For decades now, the suggestion that a third-party candidate could make a legitimate run for the White House has typically been dismissed as a laughable idea. And there have been plenty of examples, over the past century or so, to merit derision.
Think of Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Moose Party. Or gadfly Ralph Nader’s perennially quixotic bid (which presaged the candidacies of other outliers, from Jill Stein to Kanye West). Or George Wallace’s third-party challenge against Nixon and Humphrey in 1968—and John Anderson’s against Carter and Reagan in 1980. Not to mention the independent candidacy of Ross Perot in 1992.
But people forget that Perot—an eccentric tech mogul from Texas—was leading Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush in the polls for almost two months of that contest. Until he started spouting conspiracy theories and generally acting like a loon, and he dropped like a rock. Despite such behavior, he drew 18.9% of the popular vote, some 19 million ballots—which became a significant factor in handing Clinton his victory. (Full disclosure: I was working for the Bush campaign at the time.)
One has to wonder if Perot were around today—expressing the kind of views he espoused back then (providing support for the faltering Russian economy, trimming the US defense budget, considering cuts to Social Security, urging people to study the leadership principles of Attila the Hun)—who knows how he’d fare in a field that makes him look like a reasonable candidate?
More and more voters now consider themselves independents. This shift, according to a 2022 Gallup study, “appears to be driven in large part by Generation X and the millennial generation continuing to identify as independents as they age. In prior generations, U.S. adults became less likely to identify as independents as they got older.”
Which adds an interesting wrinkle to the calcified two-party equation. “Republicans and Democrats,” the organization No Labels recently tweeted, “will lead you to believe you have to choose one or the other, but independents (43%) outnumber Republicans (30%) and Democrats (24%) for the highest percentage since Gallup started tracking affiliation.”
These surprising stats aside, the potential success of a third-party candidate—given the history of American democracy and the two parties’ vested interests in retaining the status quo—remains highly improbable. But it’s not impossible. The circumstances have to be just right and the candidate has to be credible.
Here’s a not entirely unlikely scenario. It’s late spring of next year. America wakes up to realize that voters in the primaries have nominated two men—ages 81 and 77, respectively—to face off in the general election. And they have done so despite the fact that 86% of voters, according to a recent Reuters poll, believe the cutoff age for the presidency should be 75 or younger. There’s a reason why many corporations force out CEOs at 65. People running a company—and running a country—should be at their best. And it’s just nonsense to suggest that someone is going to be at the peak of their vim and vibrancy in their late 70s or early 80s. I don’t care who you are, you lose at least a step.
Which brings us to Donald Trump and Joe Biden. While both men have their share of strong supporters, neither has broad popular support among the electorate. In December, Trump’s approval rating was the lowest it’s been since 2015—with 59% of registered voters expressing a negative opinion about him. In the same Quinnipiac University poll, some 49% of respondents gave Biden negative marks for job approval. And more than half of all voters polled insisted they would not want either man to run.
I thought Biden was the right guy at the right time—in 2020. He was, quite likely, the only candidate who could have won the states required to beat Trump. And I think, given the headwinds he’s faced, he’s done a fine job. But he certainly gave us the impression—by calling himself a “transition” president during his campaign—that he would be setting the table for a successor.
Does he—do we?—really think there aren’t other Democrats who would be younger, better, and stronger candidates in 2024? The same goes for Trump and the GOP. There may well be serious prospective Republican candidates who prove more competitive in the general election.
Yet, if Biden and Trump actually run—discounting a surge by someone like Ron DeSantis—there’s more than a good chance they will become the nominees.
And that’s where the third-party, “break glass in case of emergency” scenario comes in.
It’s an uphill battle. As a consequence of the way the system is rigged against third parties, if you wait until next summer—when the Republican and Democratic nominees have been determined—it’s too late to throw your hat in the ring. So a mechanism has to be set up to create ballot access in key states. And that means signature gathering now. And spending money now. Lots of it.
I know. I helped go through this exercise with an initiative called Americans Elect in 2012. And it cost roughly $35 million to collect ballot signatures in the major, pivotal states. There was a lot that went wrong with that effort. But the basic flaw was that the major parties that year chose acceptable nominees: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. So there was no pressing need for another horse in that race.
This time around, the spade work has already begun—nearly two years ahead of the general election. No Labels, an organization dedicated to bipartisanship and problem solving (which I helped start, but with which I have no recent affiliation), is doing the heavy lifting: raising money and creating third-party ballot access—just in case we wake up next spring to a couple of clunkers.
Importantly, No Labels contends that it has no interest in supporting any “spoiler” Ralph Nader–type candidacy that would simply put a thumb on the scale of either of the major party nominees. Instead, the group’s aim is to have a hammer at the ready—if, indeed, the glass has to be smashed.
At this point it’s unclear who that third-party candidate might be. But I guarantee there would be plenty of qualified and compelling figures happy to step up and accept the challenge.
Of course, it’s unlikely. But unlikely as, say, President Donald Trump?
For our entire voting lives, we’ve always had just Coke or Pepsi as our options. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a 7 Up or a Red Bull? Especially when these servings of Coke and Pepsi have lost their fizz?
