Rick Hasen's blog today links to a Pennsylvania news
story that says Republican contributors gave money to
the Pennsylvania Green Party, to get it on the ballot
this year. The reporter and many others seem to just
assume that it helps the Republicans to have a Green
Party candidate on the ballot for US Senate. This
assumption is not necessarily true.
Sam Lubell's "The Future of American Politics" used
his own extensive polling data to show that Henry
Wallace actually helped Harry Truman get re-elected in
1948. This, of course, contradicted the conventional
wisdom.
Many Greens are former liberal Republicans. And many
Republicans do not perceive the Green Party to be
"left"; they perceive it to be a middle-of-the-road
choice. With only the two major party nominees on the
road, many liberal Republicans might vote for Santorum
despite their dislike for him. But they might vote
Green if the Green were on the ballot.
Bob Casey Sr. (father of the Democratic US Senate
candidate) was pro-life, like his son. He was
re-elected Governor in 1990, in a year in which his
Republican opponent, Barbara Hafer, was pro-choice.
Also, the article Rick linked to should have
emphasized that the Green, Libertarian and
Constitution Party nominees may be on the Pennsylvania
ballot anyway, if they win the ballot access case now
pending in the 3rd circuit. Those three parties
already meet the Pennsylvania legal definition of
"party", because they all polled more than 2% of the
vote for a statewide office in 2004. The lawsuit
argues that there is no state interest in requiring
the nominees of qualified parties to submit any
petitions at all. The hearing was July 10 and the
panel seemed to lean in favor of the three parties.
The Pennsylvania press has not done a good job
covering this pending lawsuit.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com