On Friday, I wrote a column for CJR challenging journalistic assessments of the prospects for third parties, which prompted a reply from National Journal's Ron Fournier this morning. I have a new column up that responds to Fournier and offers five additional points that I think journalists should consider in assessing the prospects for successful third party challenges. Here's how it begins:
National Journal’s Ron Fournier has posted a gracious reply to my CJR column challenging what I considered to be his excessively optimistic estimates of the likelihood of a successful third party or serious third party presidential contender. I’m very encouraged by the exchange that we’ve had, which reflects the possibilities for engagement and collaboration between journalism and political science. In this case, political science research has a different perspective than the operatives and professionals, as Fournier notes.
Read the whole thing for more.
Nice post!
Posted by: KevinTran | February 19, 2013 at 10:33 PM
I love, LOVE with a deep burning ardor and abiding respect, that Brendan has incorporated the Underpants Gnomes' business plan into his analysis. South Park rules!
Posted by: Robert | February 21, 2013 at 04:27 AM
The real reason journalists focus on third parties is because they're idiots who think the solution to every problem is 'more choice', without having defined what the problem is.
We know the political process is broken. We know that one party won't do ideas and actions supported by science and popular will. We know they want to cut the essential programs economically crippled Americans depend upon
Posted by: Steve John | February 22, 2013 at 06:17 AM