Vanity candidates arguably cost Al Gore and Hillary Clinton their chances at the presidency; they could sink Biden’s hope of reelection

By Chris Honoré

Part 1

In print and on television news we’re told that the 2024 presidential election between the Democratic incumbent Joe Biden and the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump will be close.

It’s hard not to look at the word “close” and ask, all things considered, “Seriously?” But then, general election polls tell us that even if Trump stood before a rally podium in an orange jumpsuit on Fifth Avenue, well, a majority his supporters would still vote for him. And then there’s this: According to a recent New York Times/Sienna College poll, Trump leads Biden 46% to 44%.

So, for the sake of discussion, let’s consider “close” as a given. And if that’s the case, there is one other point to be made: The coming presidential election will ultimately be about asking American voters to step forward and vote, not just on policies and issues but on something far more consequential. They will be asked to affirmatively choose between our democracy and authoritarianism.

If the above is indeed a given, then how to explain the presence of third-party candidates other than to say they have boarded the quixotic vanity train?

But before going any further, I’d like to offer some historical context, reaching back to the presidential election of 2000. The two principal candidates were Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. That election was also described as “close.”

There was a third-party candidate, Ralph Nader, chosen by the very progressive Green Party. He proved to be a compelling figure (his hard-core supporters were called “Nader’s Raiders”), and he won 2,882,955 votes in the general election, arguing that the Democratic Party had drifted too far right.

The election between Gore and Bush proved razor thin and came down to Florida, where a recount was under way. Ballots were challenged, and it was alleged that the same ballots were treated differently by counters (“hanging chads”).

In response to the crisis of the count, the vote was taken up by the Supreme Court (Gore v. Bush), which decided that the Florida recount violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause and was summarily halted. Bush, ahead of Gore by 537 votes, was declared the winner of the 2000 presidential election.

Nader had received 97,421 votes in Florida. He rejected the idea that his candidacy acted as a spoiler, arguing that he did not take critical votes from Gore, speciously insisting that 25% of his votes would have gone to Bush, and 36% of his followers would not have voted had he not been on the ballot.

The above brings us back to the premise that the 2024 election will be profoundly consequential given the choice to be made between Biden and Trump, and therefore begs the question regarding the motivation of any third-party candidate.

Of course, in a democracy their campaigns represent a necessary exchange of ideas and policy. Or, given what’s at stake in this moment, can their candidacies be reduced to simple vanity?

Part 2

Regarding third-party vanity candidacies, consider Robert F. Kennedy Jr., environmental lawyer, running as an Independent for president. He has received support from young voters and like-minded independents who are attracted to his mix of neoliberal, conservative and libertine positions on a spectrum of issues.

Beyond name recognition, he is also well known for his controversial support of the “anti-vax” movement, which uses pseudoscientific data to promote the claim that there is a linkage between childhood vaccinations and autism. During the COVID pandemic Kennedy questioned the efficacy of the recommended vaccines while supporting the use of the debunked hydroxychloroquine for treatment. It was also reported that he compared President Biden’s COVID policies to the Holocaust.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll estimated that Kennedy would win 22% of the national vote (with a plurality of Independents).

Now consider the Green Party’s candidate, physician Jill Stein, who announced her run for the 2024 presidency last November.

Her platform begins with the environmentally friendly Green New Deal. She calls for universal healthcare, the nationalization of industries and sustainable infrastructure.

Stein ran under the Green Party umbrella in the presidential election of 2016 (Hillary Clinton versus Trump). It has been reported that she garnered 1,457,212 votes in that general election and, according to reports, her candidacy played a role in the outcome.

In a recent 2024 poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in the swing state of Pennsylvania, Stein received 4% of the statewide vote that would, in part, come from Biden’s total.

Again, if you combine Kennedy and Stein’s totals in a close 2024 contest, then the potential damage to Biden is self-evident. This is no small thing.

Finally, assume you are a third-party 2024 candidate, and you hear Trump say the following regarding NATO at a campaign rally in South Carolina:

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ I said, ‘You don’t pay? You’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’

“(I said) ‘No. I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever the hell they wanted. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’”

This statement, which reveals a stunning lack of understanding of NATO and its commitment to Article 5 of the collective defense clause. Assume also that this interaction is pure fiction, mere theatrics, is profoundly irresponsible and dangerous. And if you need an example of “Do whatever the hell they wanted,” look at Ukraine.

Now, if you’re a third-party candidate,and you know the possible impact your candidacy will have on the election of Biden, what is the moral thing to do? I would hope, in this unprecedented election year, that you would withdraw, endorse Biden, and explain why, to include your understanding of the inherent paradox of your candidacy.

Email Ashland resident Chris Honoré at honore307@gmail.com.