OK, well 28% sounds like a lot. But that's 28% of Democratic primary voters who support Clinton. Which is only roughly half of all Democratic primary voters. Which, in turn, represents, what, like 20% of the total general election voting population? And at least half of them are just blowing smoke.
50% of 28% of 50% of 20% is not very many actual people.
I've been saying for a year that Huckabee is the most talented of the Republican contenders. I think it's obvious to anyone who's ever seen him speak. He was straight up awesome on his Daily Show appearance too.
Other candidates misunderestimate him at their peril - Republican or Democratic.
I would have done the same thing. This kind of crap is a total waste of the Senate's time when there are so many important things going on. I would have expressed my disgust by not even giving the issue the dignity of a vote.
Florida 2000 is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. A left-wing third party candidate ran, and the consequence was the election of a hard-right candidate that was the antithesis of his political views. The effect was the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he intended. Are you saying that Nader voters really wanted George W. Bush to be president?
Furthermore, non-establishment candidates can and do work within the existing coalitions to change the status-quo, that's what primaries are about. Think about Jim Webb or Jon Tester, who both beat the party-preferred establishment candidates in their respective races, then went on to win the general election. If they had run third party campaigns, we'd have had two more conservative Republicans incumbents reelected in 2006.
Some countries have a parliamentary system where multiple parties join together to form a majority government after the election, and sometimes a viable third party can take shape in such a system. However, the only real difference is that coalitions are formed after elections instead of before. So, in our two-party system voters actually have more information when casting their vote (they know which coalition they're voting for).
Third parties in elections have the exact opposite effect of competition in a market because of the majority-rule winner-take-all nature of elections. A third party hurts the major party candidate most similar to the third party candidate and helps the least similar candidate preferred by the smaller number of people. In other words, we get Florida 2000.
Unless we have a radical overhaul of how we handle elections (e.g. proportional representation), basic game theory shows that third parties will always hurt their own cause.
Furthermore, third parties are unnecessary since parties are coalitions.