The Prohibition Party reportedly has splits aplenty.

A split that’s somewhat analogous (analogous in my mind solely because it’s the only point of reference I have here) to the split that occurred in the Reform Party in the year 2000, wherein, as you recall, Pat Buchannan and John Hagelin both accepted the nomination and staged concurrent conventions. (Mish-mashery of political philosophies came to rot, as the cult of Ross Perot faded, the cult of Ventura wasn’t quite cementing, Buchannan looked for a home and stormed the party with his Brigades, to the horror of some Reform Party minions, who gravitated toward anyone who cared, and that was Hagelin who schlepped on in.)

In the case of the Prohibition Party, first came the disatisfaction over the party’s dwindling fortunes:

After Dodge captured just 208 votes in the 2000 election — the party’s worst finish in nearly 130 years — a faction within the party wanted new leadership. They argued that Dodge ran the party like a personal fiefdom and seemed to be using the party to promote his personal business activities (i.e., selling campaign buttons).

Then came the revolt.

The anti-Dodge faction — which grew out of activists within the Partisan Prohibiton Historical Society — called a national meeting and wrested control of the party’s national committee away from Dodge in September 2003. The Prohibition National Committee elected Don Webb of Alabama as the new National Chairman and retired Dodge to “Chairman Emeritus.”

But, was the coup legitimate?

However, that came too late to stop Dodge from calling a Presidential Nominating Convention in August 2003. Dodge’s “convention” consisted of eight people — most of whom were Dodge relatives — who met in Dodge’s living room and nominated Dodge again for President.

And, we have the controversy, exploding in the party’s face, where the two sides are going to work out their differences through litigation… the Reformers of the Party charging forth with GENE AMONDSON, Historical Recreationist of Prohibitionist Glory Past…

Hm… Looking forward to the Past?

In 1996, Louie G. Youngkeit received 19 votes in his homestate of Utah.

Four years later, in 2000, he secured ballot access in Utah and received 161 votes.

An increase of 847.37% in his vote total.

A google search also shows the number “739”. Perhaps an additional 578 voters wrote his name in in the other 49 states, DC, and the American territories?

All responding to his platform, of course. Getting what is rightfully his: the Howard Hughes estate… a fact that is obscured in the tangle web of history and a conspiracy cover-up that takes us from the assassination of Robert Kennedy and the Watergate break-in right on down.

Too bad Kenneth Starr ended up on the subject of Clinton’s bj, because if he had tackled this problem, we might actually know the real dirt on Clinton.

But that’s all politics: everyone knows the real scandals are bi-partisan (often above-partisan) in nature. Starr wouldn’t have been able to keep the dirt from flying off George Herbert Walker Bush.

From the Jerry for Ohio Campaign Site:

Hi All, it’s good to know you are out there thinking and writing. I’m Mike Ford and I’ve been a manager and advisor to Jerry since he started in elective politics in  1970. For the last 6 months or so I was a senior advisor to Howard Dean.

The point of all this is to say that the only thing that impressed me more than Nader’s brain was his outsized ego. Got to say, that’s what seems to be the driver here and it’s more about his personal agenda and, I think, about that huge ego rather than beating Bush. Who died and made you King Ralph? To each her own, EH? What do you think?

Fascinating.

Flash back to comments made in November, found here:

While he recognizes that many Dean supporters may well have been Naderites in 2000, he calls Dean a “middle of the road” Democrat too friendly to corporate demands, and dismisses progressive enthusiasm for Dean’s candidacy with this metaphor: “Everybody is starved. If you have a garden and if it rains, you’re not excited, but if you’re in the desert and it rains, you’re delirious. But you know what rain in the desert produces? A mirage.” Repeating an old refrain, he says it doesn’t even matter if Dean is for real: “He can’t deliver–he can be George McGovern on steroids, but when he gets into the corporate prison called the White House, he can’t deliver.”

If I’m not mistaken, he refers to Dean, quite correctly incidentally, in his 2001 book Crashing the Party as “bland centrist to right Democrat.”

Sometime after those Nation comments, Nader was much more congenial toward Dean, perhaps gauging the reaction from his exploratory campaign website where he featured the question “Would want Nader to run if which candidate(s) win the nomination.”

For his part, Dean made the comment in December or January that “not all of my voters may not necessarily end up voting for the Democratic candidate.” (Later, he clarified that he himself, of course, would definitely support the nominee… Though murfed members of the chattering class carried on with inanities about the meaning of a Dean-third party run.) Whether the above exchange factored into Dean’s rather hard-nosed comments (I guage as a response to rival’s attacks of “unelectibility”) is unknowable.

I keep getting this echo that “hopefully Judge Roy Moore (who is sending signals that he may be running for president on the Christian Reconstructionist — er Constitution Party banner) will become the Nader of the Right.”

I don’t know. Is there a huge constituency of disaffected Christian Right members who think constitutional amendments to bar gay marriage is appeasement, and demand biblical stoning of homosexuals?

There are conservatives who are furious with Bush over the deficit, over corporate subsidies, over corporate pornography directed toward children, over the Patriot Act, over many other issues. And they may be looking for an Independent candidacy. There are liberal Republicans who see their party taken away from them. They may be looking for an Independent candidacy. There are a hundred million non- voters that no one has figured out how to bring back into the electoral system, which I want to try to do.

Right. Conservative Republicans are going to be voting in droves for Ralph Nader. Libertarian Conservatives are clamouring to vote for Ralph Nader. Pat Buchannan-esque anti-free traders are ready in line to vote for Ralph Nader.

According to the exit polls conducted by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, fully 25% of his votes came from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the remainder from people who would not have voted. No other American leader can be credited with such broad appeal across the divides of our polarized nation.

Okay. Let’s test out the Nader effect in the state of Florida based upon this somewhat specious poll. (Other polls exist that come to a less incredulous conclusion.)

As is:

Bush 2,912,790 ………… 48.85% …… 25
Gore 2,912,253 ………… 48.84% ……. 0
Nader 97,488 ………….. 1.63% …… 0

Hypothetical
Bush 2,937,162 …………. 0
Gore 2,949,298 …………. 25

Hm. Gore wins in Nader’s “Republicans voted for me too” calculations. Imagine that.

Actually, this is counter-intuitive, but I hold the theory that Nader helped Gore in the end. Forced Gore to define himself as something… anything. Stare at the polls throughout 2000, and Gore was consistently behind from the summer of 1999 right up until the Democratic convention, when he unveiled his “People versus the Powerful” campaign line. Say what you want about the campaign, whether it was meaningful or not, but until that point in time, the campaign message of where he was going was non-existant.

I heard him here in Portland, Oregon. His stump speech clearly had the “Please don’t vote Nader” undertone with it — focus strongly on the environment. Nader forced his campaign-stylings to the left. The swing voter is largely non-existant these days, (and the current theory on swing voters is that they’re politically conflicted, and see good with both limited government and responsive government) so we have the current theory of “The Base is where it’s at.”

Also, Nader may well have brought in voters who wouldn’t have voted, and at the last minute decided that Gore, the lesser of two evils, was preferrable to Bush.

Anyway, I’m not entirely sold on my theory, but I do think it’s a reasonable and highly likely conclusion.

(Partly-understood, partly I’m thinking “He’s not going to accomplish anything here), Conniption fits abound with regards to Ralph Nader’s announcement that he is running for president.

Electorally, Ralph Nader’s 2000 run for president wasn’t the most successful of presidential runs. Nader claims that his 2004 campaign will attract disgruntled Conservatives — who he’s trying to fool I do not know. It will be interesting to split up a hypothetical scenario figuring he claims a Democratic pollster had his candidacy do in Florida in 2000: (20% of his voters would’ve gone to Bush; 34% to Gore; the rest wouldn’t have voted) — Figures I will calculate in a later post.

What follows is a list of United States presidential elections with a third party of any consequence campaigning. High-lighted are those where a third party candidate had better electoral success than Ralph Nader did in the year 2000. Italicized are the examples where a third party beat one of the major two parties: Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull-Moose and of course the Whig Party throwing in the towel allowing the Republican Party to emerge.

The criteria for “of any consequence” is malleable, but generally (though not always) the threshold is two percent. Electoral success does not always translate into lack of consequence, however. The Prohibition Party kicked around for a time, and had success in getting their platform enacted into law. The Green-back Party fused quickly fused with the Democratic Party. The Populist Party endorsed William Jennings Bryan for his runs at president.

The third party candidacies of (Trent Lott’s mentor) Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace weighed heavily on Truman’s campaign strategy. He misjudged the Southern Democrats revolt in his electoral calculations, but ultimately overcame it. With regards to Wallace to his left, his campaign strategy was to send out Eleanore Roosevelt, among others, to belittle the party, and practice a little bit of red-baiting.

The fear of the Socialists, and even the fourth placed Communists, weighed heavily on Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. (Anti-capitalist sentiment was, understandably, in the air. “The Revolution Must be Stopped.”)

Millard Freedman was the reluctant candidate of the No-Nothings in 1856.

The Nation article linked above tells the story of the third party dynamics of 1844.

2000
Democrat Albert Gore: 48.38% … 271 50.37%
Republican George Bush: 47.87% … 266 49.44%
Green Ralph Nader: 02.73% … 000 00.00%

1996:
Democrat William Clinton: 49.24% 379 70.45%
Republican Robert Dole: 40.71% 159 29.55%
Reform Ross Perot: 08.40% 000 00.00%

1992:
Democrat William Clinton: 43.01% 370 68.77%
Republican George Bush: 37.45% 168 31.23%
Independant Ross Perot: 18.91% 000 00.00%

1980:
Republican Ronald Reagan: 50.75% 489 90.89%
Democrat James Carter: 41.01% 49 9.11%
Independant John Anderson: 6.61% 00 0.00%

1968:
Republican Richard Nixon 43.42% 301 55.95%
Democrat Hubert Humphrey 42.72% 191 35.50%
American Independant George Wallace 13.53% 046 08.55%

1948:
Democrat Harry Truman 49.55% 303 57.06%
Republican Thomas Dewey 45.07% 189 35.59%
States Rights Strom Thurmond 02.41% 039 07.34%
Progressive Henry Wallace 02.37% 000 00.00%

1932:
Democrat Franklin Roosevelt 57.41% 472 88.89%
Republican Herbert Hoover 39.65% 059 11.11%
Socialist Norman Thomas 02.23% 000 00.00%

1924:
Republican Calvin Coolidge 54.04% 382 71.94%
Democrat John Davis 28.82% 136 25.61%
Progressive Robert LaFollete 16.60% 013 02.45%

1920
Republican Warren Harding 60.32% 404 76.08%
Democrat James Cox 34.15% 127 23.92%
Socialist Eugene Debs 03.41% 000 00.00%

1916
Democrat Woodrow Wilson 49.24% 277 52.17%
Republican Charles Hughes 46.12% 254 47.83%
Socialist Allen Benson 03.19% 000 00.00%

1912
Democrat Woodrow Wilson 41.84% 435 81.92%
Progressive Theodore Roosevelt 27.40% 088 16.57%
Republican William Taft 23.17% 008 01.51%
Socialist Eugene Debs 05.99% 000 00.00%

1908
Republican William Taft 51.57% 321 66.46%
Democrat William Bryan 43.04% 162 33.54%
Socialist Eugene Debs 02.83% 000 00.00%

1904
Republican Theodore Roosevelt 56.42% 336 70.59%
Democrat Alton Parker 56.42% 336 70.59%
Socialist Eugene Debs 02.98% 000 00.00%

1892
Democrat Grover Cleveland 46.02% 277 62.39%
Republican William Reid 43.01% 145 32.66%
Populist James Field 08.51% 022 04.95%
Prohibition John Bidwall 02.24% 000 00.00%

1888
Republican Benjamin Harrison 47.82% 233 58.1%
Democrat Grover Cleveland 48.62% 168 41.9%
Prohibition John Brooks 2.19% 000 00.0%
Union Labor Alson Streeter 1.29% 000 00.0%

1884
Democrat Grover Cleveland 48.50% 219 54.6%
Republican James Blaine 48.25% 182 45.4%
Greenback Benjamin Butler 01.74% 000 00.0%
Pohibition John St. John 01.47% 000 00.0%

1880
Republican James Garfield 48.27% 214 58.0%
Democrat William Hancock 48.25% 155 42.0%
Greenback James Weever 03.32% 000 00.0%

1860 (a unique case to say the least, so nothing highlighted.)
Republican Abraham Lincoln 39.82% 180 59.4%
Southern Democrat John Breckenridge 18.10% 072 23.8%
Constitution Unionist John Bell 12.62% 039 12.9%
Democrat Stephen Douglas 29.46% 012 04.0%

1856
Democrat James Buchannan 45.28% 174 58.8%
Republican John Fremont 33.11% 114 38.5%
No-Nothings Millard Freedman 21.53% 008 02.7%

1852
Democrat Franklin Pierce 50.84% 254 85.8%
Whig Winfield Scott 43.87% 042 14.2%
Free Soil John Hale 04.91% 000 00.0%

1848
Whig Zachary Taylor 47.28% 163 56.2%
Democrat Lewis Cass 42.49% 127 43.8%
Free Soil Martin Van Buren 10.12% 000 00.0%

1844
Democrat James Polk 49.54% 170 61.8%
Whig Henry Clay 48.08% 105 38.2%
Liberty James Birney 02.30% 000 00.0%

1832
Nat’l Democrat Andrew Jackson 54.23% 219 76.0%
Nat’l Republican Henry Clay 37.42% 049 17.0%
Ind. Democrat John Floyd 0.00% 011 03.8%
Anti-Masonic William Wirt 7.78% 007 02.4%

Evidentally, all signs point to a Ralph Nader Meet the Press announcement that he is indeed going to seek the presidency of the United States.

Indeed, he was written a rather hilarious response to the Nation’s editorial urging him not to run: Found Here (My response was found here.

The funniest thing here is this: Ralph Nader recieved 2.7% of the vote in 2000. A paltry sum by any reasonable estimation.

In the state of Florida, he received 1.63% of the vote. (The other two states that often come up as states that Gore would’ve won the election if he had won, New Hampshire and Tennessee, one can not credibly say that Nader cost Gore.) I hear this statistic bounded about that if one percent of Nader’s Florida voters had voted for Gore, that Gore would’ve won the election. This misunderstands the new calculus for the recount battle, and how the two sides would’ve played the game… Bush still has Katherine Harris sitting there.

A question: How much more support above this one percent of Nader’s Florida voters would’ve been able to stomach voting for Gore? I hazard to guess — not a whole lot, really.

So, the Democrats are nervous about one percent of the vote, are they? Well… to each their own.

Transcendental Meditation acts as the central core of the Natural Law Party. The “Visualize Success” so that you can succeed at your action mantra, only on a mass societal scale.

In the current cycle, the 2000, 1996 (and probably beyond) presidental candidate for the Natural Law Party has endorsed Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich. It’s a match that makes some sense. And news reports are that Kucinich supporters have, at times, engaged in “Collective Visualization”, which sounds like a watered-down version of transcendental meditation.

Sounds hooky? Easy to mock and make fun of?

Not so fast! Apparently George Bush has stolen from the Natural Law Party platform.

The artificial windows revealed an inviting blue sky. Bush portrayed a similarly sunny outlook with remarks that used “optimistic” or “optimism” seven times in 49 minutes. He repeatedly stressed the power of positive thinking as an engine of job creation.

“A lot of economic growth depends upon the psychology of the people making decisions all throughout our economy,” he said. “So far, the entrepreneurs have been upbeat.”

(news article courtesy of TPM.)

The Nation, January 29, 2004. The time is not right for a Nader run.

The context for an independent presidential bid is completely altered from 2000, when there was a real base for a protest candidate. The overwhelming mass of voters with progressive values–who are essential to all efforts to build a force that can change the direction of the country–have only one focus this year: to beat Bush. Any candidacy seen as distracting from that goal will be excoriated by the entire spectrum of potentially progressive voters. If you run, you will separate yourself, probably irrevocably, from any ongoing relationship with this energized mass of activists. Look around: Almost no one, including former strong supporters, is calling for you to run, compared with past years when many veteran organizers urged you on.

You have said your candidacy could actually help Democrats by raising issues against Bush that a Democratic candidate would avoid and by boosting turnout for good candidates for the House and Senate, where the slender bulwarks against Bushism must be reinforced. But these arguments do not compel a candidacy by you. As a public citizen fighting for open debates and rallying voters to support progressive Democrats for Congress, or good independents or Greens for that matter, you can have a far more productive impact than as a candidate dealing with recriminations about being a spoiler or, worse, an egotist. And the very progressives distressed by the prospect of your candidacy would contribute eagerly to have that voice amplified.

AND… The Nation, November 2000. The time is not right for a Nader run.:

When our insurgent values have accumulated more momentum and self-confidence, we might see things differently. This time around, we believe the practical priority of keeping the Bush squad from winning power takes precedence, while we also urge that, if possible, progressives help Nader score a blow to the status quo. For the larger progressive community, the tension can be resolved by following the logic of Texas columnist Molly Ivins. Her rule: Vote with your heart where you can, and vote with your head where you must. In states where either Gore or Bush has a commanding lead, vote Nader. In the states too close to call, vote Gore. In either case, the imperative is to end Republican control in Congress by electing Democrats, also vital to the prospects for progressive change.

Go back to 1932 and you’ll find that The Nation endorsed Socialist Norman Thomas. (Recall that FDR’s campaign promises included fiscal restraint and balanced budgets.) Then again, this wasn’t too big a wave: FDR was obviously coasting to victory. So, go back to 1968, and you’ll find that The Nation endorsed leaving the presidential ballot blank rather than succumbing to a lesser of two evils decision… that’s a close election which would manifest itself in the victory of Richard Nixon.

What’s the point? Figure it out yourownself. Be true to thyself. Do whatever.

This here is interesting:

Last fall, the Socialist Party-USA nominated retired Oregon State Senator Walt Brown as its Presidential nominee for 2004. Brown — a former Democrat — was the most mainstream of the democratic socialists contenders in last year’s nomination fight. More strident Marxists in the party opposed Brown, but were not able to block him. Now, months later, a vocal faction in the party is trying to force Brown from the ticket because of his views on the abortion issue. The SP-USA platform is solidly pro-choice, and without exceptions. Brown, it turns out, personally supports the ban on partial birth abortions. Contentious emails are flying between the party’s various leaders and factions. Some demand that Brown quit the ticket. Others support Brown, noting that he is running on the party’s platform — so he is de facto fine with them on the issue. One group of activists in the party are calling for a mail referendum by party members to decide Brown’s fate. “I would quit SP USA today if members were not calling for Brown’s resignation, and for a referendum to achieve that if he doesn’t voluntarily resign,” wrote SP-USA labor activist Tanya Smith. “I would really be stunned if a handful of people could overturn a convention decision. You say you’d resign if this doesn’t happen – but consider that others will resign if it does happen, because they are committed to a democratic process. Time that should be used for getting ballot access is being lost,” retorted 2000 SP-USA Presidential nominee and former SP-USA National Chair David McReynolds.

Now, leave aside the Abortion issue and ponder this:

If a person believes that the Socialist Party isn’t radical enough, and is too beholden to Capitalist Pig interests, and Scandinivian style Socialism is too tepid… can’t you just easily jump over to the Socialist Workers Party?

Or maybe the Socialist Workers Party is too extreme and the Socialist Party is too far to the right. In that case, perhaps the less extreme elements of the Socialist Workers Party and the more Marxist elements of the Socialist Party can form a … third … third party to articulate their platform for change.

Or maybe not.