Well, if disgruntled Republicans want a third party alternative,

[MineralMan]

it's time for them to get started, I think. The Tea Party types should begin their campaign for a third party candidate right away, so they can get that candidate on the ballots of all the states. Since Santorum is about to drop out of the race, there's their candidate.

Time to get the American Moran Party on its way to certain victory! Vote Moran in 2012!

[nanabugg]

1. You may think it's funny, but if Newt is going to be the GOP nominee, I see Paul followers

leaving the GOP behind. One thing they don't like is war. And Newt will surely lead us into war on behalf of Israel... his major bankroller is paying for that.

[immoderate]

2. Yes! Dumb is not enough. They need something more...

What could it be?

--imm

[RKP5637]

3. The "Dumbo Party!" Ignorance Rocks! ... could be their slogan!

[RC]

8. Can't be callin'em the "Dumbo Party!"

Disney will sue.

[RKP5637]

11. Yep ... or want a Royalty Fee each time it's used.

[Proud Public Servant]

4. Who has the money? Who has the following? Who has a campaign bus up on blocks on her front lawn?

And who can't be bothered with the hard work of running in a bunch of dang primaries and participating in a bunch of debates moderated by the lamestream media?

Could she? Would she? If Mitt is nominated...you betcha! (Here's hoping)

[socialist_n_TN]

5. Not advocating mind you, but.........

I've always thought that there won't be a "Progressive Worker's Party" for the left until the danger of splitting the vote and electing a batshit crazy RWer is negated by a credible RW third party threat. IOW, if the right splits their vote and the Dems keep on drifting to the right and calling it "center", then you will see a PWP develope on the left.

So if the RW splits into batshit crazy and batshit crazy lite (actually batshit crazy and capitalist, traditional Republican), the odds are REALLY good that you will see a PWP form on the left.

[MineralMan]

6. That might happen, but it won't have much impact.

There are already third parties on the left that have been around for years. A new one won't do much. On the other hand, the right might have more success with a third party. Remember Perot? That was the only significant showing from a third party on a national scale for a very long time. The Greens didn't even come close, and the Libertarian Party has consistently drawn less that 1% of the vote nationally.

This year, however, the right may do something that rivals Perot's candidacy. That would be an excellent thing for all of us.

[socialist_n_TN]

7. A PWP won't have much of an impact THIS year.....

like a third party RW group would. However, it would set the stage for the PWP in the future, ESPECIALLY if the Democrats keep to a neoliberal economic agenda.

The biggest problem that most lefties have with the Dems is economic. Yes Dems are better than Republicans on economic matters, but that's not really saying a whole lot. Lefties do NOT support neoliberalism, center-rights do.

A viable PWP (starting with about 20% support if supported by the unions) will rapidly coalesce around economic matters if the RW splits as you speculated. This will result in one of two outcomes. 1) A viable multiparty democracy or 2) the Dems moving left economically and abandoning neoliberalism in order to compete with and absorb a PWP.

Now either outcome would bring up the question of where the neolib supporters go. It won't be the PWP and it won't be the proto-fascists.

[MineralMan]

10. When you put numbers like 20% support

on your proposal, you're way overestimating, I think. No third party will get 20% support, on either side. Not now, and not in the near future. That's just not going to happen. Unions will not risk marginalization.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Except that the Third largest Party in the country, after Democrats and GOP is right wing

The Constitution Party is larger than the Green Party. So there are already third Parties on each side of the spectrum. The Libertarian Party is 5th in size and it is also more right than left.
So your premise is not correct at all.

[MineralMan]

12. Current third parties are insignificant in national politics.

There hasn't been a serious third party that clearly affected a Presidential election since Perot. An argument can be made that the Greens screwed up the 2000 election, but whenever that is brought up, it is shouted down by the very people who voted Green.

For the 2012 election, it's highly unlikely that a third party, unless it is one built quickly by the right, will have any significant effect. The right, if it decides to run a third-party candidate seriously, could certainly help Obama win more easily, but I don't see it happening, really.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Just responding to what you typed 'There are already third parties on the left' which

is followed with 'On the other hand, the right might have more success with a third party.' This implies that there are third Parties on the left and not the right. It is just not the way it is.
In 2000, Constitution Party and the Reform Party had candidates. Reform was Perot's Party.
The Third Party Candidates who got the most electoral votes were right wing, (Strom Thurmond with 39 , George Wallace got 46. On the left? Perhaps one once, or not, can't recall. 39 and 46 the GOP lost. Us? One, perhaps. )
So there are already 3d Parties on the right, as well as a much stronger history on their side of 'defecting' to such Parties. The only County that Perot took was Trinity, CA, which is nearly pure GOP. He was also one of theirs.
Your comments on the Greens are for another discussion, as that is a huge area of interest for me, the people I can win to go Democratic come from the Greens and the others on that side of things, the Greens were important to our winning Oregon in 08, primary and general. Green Dog Democrats we had. I watched Mrs O happily campaign directly to such Greens. .
I think for most of us, 2012 is now, and when we speak of trends that might grow out of this cycle, we are not speaking of a Third Party for this election. It is a longer game. If they splinter, we can either go more 'my way' or we can make a less 'moderate' Party and a 'centrist' one for those who want to stay close to the right wing. Not this year, as time goes on.....
I see their Party as far more splintered than ours, and the right as far more splintered than the 'left'. History shows that this is a long term trend. How we go forward on our side as they spin off and get weaker at the core is an important area of discussion, Party wise.
The right can mount and promote a 3d Party run quickly, and they do so rather often, actually. This is part of why they constructed 'Tea Party' inside the GOP. To allow a facade of 3d Partyism within the GOP. To keep those they know will easily go elsewhere.

Editing to add that I agree with your OP. This is just detail work, and the details I am offering suggest that what you hope for in the OP is not out of the question at all. In fact it is as likely as not.

[MineralMan]

14. Thanks. I mean to imply the third parties on the left

when I mentioned Perot.

As you say, it's somewhat likely that a third party candidate on the right may well appear in 2012. Not very likely at all on the left. In my mind, that is a good thing, and I hope it happens, since it will increase our chances all around, including in the legislatures, both state and federal. Movement toward the left, I believe, can only happen from a position where Democrats hold the Presidency and both houses of Congress. The state legislatures are also important, since they are the secondary school for future candidates.

If we can control Congress and have a Democratic President, there's far more room for progressive ideas to move forward, in my opinion. The progressive voices will have a much easier time in that situation proposing progressive legislation. For me, all of that means that 2012 is a pivotal year, and that every effort must be made to regain solid and filibuster-proof majorities in Congress. I'm not certain it can be done in 2012, but we'll have a chance in 2014 to increase those majorities, and in 2016 as well, along with an opportunity to put a progressive presidential candidate forward. In those four years, I believe we have a strong opportunity to succeed, but it's not going to be easy, and is going to require maximum participation by everyone. That's the single factor I see as the stumbling block that may prevent this from happening. I hope very much that it does not. In 2016, I'll be 71 years old. What I'll be able to do and how much I'll be able to participate in 2016, I can't say. So, I'm doing all I can this year.

[s-cubed]

15. America Elect IS on the ballot in all 50 states. n/t