Why It’s So Hard to Be a Third-Party Candidate, Even if You’re Bloomberg

If ex-mayor Bloomberg ran for president he may just be the most electable candidate. On the democratic side we have Sanders and Clinton: Sanders struggles with legitimacy of his promises due to his socialist ideals- they will almost never get passed in a congress controlled by either parties- and Clinton struggles with honesty and compassion for the people- while its great she has all this experience and background, events have shown that she may have more than a few bodies buried in the yard. On the republican side, while I agree to some of their positions as well as positions of democrats, the bunch of them are riding the nativist wave that threatens to undo America's founding principles such as ethnic and religious tolerance. Bloomberg has led one of the most populated cities in the country for a decade and a half, really due to some possibly illegal political maneuvering. He led it through 9/11 and more importantly its aftermath- he did not resort to populist rhetoric to unite the city, he used language that cast the perpetrators as the 'other' rather than all Muslims or Arabs as the republicans do now. His soda taxes were on the constitutional edge, but he had the right idea- if there is a glaring problem go for its throat. His wealth makes him independent of other interests, though he may try to advance his own. The man is a great leader, if he ran I'm sure his record would speak for itself.

P.s. I do not identify with any party only the contenders.

The Democratic party is the nation's default centrist party. That's a long way from where it was in mid twentieth century politics. The Republican party has so few moderates, having driven out most of them, that it fails the first corollary of democracy: it only works well from the political center — center-left to center-right. The failure of responsible governance is solely the fault of the no-compromise far right, and mainstream voters recognize this.

Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism

A 3rd Party candidate doesn't have to win to be successful.
Bloomberg would siphon off more Democratic votes than Republican votes, makes the election much closer. Winning a single state could keep both main Parties from reaching 270 electoral votes. That would put Bloomberg in a position to personally decide the winner. Except for the Presidency itself, there is almost nothing Bloomberg couldn't ask for in that position.

Not this year, in fact, maybe this is the first time in American history that it might work but work spectacularly. Bloomberg figured this out and his money is real, speakable without restriction.

My only observation is if Bloomberg gets in the race he must really hate Hillary Clinton - because his main grab will be from her electoral totals. His legacy will be worse that Ralph Nader's (who really only cost Gore a few key precincts, but it was enough in a close election). If he continues, he may well live in infamy as the man who blew it for the first woman president.

Mayor Bloomberg would be a good choice. Hope he decides to run. He might well win in that many see his merits which are obvious to East or West Coasters. JG-

Perhaps if Mr. Bloomberg were to secure a running mate such as Jon Huntsman, Jr with centrist Republican backing and foreign affairs experience the team might stand a better chance of appealing to a wider audience. Mr. Perot's campaign was sunk, even though his chances too were slim, the day he announced his running mate.

The reason it's hard to be a third party candidate is that the US doesn't have proportional representation like parliamentary democracies. Americans look to the UK, Germany, etc as paragons of democracy because third (and fourth and fifth) parties have seats in parliament. But minority parties have essentially NO power unless they are part of a ruling coalition. But that won't work for president in the US because of the (dumb and anachronistic) electoral college.

What's even dumber, is that Americans seem to think that you start a third party at the top - with the president. No. You start a third party at the bottom, with school boards, township supervisors, library boards, water commissions, etc. Sorry but it's hard work, takes a long time, and has few short-term payoffs. The republicans were smart enough to build a conservative base in this same way, starting years ago. Now it's paying off as a long-term resources. There's a lesson for you.

Given that neither of the two main political parties have put forward a strong candidate with a governance track record, an independent run by Michael Bloomberg and perhaps Robert Gates would appeal to many.

He's a NY Republican even if he does claim to be an Independent or a third party candidate. My worry is that he'd be another Ross Perot in that he'd siphon votes away from any viable candidate and leave us with a GOP candidate that is truly unacceptable. Worse still is the fact that Bernie Sanders is another factor for the Democrats who should have been building up another candidate besides Hillary (I'm inevitable) Clinton. I've never seen a race quite as kooky as this one and we're not even near the conventions.

Is there any way I can get a trip to another, saner country where the Repellicants aren't and the Democrats have more brains? I'd like to feel, for once, that I'm voting for someone rather than against.

Looking at the Red States carried by Romney, is there one where it is possible for Bloomberg, a billionaire New York free trader who is anti-gun, pro-choice, and a secular Jew could get with a "country mile of a plurality." Given the Democratic majorities and party loyalties of New York and California, along with his social positions being repugnant to the working class whites who make up the bulk of Republican Party in those two states, a chance in Hades that Bloomberg could carry either of those two states even with a billion dollar ad buy? I don't see a state in the Union he could carry except perhaps Connecticut. And if the House gets to choose the next President if no one has an electoral college majority, it will be a Republican since they control 33 of 50 state delegations, which is not likely to change in the 2016 election. Again, Village Media and his employees are Bloomberg's constituency. (I note by the way the supposedly "inefficient" DiBlasio did a much better job cleaning up New York City then Bloomberg did in the 2009-2010 snowstorms.)

Walk down any street east of the Mississippi and ask who Bloomberg is and you will get a blank stare. But every single person knows Trump.

Bloomberg would have a massive problem getting his name and message out nationwide.

Bloomberg running would help Trump a lot though.

Bloomberg a 'centrist'? The would-be Emperor of the Nanny State who'd have all of us put on diets and basically side-majoring in gym? We've got some awfully odd definitions for what's supposedly the 'center' these days.
It's things like this that make me wonder if, as the late (and sorely missed) Groucho Marxist Abbie Hoffman liked to joke, somebody really DID put bad acid in the water supply.

Bloomberg is a billionaire with a bucket list; but Billary would be bested and busted.

Briefly mentioned in the article is the difficult of becoming a credible 3rd party candidate AND getting on the ballot in all 50 states. The first is far easier than the second. What is needed is a major reform of our electoral college model and address why it's so difficult to get on a ballot if not a Democrat or Republican. Both sides are so fearful, there is little motivation to change their current dysfunctional model--better the devil you know vs. the one you don't. Look at many other countries who have coalition governments or popular vote elections that have compromise built into their election model. If both parties were brave enough (now, I'm dreaming) they would create a reformed model (let's even address gerrymandering while we are at it) that would activate far into the future (like 2030) so that no candidates currently in the pipeline could gain an advantage. It would take fortitude and patience but create a better and stronger democracy.

Because you guys have been right on the money with your predictions about Trump. LOL

Trump and Cruz are frightening enough. Bloomberg is not necessary to further tilt the next presidency into deeper horror. What is needed is a victory by a Democrat to keep the White House clean, democratic, and functioning. Trump as president would require a mass of experts to tell him what he should do and not do. Cruz as president might as well change his name to Adolf.
Do I sound worried?
You bet.

I posted this in an earlier story about Bloomberg playing with a Presidential run.

It is not going to happen, but he can still do something great.

Go to Detroit, run for Mayor and rebuild the city from scratch. Remaking the once great city and setting it on a trajectory of growth would be an amazing legacy. Detroit was once the 4th largest city in America and was wealthy. It could be a great city again and Michael Bloomberg has the skill set, the connections and the resources- personal and financial to make such a project viable.

That would be an amazing legacy built upon a lifetime of skills built in his business career and his tenure as the Mayor of New York City.

We have a coronation planned, so America's favorite couple take the reins. I see zero signs of any crack in our two party system. With our current and forthcoming dysfunction, any colaition style government doesn't appear anywhere. If the EU cracks up, our battle cry will be, see told you so. Bloomberg is to intelligent for the US electroate to comprehend. We are not used to intelligent politicans. We prefer fantasy and vision, as in Hope and Change." Now we are in the Legacy phase of our current Commander in Chief. He is about to give Bernis Sanders an ear full not to screw up what is proposed. Bill and Hillary.

Why doesn't he just run as a Democrat? It's not like the field is overwhelmed with choices. The more the merrier!

I think that a major reason why an independent candidate cannot win is because of "fear of the greater evil" among voters. What I mean is that there probably are a good number of Republicans and Democrats who are receptive to voting for Bloomberg (or Jim Webb, another possible independent candidate), but will ultimately decide not to do so because they think that such a vote would in effect aid the nominee of the opposing party, much like (i) Ross Perot's candidacy is said to have swung the 1992 election to Bill Clinton and (ii) Ralph Nader's candidacy is said to have swung the 2000 election to GW Bush. Applying this notion to this year's race, very few if any Republicans will cast a "throw-away" vote that would in effect aid Clinton or Sanders, and very few if any Democrats will cast such a vote that would in effect aid Trump or Cruz.

He should take a leaf from the Koch Brother's playbook. Better to be behind the scenes, working from grassroots to presidential politics.

Likeability. He doesn't have it and never will. Why not take that 1 billion and become known as a great philanthropist, rather than a failed 3rd party candidate. THAT will increase likability. Then in the future maybe try to run

I suppose the phrase "centrist third party candidate", as used here, reflects the silly notion that the Democrats are too far left. On economic issues, the Democrats are centrist and Republicans are off-the-charts to the right. There is quite vigorous debate between the two parties, but so many issues that resonate with majorities of the public such as single payer, meaningful Wall Street reform, decreased political representation for the wealthy, increased Social Security and Medicare benefits are outside the boundaries of the DNC Democrats.

It's easy to see why the elites and their media prefer the narrow confines of the two party spectrum, but the yearning for real democracy is growing - and the elites are beginning to squirm.

Maybe it's as unimaginable to elect a fiscal conservative as it was an African American or a woman?

I don't like a paternalistic/ nanny state but Bloomberg's a far better statesman and has achieved more in governing than any of the alternatives.

Great! An election in which finally the undue power of the wealthy and connected is front and center, brings us a man who bought City Hall and now wants to buy the White House. Isn't it rich?

He can't win but he would make a Clinton presidency impossible and heighten Trumpensteins chances. If Bloomberg really cares about the US and the world as a whole he won't run.

The experts have always the amazing capabilities of predicting things with their hindsights with great precision.

Hardly any pundits came out and expect Obama -- an unknown black politician with a non-Anglicized name -- to win the presidency 8 years ago. If history alone could predict the future, most richest men would be historians. As far as we know, there is no in the Forbes richest 100 list. Something unexpected always happens: the fall of Berlin Wall, the disintegration of Soviet Union, the rise of China, etc. Probability and uncertainty govern the behavior of the subatomic particles and the universe. There are always people who can win against the odd. Men shape history, not the other way around.

Besides, why is so certain that most people would only choose from two candidates? Why is so that the President of the world's biggest democracy is not elected based on popular vote? and in every election people are forced to listen to debate of some the same old and tired issues that the majority of people could care less?

With the need of raising of ever increasing large sum of money for campaigning, most politicians are more or less poppets dancing on strings held by their masters: all their political sophistries and rhetorics are not created to be believed, but rather to serve as a common alibi.

Wouldn't it be better to have someone who is a master and can do what he says for once?

One of the consequences of our constitutional structure is that it is is darn near impossible for a third party presidential candidate to win, independent of a party structure. This has to be built from the ground up, as happened in the 19th century with the rise of the Republican party, primarily on an anti-slavery platform (hard to believe now, but then it was the Republicans who were the good guys - the progressives). A third party has to be built with a platform, a movement, and a structure - it can't just be about one person.

This election has shaped out to be about something else. This is not a standard election. If anything, I see it as a clash of generations, old vs. new, ideals, long-lasting frustrations Americans feel as a people, and what seems to be the beginning of the end of the two party system, a system currently full of deadlock and that works for so few. It's realizing that both parties has let us all down for a long time.

If Trump wins the Republican nomination, it would be very concerning to have a serious third party contended in the fray. With votes split three ways, it substantially increases the chances that Donald Trump's small but diehard support group could pull him into the presidency.

Let Bloomberg go and let's see what happens to the silliness of GOP!

He should simply enter the Democratic nomination race. There are plenty of Democratic voters who would find him preferable to Hillary and Bernie.

This is why we need to require that to be elected, you need over 50% of the vote. If no one gets 50% you have a runoff election between the top two candidates.

Even better, how about if we leave the selection of party candidates to each party which can use any method they want (caucus, election, smoke-filled back room), at the party's expense, to select their candidates. Then the current primary election winnows the list down to two, and the general election decides the winner.

No more third party spoilers that allow a favorite of the minority to get elected. But people will also be more willing to vote for a third party candidate, knowing that they may get another chance to vote for their second choice.

It's too late, Mr. Mayor. All you can do now is cause harm to those you purport to help. I wish you'd started earlier.

It would be problematic for him to run in a Sanders/Trump or Sanders/Cruz race, because more of his support would come from Democrats than Republicans, which would only serve to help elect an unacceptable Republican. If Hillary's the nominee, he hopefully wouldn't run, which is all the more reason to support Hillary.

Michael Bloomberg will not enter a political race he does not believe he can win. He will assemble highly capable analysts and employ state-of-the-art technology to determine the probability of a Bloomberg presidency. If he announces in March, then that will push aside any nay-saying by those who erroneously believe that the past is the predictor of his success and that those who don't watch Masterpiece Theater and subscribe to The New Yorker (in other words, many like me) can support a centrist over the typical party offerings. If the past could truly be relied upon to pick a winner of the 2016 election, we would not have seen the rise in popularity of candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Quoting 2013 polls is as laughable as sporting a walkman at the gym. There is a movement toward the extremes by some voters, but a movement away from the same old by still others who prefer the middle. At this point in time, this is anybody's race, including Mike's. No offense to those who give credibility to a YouGov opt-in survey panel. (Seriously?!)

In addition, if an election was thrown into the House of Representatives, there’s no chance, except in novels, that a third-party candidate could win.

Thanks - your article and the WP linked article "the winner-take-all" were very informative for understanding election mechanics.