The spoilers

The 2024 primary season is beginning to take form, and what we know so far is that the Democrats plan to hold their convention in Chicago, and there is a Kennedy seeking the nomination. Why does that seem familiar? What could possibly go wrong?

So far, legal battles have framed much of the current race on both sides of the aisle, and while those legal punches do little to change the minds of the party faithful, prosecutions of presidents and family members are just dramatic enough to reach voters who are otherwise politically disengaged. Higher negatives on both sides of the aisle open the door for independent candidates, and given the already contentious tone of the race, those negatives and the probability of a third-party emergence are growing.

It’s not difficult to understand why people think third-party campaigns aren’t consequential. They simply do not win in our two-party system. As much as they often present a refreshing departure from the status quo, a vote for a third-party candidate is often seen as a vote thrown away, which quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Third-party candidates do, however, make an impact and in many cases have changed outcomes for major-party candidates.

In the election of 1912, former President Teddy Roosevelt ran as the candidate of the Bull Moose Party. He ran against his former protégé and Republican incumbent William Howard Taft, and the Democrat challenger Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt's campaign split the Republican vote, enabling Wilson to win the election.

Then in 1948, Harry Truman faced challenges from both the segregationist Strom Thurmond of the “States' Rights Democratic Party” (AKA Dixiecrats), and the Progressive Party candidate Henry A. Wallace. Thurmond's candidacy drew support from conservative Southern Democrats, impacting Truman's chances in the South. Truman still managed to win the election against Republican candidate Thomas Dewey–but it was a squeaker, leading to the now famous Chicago Tribune headline proclaiming, “Dewey Defeats Truman,” when in fact, he did not.

I’m just barely old enough to remember the 1968 general election when George Wallace acted as the spoiler, taking southern democrats away from Hubert Humphry and helping put Richard Nixon in office. Then again in 1980, John Anderson drew a few Republican votes away from Ronald Reagan. Still, with Mr. Carter only pulling 41% of the popular vote, Anderson’s 6% wasn’t enough to overcome what was to become the Reagan Revolution.

Other spoilers followed. Conservative populist Ross Perot’s promise to “clean out the barn” took enough votes away from Bush 41 to deny his second term and put Bill Clinton in office. Ralph Nader running on the Green Party ticket only took only 3% from the Democrats in 2000, but that helped produce results tight enough that they had to be decided by the Supreme Court, which several dimpled and hanging chads later, tipped in the direction of Bush 43.

With that history in mind, I’m noticing that at this very early stage of the race, Robert F. Kennedy Junior, of the venerable Democratic family machine, seems to be more popular with Republican pundits than with Democrats. One might expect the right to quietly root for anyone who challenges Joe Biden (not so with Marianne Williamson), but as much as RFK’s candor is refreshing to all, his policies draw support from fringe elements on the right.

First and foremost, there is a sizable faction within the Republican party that shares RFK’s stand against vaccines, and those who study history view the Kennedy presidency as being substantially more conservative than today’s Democratic Party. Without the benefit of the name and the legacy, there is reason to question if John Kennedy himself would be considered a viable contender in today’s Democratic party.

On the left, some view RFK Jr’s candidacy as a threat to the Biden presidency. Even with the benefit of the storied Kennedy legacy, RFK has been taking more than his fair share of friendly fire. Liberal pundits point out that RFK's aversion to vaccines reaches beyond questions about the covid jab and extends to the scientifically disproven link between vaccines and autism. RFK also asserts that WiFi and 5G radiation cause cancer; he believes that there is an organized conspiracy to eliminate the middle class, and has also expressed opposition to U.S. support of the defense of Ukraine. In short, they are discrediting him as a nut job, and any adoration from the right reinforces their suspicions.

It’s all fun for us to watch from the sidelines, but in an odd twist, there are murmurs suggesting that a third-party Kennedy run would draw more votes from the Republicans than Democrats. The suggestion is that a Kennedy running as an independent could actually set up a second term for Joe Biden.

The whole thing makes my brain hurt, and it’s way too soon for me to get wound up about it. At this time during the 2016 presidential cycle, the Michelob-guzzling Liz Warren was giving Hillary a run for her money, and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin was the “it” guy on the right. Has anyone heard from Walker lately?

We know that more candidates will announce before the Iowa caucuses in January, and events that will determine the next presidential contest probably haven’t taken place yet. We also know that the recent string of investigations and indictments will turn many voters off, but will also create an opening for unconventional and unexpected challengers. Stay tuned.