Those with any interest in American elections should pay particular attention to our 2024 presidential election. It is shaping up to be different than 70% of post-WWII elections in our two-party democratic system. Our elections usually present a choice between the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party and the nominee of the Republican Party. Others who are sort of self-nominated “third-party” candidates are usually insignificant, but now always.
This year we may again see a “third-party” paradox of profound consequence – a person who spent his life working against an opposition party may, as a “third-party” candidate, become the deciding factor that puts that opposing party in the White House. It has happened to both parties.
The most striking example of this occurred in 2000 when Vice President Al Gore was the democratic nominee. He would have become president if he had won the state of Florida, which he lost by only 538 votes (in a state of 16 million). That year a well-known and traditionally Democratic consumer advocate, Ralph Nader, decided to run for the presidency as a third-party candidate. He had no chance of becoming president, as was shown in his winning only 2.7% of America’s votes. However, in Florida, Nader secured 97,488 votes. If Nader had not run, there was a strong consensus that the vast majority of his Florida votes would have gone to Gore and as a result the White House would have remained with Gore’s and Nader’s traditional party.
This year, Robert Kennedy Jr – the nephew of Democrats the late President John F. Kennedy and Senator Ted Kennedy and the son of the late democratic Senator Robert Kennedy – has announced his “third-party” candidacy against the very likely Democratic Party nominee, sitting President Joe Biden. Additionally, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin is indicating that he is also considering a “third-party” run.
They should remind themselves of VP Gore in the 2000 national general election. They should also familiarize themselves with Senator Ted Kennedy’s 1980 challenge of his Democratic Party’s sitting president Jimmy Carter. He challenged Carter for the Democratic Party’s nomination in the state-by-state primary elections, leading up to the national general election. If anyone ever seemed to stand a good chance against a sitting president, it was Senator Kennedy, “The Lion of the Senate.” His early public opinion polls had him beating President Carter two to one. Kennedy was also wearing the mantle of his revered assassinated brother (President John F. Kennedy) a WWII hero with an approval rating of 70%. Yet, Teddy Kennedy’s challenge was defeated by President Carter’s appeal, political organization, and use of what President Teddy Roosevelt referred to as a “bully pulpit” – the White House platform.
The win-loss record in the national general election of all “third-party” presidential candidates in the general election in our modern era is 0 for 102. And none of those who have challenged a sitting president for the party nomination in the state-by-state party’s primary elections, leading up to the national general election, won the presidency that year. However, in three cases they gave the White House to the opposition party. In the three cases where a challenger of a sitting president of his party won roughly a quarter of the votes, the White House was lost to the opposition. If these challengers’ intra-party attacks cost those presidents only a small number of votes, like one, three, or five votes out of every 100, respectively, these three presidents would have won the majority of votes. Their White House would not have been turned over to the opposition party.
If the 2024 Republican candidate for president – who most likely will be Donald Trump – wins the White House, he or she may well owe it to these third-party challengers. It will once again prove to the challengers that “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Source : Ekathimerini