Setting the Record Straight

Now that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (my condolences to him for the death of his mother) is no longer a presidential candidate and the remaining third-party candidates are little more than annoyances, it looks more likely than not that the results of the 2024 presidential election will not be affected by a minor presidential candidate as a spoiler.

But was any presidential election ever affected by a third-party presidential candidate?   Maybe once in awhile, like all of the young people in 1968 who may have made Richard Nixon President by voting for Peace and Freedom Party nominee (and Black Panthers leader) Eldridge Cleaver instead of Hubert Humphrey, but not so much in other presidential elections.  It's likely that the 1844 election was decided in favor of Democrat James K. Polk over Whig Henry Clay based on Polk's support for annexing Texas and that third-party candidate James Birney of the Liberty Party, which advocated abolishing slavery, brought out voters who would have supported neither Polk nor Clay, both slaveowners, or not voted at all. The 1860 election was such a hot mess that it produced four major candidates - Republican Abraham Lincoln, northern Democrat Stephen Douglas, southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge, and Constitutional Union Party nominee John Bell - and the vote was so sectionalized between the candidates that an electoral deadlock was more likely than a spoiler effect.  Had Douglas won New York, Lincoln would have been denied an electoral majority and most likely would have lost the Presidency in the House of Representatives.  The only times third-party candidates played spoiler was when a faction of an existing party supported one of its leaders on another ticket - such as in 1848, when former President Martin Van Buren was nominated by a reformist faction of the New York State Democratic Party was and subsequently endorsed by the anti-slavery Free-Soil Party for his views against extending slavery into the territories.  Van Buren cost Democratic nominee Lewis Cass New York State and the Presidency, electing Whig Zachary Taylor.  And, in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt led progressive Republicans out of the party and ran on the Bull Moose ticket against his one-time friend, President William Howard Taft (they later reconciled), he split the Republican vote and helped elect Democratic presidential candidate Woodrow Wilson. 

I bring all of this up as background to correct two blatant misconceptions about the two most recent presidential elections in which the winners of the popular vote lost the Electoral College - that third-party candidates cost  Democrats Al Gore and Hillary Clinton the Presidency.  That theory may or may not be true in the latter case, but it is definitely false in the former.  And both theories, not coincidentally, involve the Green Party.

In 2000, as Vice President Al Gore (above) was running for the Presidency against Republican George Walker Bush, pundits expressed alarm at the support Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader was gaining from liberal-leaning voters dissatisfied with President Bill Clinton and said that Nader could win enough Democratic votes to deprive Gore of a victory that November.  When the presidential election results from Florida, the deciding state, ended up being disputed for five weeks and was ultimately decided in favor of Bush by 537 votes, pundits pointed to the thousands of votes Nader got and concluded that Gore did lose Florida and the Presidency because of Nader . . . and have consistently said so ever since.

In reality, as American University professor Allan Lichtman later proved, Gore actually won Florida, but the election was stolen for George Bush because thousands of Gore votes cast by black Florida residents were thrown out by the state, whose governor was . . . Jeb Bush! And the butterfly-style ballots were so antiquated and difficult to fill out that when noted anti-Semitic third-party candidate Pat Buchanan got a large number of votes in heavily Jewish precincts in Palm Beach County, even Buchanan himself said those votes for him had to have been cast by mistake.     

Also, 2016 Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is seen as the culprit who peeled off enough votes from Hillary Clinton (above) in that year's presidential election to cost her three states in the Rust Belt that then went to Donald Trump.  Well, I have to concede that, if you look at the numbers, Dr. Stein did win more votes than the margins between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in those three states - Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  (I once said that if everyone in Pennsylvania who voted for Dr. Stein had voted for Hillary, it wouldn't have made a difference and Trump still would have won the state, but the numbers were revised and I turned out to be wrong.)  But did it ever occur to the pundits and politicos who blamed Dr. Stein for Hillary's loss that maybe Hillary Clinton blew it by not campaigning in those states enough oer at all?  Michigan congresswoman Debbie Dingell begged - nay, implored - Hillary to campaign in her state, but she blew her off, thinking she had Michigan in the bag.  And Florida was a state Hillary was supposed to win, but people in Florida who had never voted before and had never put much faith in politics came out to vote for Trump.  And that phenomenon was repeated in other states.

Here's another thing.  Dr. Stein was on the ballot in 44 states.  Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson was on the ballot in all fifty of them.  As I noted on this blog once before, MSNBC host Chris Matthews, after the 2016 election, explained that moderate Republicans turned off by Trump who could have voted for Hillary voted for Johnson instead, and that the vote Johnson won in key states was greater than Trump's margin of victory.   At least that was Matthews' reasoning.  So, if third-party candidates are spoilers, how is it that Gary Johnson - who came in third and got double the number of votes Dr. Stein got nationally - had no effect on the 2016 election but Dr. Stein did?

And why isn't then-FBI director James Comey more to blame for reopening an investigation into Hillary Clinton's laptop just before the election than Dr. Stein is?

Come to think of it, why is Hillary Clinton, who was a lousy candidate, totally blameless? 

So again, the only way a third-party candidate can be a spoiler is if the candidate in question is from one of the two major parties and leaves to run on a separate presidential ticket and brings enough fellow members of said party with him or her - as liberal Democrat Henry Wallace did with his Progressive movement and as conservative Democrat Strom Thurmond did with the "Dixiecrats" in 1948 when they both ran for President against incumbent Democratic President Harry S. Truman, when the polls favored Republican presidential nominee Thomas E. Dewey.

Oh yeah, Truman won.  

Spoilers?