why third-party candidates can help AND why running without a platform is ultimately stupid (unless you just want to hold power)

Competition is good-- in economics and politics, right?

Interestingly, Michael Medved is excited about the more conservative 3rd-party candidate in NY, but unexcited about the more conservative 3rd-party challenger to Chris Christie in NJ.

Why? The more conservative candidate is perceived as not winning.

I understand the drive for pragmatism over principle in politics. But unfortunately, it also moves Medved and his ilk down the spectrum toward political hackdom.

From Jason Riley in the WSJ...

By design, [Republican gubernatorial challenger Chris Christie] has been vague about his tax and economic plans for the state. Ducking details is a tried and true strategy for front-runners who don't want to reveal anything specific enough to criticize. In August, Mr. Christie was ahead by double-digits. But that lead was shaved to four points by mid-October, and with the election now just a fortnight away, polls show him and [Democratic incumbent Jon] Corzine dead even...

It's understandable that Mr. Christie would prefer to make the contest primarily about character. He spent seven years as a federal prosecutor, an obvious attribute given New Jersey's crooked political history. But Mr. Corzine, an ex-senator and former chairman of Goldman Sachs, is not perceived by the public as corrupt so much as feckless. And voters have made it clear that they are most interested in electing someone with a reasonable plan to restore economic sanity to Trenton.

After a decade of Democratic governance, the state is a fiscal train wreck. New Jersey sports the nation's highest state and local tax burden...Nevertheless, lawmakers have repeatedly borrowed billions to fill budget gaps and increase spending. The state's debt has quadrupled, to $35 billion from $8.1 billion, over the past 15 years....

And now, for the 3rd-party option:

Team Christie's decision to put strategy above substance not only ignores this voter sentiment but also has given an opening to independent candidate Chris Daggett, whose economic reform proposals have been as specific as Mr. Christie's have been vague.

"You deserve as voters more than a failed plan from Democrats and no plan from Republicans," said Mr. Daggett at the debate....

Mr. Daggett's chances of becoming New Jersey's next governor are remote, to be sure. Mr. Corzine is a multimillionaire and Mr. Christie is backed by the Republican National Committee. Mr. Daggett lacks the name identification and resources to compete effectively down the stretch. Yet his impact so far has been substantial. The race is tight because Mr. Christie's popularity has fallen, not because Mr. Corzine's has increased. And polls indicate that Mr. Christie's support has suffered due to the presence of Mr. Daggett, who could spoil victory for the GOP by winning as little as 12% of the vote.

The punchline:

One lesson here for other Republicans is that say-nothing candidates invite third-party challenges. In a two-man race, Mr. Christie might get away with running on his personality and playing it safe, especially given the slow economy and Mr. Corzine's unpopularity. But a viable third candidate means Mr. Christie must compete for Republican support...

Should Mr. Christie, who's still favored, win despite employing the most bizarre campaign strategy since Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid, he will have done himself and the state no favors by running as a cipher. Mr. Christie will likely face a Democratic legislature and the prospect of trying to change the tax-borrow-spend culture in Trenton without a mandate. After all, it's hard to claim you were elected to do something when you haven't told anyone what you planned to do.

Two local applications:

1.) Steve Beshear became governor in Kentucky in the last election, simply because he was not Ernie Fletcher. A vague campaign with a lopsided victory carried no mandate and no pop.

2.) In my own race, both candidates were more middle-of-the-road than could satisfy everyone. The Democrat was largely supportive of our military policy in Iraq and Afghanistan-- and ignored a wide array of economic issues that harm the working poor. The Republican was a fiscal moderate who chose not to work on or speak to federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Neither is good enough.

My presence in the race was seemingly too marginal to a lot of macro-good. But the GOP did pick up the Planned Parenthood funding issue after I ran in 2006 (led by another Hoosier congressman). And both opponents were forced to finesse their positions/records and make stronger claims of their bona fides on important issues. So, who knows?

In any case, life is too short to run vague campaigns. And politics is too important to have candidates who miss key issues.