A Third Party Presidential Bid in 2024?

Democrats should panic about No Labels. So should Republicans.
Opinion by Marc A. Thiessen

". . . Let’s be clear: a No Labels ticket should not be necessary. Right now, the Republican field offers an embarrassment of riches. Almost any serious GOP contender except Trump could crush Biden, who is one of the least popular presidents in the history of presidential polling. If the GOP squanders that opportunity and nominates Trump, many Republicans will face an agonizing choice in 2024. No Labels could offer them a centrist alternative — and give Americans a second chance for the unity and bipartisanship they thought they were voting for in 2020. . . ."

 

Good read. Just as 2016 gave us a populist uprising, 2024 could give us the revenge of the great American middle — and a bridge back to normalcy, sanity and moderation. <=== This.



Pretty please with sugar on top, can we do away with the two party system?

 

So long as we have single-member districts we will have two parties. The arithmetic is inescapable.

 

If everyone who claimed to want a third party actually voted third party, we'd have a third party.

"A person is smart; people are dumb panicky animals."

 

Only at the Presidential level.

 

I agree with this, if Republicans nominate Trump again I'd vote for any Democrat running and I'm a staunch conservative.

I suspect Biden will bow out of his 24 bid early next year,

 

Why would you think that-- all signs & indications, to the contrary?

 

Well that's a major problem. A single individual, like Ross Perot, could potentially win the Presidency, but you can't have a viable party, at just the Presidential level.

 

Everyone who says they wish we had a third party, doesn't even vote; in fact, for a good many, saying that our two parties are both no good, serves primarily as their excuse for not voting, which they have little interest in doing, regardless. That is, "we need a third party," for some, translates to "I'm not interested in politics, but am not willing to admit it."

Someone running for President, as their first elected office, is generally a huge red flag (that said, I did vote for both Perot, and for Nader). Trying to govern as President, without having allies in the legislature, will most likely end in utter failure. I support a third party choice, but that party needs be built from the bottom, up.

The other, and I think more likely possibility, is the creation of a third party from the fracturing of one of our already established parties. To a degree, this has already occured, on the Republican side. And the No Labels, unity party, is trying to capitalize on that, as well as on the rift between centrist and more progressive Democrats. There are politicians (like Manchin) who might be tempted, but I don't see the Democratic base as at the verge of rupturing.

Instead, to my mind, the most sensible course would be for the members of the GOP who were driven out by Trumpism, to form their own minority party, which could get some of the votes of both less MAGArious Republicans, and more conservative Democrats, as well as, of course, those of the unaffiliated center. While they probably wouldn't win the majority in any legislature, they would likely become an essential ally to both Rs and Ds, in order for either to function as a majority, or to pass (or block) any legislation. They could well find themselves sitting in the catbird seat. If they used that position responsibly, it would give their eventual Presidential candidate, a real chance.

 

Sorry to read that.

Trump is bad, but Biden and Newsom are worse. Besides, Trump is 78 years old and might not last four years. The important question then is who is the VP? The same applies to Biden. Are you ready for President Harris?

 

Yes. That's why I said single-member districts preclude third parties.

 

The Republican Party came into existence in 1854. It rose like a phoenix from the wreckage of the Whig Party plus a significant number of former Democrats who were disillusioned with the pro South, pro slavery positions of their party leadership. There were many seasoned politicians who joined the movement, and the Whig Party organization still existed.

The Republicans were up and going well enough to run a credible presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, in 1856. As you can see from this map, he did very well considering that the party had only existed for a couple years. The Fremont states are in burnt orange. This map was taken from Wikipedia.



The Electoral College vote was Buchanan 174, Fremont 114 and Millard Filmore, the "Know Nothing Party" candidate, 8.

In 1860 the Democratic Party split over the slavery issue (Douglas slavery legal if a state or territory voted for it, Breckenridge slavery legal everywhere), and Lincoln was elected with 40% of the popular vote.

For a third party to form and work, It has to start with a lot of the machinery that existed in a major party organization, fueled by a major exodus from that party.

Right now, I don't see that happening. I can't see the Democrats splitting up given their amazing party discipline and vote generating machine. The Republicans are more likely to split, especially if Trump had a longer future ahead of him, but at 78 years old, he doesn't.

 

World·The Telegraph
Russia is on the verge of total disintegration, as local elites scramble for an escape

 

And my point had been that a "Party" cannot exist, in an individual office. There needs to be a group of affiliated people in office, before it is really a "Party." There are no parties of one.

 

Then the party you envision is impossible in a country with single member districts. A third party presidential candidate, however, could conceivably win.

 

What I'm saying is that, under the present circumstances, unless a third Party President could get the two Major Parties to work together-- which seems highly doubtful-- there seems less advantage in having a third Party President, at the moment, than might hypothetically be the case, just speaking generally.

And of course, that this additional candidate would lose, yet change the result-- which is nevertheless not to argue that he still wouldn't have the right to run-- is the more likely scenario, in an abstract analysis, than that he would actually win.

 

Trump is unfit and Biden wants to take the country in a direction I regard as disastrous. If they are the choices then I will seek a third option.

 

My addition to the post you'd quoted, already responds to that attitude:

In short, you cannot claim that I am one of those who always says, "now is not the time." I have felt it was the time, since the early 1990s, and I voted both for Ross Perot, and for Ralph Nader, several times. But, in 2024, it is not the time for a third Party Presidential race spoiler.

I think almost 10 percent of Congressional districts have a Democrat where the people had voted for Trump, or a Republican in a Biden district. This is where a viable third Party should start. If they only won 15 - 20 seats, it is extremely unlikely that either Dems or Repubs would have a majority, without their participation. This would give them great power-- and it would allow the country to see how this new Party actually operated, potentially laying the groundwork for a stringer, future showing in a Presidential contest.

 

The additional candidate might win.

 

More likely, though, he if he had any result on the outcome, it would be to cause Trump to win. You realize, don't you, that even if Biden has the most electoral votes, if it is less than 270, it will be the House of Representatives (with one vote, per state delegation) which chooses the next President? Are you no less bothered by the idea of a second Trump term, than by a second term for Biden?

 

I will not associate myself with either.

 

If Ross Perot's presidential campaigns in the 1990's taught us nothing else, it taught us that when you vote "Third Party", you're really handing Democrats total victory on a silver platter! If that's OK with you, then why not just go ahead and vote for the "Woke" party candidate instead and forget about all the third-party nonsense.

Sure, in 2024, it's likely that some very fine candidates could run on a third-party ticket, but when was the last time that American voters actually elected the best candidates that we COULD have elected? In this country, it's always "the lesser of two evils", and it's been that way nearly all my life.

 

Your hyperbolic generalization, equals an utterly inept analysis. The electoral map of 1992 does not match today's. Ross Perot does not represent all 3rd-Party candidates. Can you even show that his candidacy changed that electoral result? Perot took votes from both Parties. The one, third-Party candidate that we know changed a result, was Ralph Nader: without the votes for him in Florida, Al Gore would have won the Presidency; that, alone, proves your thesis to be dead wrong.

This election is not the same as just any generic election. I'd voted for both Perot & Nader. But there is no room for a third Party in this election. A relative handful of votes, in just a few states, will determine the outcome. A third Party would be very unlikely to have the type of organization which would allow it to win any state. Hence, it would only risk throwing a close Biden state, to Trump.

If this prospective third Party, dark horse, were to win any states, that only would make more likely that no one would receive 270 electoral votes, in which case the House of Reps chooses-- that is, the Republican candidate wins. Rationally speaking, getting behind a meaningful third Party candidacy, would be Republicans' best strategy, for winning the White House.

 

And yet, if you look behind all the political fog, rationalized hindsight, and "woulda, coulda', shoulda", what actually happened in the 1990's? Ross Perot ran two presidential campaigns and Democrats won convincingly both times!

Hey, I'd love to see strong, viable third-parties, fourth-parties, and fifth-parties! Unfortunately we don't have a parliamentary form of government, and, we don't even allow for "ranked voting", either, which could very likely provide some politically healthy changes in this country.

So, as I said, we're just stuck, over and over, with that "lesser of two evils" thing. Ironically, IMHO, the last effective president we've had who was mostly capable of making informed, intelligent, balanced decisions was BILL CLINTON. I say that, even though I'm even less a "Democrat" than I am a "Republican" on most things. I'd love to sit down with Bill for an hour over a couple of beers and ask him what he thinks of today's absolutely insane political landscape in the U. S. today!

 

A Historic Number of Americans Don't Want Biden vs. Trump
Harry Enten, CNN

Read More