Will we ever see another third party candidate make a serious run for President?

[BatmanVSuperman]

It seems the 15% requirement barrier is pretty hard to get through. It would be nice to one day see a candidate that may not be as strictly tied to one party. Alas, we function in the two party system and have not progressed outside of it.

 

[Warhammer]

Hell no. Belee dat!

 

[Decepticonus]

Well in 1912 TR ran under the Progressive ticket and came in second in the race, with Taft on the Republican ticket coming in third. So it could maybe be possible...???

 

[SuperFerret]

People like the feeling of "us vs. them" too much. There's no room for a third party there.

 

[hippie_hunter]

In a FPTP voting system that the US has, very rarely will we get a third party candidate that will make an impact. A candidate would either need the money (like Perot), recognition (like Roosevelt), or extreme social circumstances (like Wallace) to be able to pull off such a rare circumstance.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It will happen. History says it will. Just not very often, and it won't be a permanent change.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Perot had 19% which is why he was allowed to debate with the major two parties. Roosevelt was part of the progressive party which is technically a third party, but the two party establishment back then was not as engrained as it has become over time now.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Hell no. Belee dat!

What language is this?

 

[Warhammer]

The language of the great Roman Reigns.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Both parties have made sure to stack the deck against any third party candidate so it's highly unlikely

 

[SV Fan]

I personally think if a candidate has more then 1% support in a bunch of polls they should be allowed into the debates.

All that being said it's very hard for any 3rd parties to get more then 1% support and even if they allowed into the debates it will be hard for them to win.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

5% seems fair. 15% seems excessive to me. With the backing the 2 party system gets, it seems to me that a third party alternative could pick up steam if given a chance. They need to have some base of course though.

 

[NotFadeAway]

I think the best bet would be for the Libertarian Party to slowly overtake the Republican Party and in essence become the new Republicans....

I consider myself a Libertarian, by the way....

 

[hippie_hunter]

Perot had 19% which is why he was allowed to debate with the major two parties. Roosevelt was part of the progressive party which is technically a third party, but the two party establishment back then was not as engrained as it has become over time now.

The two party system was just as engrained then as it was today. Roosevelt had the recognition of already being President that allowed him to go as far as he could.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Of course we all know the anti-Christ will rise up as a 3rd party candidate

 

[Thundercrack85]

The interesting thing about Perrot is that he didn't even take it very seriously.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The two party system was just as engrained then as it was today. Roosevelt had the recognition of already being President that allowed him to go as far as he could.

And there is a good reason we have a two party system. Look at the 1824 election for what happens when we don't.

 

[CaptainWagner]

While there is a historical precedent for 3rd party candidates to run, and even win, (The Whigs) it hasn't happened in a relatively long time. And the last major example (Teddy and the Bull Moose Party) didn't end very well.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

While there is a historical precedent for 3rd party candidates to run, and even win, (The Whigs) it hasn't happened in a relatively long time. And the last major example (Teddy and the Bull Moose Party) didn't end very well.

The Whigs weren't a third party. They were one of the two major parties (the other being the Democrats) in the Second Party System.

 

[CaptainWagner]

The Whigs weren't a third party. They were one of the two major parties (the other being the Democrats) in the Second Party System.

It gets kind of complicated, with all of the parties breaking up. But reviewing the records, you are probably right. But they're the closest we have to a successful 3rd party election.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Considering that come 2016, we will have had two of the worst Presidents in United States history back to back and all the in fighting that's been done on the hill instead of helping this country, now would seem to be the perfect time for a 3rd party to rise. But I stick with my original statement.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It gets kind of complicated, with all of the parties breaking up. But reviewing the records, you are probably right. But they're the closest we have to a successful 3rd party election.

The Whigs were Henry Clay's coalition of all the people who hated Andrew Jackson born out of the 1824 fracturing of the Democratic-Republicans. They had been around for a few years as the main opposition party to the Jacksonian Democrats before they knocked off Van Buren in 1840. They had been established long enough that I think calling them a third party at that point isn't an accurate representation of what they were. They had managed 49% of the popular vote (across four candidates in a stupid campaign strategy that has never been tried since) in the 1836 election just four years earlier.

The closest a true third party came to winning the White House was the 88 electoral votes the Bull Moose Party got in 1912.

 

[redhawk23]

Considering that come 2016, we will have had two of the worst Presidents in United States history back to back and all the in fighting that's been done on the hill instead of helping this country, now would seem to be the perfect time for a 3rd party to rise. But I stick with my original statement.

I'm not much for Obama but I'd hardly rate him among the worst. His administration managed to pull the economy away from the cliff, at least for a time and there are many aspects of the healthcare reform that are quite popular. Not a very good leader when it comes to communication however. Much of his message to Republican congressmen for years was "Nanana boo boo I'm in the driver's seat."

More on topic, the party within a party, The Tea Party causes a lot of conflict with the main party and I would be surprised to see them eventually break off outright.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Considering that come 2016, we will have had two of the worst Presidents in United States history back to back and all the in fighting that's been done on the hill instead of helping this country, now would seem to be the perfect time for a 3rd party to rise. But I stick with my original statement.

I wouldn't rank Bush or Obama in the top five of worst. For all their faults, they don't come close to Ulysses S. Grant, Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter. I think that a lot of people like to forget that the 1800's and early 1900's had A LOT of really bad Presidents.

Nor have they had the misfortune to be unimpactful like William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield. Nor do they have severe crimes on their legacies like Andrew Jackson (Trail of Tears) and Richard Nixon (Watergate)

 

[CaptainWagner]

The Whigs were Henry Clay's coalition of all the people who hated Andrew Jackson born out of the 1824 fracturing of the Democratic-Republicans. They had been around for a few years as the main opposition party to the Jacksonian Democrats before they knocked off Van Buren in 1840. They had been established long enough that I think calling them a third party at that point isn't an accurate representation of what they were. They had managed 49% of the popular vote (across four candidates in a stupid campaign strategy that has never been tried since) in the 1836 election just four years earlier.

The closest a true third party came to winning the White House was the 88 electoral votes the Bull Moose Party got in 1912.

Yeah, you're right. I got my timelines mixed up a bit. That period between the Federalist/Anti-Federalist divide ending and the current Republican/Democrat divide beginning has always sort of blended together for me...

I wouldn't rank Bush or Obama in the top five of worst. For all their faults, they don't come close to Ulysses S. Grant, Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter. I think that a lot of people like to forget that the 1800's and early 1900's had A LOT of really bad Presidents.

Nor have they had the misfortune to be unimpactful like William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield. Nor do they have severe crimes on their legacies like Andrew Jackson (Trail of Tears) and Richard Nixon (Watergate)

Personally, I've always felt Hoover takes a lot of unesecary flack, but that's a topic for another discussion. But either way, you're right. Bush and Obama may not have been very good at their jobs, but they're still way ahead of the crowd you posted.