Word comes that Bill Walker (see comment 11), who lost the Republican primary for Governor of Alaska , has contacted the Alaska Independence Party about possibly appearing on the AIP ballot line. I made the following comment (edited somewhat) in the comments section and thought it would be a good subject for all to discuss.
As a matter of general course, I think these types of “sore loser” candidates should be avoided unless there were some clear shenanigans or manipulation on the part of the major party that could be exploited. (Such as clear efforts on the part of the establishment of the party to suppress the defeated candidate.)
Running under the banner of a third party simply because you lost in a major party primary seems to me to lack class and has a desperate feel about it, and it reinforces the image of third parties sitting around waiting for scraps from the major parties’ table. The claim that they are doing it to give voice to their supporters doesn’t ring true to me.
Discuss.
Gene: “If a candidate is worth supporting as a major party candidate, and he loses the primary, it might be worthwhile letting him (or her) run on your alternative party ticket. But you have to let them know they will have less chance of being elected.”
They already know that; it’s kind of obvious. That’s why they aren’t interested in alternative parties “letting” them run on their tickets.
Gene: “This year, Peter Schiff could have dropped out of the Republican Party contest after the GOP state convention rejected him. He could have spent his money on a petition drive as a Libertarian candidate, he would still be a candidate and the Connecticut Libertarians would be more visible.”
Yes, he COULD have. Why WOULD he? Schiff doesn’t think he can win a statewide election as a Libertarian–a reasonable conviction–and that was his goal. He doesn’t give a damn about raising the public profile of the Connecticut LP. So then why would he spend his own money just to remain a candidate?
Tom: “A party may or may not succeed for any number of reasons, but it seems less likely to succeed if people view it as the “sore loser annex” to another party instead of as a real, separate party with its own values.”
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.
That’s why it irritates me when Libertarian candidates withdraw from races to endorse (usually) Republican candidates. This sends a clear message that Libertarians are NOT fundamentally different.
Ideologically, Greens may be viewed as a radical offshoot of Democrats, and Constitutionalists may be viewed as a radical offshoot of Republicans. Libertarians, however, are an entirely different quadrant of the Nolan chart. We should never reinforce a perception that we’re essentially one or the other with some quirky add-ons.
Why on Earth would millions of people support a party that’s close to either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party but DOESN’T win state or federal offices??
I think there can be candidates, who initially run in major party primaries, and whose campaigns address, and appeal to, a sturdy grassroots base for the ideas the candidate is talking abt, and then if that candiate loses a major party primary, and they have good grassroot/boots on the ground, and proven, and ongoing, financial support, these candidates can be useful for minor parties.
Such candaites may not devoted in their campaign to build that minor party (or they may be), so the minor party has to be ready to make use of the campaign for the party’s growth purposes.
But the party must also take into account a outside candidate’s ego and potential for “problematic” outbursts.
Paulie,
I know what a sore loser law means. It’s a law that denies a candidate that lost in the primary to run as an independent/third party candidate in the general election. I knew that. I just threw extra stuff for no reason, sorry about that. 🙂
“If the candidate gets out before the primary as Buchanan did in 2000, then I’m OK with it.”
I agree. In the case of John Anderson in 1980, he began his independent run after losing several primaries, but long before the nomination process was over. But the few debates he was in clearly showed he was out of the mainstream in the Republican Party. His early exit from the GOP nomination process gave him time to put together an independent campaign.
This year, Peter Schiff could have dropped out of the Republican Party contest after the GOP state convention rejected him. He could have spent his money on a petition drive as a Libertarian candidate, he would still be a candidate and the Connecticut Libertarians would be more visible.
I also agree with the second point Red makes:
“to opportunistically join a third party for the sake of general election ballot access after losing a major party primary strikes me as graceless.”
The government should not have the ability to tell any party whom it can or can’t run. If one party wants to nominate someone who tried and failed to get some other party’s nomination, it is none of the government’s business to interfere.
But whether it is a good idea for any party to nominate someone who already lost some other party’s nomination depends on the particular circumstances.
= Agreed.
CT did make it harder to run as petitioning candidate if you lose a primary after the Lieberman for Lieberman thing. The petition deadline is now the week before the primary not the day after.
I generally don’t think much one way or the other about the candidates.
For the third parties involved, however, it seems like a bad idea almost every time.
A party may or may not succeed for any number of reasons, but it seems less likely to succeed if people view it as the “sore loser annex” to another party instead of as a real, separate party with its own values.
Not that I don’t respect all of the Candidates however I dream of the day when no self respecting Candidate would run as a Republican or a Democrat and voters would vote accordingly because they are not running under the duopoly that is diverting us like cats at a tennis match, back and forth and back and forth.
Not because they don’t start out with all good intentions but because every last one of them is diverted from loyalty to the people to loyalty to the party and beyond and only the people who are of that one side so half of us are represented at any given time. This wizardly manipulated
left or right persuasion which is all a game of musical chairs is run by the puppet masters and their money. What happens is that they will fund candidates that prove their loyalty by succumbing to black mail in some way or another. If they can’t be messed with they don’t get a second chance thus the best and most worthy are least likely to have the chance and we are getting people like [take your pick] for the top spot from the last 30 years and get my point. Therefore we’ve gotten quite a few treasonous betrayals from our commanders and thieves and that’s exactly what was required of them by someone else unperson person I beleive! Can’t we have someone who really represents all of “us” once they are elected. Wow what a Concept! So if someone is willing to break out of that mold like Cynthia McKinney, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and Jesse Ventura [true integrity all of them] who ran for different parties more power to them. Thanks Debra
Even in cases where the ideological fit is better like Walker and the AIP (although I highly doubt Walker supports Alaskan secession), I think it doesn’t reflect well on the candidate or the party.
If the candidate gets out before the primary as Buchanan did in 2000, then I’m OK with it. If the candidate was actively suppressed by the establishment of the party in favor of the establishment favorite, then OK. But to opportunistically join a third party for the sake of general election ballot access after losing a major party primary strikes me as graceless. There is a reason they are called sore losers.
And for the third party it looks bad. Like they are hoping for scraps from the major parties’ table. Better to promote your own home grown candidates.
I’m NOT saying that the major party primary loser necessarily owes the winner his support, especially if he can’t abide supporting him on ideological (instead of personal grievance) grounds. But the thing to do then is to publicly endorse the third party candidate, not ride in and bigfoot him out.
Scott –
I don’t think we are talking about the same sort of thing here.
I’m all for that kind of fusion. If Kucinich wanted to run as a Green or Ron Paul wanted to run as a Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate, that could be legitimate.
What we are talking about here is the type of situation where Lisa Murkowski, who is a moderate Republican, was talked about as a possible Libertarian candidate after she lost her party’s primary.
Suppose Hillary Clinton wanted to run as a Green, or say Mitt Romney wanted to run as a Libertarian. That is the sort of thing we are talking about here.
South Carolina allows fusion, but you have to win any nomination you file for, otherwise the losing nomination erases the first successful nomination. This hasn’t always been the case, but the State Election Commission used it against Eugene Platt, Green Party nominee for the State Legislature in 2008 who subsequently lost the Democratic Party primary. Famously, this backfired on the Dems when Alvin Greene won the Dem primary this year and his opponent Vic Rawls was unable to run on the (already nominated) Working Families line. So it’s a dead letter here in SC.
Generally speaking, I’m in favor of strategic fusion in special circumstances where independent organizations can be built up. However there is a real danger of the larger party subsuming the smaller. The Populist Party of the Nineteenth Century breaking up to fuse with Dem or GOP organizations at the state level is the classic example, I think.
Derek,
Sore losers laws are laws that prohibit sore losers from running independent/alt party after they lose their primary. From your comment it seems that you think they are the opposite.
Seems to me it’s like inviting bedbugs to a sleepover.
There’s a lot of excitement, they’re hard to get rid of, your friends will all leave, and you’re sure to get bitten.
Yep, that about sums it up.
By this I mean candidates who don’t share a party’s ideology, if they do I don’t have a problem with it.
CT does have sore loser laws! Sure, Lieberman created his Connecticut for Lieberman party but how else do you think he ran in the general election, after barely losing to Lamond in the primary? That’s why I’ve suggested that Nader runs for a Congressional seat in CT. He can run in the primary, then if he loses run as an independent.
GPC, yes, I think Joe Lieberman is thinking about switching to the Green Party in 2012, instead of running as an independent again, as he did last time because Connecticut doesn’t have sore loser laws. Then Ralph Nader will run as the Constitution Party candidate. That will panic both the Democrats and Republicans.
Seems to me it’s like inviting bedbugs to a sleepover.
There’s a lot of excitement, they’re hard to get rid of, your friends will all leave, and you’re sure to get bitten.
Thanks Red,
Good topic.
I say invite ’em all to run as Green Party candidates…
“The government should not have the ability to tell any party whom it can or can’t run. If one party wants to nominate someone who tried and failed to get some other party’s nomination, it is none of the government’s business to interfere.”
Yes, I agree. I do not support “sore loser” laws. I’m just intending to address whether it is good policy. And yes it does depend on the particular circumstances, but in general I think it doesn’t reflect well on the third party. They end up looking like supplicants IMO.
The best would, of course, be elections where a third candidate didn’t have to worry about becoming a spoiler.
The government should not have the ability to tell any party whom it can or can’t run. If one party wants to nominate someone who tried and failed to get some other party’s nomination, it is none of the government’s business to interfere.
But whether it is a good idea for any party to nominate someone who already lost some other party’s nomination depends on the particular circumstances.
If they have a history in third party politics it would be more acceptable than a candidate who has never considered a third party in the past.
It is probably best to leave it on an ad hoc basis. At the very least, it gives a party good publicity to become a big player in politics for a 15 minutes.
There are many good people in alternative parties, but we often have a hard time finding a good candidate – someone with public recognition, access to campaign funds, a history of serving the community or public advocacy.
Given the strength of the two party system, many who might be a good fit for the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party will run in a Republican primary instead, thinking they will have a better chance of election.
If a candidate is worth supporting as a major party candidate, and he loses the primary, it might be worthwhile letting him (or her) run on your alternative party ticket. But you have to let them know they will have less chance of being elected.
If someone just wants to run on your ticket because they have a big ego, and is out of line with your party’s stands on the issues, it is better to just say no.