Third Party Time?

In today's Washington Times, Bruce Bartlett says things aren't so great for third parties despite the recent talk.

Whether he's right or not, the talk about troubles in the big two parties is nice to hear:

The lack of competition for the Republican presidential nomination and the increasing likelihood Howard Dean will be the Democratic nominee seem to be feeding renewed talk about third party candidates. It is fueled by a belief the Internet has helped make the major parties obsolete.
On both the Republican and Democratic sides of the fence, there is talk about third parties. Libertarians and many conservatives within the Republican Party are deeply frustrated with President Bush's budgetary profligacy and a number of other issues…
At the same time, some of Mr. Dean's people are making not-so-subtle noises about Mr. Dean running as a third party candidate should he lose the Democratic nomination. In effect, they are warning the party establishment not to gang up on Mr. Dean or he will guarantee that the Democratic candidate loses.

Comments

[Kevin Carson]

I think the DLC clones would RATHER lose an election than see the establishment lose control of the party.

Just think of it: less than a year ago, Kerry was the Anointed One, with all the big money and endorsements behind him; now, he's down there with Sharpton.

Dean comes across to me as pretty slimy. But I think it's hilarious to see Lieberman, Kerry, Gephart & Co. getting their asses whipped by a guy who finances his campaign over the internet.

[SDOCONNOR]

Things are already designed the ensure the winner of any major office will be one of the two leading parties. The recent "campaign finance reform" ruling helped closed a few loopholes that might fight against this.

[Mark S.]

"At the same time, some of Mr. Dean's people are making not-so-subtle noises about Mr. Dean running as a third party candidate should he lose the Democratic nomination."

What about the possibility that some of the more "centrist" Dems would pull ranks and go third party if Dean became the candidate? Highly unlikely though, but an interesting thought.

[Ruthless]

Neighbor Jason Ligon should have put the cork on this discussion, but how about a tangent?
Why shouldn't Reason come out against voting in the first place? If anything is unReasonable, it's voting. As a group phenomenon, it makes even less sense than doing the wave.

[Wild Bush Girl]

But, much like the wave, it's FUN!

Besides voting and jury duty, what else is left in this country to do that's free?

[Ruthless]

Wild Bush Girl, are you describing yourself politically or physically?

Hit and Run is free, fun, and not a no-brainer like voting.

Wait. Bushes are supposed to be wild??

[Constantine]

some of Mr. Dean's people are making not-so-subtle noises about Mr. Dean running as a third party candidate should he lose the Democratic nomination.

Which Dean people are these? When did they say this? In what forum did they make these not-so-subtle noises?

I call shenanigans. Bartlett either made this tidbit up out of whole cloth or cribbed this claim from some other blogger or columnist's speculation.

[Bruce Bartlett]

I found the discussion of a Dean 3rd party bid on the New Republic blog. It was also discussed by Mickey Kaus at Slate. I didn't make it up.

[Jason Ligon]

The third party is what the third party has always been in our winner takes all system - a threat that occasionally will get certain issues added to the platform of one of the two major parties.

They aren't viable entities by themselves.

[StMack]

Hasn't Howard Dean already guaranteed that the Democrats will lose?

[Saint Nicholas]

A third party needs to be one with a coherent message, so I guess that leaves out Libertarian candidates

[Lorazepam]

ok