In the midst of the battle for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2020, one can lose sight of the reality that a third party or independent candidate could affect the election result, as it did in 2016.
Third parties and independent candidacies for President have played a role in past elections, and the death last week of Independent and Reform Party Presidential candidate H. Ross Perot brings that to mind.
Presently, we have two potential spoilers–Michigan Republican Congressman Justin Amash, who might run as the Libertarian Party nominee against Donald Trump; and billionaire businessman Howard Schultz of Starbucks fame, who might run as an independent nominee, and harm the Democratic Presidential candidate.
Either or both could draw millions of votes, as Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party did in 2016, when Johnson gained 4.5 million votes and Stein gained 1.5 million votes. Additionally, Evan McMullin of Utah, who ran as an Independent, gained about nearly three quarters of a million votes. So together, these three non major party nominees gained a total of about 6.75 million votes , about 5 percent of the total popular votes cast.
Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan had played roles in the 2000 Presidential election, as Ross Perot did in 1992 and 1996. And John Anderson was a factor in 1980, as George Wallace was in 1968.
Whether Amash and or Schultz will be a major factor in 2020, and draw millions of votes, is a center of speculation in the summer of 2019!
Ronald writes,
“Presently, we have two potential spoilers—Michigan Republican Congressman Justin Amash, who might run as the Libertarian Party nominee against Donald Trump; and billionaire businessman Howard Schultz of Starbucks fame, who might run as an independent nominee, and harm the Democratic Presidential candidate.â€
Justin Amash and Howard Schultz are politically not viable for the presidency of the United States. Not only that—they are not relevant.
Amash, with an apparently and newly developed conscious, recently switched party affiliation from Republican to independent. He is going nowhere. I anticipate this may be his last term unless he rejoins the Republican Party (with their approval). If he does not return to the fold, the party will field a nominee for Michigan #03 (which includes parts of Kent County, with its county seat Grand Rapids, as well as Barry and Ionia counties, with their county seats Hastings and Ionia). Kent County, which used to shade 15 to 25 points redder than the state of Michigan, is nowadays closer to 5 points—meaning, the county is trending away from the Republicans. It was won in 2018 Democratic pickups for Democratic gubernatorial pickup winner Gretchen Whitmer and re-election for Democratic U.S. senator Debbie Stabenow. (The change almost reminds me somewhat of Orange County, California.) I sense Kent County is emerging as a possible new bellwether county to Michigan—slight tilt to the Republicans with regard for the margins (county vs. state). Michigan, along with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (the tipping point state of 2016), are going to be the most influential states to decide Election 2020 (on par with then-tipping point state Colorado and Virginia from Elections 2008 and 2012 for Barack Obama). I would not be surprised if Amash—who may have appeared, say, a year ago as a potential U.S. Senate candidate for 2020—is close to being done.
Schultz is just someone who has been out there threatening to sabotage the Democratic Party if they go truly left. (I want the political party to do that anyway. It is necessary.) Schultz is about as important in U.S. politics (and the Democratic Party) as the opportunist Alan Dershowitz, who is part of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, who threatened in 2017 to leave the Democratic Party had the chairperson election for the Democratic National Committee been won by Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Buying into an authenticity of a presidential candidacy for Schultz—who speaks about what he is against (which are the key domestic issues of the political party to which he figures he belongs) while never offering anything meaningful in the way of a vision (to improve the U.S. and the lives of its people)—is proving the old adage, associated with P.T. Barnum, is true: “There’s a sucker born every minute.†When it comes to U.S. politics, Schultz is less than relevant. Schultz was never relevant. For those following U.S. politics, and the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Schultz is not worth anyone’s attention. If it wasn’t for his being former CEO of Starbucks (which I am now avoiding because of Schultz), and having been a guest on corporate cable-news outlets like CNN, we would not have seen or heard Howard Schultz.
Ronald writes,
“Either or both [Justin Amash and/or Howard Schultz] could draw millions of votes, as Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party did in 2016, when Johnson gained 4.5 million votes and Stein gained 1.5 million votes. Additionally, Evan McMullin of Utah, who ran as an Independent, gained about nearly three quarters of a million votes. So together, these three non major party nominees gained a total of about 6.75 million votes , about 5 percent of the total popular votes cast. | Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan had played roles in the 2000 Presidential election, as Ross Perot did in 1992 and 1996. And John Anderson was a factor in 1980, as George Wallace was in 1968.â€
Look at the following percentages in the U.S. Popular Vote from Elections 1968 and 1992:
ELECTION 1968
• Richard Nixon (R—pickup winner) 43.42%
• Hubert Humphrey (D) 42.72%
• George Wallace (AI) 13.53%
ELECTION 1992
• George Bush (R, incumbent) 37.45%
• Bill Clinton (D—pickup winner) 43.01%
• Ross Perot (Ind.) 18.91%
In 1968, the White House party was the Democratic Party. That election resulted in a Republican pickup for 37th U.S. president Richard Nixon. In 1992, the White House party was the Republican Party. That election resulted in a Democratic pickup, with the unseating an incumbent Republican U.S. president, for 42nd U.S. president Bill Clinton.
If you take the 1968 U.S. Popular Vote percentages and give Wallace an additional five percent, taken from Humphrey, the changed numbers would nearly reflect what played out in 1992.
So, why is it Wallace was able to win any electoral votes while Perot did not?
It had to do with…where.
Wallace carried five states. He flipped three which were in the 1964 Republican column for Barry Goldwater: Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. His other two gains were in states from the Democratic column for full-term-elected Lyndon Johnson: Arkansas and Georgia. While he received 13.53 percent in the U.S. Popular Vote, here were those five states’ percentages of their popular votes for Wallace:
• Alabama 65.86%
• Mississippi 63.46%
• Louisiana 48.32%
• Georgia 42.83%
• Arkansas 38.65%
Wallace finished in second place in the following states:
• Tennessee 34.02% (a Republican pickup for Nixon, 37.85%)
• South Carolina 32.30% (a Republican hold for Nixon, 38.09%)
• North Carolina 31.26% (a Republican pickup for Nixon, 39.51%)
What all these states have in common is that they are among the eleven Old Confederacy states. Wallace, unlike Perot, was able to carry and receive electoral votes from select states—and finish in second place in other states—in a geographical region where he specifically played well (despite receiving less than 15 percent in the U.S. Popular Vote).
Perot, who carried no states and received no electoral votes, finished in second place in just two states: Maine (a Democratic pickup for Bill Clinton in the first election in which that state went to its current split allocation of its electoral votes) and Utah (a Republican hold for unseated George Bush). The latter was the Republicans’s best-performed state, in its percentage-points margins, from 1976 to 2004 and repeated in 2012. The former had its last Republican carriage with the 41st U.S. president and became realigned (with a host of other states) to the Democrats via the 42nd U.S. president in that U.S. presdential election of 1992. (Side note on Bush: In the HBO documentary “41,†Bush blamed Perot for getting unseated. Bush, due to the recession and his party holding the White House with three consecutive terms won in the 1980s, was not going to get re-elected. Election 1992 was going to, as it did, flip Democratic. From what I have read, over the years, the only state of consequence was Montana. How much of that do I believe—well, I did not really research it. Bill Clinton eked out winning a Democratic pickup of that state, by a margin of +2.51, and its 3 electoral votes. That was not a compelling example to explain why Perot may have been the cause of Bush having become unseated. Perot did want Bush unseated, yes, but more importantly the electorate wanted Bush unseated—and they were sufficiently persuaded to vote for the White House opposition-party challenger, Clinton, to be the one who unseated Bush. That result would have been the same even if Perot had not been in the general election.)
I mentioned this before. It is worth repeating. A third-party candidate, who has carried any states, will historically win in states normally aligned with the party to which that third-party candidate is closer politically. This was also the case in 1912, when former Republican U.S. president Teddy Roosevelt carried six states as the Progressive Party nominee. He took them all from the 1908 Republican column of incumbent William Howard Taft: California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington. Back then, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania had carried for the Republicans in every election, except for 1912, from 1860 (the party’s first winner Abraham Lincoln) through 1928 (Herbert Hoover). 1912 William Howard Taft was so disastrously unseated that he held just two of the twenty-nine states from his 1908 column: Utah and Vermont. (The latter voted Republican from 1856 to 1960, just one of two states which never carried for four-term Democratic U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt, as well as 1968 to 1988.)
Had Libertarian Party nominee and former Republican Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson won at least one state, in 2016, it would have been a normally Republican-aligned state. (Say, for example, it would have been Montana.) Had Green Party nominee Jill Stein, from Massachusetts, won at least one state, in 2016, it would have been a normally Democratic-aligned state. (Say, for example, it would have been Vermont.)
The two-party system has this figured out in a way in which this is effectively controlled. If we are to experience a future U.S. presidential election with a third-party candidate viable enough to carry at least one state, it is likely that person would need to receive at least 25 percent in the U.S. Popular Vote. But, it may actually be more accurate to estimate it at 30 percent. This is due to the fact that, since the 1990s, only 1996 Bill Clinton and 2008 Barack Obama won the U.S. Popular Vote by +6 or above. So, a third-party candidate can carry at least one state, with 30 percent in the U.S. Popular Vote, in which a Republican or Democrat prevails with no more than 37 percent (while the runner up gets around 32 or 33 percent). And that third-party candidate would carry where the percentage of the popular vote—a state here or there; a congressional district possibly applicable from Nebraska or Maine—is very friendly to that individual (as this was with the case, with select Old Confederacy states, for 1968 American Independent George Wallace).
The vile attacks by Trump on the Congresswomen is one of the many reasons why it’s imperative for Trump to beaten in 2020!
Looks like most of the House Republicans support bigotry. Only 4 Republicans crossed over to vote with the Democrats to condemn Trump’s racist tweets.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/politics/trump-racist-comment-vote-house-gop-list/index.html
Trump had a rally Wednesday night. New chant by his stupid supporters is Send Them Back.
Trump doesn’t have anything else to run on, so he’s going to up the bigotry for his 2020 campaign.