Major parties increasingly wary of third-party governor candidates
Long dismissed as inconsequential to final electoral outcomes, several third-party candidates running for governor this year are drawing considerable attention from the two major parties because of their presumed impact on November races.
A trio of independent candidates in the Northeast began to gather attention recently, but now the trend appears to be stretching to other parts of the country. From Minnesota, where the state GOP has pursued a pair of campaign finance complaints against the Independence Party candidate, to Florida, where the independent bid of Lawton Chiles III, the son of a former Democratic governor, could cost his dad's party a victory, third parties are secondary no more. (Heyooo!)
What's at the root of the increased viability of these third-party candidates? Disillusionment with the major parties -- and politics in general -- appears to be the main driver.
If voters hate Washington and hate both major parties (and they do), voting for a viable independent is a great outlet for expressing that anger.
Recognizing the potential potency of that message in this sort of electoral environment, the two major parties have adopted a "kill them before they grow" approach to independent candidacies over the past year.
It all began in the New Jersey governor's race last fall.
After independent Chris Daggett inched his way toward 20 percent in the polls and threatened Chris Christie's (R) seeming victory, the Republican Governors Association ran ads tying Daggett to then-Gov. Jon Corzine (D).
The RGA strategy worked, as Daggett collapsed to a 6 percent finish and Christie was elected governor, and a thousand copycats were born.
The RGA adopted the same strategy this year -- funding ads against state Treasurer Tim Cahill (I) that drove him way down in the polls.
But Cahill's support seems to have shifted more toward incumbent Gov. Deval Patrick (D) than Republican Charlie Baker, at least for now. (That's not terribly surprising, given that Cahill was elected as a Democrat.)
The Democratic Governors Association has also gotten in on the act, launching a Web site attacking independent former Sen. Lincoln Chafee in the Rhode Island governor's race.
(Chafee and wealthy independent Maine candidate Eliot Cutler appear to be the most formidable third-party candidates in the country, and it seems likely that the DGA will be dealing with them much like the RGA has dealt with Daggett and Cahill.)
Minnesota Independence Party candidate Tom Horner, meanwhile, is getting it from both sides. The state Republican Party has filed complaints with a campaign finance panel accusing Horner of receiving an advance look at polling conducted by a campaign supporter. Horner was also forced to cut ties with his PR firm when his "day job" became an issue in his campaign.
The major parties' worries are particularly notable in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, where an Independence Party candidate who took 6 percent in 2006 might well have cost Democrats the race against Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R). And don't forget that former Gov. Jesse Ventura won as a third-party candidate in 1998.
Third-party threats are also emerging in Iowa and Florida. In the Hawkeye State, GOP primary runner-up Bob Vander Plaats is threatening an independent run (the situation is likely to come to head Thursday when former Gov. Terry Branstad picks his lieutenant governor nominee), and in Florida, Lawton Chiles III took a pass on a run for the Democratic gubernatorial nod to pursue an independent candidacy.
All of this talk about credible third-party candidates in 2010 gubernatorial races leads to an inevitable question: Is 2012 the cycle where an independent runs successfully (or even seriously) for president?
The answer, as always, is probably not. As we have written many times before, the infrastructure advantages the two major parties enjoy are vast and can only be overcome by a candidate willing to spend vast sums of money to do so, a la Ross Perot in 1992 and (kind of) in 1996.