the center in order to keep Texas, Florida, and North Carolina in play, while nailing down Michigan and New Jersey, this opens some interesting permutations if either McKinney or Nader can score even 1-2% of the vote between them. Obviously, the Nader-McKinney vote comes out of the Obama column, and in either Michigan or New Jersey it could be critical (more likely Michigan). The Nader-McKinney factor could also cost Obama any real chance at Florida.
Assuming that McCain can only pander to disgruntled conservatives until about mid-August (because he also has to stay in the center to be viable in New Jersey, Michigan, and Florida), there are some dire implications for him in a conservative Libertarian candidacy.
Flavor A (Bob Barr) stands a real chance of costing McCain enough votes in either Texas or North Carolina to affect the outcome.
Flavor B (Wayne Allyn Root) probably cannot equal Barr's vote totals in either Texas or North Carolina, but stands a decent chance of picking off a critical 1% in Florida.
Flavor C (George Phillies--or Christine Smith--or Mary Ruwart) becomes a real wild card. All of these are Libertarians with strong anti-Iraq war stances but no real national name recognition. But Ron Paul has proven that this barrier can be broken, and all three of these candidates stand to make inroads on the gay vote as well as the anti-war vote. With a little luck in terms of publicity (and for reasons I'll give below I think that's more than possible), any one of these candidates would stand a chance of picking up, say 1% in New Jersey, Michigan, or Florida. Whether that would come from one of the two major candidates or at the expense of McKinney-Nader is difficult to tell. But the real wild card here is that what I might call a traditional Libertarian candidate who is fiscally conservative, anti-war, and pro-gay, stands a chance at taking votes from either McCain or Obama.
In other words, I'm suggesting that there is as much as 2-3% of the electorate in key battleground states willing to vote for a third-party candidate in a McCain-Obama race, and that this minority vote could swing the election unpredictably in either direction.
Scenario Two (McCain v. Clinton) is even more interesting, because Hillary has to run as a centrist to beat McCain, because she cannot possibly retrieve her true liberal credentials after the primary season. I mean, yes, she's more liberal than McCain--at least slightly--but despite her gender this would be a much more orthodox race between two political insiders. According to Survey USA such a race features dead heats in Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington. Clinton does far better than Obama in New Jersey and Florida, but loses Texas by seven points.
Thus the third-party dynamic is different.
McKinney-Nader would probably have less of an effect on Clinton than Obama because her New Jersey and Florida numbers are strong enough to survive their impact; either of them could really only hurt Clinton in Michigan or (just possibly) Washington.
As for the Libertarians...
Flavor A (Bob Barr) potentially costs McCain his shot at Pennsylvania or Tennessee.
Flavor B (Wayne Allyn Root) is unlikely to be a factor.
Flavor C (Traditional LP candidate like Phillies, Smith, or Ruwart) stands a chance at picking up a critical 1% from somebody (not sure who) in New Mexico or Washington.
Ironically, Third Party candidates probably have a smaller impact on a McCain-Clinton race than they do on a McCain-Obama race.
Which means what?
My premise is that the mainstream media is going to place all of the third party candidates far more in the spotlight during this general election than they usually do. Several reasons: (1) the Ron Paul phenomena, even though it burned out, was tremendously fun for them; (2) this has been a bizarre year for presidential politics, and the media wants to keep the story coming from as many different angles as possible; (3) the total third party vote will probably approach at least 1-2% nationwide, and should reach as high as 3% in some key battleground states.
Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, or Naderites could conceivably become--depending on your preference--spoilers or kingmakers from either direction.
And this is a very good development for America politics in the long run.
Neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party has any inherent claim on liberal/progressive or conservative/libertarian voters, even though they have both acted like it for several decades. If some of the third-party candidates receive decent press (or even invitations to some debates), and if the percentage of people willing to vote their consciences rather than for a pragmatic victory increases by only one-half of one percent (which the Ron Paul experience suggests is very possible), then . . . .
We may be seeing some of the first serious cracks in our pseudo-two-party Demopublican system.
Comments