how genuine was his initial "conversion" to Republicanism anyway? He is recognised as a "Republican" only within NYC, after all...as was John Lindsay way back when. And how do you separate this latest move from simple opportunism? A so-called "lifelong Democrat" has covered a lot of territory in a comparatively short period of time...not exactly St. Paul on the road to Damascus, is it?

but, in my many years of observing the US political scene from near and afar, the only 3rd-party candidate in recent memory who actually had a meaningful, thoughtful platform, and - at first blush - one that was truly attractive across the political spectrum, was John B. Anderson. Unfortunately, he was facing the Reagan revivalism, and his support dropped like 16-ton weight leading up to Election Day. Here is a brief compendium of Anderson's 1980 effort, and much of what he advocated Mr Bloomberg should take heed.

John Anderson, Unity Party, 1980

John B. Anderson John B. Anderson, a ten-term Republican Representative from Illinois, ran for president as a moderate independent in 1980. Campaigning for the National Unity Party, Anderson had broad appeal, and exploited public dissatisfaction with the two major parties and their candidates, incumbent president Jimmy Carter and Republican challenger Ronald Reagan.

Anderson's success in the 1980 campaign and his profound affect on American politics are more evident today, 20 years after the fact, than they were on election day. His centrist platform was a sign of American politics' future, his battles access to presidential debates set precedent and foreshadowed the difficulties that many third party candidates would face in elections to come, and many of his policies were either successfully adopted or ignored at the president's peril.

'Vote with your conscience!' Today, it's a common campaign themeAnderson won repeated congressional elections as a Republican, and, in 1980, he campaigned against Ronald Reagan and others for the Republican presidential nomination. In the primaries, Anderson campaigned as a centrist against Reagan's conservativism, which emphasized decentralized government, a hands-off economic policy, and a return to "traditional" cultural values. Reagan trounced Anderson, who withdrew from the race.

But he was back before too long, this time campaigning as a National Unity candidate. Anderson felt that neither party, nor its candidates, represented American ideals: the Republicans were too socially conservative and intolerant, he said, and the Democrats' tax-and-spend, social welfare agenda seemed to ignore economic realities. The ongoing oil crisis, which had manifested itself in terms of long gas lines and rampant inflation, was a serious problem, and Carter's only response was to blame the public's "crisis of confidence." And Anderson feared that Reagan's hawkish defense attitudes and social conservatism were bad for America.

Anderson and running-mate Lucey won New York's Liberal Party endorsement, which they shared with a Senate candidateIn that context, Anderson carefully crafted a platform which emphasized his centrist ideology and straight-forward, honest demeanor. He consistently reinforced his image as the "man in the middle," with liberal social and foreign policies and conservative economics.

Anderson's honesty and realism were perhaps his downfall. For example, his advocacy of a fifty cents per gallon hike in the gas tax, which would simultaneously have reduced the demand for gas and shored up the quickly-dwindling Social Security fund, was met with harsh criticism from both candidates. Anderson's opposition to defense expenditures like the M-X missile and the B1 bomber, and his opposition to reducing personal income tax levels, were ammunition for Reagan. His business tax cuts drew Carter's wrath.

Anderson and Reagan debated without Carter, who had a personal crisis of confidence, but in late October, when it really counted, Anderson was excludedTo a large degree, though, his proposals were prophetic. After winning the election, Reagan adopted Anderson's business tax cuts and incentives, which arguably rejuvenated the economy. All candidates in 2000 echo Anderson's concern about the shrinking Social Security fund. Reagan's pursuit of complicated defense programs, particularly the Strategic Defense Initiative, the M-X missile, and the B1 bomber, was a primary cause of the deficits of the 1980's, and the multi-trillion dollar public debt that burdens America and politicians today.

During the summer of 1980, Anderson's approval ratings were above 20 percent in several national polls. On August 25, he named ex-Wisconsin governor Patrick Lucey as his running-mate. Lucey, a two-term Democrat, was disgusted with Carter's politics and his renomination, and abandoned the Democrats in search of fiscal discipline. In 1972, Lucey was on the Democrats' short list for Vice President. In 1977, Carter appointed him ambassador to Mexico, a post he held for two years. Lucey's inclusion on Anderson's ticket increased the campaign's viability, because it drew more support from Carter's Democratic base.

Anderson's grassroots campaign was well-received in MinnesotaIn September, the League of Women Voters set-up a preliminary three-way presidential debate between Carter, Reagan, and Anderson. Carter, however, refused to participate in a debate with Anderson, because he deemed Anderson a "creation of the media," and so Reagan and Anderson debated alone (see above photos) once in September. But Anderson's poll numbers dropped, and the LWV excluded him from further debates, which were closer to the November election.

Anderson's exclusion from the debates drew harsh criticism from many loyal Republicans, Democrats, and independents, as well as the media. During the 1976 campaign, Eugene McCarthy and three other independent candidates tried publicly, but unsuccessfully, to convince the LWV, the FEC, and finally the courts to allow them to debate, arguing that their exclusion meant their downfall. Anderson, too, put up a limited fight, but to no avail. Many attribute his mediocre showing in the election to his absence in the two late October debates.

Anderson's 5.7 million votes were spread across the U.S., so he won zero (0) electoral votesThe debate issue took on additional importance, because Anderson was the first credible third party candidate in an election with televised presidential debates. (Presidential debates were not held consistently until 1976.) Anderson's rejection set precedent. Only one third party candidate, Ross Perot in 1992, has participated in presidential debates since.

On election day, Anderson received nearly six million votes. They were distributed fairly evenly among numerous states, however, so he won no electoral votes; as a result, his candidacy is typically seen as a failure. But Reagan's reelection in 1984, Perot's success in 1992, and Clinton's reelection in 1996, and several candidates' tactics in the unfolding 2000 race can largely be traced to the centrist strategy that Anderson pioneered.

http://www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/3p.anderson.html

The telly debates remain a real issue for 3rd-party candidates, with the networks and cablechannels playing the "we have a two-party political system" game for years now, and unless Bloomberg can somehow crash the "party", as it were, we again will be seeing the same show all over again.

...it makes sense that a 3rd party run would come from the "center" - pick up the non-totally-insane Republicans and the Blue Dogs. In today's climate, I think that amounts to 2 Republicans running (3 if Hillary gets the nod).

I think if a candidate came out who:
1. looked "Presidential"
2. said "We're out of Iraq, now"
3. came out for a simple universal health care plan (single payer)
they'd get the election.

But if you espouse 2 & 3, the media will make sure you don't get 1. People can see past the media dissing 2 & 3 (or really, the media loading on many issues), but they don't get how thoroughly the media controls perceptions.

(And BTW, I think it's pretty much a DLC fiction that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 - a number of studies say Nader took more from Bush, but it matches both the media & DLC narratives to paint them all as left-wing loonies.)

an effective campaign by Bloomberg might provide the best opportunity for the Republicans to hold on to the White House.

Too bad Soros isn't a native-born yankee. Hey, and Bloomberg owns his own news media!

Seriously, there is no center any more. This is what Rove's pollster told him after the 2000 election. This is why Rove immediately went after the right-wing core christians; there was no center to capture.