Third Party Candidates in 2008?

There are many political blogs/web sites on the web dedicated to various subjects. There are some I check daily and some I stumble across every so often. One of my regular web sites to read is Ron Gunzburger’s Politics1, which reports on all political news, but mostly carries the big boys.

I’ve spent the past couple of months worrying about myself and how to make a living, and not so much about politics. I’ve managed to keep up with Libertarian news somewhat, but really have fallen behind on news regarding any other parties. So I checked out the candidates that Ron has listed as being possible candidates for third parties in 2008.

So really this is where this becomes more of a question to all of you than a post by me… what do you think will happen with the third party nominations (and I mean mainly Libertarian, Green and Constitution) in 2008?

Will the Libertarian Party find a better candidate or will it have to settle for one of the current options? Will all this rift in the Constitution Party really break it apart or will it recover? Will the Green Party run a serious campaign that isn’t a Nader campaign?

I don’t know, I have opinions… but they’re just that, my opinions… and I’d like to hear yours.

Read below the fold to see what possible candidates Ron mentions over on Politics1.

As I read your comments and as time goes on, I’ll write more posts very similar to this one to continue what I’m sure will be a fun ongoing debate.


Chuck Baldwin (Florida) - Baptist pastor, radio talk show host, conservative activist, and 2004 VP nominee.
Jim Clymer (Pennsylvania) - Party National Chairman, frequent candidate, and attorney.
Jerome Corsi (Massachusetts) - Author, journalist and conservative activist.
Jim Gilchrist (California) - Minuteman Project founder, retired accountant and ‘05 congressional nominee.
Alan Keyes (Maryland) - Former US Ambassador, conservative activist, and frequent candidate.
P. Dale Thompson (Kentucky) - Businessman & “Christian Rock” musician.


Elaine Brown (Georgia) - Ex-Black Panther Party Chair, nonprofit group executive and author.
Pat LaMarche (Maine) - Businesswoman, National Party Co-Chair, talk show host, 2004 VP nominee, & ‘02/’06 Governor nominee.
Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) - Ex-US Congresswoman (1993-2003 & ‘05-07), ex-State Rep. and Democrat.
Rebecca Rotzler (New York) - New Paltz Deputy Mayor, Party National Co-Chair, businesswoman, and community activist.
Kat Swift (Texas) - State Party Co-Chair, progressive activist & newspaper credit manager.


Jim Burns (Nevada) - Ex-State LP Chair & frequent candidate.
Gene Chapman (Texas) - Anti-tax activist, lay minister, and truck driver.
Dave Hollist (California) - Bus driver and frequent LP Presidential hopeful.
Bob Jackson (Michigan) - Businessman, former Congressional candidate & ex-Republican.
Mike “Jingo” Jingozian (Oregon) - Software company founder & ‘00 city council candidate.
Steve Kubby (California) - Businessman, ‘98 Governor nominee & marijuana legalization activist.
Alden Link (New York) - Manufacturing executive & Army veteran.
Robert Milnes (New Jersey) - Progressive activist.
George Phillies (Massachusetts) - College professor, writer, LP “Reform” activist & ‘96 US Senate nominee.
Wayne Allyn Root (R-Nevada) - Sports handicapper, author & TV show host.
Christine Smith (Colorado) - Progressive activist & writer.
Doug Stanhope (Arizona) - Comedian.

84 Responses to “Third Party Candidates in 2008?”

  1. Trevor Southerland Says:

    Somebody tell me more about Wayne Allyn Root… is he really going to run for the Libertarian nomination or is this just wishful thinking on someones behalf? What’s his deal, etc?

  2. Yosemite1967 Says:

    For the CP:

    I find it hard to take P. Dale Thompson’s bid seriously. It’s like he barely even heard about the party, and he already wants to represent it nation-wide.

    I think that I would vote for Alan Keyes. Most importantly, he appears to be one with the platform. (If anyone has evidence otherwise, please post.) Of secondary importance, (1) he is a great public speaker, (2) he is already well-known nation-wide, and (3) he would shut down the false accusations by the party’s critics of the party being associated in any way with white supremacists (not to mention the added bonus of encouraging any white supremacists who might’ve already snuck in to leave). One might argue that the country isn’t yet ready for a black president, but they’re probably not ready for a Constitutionalist president either, so I say we go for it!

  3. Joey Dauben Says:

    I for one am a HUGE fan of It’s by far the most reliable source of partisan info.

    By the way, for VP on the CP nomination, I hear that a Texan, Chuck Geshlider, has announced he’s in the running.

    Don’t take my word for it…but that’s what I hear.

  4. undercover_anarchist Says:

    My predictions:

    The Green Party will nominate an authoritarian Marxist

    The Libertarian Party will nominate a kook

    The Constitution Party will nominate an immigrant-bashing, anticapitalist protectionist

    And we will have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

  5. Trent Hill Says:

    UA, you go ahead and vote for a Democrat. Super-duper for you.

    I predict Alan Keyes as the CP candidate. I would say,if not him…then Jim Clymer.

    For the LP, I think Kubby is a strong candidate,and definetly the one i’d most like to see win.

    As for the Greens, a socialist is a socialist is a socialist.

  6. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Well, if John Edwards is the Democratic nominee, I might as well vote CP. A racist anticapitalist is a racist anticapitalist is a racist anticapitalist.

  7. Chris S Says:


    I found this article on Root’s website. It looks like he is at least seriously considering running for the LP nomination.

  8. Ted Says:

    I hope Keyes doesn’t run again. He is a fabulous speaker with great passion for his beliefs but he was an absolutely abysmal senate candidate in Illinois in 2004—27% of the vote against a Leftist like Obama.?! Terrible.

  9. rj Says:

    Jim Gilchrist would probably be the best bet for the Constitution Party, if not him than Alan Keyes. With the fractured split that has occurred in the CP, a relatively strong presidential campaign might pull the fractured arch-right back together, strong compared to Peroutka’s 0.12%. I think Gilchrist’s views would attract a lot of votes.

    I am ignorant on everyone in the Libertarian fold.

    The Greens are supposedly going to run a woman candidate. Not a Green by any stretch of the imagination, but they better stay away from the Black Panthers considering their base is predominately white. LaMarche I believe has run credible campaigns in Maine. I think she’s their best bet for a relatively decent showing to at least crawl back to Nader’s 1996 showing.

  10. matt Says:

    Related questions that pertain to this one:

    Will Ron Paul win in the primaries?

    If so, can he get the emerging parties united behind him?

    If not, will he run as an independent and would he make a splash?

    If not, will drop out and endorse one of the candidates mentioned?

    If so, will it make a difference?

    If not,

  11. Eric Dondero Says:

    I’m the one that drafted him - Wayne Allyn Root - into this race. He’s cooled off a bit in the last few weeks, mostly due to business commitments. But I suspect he’s also worried that some Libertarians might be a little too extreme. Wayne is much more of a Mainstream Libertarian.

    I do know he will be attending the LP State Chairs Conference in Orlando. Whether he runs or not will depend a great deal on his reception there.

    Also, politics have changed greatly in the last three months. Who would have ever thought that Giuliani would be this far ahead on the GOP side at this point. A Giuliani candidacy, moderatly libertarian, makes it less likely that the Libertarian Party could have as huge an impact in 2008, as they could if say a more standard Conservative like McCain or Romney were to be the Nominee.

    This might be impacting Wayne’s decision, as well?

  12. Rob Latham Says:

    To promote alternative voting systems, I’ve created a demonstration election using ranked-choice voting for the Libertarian presidential candidates who are running or rumored to be running. I’ll add and subtract candidates as I learn of changes on this thread.

  13. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Dondero - I don’t want to fight, but I want to know exactly how the hell Giuliani is “libertarian” in the least? His pro-gay, pro-choice views? They matter little when he’s already committed to nominating fascists to the Supreme Court.

  14. KenH Says:

    It is really silly for anyone to claim that Rudy Guiliani is acceptable as a presidential candidate to a libertarian.

  15. Robert Milnes Says:

    Yes, politics1 is good. Good third party listings. TNP was great but unfortunately now defunct. Recently I wrote TNP & politicsone (not politics1) editors & suggested they combine or one assist the other. Hopefully TNP will get back up. My prediction? I hope my prediction coincides with my best case scenario. That is CP: doesn’t matter. Libertarians: doesn’t matter much IF the greens endorse the lp ticket. That ticket will then give the dems & reps one great challenge.

  16. Anthony Distler Says:

    Why would the Libetarians want to endorce the Green Party nominee? Libetarians and Greens have practicly nothing in common. The only reason you want them to work together is because you think you have a realistic chance of winning one of the two nominations, which is a laugh.

    And why wouldn’t you want TNP and politicsone to merge? You seem to want everything else to merge.

  17. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Rob Latham - Cool site. I voted (1) NOTA, (2) Steve Kubby, (3) Doug Stanhope, (4) George Phillies. The others are all horrible or completely unknown. Luckily, they each have about as much chance of winning the LP nomination as the LP winner has of winning the presidency.

  18. undercover_anarchist Says:

    A SINCERE PROPOSAL - Instead of “merging” parties, I think we need to reorganize them. Here’s my proposal:

    (1) The current purge of hardcore theocrats from the CP continues and the defectors join the American Nazi Party, the Christian Falangist Party, or some other hate group. Good riddance.

    (2) Once perged of its hardcore base, conservative Libertarians will feel more welcome within the CP. The CP may have to moderate a tad bit more to accomodate the most right-wing LPers, but it’s doable.

    (3) Once all of the delusional “the Fed is a Jewish conspiracy,” “let’s return to the gold standard,” “the 16th amendment was never ratified,” etc. whackjobs have left the LP for the CP, the LP can make a strong, pro-capitalist, pro-business, anti-intolerance stance that will draw equally from the Republicans and Democrats and establish a true, legitimate third-party force.

    (4) Once the more moderate Dems have left the party to join the LP, the Greens and Democrats can merge into one redistributionist party. The remaining Republicans can either join the CP, or stay as part of the new purely militarist Republican Party.

    Hence, the party alignments would be:

    Libertarian Party - Pro-growth capitalism
    Constitution Party - Anti-growth agrarianism with a constitutional twist
    American Nazi/Christian Falanagist Party - The hardcore former CPers
    Democratic Party - Openly redistributionist, Marxist
    Republican Party - World police

    Which party would have the most financial and popular appeal? THIS IS THE PARTY THAT THE LIBERTARIANS SHOULD BECOME.

  19. Mike Gillis Says:

    As a Green, I have to say that Pat LaMarche would be a TERRIBLE choice for nominee for my party. When she campaigned for VP under David Cobb in 2004, she actually told a Pennsylvania crowd that they should vote for John Kerry.

    That’s a dealbreaker. How can I support a candidate who can’t tell people straight out to vote for them and play the “lesser evil” game?

    I think Ralph Nader has one last, good run left in him and I think that he should choose immigrant activist Nativo Lopez for his VP and use this opportunity to pass the torch to Lopez for 2012.

  20. Anthony Distler Says:

    The whole idea of a David Cobb run in 2004 was to only target states that wouldn’t kill John Kerry. They were pretty much just trying to get Kerry elected.

  21. Cutty Sark Says:

    Cynthia McKinney is probably the best choice for the Greens and Doug Stanhope will probably be the best choice for the libertarians if/when he decides to officially run.

  22. Cutty Sark Says:


    “Will Ron Paul win in the primaries?”

    No. He has about the same chances as Kucinich, or in past years Dornan, Sharpton, somewhat less than Buchanan (1996) or Jesse Jackson (1984), Pat Robertson (1988).

    “If so, can he get the emerging parties united behind him?”

    Possibly LP and/or Constitution might elect to endorse him or not run a candidate. The Greens would still run a candidate. If Nader decides to run he would still run Independent, Green, or whatever label he can get. Bloomberg or whatever other winner Unity08 nominates would still run as well. Ron Paul would get crushed, but this will never happen (see first answer).

    “If not, will he run as an independent and would he make a splash?”

    Probably not. Even though most states sore loser laws don’t apply to presidential candidates, he would have to start getting on the ballot in many states before the major Republican primaries to have any real chance of being on the ballot. Otherwise, he would not be on the ballot in a lot of states and would thus not be taken very seriously as an independent candidate by the media.

    Getting on the ballot as an independent, starting from scratch, is even harder than as a third party. So if he went that route the smart thing to do would be to seek the nomination of the CP and/or LP.

    He would have to sink minimum seven figures just into ballot access alone
    to get on as independent, maybe more due to starting so late and having to do so many states at the same time. Unless he has a billionaire VP who wants to spend a ton of money on the campaign, this is highly unlikely.

    “If not, will drop out and endorse one of the candidates mentioned?”

    Hard to say what he will do. He’s filed papers to seek re-election to Congress as a Republican. If he follows through with running as or endorsing someone other than the Republican for President, it will be hard for him to get re-elected in congress.

    “If so, will it make a difference?”

    Not much of one. Most likely, many of his Republican supporters wil end up voting for whoever the Republican candidate is, and many of his independent supporters will go back to their parties. There might be some initial shift but the “wasted vote” calculation would probably bring most Republicans home when it counts. (OMG Not Hillary! /OMG Not Obama! /Whatever).

  23. Dennis Says:

    For the Greens, I would like to see Rich Whitney run for President. He got 10% of the vote for Illinois Governor last November and did a good job campaigning on progressive issues. I believe a campaign like his would give more credibility to the Green Party across the U.S.

  24. Cody Quirk Says:

    I like Jerome Corsi, there might be a chance there.

  25. rj Says:

    “As a Green, I have to say that Pat LaMarche would be a TERRIBLE choice for nominee for my party. When she campaigned for VP under David Cobb in 2004, she actually told a Pennsylvania crowd that they should vote for John Kerry.”

    I think the whole “I voted for Nader and that caused Bush to win over Gore” thing amongst some voters really hurt Green Party momentum. Imagine for a second 600 Nader voters in Florida instead voted for Gore. Would the Green Party showing in 2004 have been higher than what it turned out to be, less than Badnarik and about equal with Peroutka? Some of that is Nader running as an indy, but even combined with Cobb’s votes, there was a dramatic decrease from 2000 to the 2004 vote.

  26. Cutty Sark Says:

    Rich Whitney would be a solid candidate.

    I heard the prevailing sentiment among a lot of Greens is that they want to run someone who isn’t a white male.

  27. Robert Milnes Says:

    Anthony, I said greens endorse the lp ticket. So, the lp would be wise to nominate a ticket that would be more agreeable to the greens. I have suggested a Whitney/Kwiatkowski ticket as possibly more electable than Milnes/Kwiatkowski. You are all over the place. Endorsing Edwards & planning a Reform party run in 2010. The rp might not even exist then. I tend to think Edwards might eventually win the dem nom., though. To have to choose between a woman & a black might cause too much cognitive dissonance. Now, do you know anything about the TNP & politicsone situations? TNP is defunct. The reason given was lack of ability of the editor to handle all the work & have a normal work/life. TNP was a great asset to third party politics. Politicsone is run by a 16 year old. Although I appreciate his efforts, it is lagging well behind TNP yet is using a very similar format. Why not try pooling their efforts to get TNP back up? Just a suggestion. I wouldn’t hold it against LaMarche that she realized to vote for Cobb/LaMarche instead of Kerry would in effect be a vote for Bush. What we candidates need is parties that do not put us in such an awkward position by their lack of leadership-so greens & lp should work together. The sooner the better. What are they waiting for, another losing election cycle?

  28. SovereignMN Says:

    For the CP:
    Jim Clymer: Would be a bad choice as he’s too much of a lightening rod among the different factions.

    Chuck Baldwin: He is well liked by the different factions but would he have enough appeal to be at the top of the ticket? I don’t know. I do like him as a VP though.

    Jim Gilchrist: Not an option. He’s gone back to the G.O.P after his failed Congressional bid and doesn’t seem interested.

    Jerome Corsi: I have no opinion of him at this time. I’d need to learn more.

    Paul Thompson: I don’t take his candidacy seriously.

    Alan Keyes: Isn’t he an interventionist on foreign policy? I personally think his days as a candidate are behind him. He might be able to get some attention on his campaign but not as much as some would speculate.

  29. Trevor Southerland Says:

    On the earlier comment:

    “By the way, for VP on the CP nomination, I hear that a Texan, Chuck Geshlider, has announced he’s in the running.”

    I once knew a guy named Chuck Geshlider who tried to take over the local group I was working with in Chattanooga, TN… at this point he was claiming to be a Libertarian… but Libertarians from Nevada to New Hampshire and everywhere in between claimed 100% that he was a fraud and creepy. And yes, he was creepy. Very creepy.

    Run his name on google…

    If it’s the same guy and the CP were to actually nominate him for an office then it’d certainly be the end of the CP.

  30. Mike Indiana Says:

    Why is it that people still speculate that the LP, GP, or CP would at this point even contemplate a fusion ticket (thusly losing independence of party). If anything should be learned from the 2004 election it was that even the most expensive, divisive, and bitterly oppossed elections will not be enough to encourage the 3rd parties to unite or endorse someone else.

    Considering the parites positions there vote totals (and most likely the nominee) are heavily dependent on who the Republcans nominate. If the Reps. nominate a Guliani, Macain there could be an opening among religous conservatives, afterall the republican party has for a couple decades come to reliy on this vote, but done little for it. Mitt’s campaigin raises an interesting question is america ready for a morman president. That couped with a wish-wash past on consevative issues could leead to a mass exodus or disinterest of religous voters. There are other issues like the border security that could make openings.
    as for candidates what ever happened to Roy Moore, a leading evangelical possibly could defect if the (wide) perception is that the reps. sold there soul.
    As for the LP. there presidential situation has
    Steve Kubby as a frontrunner don’t get me wrong steve is a top flight activist but, isn’t he too much of a one issue guy and that issue is (pot) while many people may feel that it sould be legal those who don’t are rather passionate about it. Secondly isn’t the Green Party the pot party at least thats what the average person on the street who heard of the green party thinks. Steve Kubby’s greatest contribution to 3rd party politics if nominated might be to remove the lable and image of drug promotion that is sometimes associated with the green party and move it over to the LP.
    As for George Phillies the other LP frontrunner while he’s running a insiders campaign right now which is fine when trying to win the nomination as long as an eye is kept towards outreach. In my opinion Phillies needs a great deal of work on his precence he just doesn’t command a space yet, when he speaks hopefully that will come.
    As for The GP.
    There wil be no Nader in 2008 or ever again unless he joins the party.
    Enough state affiliates have passed resolutions stating that there ballot lines can only be used by green party mambers that a fusion campaign/endorsement involving the greens would have to have a green slate or otherwise would essentially be useless and the GP woul be relitivaly defunct. As for thoe who say Elaine Brown or (any of those black panther type) are the wrong type of candidate look at some of the places the greens have done well DC, Baltimore, New Haven not exactly the (whitest) cities around. My point is just because three fourths of the party may be white (as was claimed) that doesn’t mean the party doesn’t have a viberat minority base which is whole heartedly supported by the rest of the party. (Unlike relations between the Congressional Black Caucus and the Democratic Party) Secondly the African American Community may be the perfect place for the green party to make inroads the message of human rights goes hand in hand with the message of Dr. King in particularly the positions and views he discussed and campioned around the end of his life. Seconly as the Dems and GOP compete for the hispanic vote the African American community has been largely ignored a diffection of Cythia McKinny could generate considerable buzz and excitement. even if you think she’s crazy you got to admit she knows how to generate publicity and she would keep thing interesting. A Brown or McKinny Campaign will also undoubtably bring with it an increase in african american candidates and office holders. One Could even dream McKinny might pull a diffection from the Congressional black caucus either on her own or if attacks against her were precevied as unjust or racist.

    In the end I predict the GP, and CP will see big gains from 2004 as for the LP the 2004 vote total might be a target to beat but unless Kubby plays up the drug legalization thing I see little hope of having a vote total increase.

  31. Cutty Sark Says:


    I think you are basically correct about the Constitution Party. Roy Moore probably wants to keep his viability in the Republican Party so it may be hard to convince him to run independent/alternative. But it could happen.

    I looked over Kubby’s website. He is not a one issue candidate. But I do believe that if his campaign starts taking off and making waves the government will find a way to get him busted. The best thing for them would be to bust him for something believable, yet at the same time something that would discredit him to his supporters, like planting some hard drugs on him along with the weed.

    Phillies is getting a lot better as a speaker. I listened to him last night on the radio and he sounded a lot better than when I have heard him before. There are still some important issues I disagree with him on, like immigration (I’m an immigrant) and trade (I’m an importer).

    Kubby was on the same show and sounded weaker than when I have heard him before. I hope he is in good health.

    Doug Stanhope could easily blow both of them out of the water if/when he gets serious about running.

    Other candidates might also emerge such as Bob Barr or Neal Boortz, or Ron Paul may jump in after he loses the Republican primaries. Even as late comers they could beat a weak LP field of long running candidates at the convention.

    I think Nader is more likely to run independent or try to e-start the Reform Party or put the Populist party on more state ballots than to get the Green nomination. Most Greens I know are sick of Nader.

    I think you are generally correct about the Greens also.

  32. Andy Says:

    “Well, if John Edwards is the Democratic nominee, I might as well vote CP. A racist anticapitalist is a racist anticapitalist is a racist anticapitalist.”

    As if John Edwards is a champion of free market capitalism. BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

  33. Andy Says:

    “Wayne is much more of a Mainstream Libertarian.”

    Translation: Wayne is not really a libertarian, he’s a Republitarian.

  34. Chris Says:

    UA-do me a favor, find some twine and so it shut. You like to throw around words like “racisst” without knowing anything about it.

    Now, Keyes would be great, but sadly, he is still wedded to the GOP, in the vain hope and vain activity that he can “change” it.

    They don’t want him or to change. Gilchrist has run into some road blocks as well and it looks like CP will float until the enivitable-Ron Paul being traunced in GOP primary-happens.

    As far as Edwards, he will not get far against Clinton machinery. Boortz is a NeoCOn in libertarian skin (kind of like Dondero).

    As far as Christian Falange, they are largely irrelevant and down 100% with Bush and iternventionist policy. Careful research yields fact they were founded by a Catholic that did not even know his own faith, ie, he fully embraced the dispensationalist views on Isreal. He probably works now for Deal Hudson or Nehaus.

    As I can see it now, Baldwin is the only real decent candidate in the running.

    Gilchrist, BTW, as always rode the fence between AIP and GOP.

  35. Alex Hammer Says: is an amazing site and Ron is a very talented individual.

  36. Mike Gillis Says:

    “I think the whole “I voted for Nader and that caused Bush to win over Gore” thing amongst some voters really hurt Green Party momentum. Imagine for a second 600 Nader voters in Florida instead voted for Gore. Would the Green Party showing in 2004 have been higher than what it turned out to be, less than Badnarik and about equal with Peroutka? Some of that is Nader running as an indy, but even combined with Cobb’s votes, there was a dramatic decrease from 2000 to the 2004 vote.”

    There was a decrease and after 2000, there was a strong third party backlash against all parties, but particularly the Greens and Nader.

    But I’m not going to buy the “spoiler” propoganda, because it simply isn’t true. Imagine for a second 600 of the quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida instead voting for Gore. Or imagine for a second the over two million registered Democrats in Florida who didn’t vote going to the polls and voting for Gore. Or imagine Gore calling for a full state recount. Or the Supreme Court not ruling the way it did. Or Gore and the Senate Dems calling for an investigation into allegations of voter fraud…

    ...the list goes on and on.

    In 2004, the Green Party flinched when it should have struck hard. We’d spent four years getting blamed for Gore’s failures and having no opportunity to rebutt them at length in the media since the DLC/neocon voices are the only ones that get a lengthy hearing in the mainstream media.

    And we ran a no-name candidate who openly said he was going to run a half-assed campaign and would never tell audiences to vote for him but to “vote their conscience”—though his VP was telling people to vote for Kerry and even once said she hadn’t decided yet if she was going to vote for HERSELF!

    Ralph Nader ran a real campaign in 2004 and despite getting tossed off of state ballots, slandered and sued, he still came in third place even though he was only on 34 ballot lines.

    Nader deciding to run as an independent when the Green Party wasn’t even sure they’d run ANYONE is the major reason the Green ticket came in sixth place behind all other major third parties. The majority of our vote that wasn’t scared into voting for Kerry went to Nader instead.

    That coupled with the fact that libertarian and paleoconservative voters who supported Badnarik and Peroutka hadn’t been bombarded with fear based garbage for four years, as well.

    I really don’t think Libertarian and Constitutionalists really appreciate the level of shit that Greens take for our party affiliation from our “base” when tabling, doorbelling or petitioning. You simply don’t see the same level of nastiness directed at their candidates or party members that you see leveled at us.

    Even when my state had the tightest and ugliest governor’s race in history, decided over fewer than 200 votes, the Libertarian candidate Ruth Bennett, who I supported and who got over 60,000 votes, was never called a spoiler or insulted or spit upon or screamed at. Hell, the media never mentioned her. Major party operatives never mentioned her.

    Same thing with Jeff Jared, the Libertaran candidate for U.S. Senate in 2000, where an incumbent Republican lost by 2,000 votes and Jared got 2%. No blame. He didn’t become a pariah.

    Or those that wrongly blame Perot for Clinton’s presidency don’t nearly have the vicious attitude of the anti-Green/Nader Democrats.

    I’ve never seen those two parties go through the crap that people like Nader or Carl Romanelli have gone through in recent years or the insults lobbed their way.

    But third party voting was at a high point in the 1990s and the 2000 race was basically the end of that. It started with Perot mania in 1992 and 1996, Ventura’s election to governor in 1998 and then Nader and Buchanan’s high profile campaigns in 2000, but ALL parties have been hit by anti-third party sentiment since Bush’s election when the message from the big two has been “close ranks and kill the other major party”.

    I don’t buy the lie of the spoiler effect and I don’t buy that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. It isn’t Nader’s performance in Florida that caused many of his supporters to abandon the Greens or him in 2000, it was the anti-third party Dem propoganda campaign that followed.

  37. SovereignMN Says:

    Good post and insight, Mike. A big reason why there might be a higher level of hatred towards the Greens by liberal dems rather than conservative repubs toward the LP or CP is because the latter have yet to have a significant impact on a national election.

    I often wonder if the 2000 race would have been different if Buchanan would have gotten the $15MM sooner (rather than have to fight in court for it) or if he wouldn’t have spent over a month in the hospital during the peak of the campaign. I really thought Buchanan would have been able to get to the 2-5% range, which would have tilted the election back to Gore. Might have even given the Reform Party ballot access in a few states.

  38. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Andy - You fucking dumbass. I was saying that John Edwards is no different than the xenophobic anti-capitalists in the CP. I would never vote for him or Barack Obama.

  39. Jonathan Cymberknopf Says:

    Hopefully the Green Party will get smart and get Ralph Nader on their 2008 Presidential ticket. Just like in 2000 Ralph gre the Green Party like never before. His name will bring much needed press to the Green Party as well as the hope for 5% of the vote which would put the Green Party on the map once and for all. This would be the last campaign of Ralph Nader due to his age, I hope the Green Party doesn’t waste anothr opportunity like they did in 2004.

  40. undercover_anarchist Says:

    1. Ralph Nader has zero chance of getting 5% of the vote. 1% would be a challenge.

    2. The Green Party is far too Marxist in nature now to nominate a consumer advocate like Nader. They hate consumption. They hate America. Say what you want about Nader, he doesn’t fit that bill.

  41. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    It will be interesting to see if Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel declares for the Republican nomination on Monday, or whether he announces that he’ll be running as an independent. I think he’ll initially seek the GOP nomination, but—- like John B. Anderson in 1980—- will eventually run as an independent. It’s early, but I think he’ll end up being the media darling in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes.

  42. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    Ralph Nader won’t be able to resist. He’ll run again…he has nothing to lose at this point.

  43. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    Gimme Jimmy! I’d take former President Carter over any of the lightweights seeking the Democratic or Republican nominations in 2008…

    Carter wouldn’t be the oldest candidate ever—- the Greenback Party ran 85-year-old philanthropist Peter Cooper for the White House in 1876.

    Our country needs a President with vision…somebody who can see around corners, someone who is willing to speak the truth about the Neo-Cons who run America’s foreign policy, the pro-Israel loyalists who involved the U.S. in a misguided war in Iraq.

    From the outset, Jimmy Carter saw through their bullshit. He is a true American hero!

  44. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    Jimmy Carter has more courage than all of America’s past Presidents combined—- at least all of the chief executives who have been in power since Israel began running our foreign policy.

  45. Sean Scallon Says:

    If Alan Keyes wins the CP nomination then the party truly deserves to go to the devil. Keyes is a joke.

    My guess is if Chuck Baldwins wants the CP nomination enough he’ll get it. Keyes is a non-starter and Gilchrist really hurt himself not backing the AIP gubenatorila candidate in California in 2006.

    I don’t see the LP or Green nominating anyone of note.

  46. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    “I don’t see the LP or Green nominating anyone of note.”—- Sean Scallon

    That’s kind of an arrogant statement. It’s really early, but Cynthia McKinney and Steve Kubby are certainly people of note—- both of them have interesting backgrounds and, arguably, are smarter than anyone running for the major party nominations at this point. Just because you don’t know much about them doesn’t mean they’re not potentially viable third-party candidates in 2008… Totally fed up with the events of the past four or five years, I really think Americans are really beginning to look for a new beginning next year, a fresh start for the United States…

  47. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    The same thing holds true for George Phillies…

  48. Maine Green Says:

    What about the Greens are Marxist? i am a committed Green and think that I have more in common with Libertarians than with most dems. We believe in Grassroots democracy, that the people in their own communities can solve their own problems better than some overseer power. By and large we are civil libertarians. Where we do disagree is that government - particularly local govt’s can improve peoples lives. There are some things that government can do, and should do, to ensure that people have an equal chance to succeed. This means to provide quality education to all people, and to provide quality health care. Universal health care should be established like universal primary education. Maybe that is socialist but its not marxist.

  49. Chris Moore Says:

    How do you go about creating a nation-wide universal health care plan that incorporates the philosophy that “the people in their own communities can solve their own problems better than some overseer power”?

  50. Robert Milnes Says:

    Maine Green, This is precisely why I think it would be better for the greens to try the more achievable, less frought with obstacles and resistance goals of the libertarians. Phase in of progressivism, minimal government, alternative economics. Symbolicly and literally by endorsing the lp ticket. And it would be prudent for the libertarians to take into account that a lot-most-of their support would come from the left. A green on the lp ticket would go a long way. That and a workable number of libertarian & green congresspersons & gradually the judiciary, should do well. Greens going it alone with everyone else resisting & at best libertarian acquiescence is a formula for failure.

  51. Mike Gillis Says:

    I’m sorry, but I really can’t see any realistic way of doing a Green/Libertarian fusion ticket. Sure, we’re in agreement on about 50% of the issues, but the other 50% - particularly economic issues, there’s a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon.

    There are two many things in that realm that I want that Libertarians don’t and vice versa. The whole thing would simply end badly.

    If we both had some people in federal office, I would value working with Libertarians on issues of agreement—like abolishing the PATRIOT Act—but you’re not going to see us together on a candidate without some massive compromises.

    As for Nader, no, he’s not going to get 5% in 2008, but neither is anyone else. I’m going to guess that until we see another Democratic president and the American people are reminded, “hey these guys really suck, too!”, we’re going to have some third party backlash. The 1990s were a remarkably friendly time for third parties, but we’re likely to be in the wilderness at the federal level for a while.

  52. Chris S Says:


    What are you doing with yourself nowadays? Are you still involved with the GA LP?

  53. Robert Milnes Says:

    Mike Gillis, I gather you are a green. The “massive compromises.” on the executive ticket would be the hybrid. All other candidates would retain their party identity but would enjoy support from both parties. I remind you of The Libertarian Vote study. The libertarians start out with about a consistent 20% vote. [About 13% greater libertarian i.e. rightists. About 7% leftists (ambivalent like Maine Green perhaps). The remaining 14% would come mostly from the left. That would make a VERY close 34/33/33.] The task would be to keep voters from retreating back into the old pattern of having to choose between the dem or rep. Again, the hybrid ticket works. We just have to assume that other massive compromises would be workable as they come up. Keeping in mind that separately both lose the elections making compromise academic.

  54. Robert Milnes Says:

    The Libertarian Vote-see The Cato Institute. See also

  55. Trent Hill Says:

    Robert Milnes has this nutjob idea that A.)Both parties would agree to this and B.)His little statistics would work.
    Now let me explain something Milnes.

    The 20% of the libertarian vote, that may well be true. (And I willl provisionally accept your 13% right/7% left theory.)
    Hoping that that Greens/Lib-extremes could bring 14% to the table is being REALLY positive about your efforts,and not realistic at ALLLLLLL. Since Nader, in his hayday was only able to grab 2.74%.
    But lets say the Greens have a FANTASTIC year and get 4%.
    Hell,lets say they have a blowout year, with a celebrity candidate who is personable, and appeals to every minority in the states (and lots of white folk too!). Lets say he’s a wonderful orator with lots of money. Lets say he captures….20% of the vote.
    Once the Libertarians combine with the Greens…that 13% of “right” Libertarians are out of the picture. So you’re left with your 20% from the Greens (on a REALLY super DUPER candidate) and 7% from your libertarian leftists.
    The Greens just cant soak up the vote.

    Here is why. The left is crowded. The Democrats have moved farther and farther left. There two top nominees for ‘08 got a 100% and 97% from The American Marxists for Reform. The Republican party’s top three candidates could pass for Democrats just as easily as Republicans. They are center, maybe center-right.
    So the right end of the field is WIIIIIIDE open. This is why so many people like the idea of a CP-LP cooperation. Not a merger…but a candidate we could both get behind (*COUGH* RON PAUL! COUGH).
    Face is,the Progressive Alliance idea…its intellectually bankrupt.

  56. Mike Gillis Says:

    First of all, the Democratic Party has NOT moved Left. But that’s a different discussion.

    I’ve voted for Libertarians in the past, especially in races where I don’t a Green or progressive option. I make a compromise voting that way, but I figure I can at least give them very high marks on HALF of the issues, as opposed to “” on everything with a major party candidate.

    I’m fine with that compromise in a race or two, but the presidential candidate is the party’s standard bearer.

    While I could be convinced to vote for a Libertarian presidential candidate if a Green or another progressive wasn’t available, I’m not going to sacrifice my desire for say, universal healthcare the same way that most Libertarians would never accept that position.

    It’s pretty black and white.

    And if what I cared about was winning at the cost of any ideologically compromise, I’d join a major party.

    I’d rather lose standing for what I believe in than win fighting for something that I don’t.

  57. Cody Quirk Says:

    Only problem with Chuck Baldwin, was him being two-faced on the Nevada issue.

  58. undercover_anarchist Says:

    The Green Party is a group of thugs. Their platform calls for domestic war against intelligence, productivity, and innovation. It’s an elitist cadre of idiots who fancy themselves geniuses. “WE know what’s best for you. Now pay your taxes to fund OUR program or we will shoot you.” This is the essence of the GP message. And while the party may not be explicitly Marxist, it is full of members and candidates who are. Any party that tolerates and promotes a Marxist is itself Marxist; just as any party that tolerates and promotes a racist is racist. Even the CP will not tolerate openly Nazi candidates, but the GP will gladly tolerate, embrace and promote a violent Marxist thug like David Sole, candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan.

  59. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    “But I’m not going to buy the “spoiler” propoganda, because it simply isn’t true. Imagine for a second 600 of the quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida instead voting for Gore. Or imagine for a second the over two million registered Democrats in Florida who didn’t vote going to the polls and voting for Gore. Or imagine Gore calling for a full state recount. Or the Supreme Court not ruling the way it did. Or Gore and the Senate Dems calling for an investigation into allegations of voter fraud…

    ...the list goes on and on.”

    Or if the Democrats had the political savvy to challenge the estimated 22,000 “over votes” in Jacksonville’s predominately African-American ninth ward… Mike is right on the money! Democratic ineptness cost them the state of Florida in 2000—- not Ralph Nader and the Green Party. Moreover, the abuse and hostility Nader was subjected to as a consequence in 2004 was unparalleled in American history.

  60. Robert Milnes Says:

    UA, it sounds like you are against EVERYBODY, excepy maybe the Groucho Marxist party. /// Trent, Mr. Milnes, if you please & Cutty Sark too. Thank you for your provisional acceptance of my 13% rightist/7% leftist theory. It is the math one has with the Cato Institute study & Gallup Governance Survey. Nader, even in his heyday was still operating under the circumstances of the suppressed third party vote. The 14% would get with the program after the nomination, when they then have a choice between a viable third party ticket & the lesser of 2 evils. Yes, there is a CP-LP possibility. Ron Paul is evidently the candidate of choice there. But it is too imbalanced to the right & cannot win./// Mike, yes, the presidential candidate is the standard bearer. The compromise would be 1/2 the ticket. P OR vp on a winning ticket OR 2 losing tickets. The libertarians are not against universal healthcare. They are against the big government approach. As Billary found out, it is very difficult to accomplish. It is working out to be a combination approach anyway. Part government programs (Medicare/Medicaid, VA etc.) & private. So there is that compromise already. Try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, ok? The choice is lose or try to win 1/2. For both libs & greens.

  61. disinter Says:

    Who gives a shit who the candidates are…. if the LP isn’t smart enough to focus it’s very limited resources on races that it can actually win (state legislature), then it will remain a useless organization.

  62. Trent Hill Says:

    ...The LP most certainly IS against Universal Healthcare,have you NO idea what you’re talking about?

  63. Mike Gillis Says:

    Trent, to answer your question he does NOT have any idea what he’s talking about.

    Libertarians aren’t going to unite behind a ticket that calls for universal healthcare and Greens aren’t going to unite behind someone that doesn’t.

    To water all of our beliefs down won’t convince anyone, certainly not me and certainly not any of the Libertarians on here. And not wanting to water down my beliefs is precisely why I’m not a member of the two major parties.

    A fusion Green/Libertarian ticket or vice versa isn’t going to win the White House any more than two separate tickets would.

    And to put two different parties on a ticket gives you two options: water them both down or compromise one of them to the point that they lose the point of having them in the first place.

    No thanks. If I wanted to vote for people I didn’t believe in and wanted to convince myself I was smart by voting against my interests, I’d be a Democrat or a Republican.

  64. Tom Blanton Says:

    I hope Wayne Allyn Root gets a nasty reception at the LP State Chairs Conference in Orlando.

    Here’s an article by W.A.R. that shows he is as intellectually bankrupt as his friend Mr. Dondero:

    And speaking of Mr. Dondero, here’s a recent article by him showing how he plans to bring the LP together:

  65. Chris Campbell Says:

    Dr. Baldwin is not 2 faced on Nevada. He felt they should go, he voted such, he lost. He is willing to be a man and move on and help build CP and hope that Nevada gets its house in order.

    I have found him honorable and open to working across the board. He is fair to Protestants, Catholics, Mormons and others that wish to get the CP on the tracks and actually achieve something. Instead of jumping ship, he wishes to lead and guide.

    Tampa was a chance to clear the air and do what organizations do when they grow. Sometimes it is painful, to prune and burn the chafe, etc.

  66. Eaglet Says:

    I agree with Mr. Campbell’s assessment of Baldwin’s position. I hope Baldwin runs for office again, and I appreciate his leadership in and beyond the Constitution Party.

  67. Trent Hill Says:

    Agreed. I can see no other way to go about it. Baldwin voted for his conscience, and his vote failed. But he stuck with the party to help build it.

  68. Robert Says:

    Where is Daniel Imperato? He is the most blogged about Independent on the Internet and has been getting more coverage than anyone else out there.

    This is list is not as credible without Imperato

  69. Rob Latham Says:

    I added Alden Link and Barry Hess to the demonstration election using ranked-choice voting based on their appearance as presidential candidates in the latest edition of the Libertarian Party News.

  70. Cody Quirk Says:

    I’m still not going to support him for CP prez. He may not be a Michael Peroutka, but he does not have my endorsement. I’d rather see him as a running mate or running for another office.

    Personally I’m going for Jerome Corsi.

  71. Rob Latham Says:

    I added Daniel Imperato to the demonstration election based on his participation in a presidential candidates debate at the Libertarian State Chairs Association meeting in Orlando, Florida on March 19, 2007.

  72. Rob Latham Says:

    I removed Doug Stanhope from the ranked-choice demonstration election for Libertarian presidential candidates based on his withdrawal of his candidacy. Welcome to the liberty movement anyways, Doug! ;-)

  73. Rob Latham Says:

    Ditto Kent McManigal! :-)

  74. Rob Latham Says:

    I added John Finan to the demonstration election based on his appearance on a list of Libertarian presidential candidates at I also checked out his campaign web site.

  75. Rob Latham Says:

    I added Daniel Williams based on his appearance on the Liberty Decides ‘08 program, and his campaign web site.

  76. Rob Latham Says:

    I added Mary Ruwart based on the report of her candidacy … right here at TPW!

  77. Rob Latham Says:

    I added Mike Gravel based on the statement on his campaign web site, in addition to numerous news reports, that he is seeking the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.

  78. Rob Latham Says:

    I removed Greg Raymer based on his endorsement of Wayne Allyn Root, as reported here at TPW.

  79. Ricardo mesa Says:

    America’s plutocracy, though still a minority, has grown large enough to require two competitive parties. The financial backers and political leaders of the two major parties fight over the loaf, and the rest of the country fights over the crumbs. Small businesses and working folks can’t and won’t get a fair shake from the major parties. Somewhere between two big tents and multiple tiny tents there can be a progressive, viable, 3rd party alternative in America. If personal ego, ideaological purity, and brand name fetichism can be put aside, there is a core of compelling issues and attractive policy alternatives that progressives and reformists can rally around. Existing 3rd parties can’t give birth to a single paty overnight, but they can negotiate and conceive it on one really hot date. Lets talk seriously and use common sense to identify that core. Compared to that adult task, the logistics of a founding convention, integrating activists and resources, branding and marketing the new party will be child’s play. For progressives who love America it’s time to grow up.

  80. Rob Latham Says:

    I added Bob Barr based on his announcement of a presidential exploratory committee.

  81. Rob Latham Says:

    It’s come to my attention that some of the candidates who entered the race after the demonstration election was created were not being added to the totals. So I’ve restarted the demonstration election with all the candidates included from the most recent listing, discontinued the prior demonstration, and set a termination for the demonstration one day earlier: May 25, 2008.

    The link accompanies this post, but it is:

    The results of the first demonstration election were:

    None Of The Above (NOTA) 24 (48.0%)

    Steve Kubby 26 (52.0%)

    None of these 2

    Steve KubbyElected
    None Of The Above (NOTA)Defeated

  82. Rob Latham Says:

    I should add the first round results of the discontinued poll, as they may be of interest:

    Round 1———————————————————————————- 50%
    None Of The Above (NOTA) 19 (36.5%)
    Steve Kubby 10 (19.2%)
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ______________________________ :
    George Phillies 9 (17.3%)
    BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB ________________________________ :
    Christine Smith 5 (9.6%)
    DDDDDDDDDD _________________________________________ :
    Wayne Allyn Root 4 (7.7%)
    IIIIIIII ___________________________________________ :
    Gene Chapman 1 (1.9%)
    EE _________________________________________________ :
    Dave Hollist 1 (1.9%)
    FF _________________________________________________ :
    Robert Milnes 1 (1.9%)
    GG _________________________________________________ :
    Mike Jingozian 1 (1.9%)
    PP _________________________________________________ :
    Barry Hess 1 (1.9%)
    RR _________________________________________________ :

    Results Redistributed Votes (to these colors)
    Barry Hess Defeated

  83. Rob Latham Says:

    I removed Bob Jackson and Daniel Williams based on their withdrawals from the presidential race.

  84. Rob Latham Says:

    An error in the initial set up of the demonstration ranked-choice
    polls for LP presidential candidates resulted in requiring a
    pre-approved email address to vote.

    That problem has been fixed (although plenty of people apparently
    managed to vote already) and there is now no requirement to use a
    pre-approved email address to vote.

    You can participate at: (first created poll)

    and (second created poll)

    (Yes, they are different polls.)

Leave a Reply