Let's be realistic...

April 16th, 2008 by rossl

There's a fair chance that Mike Gravel will not get the Libertarian nomination, especially with Bob Barr joining the race. Many hardline Libertarians simply cannot get their mind around Gravel joining the party (even though the Ni4D might make him the most Libertarian candidate there is), and Barr is very much what closeminded people like that are looking for. He also has the name recognition that Gravel has, which kind of diminishes the appeal of Gravel's candidacy a bit.

So what if Gravel doesn't get the nomination? What do we do then?

Going Independent is one option for Gravel, but he would have such a limited time period and lack of funds to get on the ballot that he would probably only be on the ballot in a couple of states.

Personally, I think that Gravel supporters should get behind Nader if running is no longer an option for Gravel. Nader is a friend of Gravel's, they have similar stances on many issues (for example, the war on drugs), and Nader has expressed interest in the National Initiative. Also, Nader has polled as high as 10% in some statewide polls (the state was Michigan), so he has a reasonable base of support.

As May 22 rolls around, this is a tough question that we MUST ask ourselves. Whatever happens, though, we must continue to support the National Initiative no matter what. My Mike Gravel meetup will turn into a National Initiative (and related issues) meetup if Gravel doesn't get the nomination. We cannot give up on the Ni4D. If we do, Gravel's candidacy will have lost all meaning.

Comments

Realistically,

Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by cuzimray

I don't believe the LP's are close-minded. The party as a whole must absorb a vast amount of stances, just based on the the overall purpose of the party; this has created factions of acceptance within said party and the most popular representative's platforms have therefore been cast as the "collective will" of party members. This makes the entire party seem to have a (or several) hardened beliefs, but is more representative of swaying of support for a candidate than it is swaying of opinion. As a largely unrecognized party, the LP's realize the need to open their minds and adapt to a candidate that represents their OVERALL opinion. Don't give up on this nomination yet!

CURMUDGEONS AND ICONOCLASTS UNITE!

The unfortunate part of

Submitted on April 16th, 2008 by lapager1

The unfortunate part of there being so many decent 3rd party candidates is that 3rd party votes get spread wide and thin. I really think that if America is ever going to break out of its 2-party system, it will take people uniting around one candidate. Some people would have to vote for someone they don't largely agree with, but for the sake of opening up the political system.

I really do think Gravel would be one of the better options for such a candidate because of his name recognition, service record, but most importantly because of the National Initiative. Something like the National Initiatve would be very important.

I will keep supporting Gravel, but I also recognize that he's not getting the traction that I thought he would be and think he should be.

I imagine I will have to come to the point of re-evaluating my vote and where it should go.

I really think it's a

Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by rossl

I really think it's a mistake for any third party candidate for president. (Why do I support them? Because if they're there, I might as well do that instead of supporting someone like Clinton.) Running for president is just the wrong way to go about what each third party wants to accomplish - they want to circumvent the system, then reinvent it. But you're just not going to win the presidency with a message like that and a press like ours. You won't.

What candidates like Nader and their supporters need to do is build a coalition of nonpartisan grassroots support and get a lot of people to run for local office, or even Congress, as third party candidates or independents. Local elections tend to be less partisan than presidential elections, plus there's not as much bitterness from the 2000 election.

If this were done, then a national coalition of independent government officials and candidates and citizens could eventually be created, and in the long run that would pave the way for a third party candidacy, especially if the coalition were made of more than one party plus independents.

I used to feel that way.

Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by Ripples

That it would take people uniting around a single third party candidate to break the 2-party system. But lately, it looks to me like pulling it down from multiple directions might work even better. If Gravel gets the nomination, there will be 3 strong contenders. It's much easier for the big parties to kneecap one strong opponent than a web of support connecting multiple 3rd parties.

Obama and Clinton supporters appear to be extremely polarized. Whichever one gets the nom, there are a good number in the other camp that won't vote for the other. And Republicans aren't too enthusiastic about McCain. This year poses a good opportunity for outsiders to capitalize on those weaknesses.

The third parties can assist each other in further dissipating support for the Big 2. Timothy Gatto mentioned (on the Smirking Chimp) in the blog he posted today that Gravel may be talking to Jesse Ventura about the VP spot. I would love to see that ticket! I enjoyed Ventura's interview with Larry King a couple weeks ago very much.

I agree with eveything you've said.

Submitted on April 16th, 2008 by Ripples

I voted for Nader last time, and will vote for him again if Gravel doesn't get the nomination. I'd rather vote for Gravel this time but it may not work out. We have to remember that The National Initiative is the most important thing.

The Dem party has really screwed up with voters in Michigan and Florida. There may be a large defection in those states to third parties in the GE!