None of this exactly serves my own interests, but what the heck.
We all know the Repubs are helping get Nader on the ballot. That's even happening here in Iowa, based on what I read in my morning's paper (the actual print edition, so sorry but no link). Now I've started to hear some Demo rumblings about giving similar assistance to a 3rd party on the right. After all, politics is about alliances and coalitions, right?
Well, I can tell you it ain't gonna benefit the Liberts.
The Repubs are happy helping Nader because he's no risk to take votes from their guy but may take Kerry voters. The Demos are going to want a similar candidate - one who's no risk to take votes from their guy but may take Bush voters. Basically, they want a Moore or Peroutka.
The problem is that the Libert candidate cuts both ways. Voting Libert is voting against the Iraq War and the Drug War and the Patriot Act. Helping a Libert candidate gets Demos only very marginal gains, if any. And the Repubs certainly have no reason to help Liberts either.
In fact, I would guess that if the R & D monopoly on debates is cracked open (just one debate, please) this year, the Libert won't be invited. It'll be carefully balanced - Nader or Cobb to take away from Kerry, Peroutka to take away from Bush. The fact that the Libert will be on more ballots than the other alternatives and is supported by a more successful (defined as officeholders at any level) political party, won't make any difference.
For both Rs & Ds - giving any attention to the Liberts is just too risky.
p.s. No, I have no desire to respond to any questions/comments about Badnarik. With the possible (although I dispute that) exception of 1992, there hasn't been a single instance since I've been voting (1972) when a vote for a non-major candidate was even remotely a vote for that person to actually be president. There was zero chance. It wasn't about the individual, it was about the message.
