"Americans Elect" Goes Tits Up....

[Lord Jim]

Americans Elect and the death of the third party movement

It ended with a whimper, not a bang.

Late Thursday night, Americans Elect, a much-ballyhooed group dedicated to securing ballot access for a serious third-party presidential candidate in 2012, issued a statement acknowledging failure.

“As of this week, no candidate achieved the national support threshold required to enter the Americans Elect online convention in June,” the statement read. “The primary process for the Americans Elect nomination has come to an end.”

That’s a somewhat remarkable — and ignominious — end for a group that carried a number of high-profile backers in the political strategist and donor community and who, as of earlier this month, had secured ballot access in more than half of the 50 states.

And it’s a telling indication that, despite widespread discontent with the two-party system and near-record numbers of people saying that they would be open to voting for a third-party candidate, the future of another major political party emerging any time soon is more pipe dream than practical.

“Good and qualified people see politics as so poisonous today that they simply don’t want to participate,” explained Mark McKinnon, a former adviser to President George W. Bush and a major player in the Americans Elect movement. “It’s just damn difficult to break the iron grip of the two-party system.

McKinnon added: “This may not be a death knell for third-party efforts, but it’s a pretty good shot to the groin.”

While there had been no serious — and by “serious,” we mean someone who could actually win — third-party candidate since Texas billionaire Ross Perot ran in 1992 and 1996, Americans Elect was widely regarded as the last, best chance for those who believed there was a silent majority pining for another option.

Rather than repeat the mistakes of waiting for a candidate to emerge before doing the necessary legwork to get him or her on the ballot in enough states to be viable, Americans Elect started with ballot access in hopes that clearing that logistical hurdle would be enough to entice a candidate to run.

In theory, that was the right approach. (To quote Homer Simpson: “In theory, communism works.”) But, without a candidate to rally around, there was a deficit of enthusiasm for the online convention that was supposed to choose the nominee.

Americans Elect “took a ‘Field of Dreams’ approach: if you build it — a virtual nominating convention — they will come,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute. “But political movements are built around compelling personalities or causes, not technology. Neither materialized in 2012.”

In the end, no candidate was able to clear the relatively low 10,000-vote threshold to “win” the Americans Elect nomination. The candidate who came closest was Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who boasts a decidedly ardent group of supporters but is far from the centrist problem-solver the founder of Americans Elect had in mind when they hatched the idea. (And Paul wasn’t even a “declared” candidate for the Americans Elect nomination; former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer, who got north of 6,000 votes, did the best of that group.)

McKinnon and other true believers in the possibility of a third party insisted all was not lost. “The results are disappointing, but until confidence is restored in the parties and our institutions of government, disruptive ideas will continue to emerge,” said McKinnon.

Added former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nomination but since dropping out has been a major advocate for a third party: “Today’s pathetic political environment will be upended either by visionary solutions-based leadership or by the kind of disruptive organizing technology being fine-tuned by Americans Elect.”

Maybe. But the failure of Americans Elect to field a candidate in 2012 is yet more evidence that there is a cavernous gap between the idea of running a third party candidate for president and the reality of doing so — a gap no one has figured out how to bridge just yet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... _blog.html

I think that in order to have really gotten off the ground, and attract a top tier candidate, (Like Michael Blumberg, or possibly Olympia Snow) the GOP would have had to nominate someone less acceptable to mainstream America than Mitt Romney....

And Lord knows those options were available....(Hell, if Newt Gingrich had won the nomination, I would probably have been pulling for an "Americans Elect" candidate)

But once Romney won the nomination, rather than one of the clown car candidates, I think a lot of the oxygen went out of the room for a serious third party candidate, and none of them decided to run.

[Guinevere]

The real problem is not the poisonous process -- although that is a significant detraction in anything above local politics -- its the cost. There are very few good and qualified people who have the interest or the skill or the connections required to raise the kinds of money you need to run a campaign for anything above state rep these days. But there are plenty of good and qualified people.

What is really needed isn't a new party, its a new playing field. One that is fiscally leveled, with meaningful spending limits and mandatory public financing of all state-wide and federal campaigns.

[Crackpot]

I think the timing was wrong. Time to pull for a third party will Be next year (If Obama wins and Clinton keeps to her word about retiring) without a clear Heir to to the throne and the subsequent lack of "not voting for X but against Y" situation people will be far more likely to go for a third candidate especially if the major parties spend alot of time "energizing their bases"

[Lord Jim]

I think for a third party to succeed at the Presidential level, one of the major parties will have to nominate someone who is really off in Lala Land....

Though back in '92 neither party had done that, and Ross Perot led in many polls until he turned out to be a paranoid loony.....

And even after his getting out of the race and then getting back in, he still won 19% of the vote....

[Crackpot]

He was a loon but he was a sincere loon. People gravitate to sincerity.. THat is why Santorum lasted s long as he did for all his faults there was enough sincerity behind his stupidity to give the guy charisma

[dales]

As the late Jesse Unruh (California Speaker) opined....

"Money is the mother's milk of politics"

[rubato]

He also said, referring to lobbyists, "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women and then vote against them, you have no business being up here."

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

So according to you, rube.....money has no effect on the political process?

[Crackpot]

No h's saying that all that other stuff is fluff only money matters.

[Gob]

Which is why the third party idea could never work there, the only persons who could afford to buy the presidency are hard right billionaire nutjobs.

[rubato]

So according to you, rube.....money has no effect on the political process?

Wha?

High again?


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

We spend less money on the Presidential election than we do on Halloween....

And a third party candidate wouldn't have to be a "hard right" billionaire Strop....

Michael Blumberg is a billionaire, but no one would mistake him for "hard right"....

It's not easy for third parties without a whole lot of money to get on all fifty state ballots, but it's not impossible; the Libertarians and the Greens manage to do it every election cycle, and neither has a great deal of money.....

What a serious third party Presidential effort most needs is a serious top-tier Presidential candidate....

I think the number one reason that this hasn't happened is that those types of people are concerned that if they ran that rather than win, they'd just wind up helping the person they'd least like to see win....

Not to mention the fact that even if you won, you'd have a tough go of it, since you would have 535 guys and gals working down the street from you, not one of whom would have any interest in seeing you get re-elected. (Unless of course you started to get some of them to join your party, which any independently elected President would really need to make a priority.)

[Gob]

We spend less money on the Presidential election than we do on Halloween....

But that isn't really a great comparison is it?

And a third party candidate wouldn't have to be a "hard right" billionaire Strop....

Michael Blumberg is a billionaire, but no one would mistake him for "hard right"....

But it is far more likely that some one with the $$$Billions to spend on the election would be such a person.

[Lord Jim]

What is really needed isn't a new party, its a new playing field.

I would argue that given a series of Supreme Court decisions, the way you "level the playing field" (without a Constitutional amendment, which I don't see happening anytime soon) is to allow more money into the political process, not less....

Since the court has held that you cannot regulate what a candidate spends on themselves, and that you cannot regulate the spending of independent groups, the affect our existing campaign spending and fund raising limit laws has been to inflate the impact of the ultra rich on the process even beyond what it would otherwise be. The only people being regulated are the folks who aren't super rich, and who have to spend huge amounts of their time raising money with a $2000 campaign limit....

I say, get rid of these limits entirely but insist on full transparency and disclosure....

If a guy running for Congress can get a hand full of folks to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to finance his campaign; more power to him.....

So long as the public has access to the names and can weigh that when deciding who to vote for.

The Supreme Court has made it possible to regulate the spending and fundraising of some people, while others face no limits and nothing short of a Constitutional amendment will change that. That being the case, putting fund raising limits on those who are not independently wealthy places them at a very unfair disadvantage.

[Guinevere]

Hard spending limits should be hard spending limits, whether the money comes from $1BB donations, 10 corporations, or the candidates own pocket.

[Lord Jim]

Hard spending limits should be hard spending limits, whether the money comes from $1BB donations, 10 corporations, or the candidates own pocket.

So you're talking about a Constitutional amendment, since the court has already struck down laws that attempted to limit what a candidate could spend on themselves, or what third parties can spend independently....

I don't believe it's realistic to think that an amendment on this would make it through all the hurdles an amendment has to navigate in order to become law.

Which is why I believe the only realistic way to level the playing field is to make it easier for those who are not independently wealthy to raise the funds to compete, and the way to do that is eliminate all restrictions on the amounts one can receive from groups and individual donors.

The Supreme Court has made clear that it is not going to permit the Congress to regulate campaign spending in any meaningful way. The existing laws do nothing but punish those who aren't wealthy by making it more difficult for them to raise money. Those laws should be eliminated.

BTW I don't think that eliminating campaign donation limits would necessarily favor one party or another. I'm sure there are plenty of well heeled liberals who would be more than happy to contribute much more than 2k to candidates with Michael Moore type views if they could legally do so.

[dales]

So according to you, rube.....money has no effect on the political process?

Wha?

High again?


yrs,
rubato

High on life, baby!

[Guinevere]

Letting *more* money into the process is only going to make it worse. The disparities between those with deep pockets or access to deep pockets will get greater, and we might as well select the Presidency via a bidding process. I want a process that allows more candidates, not fewer. In that way, we have more options to chose from, more people with the experience to take on the more complex jobs, and more access for everyone. We need more good people willing to lead --- the only way that is going to happen is if the huge stumbling block of raising outlandish sums of money is removed.

[Gob]

and we might as well select the Presidency via a bidding process.

Oh come on, you're just setting me up for a thrashing now aren't you?