Poll: Would You Vote Obama as a third party candidate?

First of all, a disclaimer: this is just something that occurred to me.  I do not endorse this idea, nor do I endorse Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President.

I believe there is a question that so far has not been asked.  Many news outlets have reported that the Clinton campaign is considering pushing to have the delegates from Florida and Michigan seated at the convention, and is also considering lobbying the superdelegates to swing the nomination to her regardless of her standing in pledged delegates relative to Sen. Obama.

This is something which will upset many people, particularly supporters of Sen. Obama.  Considering that, it is therefore possible that Sen. Obama could choose to run for President under a third party or as an independent.

He has the money to do so, the support to get on the ballot, and the national organization to make such a campaign viable.  However, I can find no place where any community of Democrats has been asked their reaction.

So, what would you think of such a thing, if it came to that?

•  Just a thought...

  ....which I dunno if anyone has shared.  But I'm curious what people will say.

  And I'm sure this is unrealistic, so you don't need to tell me how unrealistic it is.

  by Jay Elias on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:55:34 PM PDT

  •  No, I wouldn't

    If Obama was willing to run as a third party candidate that would show me that he is unworthy of respect or my vote.  

    All this talk about Hillary swinging the super delegates is ridiculous.  If the super delegates swing it then it already has to be extremely close, so it's not really being stolen.  The super delegates also aren't stupid, as Kos has pointed out, and they'll likely as a whole do the right thing.  

    by Asak on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:57:42 PM PDT

  •  Do you know how unrealistic this is?

    Tee-hee.

    I absolutely would vote for Obama if he ran independent.    

    by 2lucky on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:01:54 AM PDT

  •  I'd do it, 100%...

    Many news outlets have reported that the Clinton campaign is considering pushing to have the delegates from Florida and Michigan seated at the convention, and is also considering lobbying the superdelegates to swing the nomination to her regardless of her standing in pledged delegates relative to Sen. Obama.

    This is something which will upset many people, particularly supporters of Sen. Obama.

    I've already made my pledge--if anyone wins the nomination by gaming the system and ignoring the electorate like that, then that candidate won't get my vote, period. It would be a profoundly stupid move by both that candidate and by the party. So I'd happily vote for the other candidate as an Independent.

    Now, a few days ago, I didn't think that Sen. Clinton would be stupid enough to try something like this, but her campaign is apparently insisting that it is, that it wants to fracture the Democratic party to win at all costs. I also don't think that Obama would run as an Independent against the Democratic nominee, but under such circumstances, who knows.

    by pb on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:32:16 AM PDT

  •  no, i wouldn't

    the only way i could see this happening on an outside chance would be if Hillary Clinton were arrested for some sort of outrageous felony after winning the Democratic nomination--and even then, I suspect there would be DNC bylaws that allow her to be replaced.

    by thereisnospoon on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:41:51 AM PDT

•  While I think it's a bad idea,

  the convention is so late that if he lost the nomination at the convention, I imagine that Obama wouldn't have enough time to get on the ballot in all 50 states or even in most states.

  by BillyZoom on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:56:39 PM PDT

•  My third party vote is already going to Nader

  by Trix on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:56:58 PM PDT

  •  I want to reach through youtube

    and retroactively strangle him.

    by andgarden on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:01:04 AM PDT

    •  You, and me, and millions of other people :) n/t

      by Trix on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:02:14 AM PDT

    •  Why?

      I supported him then, when the Democrats put up an amazing candidate, who sadly said absolutely nothing. Think of how great we all think Gore is now and contrast it with the figure who ran against Bush in 2000.

      Regardless, please do not buy into the nonsense that Nader caused any problems. Sandra Day O'Connor destroyed that election for our country, no Nader.

      by beatengeneration on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:12:31 AM PDT

      •  Many, many factors in that election

        Nader was but one...

        An annoying one.

        by redhaze on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:12:51 AM PDT

      •  Problem was,

        Nader should've known better.
        Even then, Gore was the greenest politician on the planet. Does no one remember 'Ozone man'? Anyone who paid attention knew the commitment that Gore had to the environment.

        None of Bush's voters would vote for Nader. Unless he had some sort of brain injury, Nader knew that. Therefore, he was campaigning AGAINST Gore, perhaps the greatest proponent of greenhouse gas legislation ever to get within a country mile of the White House. His only crime was not TALKING about it enough.

        The question is, was that a good enough reason to hand the presidency to the other guy?

        by EvilAsh on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:42:42 AM PDT

        •  you're ignoring my second point

          that he did not hand it to the other guy. sandra day o'connor did. i'm not suggesting i 100% love ralph nader. i find him to be an arrogant ass. but to blame him for the problem is to exonerate the right.

          secondly, had he been the greatest politician on the planet, he would have TALKED about the important issues. had he been the greatest politician on the planet, he would have been able to beat a 2nd-grader for kennebunkport, texas DESPITE nader's run.

          by beatengeneration on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:39:28 AM PDT

      •  W-R-O-N-G !

        And let me tell you why.

        Nader is responsible for what he did. Gore, the Supreme Court, and everyone else are responsible for what they did.

        THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR NADER OR FOR YOU.

        Ralph Quisling Nader can kiss my big, fat, one-legged, gay, white ass.

        by homogenius on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:27:49 AM PDT

        •  asdf

          like wise, Bill Clinton is responsible for what he did (reckless and selfish conduct fully knowing the risks) and the media for what it did (smearing Gore), of course.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:40:10 AM PDT

        •  i agree with

          you, but i suggest that what nader did was attempt to pull the democrats to the left by threatening gore. something that was much needed. and he should be held responsible for his actions. but his actions did not cause the current situation. they are part of the narrative, but who's to say there wouldn't have been some shady dealings without nader? who's to say the nader voters would've voted at all. who's to say they wouldn't have voted socialist. i voted nader in az, because i knew, according to the polling that gore had no chance. otherwise i would've voted for gore. but many would never have voted for gore.

          by beatengeneration on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:42:29 AM PDT

      •  Except that he is responsible for that

        His entire campaign was based on a lie--one that you fell for.

        As far as I'm concerned, Ralph Nader can rot in hell.

        by andgarden on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:59:49 AM PDT

        •  I don't think

          it's helpful to attack me and imply that i'm naive or feeble-minded, without providing specifics.

          to what lie are you referring?

          also, relax a bit. why are you so angry?

          i am the person the democrats need to keep in their camp. a young, vocal, educated leftist, who grew up believing that the democrats were the good guys.

          but when it came time to register, i registered green, because the democrats were (and still are) too far right. for the last 7 years though, i've been acting pragmatically and i've been a democrat. i see a party that is moving in my direction. perhaps because so many on the left have now accepted that our hope lies with the democrats. we need to keep this moving. we growing the party. spewing vitriol at those who have decided to park under the tent doesn't seem to me to be the right path.

          if you mock the left that has decided to give the democrats a shot, that's not gonna help the party, is it?

          by beatengeneration on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:49:40 AM PDT

          •  The lie was that

            there was no significant difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
            Apparently you couldn't see how much of lie that was. I don't know whether you are feeble minded or not, but supporting Ralph Nader was never smart.

            I'm younger than you are, and was not able to vote in 2000. As far as I'm concerned, you and your fellow travelers helped hand the election to George W. Bush. So yes, I am angry, and I will continue to be angry about that election.

            by andgarden on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:57:16 AM PDT

            •  two things

              I agree that that was incorrect, a lie, if you must have it that way. It was also rhetoric. McCain is not Bush, yet Obama refers to "Bush-McCain" Republicans now as a thinly veiled attack on McCain. Is that a lie?

              Or was Nader just cleverly using rhetoric, implying that on economic policy, which is what he usually focused on, the two parties were essentially the same, at least compared to the left? I'm aware of what the left could actually be. I've seen students striking in Berlin against the introduction of $200-tution fees. Then, I look at our country, where an out-of-state public university set me back $25,000 per year. So, in many ways, the two parties were (much, much more than now) fairly similar on some things. That was his point. Call it a lie if you must. I think his point was clear.

              I want to make it clear. I did not vote for Nader over Bush and Gore. Bush was, is and always will be so far from me, it's comical. I voted for Nader over Gore only and never considered Bush. Gore had no chance in AZ. So, your assertion that I played some part in "electing" George Bush, is not only drastically false, it's insulting. Nader's percentage in AZ did not come anywhere near the difference between Gore and Bush. If the polls had shown that that would be the case, I would have gladly voted for Gore. Bush won AZ handily. It was in no way my, or Ralph Nader's, fault.

              Secondly, the state in question here is Florida. And yes, I would have preferred Nader voters to have voted for Gore, as the race was polling quite close in the state. However, despite my hopes and the polling, many voted for Nader. Not enough, however, to hand Florida to Bush. Gore won Florida. Your assertion that Nader is to blame is a defense of the Republican line that they actually won the election.

              OR, if your overall point is that by supporting him, I egged him on and am therefore to blame despite what was clear about AZ, I disagree, and repeat what I said about FL. FINALLY, if your ultimate point about Nader and my fellow-travelers in FL is that they made it close enough for it to go to court and allow SDO (who is, incidentally, from AZ) to vote for upholding the suspension of the recount when it favored Bush, that's a weak attack.

              That's a strange argument. A person, standing up for what they believe in, is at fault because they made it easier for a criminal to commit a crime? What about the criminals themselves? Aren't they to blame?

              Stop blaming the left when Bush stole the election.

              by beatengeneration on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:27:25 PM PDT

  •  Mine is going to Edwards!

    Seriousley folks, 44% (as of now) of voters on this poll say they would vote for an Independent? So much for party unity, it must be all those Repugs and Indys that Obama has brought into the fold. A real democrat wouldn't vote for anyone but a democrat.

    by ichibon on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:44:44 AM PDT

•  no, Lieberman-esque

  the right thing to do, for all candidates who don't get the nomination, is to help the nominee in any way they can.

  by Shahryar on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:57:07 PM PDT

•  Dude.

  Big L Big D Liberal Democrat.

  Third parties are for suckers.

  by ek hornbeck on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:57:52 PM PDT

•  Absolutely not

  But I'm not even voting for him in the primary, so I'm not your intended audience.

  by andgarden on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:59:27 PM PDT

  •  Still, your vote counts...

    ...after all, I am assuming you would plan on voting for him if he was the Democratic nominee.

    by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:01:04 AM PDT

    •  naturally

      by andgarden on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:01:22 AM PDT

•  Jay,ecause I can't tell you that it's unrealistic

  I don't know what to say. Obama won't go third party,
  and will support Hillary if she's nominated instead of him.

  by begone on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:00:01 AM PDT

  •  + "b" n/t

    by begone on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:00:25 AM PDT

  •  I assume so...

    ...but still, it is worth knowing if it is possible for him to have support were he to do so.

    by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:02:16 AM PDT

    •  Well, okay. He'd have a fair amount of support,

      I would think.

      And then he would lose. It's too bad that a third party isn't
      viable and isn't likely to be any time soon.

      by begone on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:04:17 AM PDT

      •  That is the thing...

        ...if we assume the possibility that there is something of a scandal over the Clinton nomination, I think he might win.

        I might be wrong.  But I can see him faring quite well in a three-way contest with Clinton and McCain.

        by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:07:00 AM PDT

        •  I do think he would fare well in a 3-way contest.

          He tapped into a broad and deep dissatisfaction with the status-quo, which includes the supremely irrational dictate that their are only two legitimate world-views in America.  

          by 2lucky on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:12:29 AM PDT

        •  He would absolutely guarantee President McCain

          by andgarden on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:15:56 AM PDT

        •  Wouldn't split Dem vote mean Rep win? n/t

          by i prefer soccer on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:36:07 AM PDT

          •  Perhaps...

            ...but I keep hearing about how much Republican support Obama has, and it is clear McCain doesn't have much.  So it could mean a nationalization of the Clinton-Obama campaign while McCain quickly becomes the also-ran.

            by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:45:26 AM PDT

          •  Depends...

            Independents make up 1/4 of the electorate.  If they went really big for Obama, plus progressive Dems...it could happen. Would be close, though.

            by Free Spirit on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:17:36 AM PDT

            •  I consider myself a Progressive Democrat, OK,

              I'm to the left of most progressives here, and I DO NOT support Obama, to me he only adopts just as many progressive issues as he has to. He seems to really be a Center/Right politician, but has done a good job of convincing people on here that he's Liberal. He won't be elected, but if he was, I wonder how people would feel after his true political leanings were revealed.

              by ichibon on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:55:26 AM PDT

              •  OK then...

                Independents make up 1/4 of the electorate.  If they went really big for Obama, plus conservative Dems...it could happen. Would be close, though.

                Happy now?

                by Free Spirit on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:11:05 AM PDT

      •  but would he get the dem base?

        those states seem to be leaning Hillary (for now), so he would need to pull some base dems, indies, and the repubs that are voting for him in the primary. i do think his youth vote could be secured in an indy run though :)

        i'd love a 3rd and possibly 4th party, but we really need them to start earlier and build. a last minute party crash just gives us the Thugs.

        by nycstray on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:05:13 AM PDT

        •  I think he'd get a big chunk of the AA's and

          they've always been a big part of the Dem base.  I don't think they'd automatically go back to Clinton.  Too much bad blood.

          I don't know if he'd win an independent run but he'd sure make it interesting.  I honestly think he'd have a good chance to win it, depending on his vp choice.

          by vernonbc on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:57:16 AM PDT

  •  What if he ran a third-party platform

    that made dessert, any dessert, fat-free?

    Be honest, now.  

    by 2lucky on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:06:15 AM PDT

    •  Gotta be sugar-free for me

      What is Obama's stance on artificial sweeteners?

      by begone on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:09:24 AM PDT

      •  He's anti-Splenda

        and pro-banana.

        by 2lucky on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:14:22 AM PDT

        •  Aw-oh, I'm anti-banana and lukewarm

          about Splenda.

          What to do. What to doooo?

          by begone on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:17:50 AM PDT

          •  Homemade apple sauce, my friend.

            I've gone McCain.

            Chop up a few apples, put 'em in a saucepan, add a "teens" of sugar, a cinammon stick.  You're home free.  

            Splenda:  bad, bad, bad.

            Banana: not too shabby, unless it's Bananass Foster.  Then it's sublime.  

            And, because I recommended it: it's fat, calorie AND sugar-free.

            There ya go.  

            by 2lucky on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:24:59 AM PDT

            •  And yes,

              I meant to misspell "bananas" as "bananass."

              by 2lucky on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:28:09 AM PDT

            •  make sure that's cane sugar!

              Monsanto is rolling out the GMO beet seed this season. ah yes, sugar is now going to be, ahem, Monsantoed.

              by nycstray on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:07:49 AM PDT

•  it's all in the context

  and less dependent on one man than on whether it's taking place in the wake of a party split, or whether it's just some candidate trying to go it alone.

  it's hard to build the kind of party organization that it takes to win, and t become more than just a vehicle for a cult of personality. i saw the reform party torn to pieces by the perotistas, so i'm wary of how such a project would pan out.

  i might vote for a 3rd party obama, but a lot of other things would have to have happened for that to make political sense.  

  my hunch is that he's going to win the nom, though.

  by wu ming on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:02:56 AM PDT

  •  For that reason...

    I think a lone candidate would actually have better luck than a third-party candidate. And he doesn't need to build an organization. He's already got one on the ground in most states.

    by Free Spirit on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:21:01 AM PDT

•  if he did tht it would be the height of arrogance

  i doubt it would happen, but it would not be pretty if he did

  by formerObamaCultist on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:03:12 AM PDT

•  I think HRC would be more likely to go

  on a 3rd party quest than anyone.

  Nonetheless, I will go waaaaaaaay out on a limb and say that there will be no 3rd party candidates on the ballot that have any viability.

  by MTmofo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:05:33 AM PDT

  •  What about McCain?

    by Asak on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:07:21 AM PDT

    •  j/k

      by Asak on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:07:42 AM PDT

  •  Ridiculous

    There's no way either of them would do it.

    by andgarden on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:16:50 AM PDT

    •  I don't think it outside the realm of possibility

      that Hillary's ego and attitude of dynastic right (as I perceive it) would preclude her from making a bluff charge in that direction.

      by MTmofo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:01:59 AM PDT

•  This is cray, cray,

  crazy talk.

  by Seattlite on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:06:07 AM PDT

•  No question about it.

  If the supers thwart the will of the people, I would absolutely vote for Obama on a third party ticket.

  My loyalty to the Democratic party only extends as far as their responsiveness to their voters.

  by snout on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:06:22 AM PDT

  •  I am only with you in this scenerio

    I don't think it would happen in a million years, but if obama were to win a majority of the remaining primaries and they give it to Clinton anyway - I would say it is time to put a fork in the Democratic party.

    by ETinKC on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:11:38 AM PDT

    •  spot. on. many diehard dems r fedup w/ hil

      by concerned on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:36:31 AM PDT

      •  Many diehard dems fed up with the party

        Chuck Schumer found that out the hard way a couple days ago.

        I would vote for Obama the Independent or Obama the Democrat.  I'd even go so far to say that an Indy win by Obama would be even more significant: we haven't had a President who isn't a Democrat or Republican since the 1830s.

        by Soundpolitic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:06:04 AM PDT

•  Splitting our resources across a pushy Clinton

  and a "take my dolls and play somewhere else" Obama would only benefit McCain's run.

  The answer is "No."

  by wader on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:07:26 AM PDT

•  Third-party candidates

  don't do any good in a winner-take all system unless they spit the votes on "wrong" side.  Bill Clinton might well have lost in 1992 if Ross Perot hadn't been on the ballot, because Perot took more votes from Bush I than from Clinton.  Same thing with Nader in Florida in 2000, who took votes from Gore, helping W.

  If Obama were to run as a 3rd-party candidate, it would do nothing but guarantee the election of McCain.

  by charlotteford on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:07:31 AM PDT

  •  well

    unless everyone who normally considers themselves a democrat voted for obama. its theoretically possible that hrc does something so awful, but refuses to give up the nomination, that obama becomes the democratic replacement candidate. honestly though i cant think of what the horrible act of hrc would be for this to happen.

    by Liberal Youth on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:11:48 AM PDT

    •  Maybe not...

      1/2 of the Democrats and 2/3 of the independents might do it.

      by Free Spirit on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:28:26 AM PDT

•  NO, this is a bad bad idea

  we would definitely end up with President McCain.  don't believe me?  look at history.  it's never happened.  Teddy Roosevelt came close, but he also sank his own party.  the institutional support alone is impossible to replicate out of thin air.  now imagine running against two, powerful and entrenched parties too.

  we need a clear, decisive nominee somehow.  it must happen before the summer, no brokered conventions, period.  it simply must happen one way or another, or it's like saying "oh fine, we don't really want to govern anyway.  here you go John."

  how about we draft Al Gore... no not that scenario... draft him to mediate in the event of an uncertain outcome.

  by cardinalzen on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:10:52 AM PDT

•  I'm Fucking Sick and Tired Of the Fucking

  dog whistling.

  by Gooserock on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:11:11 AM PDT

  •  Huh?

    I don't get you.  But I'm certainly not trying to make a big deal out of anything.  I was just curious.

    by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:12:44 AM PDT

    •  It was a stupid question. Leave it at that...nt

      by bleeding blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:22:20 AM PDT

      •  So fucking what?

        Am I holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to answer or to talk with me about it?  Doing anything at all trying to make this serious asking it at 3am on a Friday night?

        by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:24:26 AM PDT

        •  You're trying to pull our collective chain

          BTW it's only 11:30pm here, where we real, blue people live.

          THIS IS A DEMOCRATIC SITE. I am a Democrat. I don't do third-party. If there was an alternative, I'd take a look.

          But there isn't.

          by bleeding blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:32:46 AM PDT

          •  Here.

            

            It's good for hyperventilation.

            by Marcus Tullius on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:36:50 AM PDT

            •  Kewl!....nt

              by bleeding blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:46:46 AM PDT

          •  I'm trying to pull your chain?

            How exactly?

            Meanwhile, I am a Democrat, and I have said nothing anyplace where I suggested otherwise, or that I would not vote for the Democratic candidate.  Nor have I advocated otherwise, here, or anyplace else.

            And fuck your West Coast bullshit dude.  If you are representative of the real blue people, I'm rooting for Lex Luthor the next time I watch Superman I.

            by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:37:21 AM PDT

            •  The West Coast rulz, dude

              East Coast is like so last century. We will totally own you. Trade with China and all that shit.

              As a person who works from home, I just "love" it when I get a call from a supplier from the East, or the Midwest...at 6:30 IN THE FUCKING MORNING!

              Just vote for the Democrat. In any race. There is no other option.

              by bleeding blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:04:48 AM PDT

              •  The west coast may rule...

                ....but if y'all are convinced you're the only real blue people in America, you'll get your comeuppance.

                I can sympathize, however.  While I live in New York, most of my industry is in California.  Nothing like getting work calls at ten PM on Friday night.

                by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:24:42 AM PDT

                •  Let's work together against

                  Time-zone-ism.

                  Peace.

                  by bleeding blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:42:18 AM PDT

•  If I were to vote for a third party

  candidate...go down that stupid road...and help the repubicans win...I'd at the very least use my vote for a real progressive. Nader would be the one. He's for single payer health care, against nuclear energy and coal-to-liquid, unlike Obama.

  I'm not voting third party. Man, this is one crazy election season, with pig-headed talk like this. Must be some very inexpereinced voters on DKos.

  by ZhenRen on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:15:34 AM PDT

  •  Obama/Vermin Supreme '08! n/t

    by Marcus Tullius on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:16:13 AM PDT

    •  Sorry, this was meant as a direct reply

      to the diary, not your comment.

      Still, it kinda works.

      by Marcus Tullius on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:17:08 AM PDT

  •  To repeat...

    ....I am neither suggesting that this will happen or that I think it should.  I was curious to see what kind of thoughts people would have about it, and nothing more.

    Although even if I was a very inexperienced voter, I wouldn't be the least bit ashamed of it.

    by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:18:29 AM PDT

    •  No problem

      You've got the right to raise the issue. Some day, a successful third party run may happen. None of us have a clue, really.

      But this isn't the time, in my opinion. I realize you're just curious.

      by ZhenRen on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:30:19 AM PDT

•  No. Fucking. Way.

  I'm an Obama supporter.

  Before that I was an Edwards supporter. Prior to that I was "playing the field".

  I will tell you straight up: I don't like Hillary!!

  But I'll state right now in clear language: I will vote for, and I will work my ASS off for Hillary Clinton to be president if she's the nominee.

  To do less would mean disaster, Jay!

  Thanks for your concern.

  by bleeding blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:19:37 AM PDT

  •  What the hell am I supposedly concerned about?

    by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:22:17 AM PDT

    •  You are apparently a concern troll.

      That idea is hilarious to me, for some reason.

      by Marcus Tullius on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:24:58 AM PDT

      •  See, I'm okay with being a troll...

        ...I've always thought I kinda was.

        But being a concern troll - don't I have to have some petty complaint to be one of them?

        by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:27:09 AM PDT

        •  LMAO.

          I've never thought of you as a troll.  I don't always agree with you, but I consider you to be a particularly valuable member of the community, because you rpovide perspective I might miss, otherwise.  It's why I used to enjoy some of Ender's work, too.

          by Marcus Tullius on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:34:45 AM PDT

          •  I liked Ender too...

            ....but I also accept that he knowingly violated site rules repeatedly.

            See, as an advocate of property rights, I have no problem with the choice to refuse service to some people.  Including me, if that is the sentiment.

            But I have never knowingly violated any site rule.

            by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:40:24 AM PDT

        •  Lower your standards.

          Whaddya mean, "which standards?"

          ALL of 'em.

           

          by 2lucky on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:43:25 AM PDT

•  No.

  because unless we change our system here, third party runs just aren't helpful (well, except to the guys at the polar opposite of the ideological spectrum I guess).  

  I can't bear the thought of another Republican Administration.  I just can't.   So yes, I'd vote for Clinton if Obama lost the nomination.  That being said - would I work as hard? give as much money? be (able to be) as persuasive in pulling in more votes for the (D) ticket?  Probably not.  Not even close.  And that's where demoralizing a huge slice of the active base through either right-wing-esque smear jobs or weird goings on with the super-delegates or FL/MI stuff I think will most hurt Clinton if she became the nominee.  Just my sense though...

  by American in Kathmandu on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:23:37 AM PDT

  •  Instant runoff now!(n/t)

    by Timothy Scriven on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:03:12 AM PDT

•  In not uncertin terms.

  Obama, since he, unlike Hillary, cares about the party, won't run as a third-party candidate. But if he doesn't get the nom, I'll write him in anyway.

  by Nick Blas on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:38:35 AM PDT

•  Well, he wouldn't run as one...

  So, no.

  I don't really understand the point of this diary.

  by ptmflbcs on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:39:09 AM PDT

  •  Everyone keeps saying...

    ....that Obama voters might not support Hillary, that Hillary might do something really dumb and awful to try and grab the nomination - I don't really believe any of that crap, but I thought I'd ask for a show of hands, and I've gotten one.

    So really, it is about satisfying my curiosity about the sentiments of (some) Obama supporters.  What he actually would or wouldn't do is irrelevant.

    by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:42:40 AM PDT

    •  Well...

      The "really dumb and awful" thing comes from her campaign being stupid enough to suggest that she would take this fight to the convention even if she trailed in delegates. That's the last thing superdelegates want to hear.

      I'll tell you right now, in the unlikely event that she does steal the nomination at the convention, I won't vote for her. But I live in an insignificant state.

      These are the two most likely scenarios at this point:

      1. Barack Obama maintains a sizeable pledged delegate lead through April 22, and Hillary is unable to overtake him. The delegate math is too much for her to overcome, and she drops out of the race.

      2. Hillary manages to retake a pledged delegate lead, and gets the superdelegates to unite behind her. The superdelegates demand that Obama be her running mate.

      Without huge victories in both Ohio and Texas, scenario two is highly unlikely. I don't think you'll see this go much further than April 22.

      by ptmflbcs on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:06:23 AM PDT

    •  Not really.

      You've got a show of hands of people who won't support Hillary under any circumstances.

      If Obama was a third-party candidate and Edwards was the Dem nominee, I'd vote for Edwards. Hillary have violated the threshold of integrity that I will vote for.

      by Nick Blas on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:07:23 AM PDT

      •  Well...

        ...that's part of what I knew was possible.  Which is part of why it could be possible.

        by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:26:16 AM PDT

•  3rd party if

  there is an equivalent 4th party run by huckabee on the other side. obama might have chance to win if both sides have split support. still not a good idea.

  by Liberal Youth on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:47:59 AM PDT

  •  Ron Paul, Libertarian

    Let's hope the Paulies stick around for a good laugh.

    by Soundpolitic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:13:11 AM PDT

•  Interesting question, Jay.

  Even more interesting results.

  by Junior Bug on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:56:52 AM PDT

•  Too many Hypotheticals rolled into one.

  IF the delegate count shows that Obama was in the lead
  and IF the supers appear to have "given" the election to someone else
  and IF Obama is sufficiently ticked at the scenario
  and IF Obama has the backing for such a third party run
  and IF Obama decides to try the third Party run...
  and IF I agree that the nomination was improperly awarded...

  THEN sure.  But I can't see this scenario really worth having at this point.  Let's discuss what to do during our last hour alive because an astroid strike is imminent.  That'd be about as productive.

  by Yoshi En Son on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 12:59:20 AM PDT

•  IF.....landslide for Dem already

  wrapped up and certain, only then might I vote for a third party candidate who wouldn not split the vote but whose message was key.

  My grandparents voted for Eugene Debs, for example.

  And here in NY State some districts have voted in a Working Families Party candidate who was more Progressive than the Dem.....when there was no serious challenge from the right.

  by LNK on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:02:02 AM PDT

•  no

  but if gravel runs third party...

  by Turkana on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:02:21 AM PDT

  •  Dude!

    You have no idea how sad I was that he didn't make the ballot in New York.

    by Jay Elias on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:27:26 AM PDT

    •  if he's on the ballot in oregon

      i haven't ruled it out...

      by Turkana on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:40:08 AM PDT

      •  "Turkana" is a "dude". Knock me down. (nt)

        by Larry Bailey on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:10:53 AM PDT

•  If Hillary were discovered to eat babies I'd

  consider it. Otherwise... not so much.

  by Timothy Scriven on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:08:41 AM PDT

•  Kos is great,

  I fully believe in everything in that book of his and here on this site.

  But I'd vote for Obama as a 3rd party candidate faster than a Republican voting for Lieberman in 06. No question.

  We all know it would be for the strength of our party.

  Throughout history, there are so many examples of when the conventional dogma actually turns out to be the dumb way to go. And there's no reason that bloggers and Kos can't have our day of dumb too.
  
  Strength to Democrats and to our nominee, but Hillary has just proven totally unacceptable.

  by Plbt on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:27:08 AM PDT

•  If Obama ran as an indy

  I'd vote for whoever had a better chance of beating McCain.  If Hillary did something so awful to encourage a third party run by Obama (and it would have to be something truly epic), then her popularity might be hurt so bad to push her to third place.  Or Obama might find himself in the same place all other third partiers since Teddy Roosevelt have ended up: the waste bin of history.  In which case I'd vote for Clinton.  We can't take eight more years of GOP rule.

  That said, I can't imagine a scenario that would lead to a third party run by Obama.  Even if she uses superdelegates, Michigan, and Florida to pull out the narrowest of wins at Denver, Obama would just lick his wounds, go back to the Senate, and run eight years later.

  by Skaje on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:29:21 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    except, in the circumstances you describe, it would be four years, not eight.

    by bythesea on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:50:35 AM PDT

•  Pointless poll.

  Obama will not run as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination.

  I can only imagine that you're reason for posting this is to try and get a fix on how Obama supporters would react to such a far fetched prospect.

  And as this isn't a realistic proposition, participating in the poll is just silly.

  by ClaryinVT on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:02:29 AM PDT

•  Hey!

      I voted for Perot TWICE, and NOW, I get to say "I TOLD you so" to my clinton supporting friends who are unemployed now because their jobs were shipped to mexico.

      Hillary Clinton was 100% on board with that.

      While Barack Obama MIGHT be on board with that, unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama does not have the historical record of demanding that good jobs be exported that Hillary Clinton has.

      No matter what, because Hillary Clinton supported the unconstitutional NAFTA treaty, she will NEVER get my vote, even if I have to refuse to vote for the first time in my voting age life.

      I would rather just go home and get enough rest to survive election day.

      If there is a third party candidate willing to support USA workers, my vote goes there.

      But there is no evidence whatsoever that clinton or obama will do ANYTHING to help USA workers.

      No matter what, I will NOT vote for elites who hate ME because I happen to work for a living.

      And both hilary and obama hate me for working for a living.

      They hate me just slightly less than they hate mccain.

     

      So at this point, as a lifetime democrat, I will be forced to write John Edwards in the general election.

     

     

  by last patriot left on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:26:55 AM PDT

•  He's going to be the nominee

  I don't know what people are so worried about.

  by Plutonium Page on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:33:50 AM PDT

•  I hope Obama doesn't run as third party, but...

  If he doesn't win the nomination, then I will probably write his name on the ballot and vote for him anyways, unless Clinton happens to be in danger of losing my state.

  by fetboy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:24:26 AM PDT

•  I will vote for Obama...

  if he has the lead going into the Dem convention--regardless of whether or not the convention makes him the nominee: I'll write in his name on the ballot this fall if the superdelegates (or MI/FL ones) somehow give Clinton the nomination.

  by lalo456987 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:07:10 AM PDT

•  In context of the overall political influence

  in Washington, a third party president would lack the underlying machinery to effect much. What's needed is a highly skilled mechanic with the correct priorities to fix the machine.

  by java4every1 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:19:38 AM PDT

•  Hmm..party over country or charisma over country?

  My third party vote goes to John Edwards or Al Gore. Hillary (D-DLC) or Barack (D-Kumbaya) are two peas in a corporate surrender-pod.

  by Jacques on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:46:52 AM PDT

•  How about any number of other far-fetched ideas?

  Would you vote for Obama if it were found he was actually an alien?

  Would you vote for an invertibrate? I mean, like, say they found this amazingly intelligent sponge.

  ---

  The idea of the superdelegates or FL and MI swinging this thing has been shown over and over to be an alarmist invention. There's a chance a comet will end life on this planet before the election too. Where are the what-ifs for that?

  by Fishgrease on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:06:37 AM PDT

•  Interesting question.

  Four things matter to me.

  1.  Best candidate.

  2.  Likely outcome if my candidate loses.

  3.  Which governing coalition benefits.

  4.  Long-term consequences for progressives/liberals.

  If the Republicans disappeared and there were two liberal-progressive parties competing on different visions of leadership and grass-roots participation (i.e. how democracy is used to fulfill the promise of self-government) ...  yeah, I might consider someone running without the official "D" label.

  I wouldn't want to throw the election to a Bush-Cheney regime.

  I wouldn't want a candidate (however great personally) who is in a governing coalition with torturers and dumb war starters.

  And I'd want a clear path toward institutionalizing progressive-liberal gains made now so that they don't just depend on an exceptional individual like Barack Obama.

  by chicago jeff on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:09:04 AM PDT

•  Hell, no.

  And I think it's insulting to suggest he would ever do such a thing.

  Furthermore, I think this diary serves no useful purpose. There is already too much animosity between supporters of various candidates. This is counter-productive.

  by homogenius on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:30:35 AM PDT

•  This is the problem I have

  with Obama supporters. I hope you don´t reflect what Obama will do if he is not nominated.

  by lpeacock on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:57:02 AM PDT

•  He'd never run as one...

  At least not this year.

  by dmsdbo on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:58:21 AM PDT