Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to bolt the Republican party and switch his Presidential “candidacy” to a third party. News media are taking this typically blustery Trump proclamation seriously. Commentators are speculating about the possibility of Trump disrupting the two-party system. And Democrats are fantasizing about how a third-party run by Trump could split the Republican vote wide open and thus guarantee a win for the Democratic nominee.

A recent AP News article puts it this way:

To Republican pollster Frank Luntz, a third-party Trump campaign would mean, quite simply, “President Hillary Clinton.” Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, who is close to the Clinton campaign, agrees: “He’s the greatest gift we have.”

But to me, Trump’s threat is pure bunk.

I think that Trump has no intention of following through and mounting a third-party run. Why? The reason is quite simple: A third-party candidacy requires…work. And from what I’ve seen so far, Trump is more dedicated to self-aggrandizement and shock-jock rhetoric than he is in doing the in-the-trenches work necessary to getting on the ballot as a third-party candidate.

It takes a lot more than threats and verbal declarations to actually be a serious third-party candidate. First off, it’s expensive. In 1992, Ross Perot reportedly spent $64 million of his own fortune to get on state ballots as a third-party candidate. He managed to get an impressive 19 percent of the popular vote, but he didn’t win any states at all.

Today, a national third-party effort might cost in the range of $200 million to $500 million, say some observers. Would Donald Trump be willing to spend that much? That’s questionable, says longtime GOP donor Fred Malek:

He’s a businessman who will look at his potential for winning and decide it will be a poor return on his investment.

And then there’s the issue of how to get one’s name on the ballot in all 50 states, under the banner of a third party. This is where the real work comes in.

Ballot access laws vary widely from state to state, but most have one thing in common: According to Ballotpedia,

Political party candidates must identify with one state-recognized political party. In order to get on a ballot, they may have to follow additional rules set by that political party, but they will then have the support of a recognized group.

… Candidates can be placed on the ballot in a number of ways depending on the type of candidate and the state in which the candidate resides. Political party candidates can often gain ballot access by nomination through a convention or primary election. Independent candidates most often have to use the petition method, collecting a specified number of signatures in order to be placed on the ballot. Some states also require political party candidates to use this method.

It’s complicated and labor-intensive. Here’s what it takes to get on the ballot as an independent in each of the 50 states. And the first step would be for Trump to decide which party to represent, or whether to run as an unaffiliated candidate. He could, of course, try to create his own third party—The Trump Party? The Billionaire Party? The Me-Me-Me Party?—but that would be even more difficult, because states have rules for what constitutes a “recognized” political party. Ballotpedia notes that:

.. in some states, a party’s candidate for a specific office must win a certain percentage of the vote in order for the party to be ballot-qualified in the state. In other states, a political party must register a certain number of voters in order to achieve ballot status.

Which one would Trump choose? Here’s the array of existing, state-qualified political parties, and the number of states in which they’re qualified. Where would Trump fit in? And would any of them want him as their candidate?

To run as a third-party candidate, Trump might actually have to step away from center stage [which is where he really wants to be] for a while, invest in and supervise a huge staff that would fan out to all 50 states, and take the time to talk with third-party leaders about [gasp!] ideas and policies—things that have been almost entirely absent from his big-talk, narcissistic, insult-everyone, fear-mongering, worst-of-America campaign to date.

For all of these reasons, and although it pains me greatly to agree with [ugh] Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus, I just don’t think Trump is going to do it.

The post Why Donald Trump will not run as a third-party candidate appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Dear Disappointed,

Daniel Ellsberg feels your pain.  He knows that Obama hasn’t lived up to your expectations. He won’t argue with you on that one. After all, at a hearty eighty-one years of age, Daniel’s nothing if not a die-hard realist. He’s seen quite a few more elections than you have and has raged against the machine in ways that’s put much more on the line than most of you ever will. In short, Daniel–the former military analyst who, in 1970, leaked the Pentagon Papers— has earned his creds. This is a guy with no illusions, and a guy who tells it like he sees it:

The reelection of Barack Obama, in itself, is not going to bring serious progressive change, end militarism and empire, or restore the Constitution and the rule of law.  That’s for us and the rest of the people to bring about after this election and in the rest of our lives—through organizing, building movements and agitating.

So here’s his advice. Take a long, hard look at what a Romney/Ryan win will mean.  Then take another long, hard look at what a Romney/Ryan win will mean not just for the next four years but for the next twenty or thirty or more.

Daniel wants you to get real if you’re thinking about going down the path of a third-party, protest vote. And he’s not one to mince words:

The traditional third-party mantra, “there’s no significant difference between the major parties” amounts to saying: “the Republicans are no worse, overall.”  And that’s absurd.  It constitutes shameless apologetics for the Republicans, however unintended.  It’s crazily divorced from present reality.

Don’t forget, this is one brilliant and courageous guy whose not inclined to let you get away with fuzzy thinking:

And it’s not at all harmless to be propagating that absurd falsehood. It has the effect of encouraging progressives even in battleground states to  refrain from voting or to vote in a close election for someone other than Obama, and more importantly, to influence others to act likewise.  That’s an effect that serves no one but the Republicans, and ultimately the1 percent [emphasis added].

What does Daniel want you to know?   That the stakes in this election couldn’t be higher and that you need to face facts and acknowledge that

 . . . to punish Obama in this particular way, on Election Day—by depriving him of votes in swing states and hence of office in favor of Romney and Ryan—would punish most of all the poor and marginal in society, and     workers and middle class as well: not only in the U.S. but worldwide in terms of the economy (I believe the Republicans could still convert this recession to a Great Depression), the environment and climate change.  It could well lead to war with Iran (which Obama has been creditably resisting, against pressure from within his own party).  And it would spell, via Supreme Court appointments, the end of Roe v. Wade and of the occasional five to four decisions in favor of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In short, Daniel’s pleading with you to resist the temptation to throw away your vote. And if you’re still uncertain which way you’re going to go, just remember two fateful words:  Florida 2000.

The post Daniel Ellsberg’s advice to disappointed progressives appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Democratic and Republican parties are bankrupt, or let’s just come out and say it—they’re corrupt. Banks, corporations and the influence of billionaires have stolen our government from us and are using it to further enrich themselves. Tom Friedman, a naïve cheerleader for globalization and a serial apologist for the Iraq War, is not someone I usually follow, or whose opinions I value. For example, he still thinks we need corporate tax cuts to stimulate jobs. Really? The Financial Times debunked that idea in a recent article, as did  Ian Welsh in an excellent blog post on that topic. Tax cuts for corporations do not create jobs; they create jobs overseas.

But, I digress.

On October 2, Friedman wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times that made me sit up and take note. He admitted the United States is in serious decline, comparing it to the fall of Roman Empire, and declared that our two-party system is bankrupt and no longer viable. He also strongly suggested that a serious third party challenge could manifest in 2012.

Barring a transformation of the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is going to be a serious third party candidate in 2012, with a serious political movement behind him or her — one definitely big enough to impact the election’s outcome.

There is a revolution brewing in the country, and it is not just on the right wing, but in the radical center. I know of at least two serious groups, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast, developing “third parties” to challenge our stagnating two-party duopoly that has been presiding over our nation’s steady incremental decline.

His op-ed is titled “Third Party Rising” and it includes statements from political scientist Larry Diamond, whom he interviewed for the piece:

“We basically have two bankrupt parties bankrupting the country,” said the Stanford University political scientist Larry Diamond. Indeed, our two-party system is ossified; it lacks integrity and creativity and any sense of courage or high-aspiration in confronting our problems. We simply will not be able to do the things we need to do as a country to move forward “with all the vested interests that have accrued around these two parties,” added Diamond. “They cannot think about the overall public good and the longer term anymore because both parties are trapped in short-term, zero-sum calculations,” where each one’s gains are seen as the other’s losses.

We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party that will talk about education reform, without worrying about offending unions; financial reform, without worrying about losing donations from Wall Street; corporate tax reductions to stimulate jobs, without worrying about offending the far left; energy and climate reform, without worrying about offending the far right and coal-state Democrats; and proper health care reform, without worrying about offending insurers and drug companies.

“If competition is good for our economy,” asks Diamond, “why isn’t it good for our politics?”

We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: “These two parties are lying to you. They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear if we want to be the world’s leaders, not the new Romans.”

Other political blogs I follow have been embroiled in heated debate about the Democratic Party. That the Democratic Party is entirely bankrupt is a given. Opinions vary on how to deal with this reality, but they fall into three camps:

• Those who want to purge the party of corporate Democrats (which is just about everyone in the party) by challenging them at the primaries with true progressive candidates, in other words working within the existing Party over time to reclaim its Progressive roots.

• Those who want to abstain from funding or voting for Democratic Party candidates for the upcoming elections allowing the Party to crash and burn, so that a new Democratic party can emerge from the ashes.  This is the camp that feels we have to go through losing Congress in order to gain it back with real progressives.

• Those who want to build a viable third party to challenge what is perceived as a bankrupt and corrupt Democratic Party.

I expect to read about the idea of a third party challenge on the progressive blogs, but not from Thomas Friedman.  The fact that someone with his mainstream perspective is admitting this country is in very serious decline, and that both parties are bankrupt is significant. The fact that he knows of groups on both coasts that are mounting a serious third party challenge is noteworthy.

So, stay tuned, we may have a very interesting 2012 election.

The post Friedman: There could be a third party challenge in 2012 appeared first on Occasional Planet.