{"id":7957,"date":"2011-04-17T14:28:38","date_gmt":"2011-04-17T21:28:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/?p=7957"},"modified":"2011-04-17T14:28:38","modified_gmt":"2011-04-17T21:28:38","slug":"they-came-in-third","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/2011\/04\/17\/they-came-in-third\/","title":{"rendered":"They Came in Third"},"content":{"rendered":"

2008:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 00.56%:\u00c2\u00a0 Ralph Nader
\n2004:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 00.38%:\u00c2\u00a0 Ralph Nader
\n2000:\u00c2\u00a0 02.74%:\u00c2\u00a0 Ralph Nader, Green
\n1996:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 08.4 %:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Ross Perot, Reform
\n1992:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 18.9%:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Ross Perot, United We Stand
\n1988:\u00c2\u00a0 00.47%:\u00c2\u00a0 Ron Paul, Libertarian
\n1984:\u00c2\u00a0 00.25%:\u00c2\u00a0 David Bergland, Libertarian
\n1980:\u00c2\u00a0 06.6%:\u00c2\u00a0 John Anderson
\n1976:\u00c2\u00a0 00.9%:\u00c2\u00a0 Eugene McCarthy
\n1972:\u00c2\u00a0 01.4%:\u00c2\u00a0 John Schmitz, American Independent
\n1968:\u00c2\u00a0 13.5%:\u00c2\u00a0 George Wallace, American Independent
\n1964:\u00c2\u00a0 00.0%:\u00c2\u00a0 Eric Hass, Socialist Labor Party
\n1960:\u00c2\u00a0 00.42% “Unpledged” to Harry Byrd
\n1956:\u00c2\u00a0 00.2%\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 T Coleman Andrews, States Rights
\n1952:\u00c2\u00a0 00.2%\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Vincent Hallinan, Progressive
\n1948:\u00c2\u00a0 02.43%\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Strom Thurmond, States Rights Democratic Party
\n1944:\u00c2\u00a0 00.2%\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Norman Thomas, Socialist
\n1940:\u00c2\u00a0 00.2%\u00c2\u00a0 Norman Thomas, Socialist
\n1936:\u00c2\u00a0 02\u00c2\u00a0 %\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 William Lemke, Union
\n1932:\u00c2\u00a0 02.23%\u00c2\u00a0 Norman Thomas, Socialist
\n1928:\u00c2\u00a0 00.7 %\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Norman Thomas, Socialist
\n1924:\u00c2\u00a0 16.6%\u00c2\u00a0 Robert La Follette, Progressive
\n1920:\u00c2\u00a0 03.4%\u00c2\u00a0 Eugene Debs, Socialist
\n1916:\u00c2\u00a0 03.2%\u00c2\u00a0 Allan Louis Benson, Socialist
\n1912:\u00c2\u00a0 23.2%\u00c2\u00a0 William Howard Taft, Republican
\n1908:\u00c2\u00a0 02.8%\u00c2\u00a0 Eugene Debs, Socialist
\n1904:\u00c2\u00a0 03\u00c2\u00a0 %\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Eugene Debs, Socialist
\n1900:\u00c2\u00a0 01.5%\u00c2\u00a0 John Granville Wooley, Prohibition
\n1896:\u00c2\u00a0 0.96%\u00c2\u00a0 John Palmer, National Democratic
\n1892:\u00c2\u00a0 08.5%\u00c2\u00a0 James Weaver, Populist
\n1888:\u00c2\u00a0 02.2%\u00c2\u00a0 Clinton Bowen Fisk, Prohibition<\/a>
\n1884:\u00c2\u00a0 01.7%\u00c2\u00a0 Benjamin Franklin Butler, Greenback \/ Anti-Monopoly
\n1880:\u00c2\u00a0 03.3%\u00c2\u00a0 James Weaver, Greenback \/ Labor
\n1876:\u00c2\u00a0 0.9%\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Peter Cooper, Greenback<\/a>
\n1872:\u00c2\u00a0 0.3%\u00c2\u00a0 Charles O’Connor, Bourbon Democrat
\n1868
\n1864
\n1860:\u00c2\u00a0 18.1%\u00c2\u00a0 John Breckinridge, Southern Democratic
\n1856:\u00c2\u00a0 21.6%\u00c2\u00a0 Millard Fillmore, Know Nothing
\n1852:\u00c2\u00a0 04.9%\u00c2\u00a0 John Parker hale, Free Soil
\n1848:\u00c2\u00a0 10.1%\u00c2\u00a0 Martin Van Buren, Free Soil
\n1844:\u00c2\u00a0 0.33%\u00c2\u00a0 James Birney, Liberty
\n1840:\u00c2\u00a0 0.33%\u00c2\u00a0 James Birney, Liberty
\n1836:\u00c2\u00a0 09.7%\u00c2\u00a0 Hugh Lawson White, Whig
\n1832:\u00c2\u00a0 07.8%\u00c2\u00a0 William Wirt, Anti-Masons<\/p>\n

There are three third party candidates who were former presidents — Van Buren and Theodore Roosevelt are most comparable of the three — animated by quarrels about the direction of their political party or personal animus.\u00c2\u00a0 Van Buren either was taking it out on his former party as its Southern wing grew larger than his designed stronger Northern wing, was just upset he wasn’t nominated again, or sincerely cared about slavery.\u00c2\u00a0 The Free Soil Party was the second of three parties to take on slavery — more diluted in focus than the previous Liberty Party though less diluted than its successor Republican Party.\u00c2\u00a0 Millard Fillmore ran on one of the two sucessors to the Whig Party he saw collapse before him — the xenophobic and conspiratorial party — the Anti-Masons for a new generation — but not even the fire power of a Millard Fillmore could keep the party from losing the Post-Whig Derby to the Republican Party and its flaky adventurer candidate, the founder of the “Bear Flag Republic” in California.
\nClearly James Weaver was the Populist, or Greenback Party’s, best candidate.\u00c2\u00a0 Absent him, they were liable to fall behind the Prohibitionist Party.\u00c2\u00a0 But just as it seemed the party was going anywhere, with Weaver at 8.5% in 1892, the Democrats nominated Bryan and the Populist Party absorbed itself into the Democratic Party.\u00c2\u00a0 Cleveland’s loyalists maintained some control of the party by running a spoiler candidate with the stated goal of keeping Bryan out of the White House.\u00c2\u00a0 (Taft would do the same against Roosevelt, but with the Republican Party.)
\nEugene Debs for the Socialists maintained an even 3 percent through five elections, with an outlier in the year he went fourth but with 6 percent.\u00c2\u00a0 Norman Thomas’s tenure was either more erratic or just shoved further into the margins where more noise in vote tally can take place — his high in the Depression era of 2.23 percent goes down to .2 percent against the shadow of World War.
\nThat .2 percent for Vincent Hallinan from a beat up party apparatus post Henry Wallace is of the same type as John Schmitz’s 1.4 percent from the beat up party apparatus post George Wallace.\u00c2\u00a0 You might say the same for the various “States Rights” candidacies as against Strom Thurmond, but then again — everyone liked Ike.
\nI can’t really figure why Ralph Nader rebounded from a 2004 low back to his 1996 level.\u00c2\u00a0 My theory about Nader’s 2000 run as set against Obama is that in 2012, “elements of the left” or liberals who sublimated their frustration of Obama will again be ready to run a third candidate — to the tune of a similar couple percentage of the vote.\u00c2\u00a0 In the meantime, for 2012, I note that Ron Paul, after 24 years, is back in position for a re-energized presidential campaign — Jesse Ventura would be a willing vice presidential running mate.\u00c2\u00a0 There is a flavor of the “Anti-Mason” party in that one — oddly enough, that Anti-Mason candidate?\u00c2\u00a0 He was a Mason.
\nThe most curious figure on this list, in the “studying rare exotic species of floral” type, might be Eric Hass of 1964 — who, if you round his vote total to the nearest 100,000 would have zero votes.\u00c2\u00a0 His is the oldest Socialist party in the United States, currently a paper organization.\u00c2\u00a0 Reading the wikipedia article, it appears the two most famous members of the party — people anyone might recognize — are Jack Landon, and the author of schlocky science fiction who has the distinction as being the writer of the first Star Trek novel.\u00c2\u00a0 The vote total in 1964 was part of a focus on electoral elections, representing a series of elections which was historically large for the party but — is rounded to zero.\u00c2\u00a0 It is amusing that they came in third, but I suppose if we follow Richard Holfstadter’s thesis the votes of discontent moved into Barry Goldwater’s campaign — I suppose later showing up with the Schmitzs of the world.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

2008:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 00.56%:\u00c2\u00a0 Ralph Nader 2004:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 00.38%:\u00c2\u00a0 Ralph Nader 2000:\u00c2\u00a0 02.74%:\u00c2\u00a0 Ralph Nader, Green 1996:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 08.4 %:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Ross Perot, Reform 1992:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 18.9%:\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 Ross Perot, United We Stand 1988:\u00c2\u00a0 00.47%:\u00c2\u00a0 Ron Paul, Libertarian 1984:\u00c2\u00a0 00.25%:\u00c2\u00a0 David Bergland, Libertarian 1980:\u00c2\u00a0 06.6%:\u00c2\u00a0 John Anderson 1976:\u00c2\u00a0 00.9%:\u00c2\u00a0 Eugene McCarthy 1972:\u00c2\u00a0 01.4%:\u00c2\u00a0 John Schmitz, American Independent 1968:\u00c2\u00a0 13.5%:\u00c2\u00a0 George Wallace, American […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7957","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7957","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7957"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7957\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7958,"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7957\/revisions\/7958"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.struat.com\/election\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}