Third-Party Congressional Races

[nickcoons]

If I had a nickel for every time someone told me that I should run as a Republican instead of a Libertarian, I'd have enough money to fund my campaign to a victory.

Presidential races are different, the media blacks out third-party candidates. So this analysis is focused only on congressional races.

I'm always told that I can't win as a Libertarian; that people won't vote third party. In presidential races, I completely agree (for now). Presidential races are emotional, high-strung, "I gotta vote for the lesser of two evils" type of elections. Presidential races are swayed to large degrees by the mass media organizations that cover them nationwide.

Congressional races (most of them) are nothing like that. Most voters don't vote for Congressmen, unless they're voting for President as a sort of "well, since I'm already in the voting booth." Congressional races are not highly emotional, not covered by major media organizations, and third-party candidates are not blacked out. People have no problem voting any party when it comes to congressional races because they see the office as being nearly as important as President, so they are more likely to vote their conscience and less likely to care about wasting their vote.

Third parties don't win congressional races because third parties don't campaign!

Last year, I was talking to the LP candidate running in CD2 of AZ, telling him that whether or not I had a chance at winning, I planned on running a serious campaign. He said, "It doesn't matter, so-and-so ran a serious campaign and he didn't do any better, he spent a whole $30,000!" Wow, really?! A whole $30k on a congressional race? You mean that's supposed to be representative of serious campaigning? $30k might work if you're running for City Council... on a budget. But in a congressional race, it's more common to spend $1-$2 million.

I know almost all of the LP candidates that ran in Arizona last year in every congressional and legislative district. They specifically keep their contributions and expenditures to a minimum (less then $5,000 means no filing with the FEC). For most of them, campaigning involves answering newspaper surveys they receive in the mail asking, "What is your position on the new education bill?" A couple of them did some minor canvassing. One canvassed a couple of his precincts over a few weekends and received 7% of the vote (whereas he would have otherwise statistically received 3%).

We can't think of congressional races like presidential races; they don't work the same way. The local newspaper doesn't care if you're a Libertarian, they'll publish you just the same, so long as you make the effort to get published! We need people to run real campaigns and raise real funds, not thinking that we need to sign up as an R or D to have a chance.

A Republican or Democrat who doesn't campaign will also not win in a congressional race.

[krazy kaju]

Wow. $30k? Is that a joke? You'd think that someone political enough to run for office would pull more than a measely $30k out of their pocket. But maybe that's just the petit bourgeoisie inside of me speaking.

[Njon]

You're right. I voted for a third party guy running for Congress last election. I did get one automated phone call from him during the election season, but he said during the message that he didn't accept campaign contributions. I mean, come on. If we're serious about overthrowing the two party system's iron fist, third party candidates need to make a real effort at winning. They need to run just as strong as any major party candidate.

Running 'to make a statement' is fine; it would make a much better statement if third parties actually started winning.

[nickcoons]

Running 'to make a statement' is fine; it would make a much better statement if third parties actually started winning.

And more people can hear your statement if you raise more money.

[mczerone]

I've voted for Scotty Boman a couple times. And he's been a very active campaigner.

Still never pulls more than 5-6%, in a good race.

But I wish you luck, the tide might have started to turn enough to gain some leverage to turn early poll numbers into an expected win.

[libertarian4321]

And more people can hear your statement if you raise more money.

Even if you could raise money similar to the major parties (HIGHLY unlikely unless you are a multi-millionaire willing to spend all your own money on the campaign), you'd still get buried unless you have video of both your major party opponents anally raping kittens in front of small children AND have them sign statements attesting that they enjoyed it.

Gerrymandering alone makes the vast majority of congressional districts one party fiefdoms where the results of the election are about as "in doubt" as an election in the old Soviet Union. The results are essentially pre-determined. Even the major party opposition has no chance, to say nothing of a third party guy (the major parties know this, which is why they rarely bother to post more than token opposition in these districts). In many districts, party line voting alone is enough to catapult the incumbent party candidate back into office.

Your best chance would be to find a slightly Republican district, where the Republican was weakened in a huge scandal. Then, if you are the best politician in the world (most third party candidates are rank amateurs), and manage to outraise your opponents BIG, you might have a slim chance of eking out a slim victory in a 3 way split.

Frankly, you'd have a better chance trying to win the "Powerball" lottery.

Third party candidates don't spend big money because 1) they don't have it and 2) even if they did, the system is so stacked against them that they'd have next to no chance.

[cindy25]

Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman were both elected to the senate as 3rd party candidates.
Jesse Ventura became gov of MN, James Buckley senator from New York.

[libertarian4321]

A Republican or Democrat who doesn't campaign will also not win in a congressional race.

Forgot to address this.

Actually, most incumbents do little or no campaigning because, well, they don't have to (see that Gerrymandering thing again). They have a "job for life" if they want it, and they know it. They may "raise" lots of money and give the appearance of spending it, but they aren't really campaigning- they just throw a few lavish parties for their friends/donors, spend money paying a campaign staff (largely children of powerful donors and political allies, or their own relatives) and maybe buy some (unneeded) air time on TV.

Its so bad that in many cases, when the congressperson dies, his spouse or child just assumes power in the district. Saw it happen here when old Henry Gonzalez died- he'd been in congress for decades. His son just stepped in and the family business never missed a beat. He has a job for life, just like his father did...

[nickcoons]

Gerrymandering alone makes the vast majority of congressional districts one party fiefdoms where the results of the election are about as "in doubt" as an election in the old Soviet Union. The results are essentially pre-determined. Even the major party opposition has no chance, to say nothing of a third party guy (the major parties know this, which is why they rarely bother to post more than token opposition in these districts). In many districts, party line voting alone is enough to catapult the incumbent party candidate back into office.

My district is highly contested and the results are generally pretty close.


Your best chance would be to find a slightly Republican district, where the Republican was weakened in a huge scandal. Then, if you are the best politician in the world (most third party candidates are rank amateurs), and manage to outraise your opponents BIG, you might have a slim chance of eking out a slim victory in a 3 way split.

I'm in a slightly Republican district whose Republican representative lost his seat in 2006 to a Democrat when many other Republicans lost their seats as well.


Third party candidates don't spend big money because 1) they don't have it and 2) even if they did, the system is so stacked against them that they'd have next to no chance.

They rarely ever try.. no wonder they don't have the money to spend. Contributions don't just come your way because you put your name on the ballot.


Actually, most incumbents do little or no campaigning because, well, they don't have to (see that Gerrymandering thing again).


That is true in some districts where people just vote along party lines, even the other major party candidates have no chance. That is true of districts 4 and 6 in AZ, but not in 5 (where I'm running).

[MPN]

They rarely ever try.. no wonder they don't have the money to spend. Contributions don't just come your way because you put your name on the ballot.


I think you are confusing lack of effort for lack of success.

[libertarian4321]

I think you are confusing lack of effort for lack of success.

I think its some of both. The LP has been running candidates for a long time at all levels. They have some who work their asses off, and others who do nothing but put their name on the ballot, and everything in between.

The problem is, if you are just a regular person (e.g. not uber wealthy, super well connected, or a celebrity), you have no chance of raising significant money. Someone made fun of candidates who raised "only" $30,000 earlier- honestly, that is a HELL OF A LOT for a candidate who doesn't fit one of the categories I mentioned before.

As a third party guy, you'll likely get NOTHING from the party, from PACs, from interest groups, from large donors, or from business, . These are the major sources of funding for most congressional candidates. If you can raise $30k just by beating the bushes, that's not bad. Most people are not willing to give significant money to a candidate they feel has NO CHANCE, even if they agree with him 100%- they might toss you $5, $10, $25. Try raising even $30,000 at $25 a pop- its quite a task.

[libertarian4321]

Let me put the fund raising thing in perspective.

The LP candidate for President, with full party backing, national coverage (some anyway), and working full time as an active candidate with a campaign staff, will likely not raise much more than the average major party winning congressional candidate. As I recall, Bob Barr raised a bit over $1,000,000 last year, which was about average for an LP Presidential candidate.

Do you think you can do better in a single congressional district with no backing? Good luck, but you'd have to be capable of performing miracles.

[nickcoons]

I think you are confusing lack of effort for lack of success.

I'm submitting that lack of success concludes from lack of effort.

[nickcoons]

I think its some of both. The LP has been running candidates for a long time at all levels. They have some who work their asses off, and others who do nothing but put their name on the ballot, and everything in between.

And there are several hundred LP politicians in office nationwide, no doubt a result of those that have "worked their asses off."


The problem is, if you are just a regular person (e.g. not uber wealthy, super well connected, or a celebrity),

...something that has nothing to do with party affiliation.


you have no chance of raising significant money. Someone made fun of candidates who raised "only" $30,000 earlier- honestly, that is a HELL OF A LOT for a candidate who doesn't fit one of the categories I mentioned before.

That was me, but I wasn't making fun of the person raising the $30k, I was making fun of the person saying that the person who raised $30k and couldn't make a dent was proof that it doesn't matter how serious one campaigns, as if raising $30k (when your opponents raise $2m) was a result of serious campaigning.


As a third party guy, you'll likely get NOTHING from the party, from PACs, from interest groups, from large donors, or from business, .

You'll get none of this from the major parties either, unless you tow their line. A libertarian running as a Republican is no better off than a libertarian running as a Libertarian.


Let me put the fund raising thing in perspective.

The LP candidate for President, with full party backing, national coverage (some anyway), and working full time as an active candidate with a campaign staff, will likely not raise much more than the average major party winning congressional candidate. As I recall, Bob Barr raised a bit over $1,000,000 last year, which was about average for an LP Presidential candidate.

Do you think you can do better in a single congressional district with no backing? Good luck, but you'd have to be capable of performing miracles.

I opened this thread dismissing presidential campaigns and providing my reasoning for doing so.

[dr. hfn]

I have a strategy I think will work and guarantee a win. You must visit every household and personally talk to the People. You will then win.