The Third Party Candidate

Quote: Wizard

No question Perot took more from Bush than from Clinton, but I think Clinton still would have won without him.

Wikipedia says that exit polls were almost equal. There are analysts that support your prediction that Clinton would have won anyway
44,909,806 Clinton
39,104,550 GHW Bush
19,743,821 Perot

Obviously since Gore Bush popular and electoral college vote was so close in 2000, there is a much stronger case for Nader as a spoiler.
2,882,955 Nader nationwide 2000

With Bush beating Gore by a mere 537 votes in Florida and Nader taking 97,488 Florida votes, it is very difficult to imagine Gore not taking the election if Nader had chosen not to run.

The ultimate 3rd party spoiler was Teddy Roosevelt, he decided he want to be POTUS again (after a 4 year absence), and when denied the Republican candidacy ran on his own and roundly beat his handpicked Republican successor, WH Taft. He would have been the first POTUS to serve a third term, but that honor went to his fifth cousin FDR, in 1940.
6,296,284 Woodrow Wilson - Democratic (Electoral vote 435 States carried 40)
4,122,721 Theodore Roosevelt - Progressive (Electoral vote 88 States carried 6)
3,486,242 William Howard Taft - Republican (Electoral vote 8 States carried 2)

The two major parties (or if you will, the two "real" parties), are too big and too powerful to go out of business like the Whigs did in the XIX Century. These days when a party dies, it retains its name and infrastructure but undergoes an ideological shift.

The small parties, meanwhile, are primed not to grow much. Think of them as "low cost" parties, who pretty much focus only on the presidential election. Not that this is cheap, but as they need to garner attention, meaning money, from all over the country, they can't do so by running someone for major of Podunk, or to represent some district of Peoria in the state senate or something.

Eventually some party might replace one of the majors, but this may take a long time.

I wonder, though, if an independent candidate won the presidency, what would be the result, given they'd have no native support in Congress at all.

Quote: Pacomartin

The ultimate 3rd party spoiler was Teddy Roosevelt,

Teddy only ran once, and for some stupid
reason, said it was the only time he would
run. So of course at the end of his term
he really wanted to run again, but couldn't
because he'd put his foot in his mouth 4
years before. He could have easily said
he'd made a mistake, and run anyway, but
in those days you stuck with what you said.
He commented in later years he had no idea
what he was thinking by saying he would
only run once.

Could an independent ever win the presidency? From what I have read Perot was leading the polls 6 months out before quitting for a few months and basically imploding. Could he have done better or won if he had have stayed in? Could someone win as an independent given the right circumstances (like this year with what seems to be widespread dissatisfaction with the establishment - although I imagine it might be a bit late for a serious independent to emerge)?

Quote: Evenbob

Teddy only ran once, and for some stupid
reason, said it was the only time he would
run.

Teddy had served all but 194 days of McKinley's 2nd term after McKinley was assassinated. He was trying to respect the tradition of not serving more than two terms, as he was only age 50 when he left the presidency. But the constitutional amendment limiting the terms for a POTUS was still over 4 decades in the future.
Under the constitutional amendment if you serve more than 2 years as POTUS from someone else's term, you can only run for election one time.

As Teddy died at age 60 on January 6, 1919, in theory he could have been re-elected in 1908, 1912, and 1916.

Porfirio Diaz was interviewed in Mexico as he had been President for most of his adult life. He was asked if he thought that Teddy Roosevelt should run again. He said that it was understandable for an advanced society to want a new President, but that Mexico was populated with simple people who needed his guidance. Nevertheless he was getting so old that he would retire after this term.

What Diaz didn't count on was the interview being translated into Spanish and widely circulated. When he decided to run again, political parties were formed and they started a revolution when Diaz was re-elected by a ridiculous landslide. A million people died.

Quote: Aussie

Could an independent ever win the presidency? From what I have read Perot was leading the polls 6 months out before quitting for a few months and basically imploding. Could he have done better or won if he had have stayed in? Could someone win as an independent given the right circumstances (like this year with what seems to be widespread dissatisfaction with the establishment - although I imagine it might be a bit late for a serious independent to emerge)?

He was not imploding at all. In fact it was a near three way tie in the summer of 1992. When he did drop out it was a big WTF? He made up some story of the GOP saying "how's your daughter's wedding coming along?" What more likely happened is he just wanted to damage Bush, whom he disliked, but events got away from him. His VP choice was a loon, probably cost him big. With a decent VP he might have gotten 25%, though probably would not have won a state still. He would have had a chance if not for the VP and the campaign suspension.

Quote: AZDuffman

He was not imploding at all. In fact it was a near three way tie in the summer of 1992. When he did drop out it was a big WTF? He made up some story of the GOP saying "how's your daughter's wedding coming along?" What more likely happened is he just wanted to damage Bush, whom he disliked, but events got away from him. His VP choice was a loon, probably cost him big. With a decent VP he might have gotten 25%, though probably would not have won a state still. He would have had a chance if not for the VP and the campaign suspension.

Fair enough. Obviously I don't have the first hand recollection of it so just going on Wikipedia which mentioned a few gaffes and an increasingly poorly run campaign. In any event the fact that you think he could have had a chance is interesting.

Where would you guess Trump might be sitting right now had he run as an independent from the start? Would he be getting similar numbers?

Quote: Aussie

Could an independent ever win the presidency?

Maybe if the "real" parties ran Hitler and Stalin types as their candidates, and the independent was a Lincoln or Washington type.

Maybe.

Quote: Aussie

Fair enough. Obviously I don't have the first hand recollection of it so just going on Wikipedia which mentioned a few gaffes and an increasingly poorly run campaign. In any event the fact that you think he could have had a chance is interesting.

Some of the "gaffes" were whining by people waiting to be offended. The NAACP complained about the phrase "you people" of all things. Just one more reason no candidate that is not a liberal Democrat should ever waste their time talking to the NAACP. All risk, no rewards.

Quote:

Where would you guess Trump might be sitting right now had he run as an independent from the start? Would he be getting similar numbers?

He would be worse off because he would be splitting a vote. Of course it is hard to be worse off than getting the nomination before the other side. Trump fought off 16 others and has it locked up before Hillary who had 2, 1 of whom left very early. She just lost again yesterday. After Perot, many with non-liberal views would never support an indie run.