Dear Progressives: A Third-Party Strategy Is Doomed To Fail. A Warning From A Former Libertarian.
With the defeat of Bernie Sanders in the 2020 Democratic Primary, many Progressives are advocating for a third-party strategy or starting a new party. As a former Libertarian, I can say that will fail.
Bernie Sanders has recently withdrawn his bid for the Democratic Nomination leaving his millions of supporters angered and saddened by his decision. Many of them are considering and promoting the idea of a third-party run which will only lead to an electoral disaster. Others take this as a sign that restoring the Democratic Party to its Rooseveltian roots is not working and therefore they should start a new party or elevate a progressive third-party. That won’t work. I will tell you as a former Libertarian that third-parties are doomed to fail with our current electoral system and rules rigged against third-parties won’t result in a success for progressives. The way forward is to continue to reform the Democratic Party, not start a new party. The purpose of this piece isn’t to discourage voters from voting third-party but to rather inform voters that trying to implement change by elevating third-party candidates won’t result in success. To understand why a third-party strategy will fail it is important to know the rules written against third-parties, and why third parties are doomed to fail. 2016 was the best year for a third-party candidate, yet the third-party candidate that did the best electorally failed to crack those barriers. This will also address the way forward for progressives.
The Rules For Third-Party Candidates Now
Third-Parties and third-party candidates have been forces to shift the discussion around major issues. Additionally, they’ve served as vehicles to push the two major parties in new directions. Many will say they act as spoiler candidates, which is true for only two elections in American history, 1912 and 1992. In both elections, the third-party candidates Theodore Roosevelt (1912) and Ross Perot (1992) were seen as serious candidates for the presidency and were given equal are time as the two major-party candidates during the election cycle. Both Roosevelt and Perot were allowed onto the debate stage and were on the ballots in all 50 states. In both elections, the third-party candidate ended up spoiling the Republican candidate and handing the election over to Democrats. Theodore Roosevelt actually primaried William Taft, and then after he lost began his bid for the White House as the Progressive Party’s nominee for the President of the United States. Roosevelt ultimately geared his campaign as an attack on Taft, and mostly ignored Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic Party’s nominee for President. In addition to Teddy Roosevelt’s third-party campaign, another third-party campaign made a strong impact on the 1912 election, which was Eugene Debbs of the Socialist Party. The war between Roosevelt and Taft allowed Wilson to become the 28th President of the United States. Roosevelt actually placed second in 1912, gaining more votes than Taft and winning more states. Debbs gained almost a million votes. Similarly, in 1992, Ross Perot geared most of his campaign as an effort to bring down George H.W. Bush. However, Ross Perrot did attack Bill Clinton on many issues such as NAFTA, which he attacked both Clinton and Bush for supporting. Perot ultimately handed states to Clinton that would’ve otherwise gone to Bush with his strong third-party run. In fact, Perot’s run was the most successful third-party run in American history.
Succesful third-party runs have often lead to one of the two major parties adopting policies positions and ideas from a third-party. In 1912, Woodrow Wilson adopted many of Theodore Roosevelt’s economic reforms into his platform. As president, Wilson went on to implement many of those reforms like banking regulation and antitrust laws. Wilson also supported labor rights and signed the Adamson Act into law which created the eight-hour workday. Roosevelt’s run did push the Democrats left on economic issues, and that would be the beginning of the Democratic Party’s leftwing shift that would lead to the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy. Another example of a third-party’s success leading to one of the major parties adopting policy platforms was in 1968. After the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act through Congress, and Lyndon Johnson signed it into law in 1964. The right-wing of the Democratic Party, the Dixiecrats, left the party altogether. Dixiecrats such as Strom Thurmond joined the Republican Party. Most Dixiecrats however, followed George Wallace and formed the American Independence Party, in hopes of restoring the Democratic Party back to its Jacksonian roots. What ended up happening instead was that the Republican Party ended up pandering to the American Independence Party’s base. Richard Nixon and the Republicans knew that the Dixiecrats would never return to the Democratic Party after 1964, so they tried to bring the Dixiecrats into the Republican Party. The Grand Old Party (GOP) knew Hubert Humphrey didn’t stand a chance in the south. What the Nixon campaign ended up doing was creating the Southern Strategy to sway American Independents or Dixiecrats to vote for Nixon. Wallace swept the deep south in 1968, but the south would go red for Nixon’s reelection and the Reagan elections and onward. Nixon went on to start the war on drugs to incarcerate people of color. 1968 wasn’t the first time Republicans tried to win over Dixiecrats nor was it the first time Dixiecrats bailed on the Democratic Party. In 1964, Barry Goldwater ran for president to oppose Kennedy and Johnson’s push for the Civil Rights Act. Goldwater called it unconstitutional and defended segregation. Kennedy was assassinated before he could seek reelection and voting began in the Republican Primary. However, Johnson did end up having to run against Goldwater 1964 and ended up defeating Goldwater. Goldwater did carry the south in 1964. The 1964 election was the first time Republicans attempted to win over Dixiecrats prior to 1968. The Dixiecrats had also issued a third-party challenge against the Democrats prior to 1968 as well. In 1948, the Dixiecrats started a new party called the State’s Rights Party or the Dixiecratic Party, and they ran Strom Thurmond as their nominee for the presidency. The Dixiecrats were furious with Harry Truman’s push for Civil Rights in 1948 and wanted him to renounce his support for civil rights. Thurmond’s goal was to contribute to Truman’s defeat and push Democrats back to the right. Additionally, Truman also faced a third-party challenge from his left in the form of Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party. Wallace’s goal was to push Truman further to the left of where he already was. In the end, both Thurmond and Wallace had gained an equal percentage of the national vote. Thurmond gained four states because his voters were consolidated in the deep south, whereas Wallace gained no states because his voters were spread out nationwide. Thurmond’s campaign influenced Goldwater and Reagan’s campaigns later on. Despite all odds, Harry Truman ultimately won his reelection bid and defeated his Republican challenger Thomas Dewey.
What happened to third-party candidates today? Well after Ross Perot’s election splash in 1992, the Federal Election Committee (FEC) changed the rules for third-party candidates running for office, especially president. One a third-party needs to receive five percent of the national vote in order to receive federal funding from the FEC. That rule not only hurts third-party candidates running for president, but it also hurts third-party candidates running for offices below the presidency. The second rule placed on third-party candidates is that in order to participate in debates the candidate has to reach fifteen percent in five polls in order to participate in debates. This rule hurts third-party candidates running for president more so than it does lower offices. Mainly because it’s harder for third-party candidates to reach fifteen percent in national polls than in statewide polls. However, debate access does hurt a third-party candidate’s ability to reach five percent of the national vote in a general election, which then hurts the ability of third-party candidates to win state, local, and Congressional races. If we look at the performances of third-party candidates post-1992, you’ll they are much weaker than pre-1992. The 1996 election alone shows the drastic change in the electoral system. Ross Perot in 1992 won over eighteen percent of the vote, but in 1996 Perot only won eight percent of the vote. That’s why Ron Paul ran as a Republican for his second and third presidential bids instead of a Libertarian like in his first White House bid. The rules were written so Paul and any other third-party candidate couldn’t do well. Even Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said these rules were unfair for third-party candidates and said his father believed every candidate deserves to be heard. 1992 was the last time a third-party candidate played the role of a spoiler candidate. No! Ralph Nader didn’t swing the election for George W. Bush in 2000. Al Gore lost 2000 on his own merits and Jeb Bush’s voter suppression efforts in Florida are what handed Florida over to Bush, not Ralph Nader’s candidacy. No! Jill Stein and Gary Johnson didn’t swing 2016 for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton like Al Gore lost on her own merits. Johnson pulled more votes away from Trump than he did Clinton, and Stein didn’t pull enough votes from Clinton to have swung the election. Democrats need to stop using third-party candidates as scapegoats for their election losses.
What Happened In 2016?
The 2016 presidential election was one of the most divisive elections in American history. For one both major candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were both hated by the American people. Independent voters hated them the most. The 2016 election was thought of to be the perfect election for a third-party candidate since both candidates were so strongly disliked by the American public. Some even went as far as to predict a third-party candidate would go onto become the President of the United States, which was a bit far fetched. However, 2016 did prove to be a turn around for third-party candidates as far as media coverage went. Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate for president gained the most attention from the national press and voters as a result of the disapproval towards Clinton and Trump. That being said Jill Stein of the Green Party did see a lot of media attention as well, just not as much as Gary Johnson. Both candidates crushed Ralph Nader and Ron Paul (when he ran as a Libertarian) in press coverage. In fact, Gary Johnson managed to poll in the double digits nationally which was unheard of nationally since 1992. So what went wrong?
The 2016 election looked like a good election year for third-party candidates, the candidate that experienced the most of the third-party vote energy was Gary Johnson. The national media had finally decided to interview and cover a third-party candidate. Johnson had made numerous appearances on mainstream media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and Fox News. Johnson’s running mate Bill Weld also made appearances on cable news. Even prominent independent media outlets such as TYT and BlazeTV had interviewed Johnson and Weld. Reason, a Libertarian publication, wasted no time interviewing Johnson and Weld. Now that isn’t to say that Jill Stein and her running mate Ajamu Baraka were ignored by the national press. Both Stein and Baraka were interview on cable news and independent networks like TYT, FSTV (Free Speech TV), and The Intercept. CNN hosted townhalls for both the Johnson/Weld and Stein/Baraka campaigns. TYT hosted a townhall for Stein. Joe Rogan had Johnson on his podcast. Johnson appeared on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.” The reason the Johnson/Weld campaign gained more traction than the Stein/Baraka campaign is that the Libertarian Party is often viewed as a mix between the Republican and Democratic Parties’ ideas and platforms by many Americans. Meanwhile, the Green Party is seen as a single-issue party. Therefore more voters would gravitate towards the Libertarian candidate as opposed to the Green Party candidate.
Despite all the attention given to third-party candidates, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson failed to make it onto the debate stage. The Green Party and Libertarian Party filed a joint lawsuit to force the Commission on Presidential Debate to force their parties’ nominees to be allowed onto the debate stage. The lawsuit failed, forcing Stein and Johnson to try to obtain the ridiculously high margin of fifteen percent to be allowed onto the debate stage. Johnson came close with thirteen percent but never reached fifteen percent. Stein never polled above ten percent. So the American people were forced to watch debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and the voters never heard a fair shake from Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. The vice-presidential debate was between Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, and just like the presidential debates, Bill Weld and Ajamu Baraka were excluded. In addition to the failure to be included in the debate stage, Gary Johnson’s increased exposure to the American public began to hurt him. First, during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Johnson was asked about what he’d do about Aleppo, he responded with the question “What Is Aleppo?” That resulted in a storm of negative press coverage from primarily the mainstream media. Some argued that the coverage of Johnson’s Aleppo gaffe helped him because it increased his exposure to the American public. Then, in an appearance on Chris Matthews’ MSNBC show “Hardball,” Johnson was asked who his favorite foreign leader was to which he struggled to answer. He eventually said President Fox (Vincente Fox) of Mexico after his running mate gave him the name. Finally, Gary Johnson was asked if he could name the Dictator of North Korea and failed to do so. In all fairness to Gary Johnson, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had made plenty of equally bad gaffes that the media ignored. As a matter of fact, Johnson even addressed the fact that his gaffes were covered more than Clinton and Trump’s gaffes. Johnson’s gaffes did make him appear unprepared to the general public, whether or not they were blown out of proportion. Also having a series of bad interviews didn’t help Johnson out at all.
Both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein tried appealing to Bernie Sanders supporters to help their numbers. Both Johnson and Stein knew Sanders was unfairly treated by the DNC and wanted to win over supporters that were mad about that fact. Stein had an easy case to make since her platform was essentially his platform. Stein even outflanked Sanders from the left on issues like student loan debt. Johnson had a harder case to make to Sanders supporters since his positions on economics, guns, and Climate Change are diametrically opposed to Sanders’ positions. Johnson focused on the fact that he and Sanders agree on equal rights issues, drugs, immigration (mostly), and foreign policy. Stein and Johnson knew that Sanders spoke to a large group of supporters that could easily help propel their campaigns forward if they could make a good case to Sanders’ supporters. Stein faced the challenge of being barely acknowledged by the mainstream press. Johnson’s challenge was to convince Sanders supporters to set aside the differences in Libertarian economic philosophy and Liberal or Progressive economic philosophy because they agree on social issues and foreign policy. Publications like Odyssey went over reasons why Sanders supporters should support Johnson, listing where they agreed on the issues. Now Bernie Sanders himself endorsed Hillary Clinton and campaigned his heart out for her. Sanders even discouraged his voters from voting for third-party candidates. He particularly didn’t want his supporters voting for Gary Johnson because their economic policies were so radically different. Sanders did defend Johnson on the issue of his gaffes and said Johnson should be allowed on the debate stage. Prominent Bernie Sanders supporters were split on how to vote during the general election. Supporters such as Cenk Uygur, Thom Hartmann, Sam Seder, and David Pakman supported Hillary Clinton because they felt she was better than Donald Trump and that she stood a real chance to beat Trump. Supporters like Cornell West, Kyle Kulinski, and Mike Figueredo backed Stein because they felt she was the best candidate ideologically. Kulinski and Figueredo would have backed Clinton if they lived in Swing states. Farron Cousins, a prominent Bernie backer, was sympathetic to Bernie supporters who backed Stein, but he backed Clinton because he lives in a swing state. Jimmy Dore was the lone voice saying that Bernie people should vote third-party regardless of where they lived. Dore’s case revolved around the protest vote is a “middle finger” to the establishment and that it would be a wake-up call for Democrats to back progressives. He was delusional enough to think that Trump winning would bring about an Elizabeth Warren presidency. Dore was heavily criticized for his rationale and voting strategy by people like Sam Seder. The prominent Bernie supporters in the news media landscape that backed a third-party candidate backed Stein, not Johnson. In fact, Johnson was the third-party candidate pro-Bernie journalists and pundits discouraged their audiences from backing. All Bernie supporting media figures told their listeners not to back Trump whatsoever.
In the end, Donald Trump won the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Donald Trump won the electoral vote which made him the president. Gary Johnson despite all the hype around his campaign failed to reach the five percent of the national vote needed to receive federal funds from the FEC. Johnson only reached four percent of the national vote. Jill Stein reached one percent of the national vote. Neither the Green Party or Libertarian Party reached the barriers required to receive recognition from the FEC. The Libertarian Party was the favorite to cross that barrier in the 2016 election, and yet they still failed. Part of that could be attributed to Johnson coming off as uninformed about current events. Some argue the Libertarian ticket would have been more successful with Bill Weld at the top of the ticket. Also, prominent Libertarian icon, Ron Paul, wasn’t supportive of Johnson. That being said, 2016 was the best performance for the Libertarian Party since it’s inception in 1971. Meanwhile, 2016 was the second-best performance for the Green Party with 2000 being their best performance. Both Johnson and Stein failed to win over a significant proportion of Sanders supporters. The overwhelming majority of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary Clinton. Stein got more votes from Sanders supporters than Johnson did. Hillary Clinton and her staunch backers were quick to use the third-party candidates as scapegoats for her loss. Even though they didn’t receive enough votes to swing an election. In fact, Jill Stein called for a recount to make sure Donald Trump didn’t win states like Wisconsin. Stein was the smeared as a Russian Asset and a Putin puppet by Hillary Clinton’s stans. Bernie Sanders was also wrongly blamed for Clinton’s loss and smeared as a Putin puppet by Clinton and her allies. Sanders, Stein, and Johnson were on a long list of Clinton scapegoats which included Barak Obama amount others. In the end, 2016 should stand as a clear example of why a third-party won’t succeed in the United States of America with the current rules in place.
What Is The Path Forward For Progressives?
Many progressives disillusioned by the Democratic Party Establishment’s rejection of progressive policies and the small victories for progressives in Democratic Primaries are looking for alternatives to taking over the Democratic Party. Progressive commentators such as Jimmy Dore formerly of TYT are promoting the idea of elevating the Green Party or starting a new progressive party as an alternative to taking over the Democratic Party. Dore’s case hinges on the fact that most Americans want a multiparty system and want to have more than two viable options. He isn’t wrong, polls have shown that Americans want a third and fourth major party as an alternative to the two major parties. There is some merit to this argument. One the Democratic Party, or at least the Democratic Establishment, doesn’t support the progressive agenda because just like the Republican Party it is compromised by special interest and lobbyists. Therefore, progressives should get behind a third-party like the Green Party and push to elect Green Politicians to get progressive goals done. The second case is that progressives should start a new party, like a modern-day equivalent to Theodore Roosevelt or Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party, and elect Progressives into government that way. Jimmy Dore has made both cases (yes he has a hard time making up his mind on this issue). Here are the things people like Jimmy Dore ignore.
First, of the two major third-parties, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, the Libertarian Party has largely benefitted from the increased interest in third-parties. As previously established, that’s because the Libertarian Party is viewed as a hybrid party between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. So voters who don’t like the two major parties and think of themselves as having a mix of Democratic and Republican ideas may think of the Libertarian Party as being their party. So that means the Libertarian Party is the party that is the one most likely to cross the barriers placed on third-parties, not the Green Party. Jimmy Dore should be smart enough to know that Libertarians have no interest in fulfilling many of the progressive goals he supposedly cares about, but he may not be. Sure a Libertarian President along with Libertarian Senators and Representatives will want to end the wars, legalize pot, and protect the rights of minority communities, so if people like Jimmy Dore care about those issues, by all means, they should support Libertarians. Here’s the caveat, Libertarians won’t want to implement Medicare For All, Tuition-Free College, Green New Deal, and a Progressive Universal Basic Income, so if people like Jimmy Dore (Jimmy Dore doesn’t care about those issues, he backed Tulsi Gabbard over Bernie Sanders, and she didn’t support Medicare For All or the Green New Deal) care about those issues they shouldn’t support Libertarians. Now Libertarians might implement the Libertarian Universal Basic Income, but that UBI would eliminate the Social Safety Net. Point being the third-party that’s close to crossing those barriers is one that is against many progressive ideas.
The second thing people like Jimmy Dore overlook is how rigged the system is against third-parties and third-party candidates. Now people like Dore will argue that progressives need to elevate third-party candidates at the state, local, and congressional levels before seeking the presidential bid. Sure, it’s easier for third-party candidates to get debate access and earn serious treatment, but their prospects of victory are slim. People like Dore will invoke Bernie Sanders and Jesse Ventura as examples of third-party success. However, those examples both neglect key elements to their success in their respective races. Bernie Sanders’ only true victory as a third-party candidate was when he ran for Mayor of Burlington, Vermont as the Candidate for the Vermont Progressive Party. He won because Burlington was a small enough town that he didn’t have to spread his resources thin. Sanders also had a message that resonated with Independent and young voters in Vermont. Aside from Sanders’ Mayoral bid, he’s run for Congress and the Senate as a member of the Democratic Caucus and is backed by the Democratic Party, not as some Independent with no affiliation to either party. Jesse Ventura was a big enough name that Minnesota voters were familiar enough with him that he didn’t need to campaign to let voters know about him. Also, the Minnesota Democratic Party invites third-party candidates to primary debates, so voters knew Ventura’s platform long before the general election. Had Jesse Ventura not had the name recognition he had prior to his run for governor, he wouldn’t have won that race.
Sanders and Ventura are the exceptions that prove the rule. In 2014, Greg Orman ran for to represent Kansas in the US Senate as an Independent and unseat Pat Roberts. Orman had enough support that he was allowed to debate Roberts and his Democratic challenger, Chad Taylor, but at the end of the day, Roberts won his reelection bid. In fact, Taylor dropped out of the race making the Senate race between Roberts and Orman, and Orman still lost. Orman still got forty-two percent of the vote. Orman then tried running for Governor of Kansas in 2018 relying on his name recognition from his Senate run to help him defeat Republican Kris Kobach and Democrat Laura Kelly. Orman was allowed onto the debate stage while other third-party candidates like Libertarian Jeff Caldwell failed to qualify. Orman got six percent of the vote, and Laura Kelly went on to be the Governor of Kansas. Another 2018 example of the failings of a third-party, was the US Senate race in New Mexico. Gary Johnson after running for president twice as a Libertarian decided to run for Senate as Libertarian in New Mexico. Johnson had hoped that his name recognition as a two-term Governor of New Mexico and a two-time presidential candidate would help him become the first Libertarian elected to the US Senate. He was up against Democratic incumbent Martin Heinrich and Republican challenger Mick Rich. Johnson was admitted onto the debate stage and had fairly decent media coverage for a third-party candidate. Also, the Libertarian Party has gained steam since his presidential bids that maybe he’d have a shot. Johnson was even endorsed by the son of Ron Paul, Rand Paul. However, Johnson receives fifteen percent of the statewide vote in New Mexico, and Heinrich remained in the Senate. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney was able to win his Senate race in Utah with many of the same merits as Johnson. Romney ran for president twice, winning the GOP nomination only once, and was a two-term Governor of Massachusetts. There is also Larry Sharpe’s run for governor in New York as a Libertarian. However, Andrew Cuomo had that race in lockdown, he was a two-term governor running for his third consecutive term in NY. Cuomo also defeated his primary challenger Cynthia Nixon. In other words, Cuomo was going to be reelected in the deep blue state of New York. Even at the state, local, and Congressional levels the fix against third-parties is in.
Finally, starting a new party will only fail to gain any traction. If people like Jimmy Dore think that the problem with the Green Party is that it’s seen as a single-issue party and therefore a progressive third-party needs to be a clear multi-issue party in order to succeed. That logic already ignores how rigged elections are against third-parties. On top of that, it ignores that a brand new party will be overshadowed by the existing third-parties. The Libertarian Party is considered the third major and the Green Party is considered the fourth major party, and so a new party won’t get into the third and fourth major party spots anytime soon. A brand new party will come behind parties like the Constitutional Party and other lesser-known minor parties. If implementing progressive policies is a priority like is a priority for people, Jimmy Dore, then they wouldn’t push for a new party as their vehicle for change. Hell, the Jimmy Dores of the world wouldn’t push any third-party strategy if they cared about progressive policies they recognize that trying third-party strategy is doomed to fail period. Jimmy’s queen, Tulsi Gabbard, shot that idea down to his face. Of course, Jimmy Dore has thrown Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders under the bus and elevated Tim Canova, who is now an avowed Trumpist, so it’s safe to say Jimmy isn’t committed to progressive policies as he’d like to say. Farron Cousins believes Dore will be the next HA Goodman.
So what should progressives do if a third-party route is doomed to fail? Keep trying to take over the Democratic Party. But it isn’t working. Really? Groups like Justice Democrats and Our Revolution have put forward have actually backed forty-one percent of successful primary challengers to incumbent Democrats, and have defeated corporate Democrats in primary challenges. Groups like Our Revolution and Justice Democrats started in 2016 and have had far more electoral success than the Libertarian Party and the Green Party which have been around much longer than those groups. Justice Democrats was started by Cenk Uygur and Kyle Kulinski to restore the Democratic Party to its progressive roots. Bernie Sanders started Our Revolution for the same reason. Jimmy Dore actually supported those groups at one point in time. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez successfully primaries Joe Crowly and unseated him. Crowly was fourth in line in the Democratic Leadership in the US House of Representatives, and he was beaten by a Justice Democrat and Our Revolution candidate. Just recently Marie Newman of Justice Democrats and Our Revolution defeated incumbent Democrat Dan Lepinski in 2020. Now some may bring up cases such as Brent Welder and James Thompson in Kansas. First of all, James Thompson won his primaries in Kansas and ran the two most successful bids a Democrat has ever run for the US House of Representatives in Kansas’ Fourth Congressional District. Brent Welder narrowly lost to Sharice Davids, by in large because Davids was from Johnson County which was the largest county in Kansas’ Third Congressional District. Also, Johnson County is the most affluent KS03 county. However, despite Welder’s loss at the national level, Rui Xu did win his primary and State Legislature race in Kansas’ Twenty-Fifth State Legislature District, which is in Kansas’ Third Congression District. Xu was an Our Revolution Democrat. What about Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid? One, he actually had a fairly decent run, until the states decided it was safe to hold primaries during a pandemic and then voters who didn’t take the Coronavirus situation seriously decided to vote for Joe Biden. Now Coronavirus is out of control thanks to state that thought it was safe to hold primaries. Sanders actually remained in striking distance of Biden prior to the Arizona, Florida, and Illinois primaries, and had a very strong chance of overcoming Biden. Not to mention the fact that Bernie was leading the Primary prior to Super Tuesday. Some will argue that he lost states like Michigan, which he won in 2016. However, that ignores the fact that he also won states he lost in 2016 like Nevada and California. On top of that, Biden’s own voters actually agreed with Sanders on the issues more than they did Biden. Biden’s voters even held a more favorable view of Sanders than they did Biden. In fact, Marie Newman won her primary in Illinois a state Bernie lost. Those voters voted for Biden because they were misled into thinking Biden can defeat Trump and that’s why they voted for Biden. What this shows is that Bernie Sanders won the ideological battle but came shy of winning the electability battle. What this shows is that a progressive stands a greater chance at winning the 2024 Democratic Primary, and Democrats won’t be voting based on the fears of a Trump reelection. So taking over the Democratic Party is actually working.
Could Justice Democrats and Our Revolution change their strategies to help increase their success? Sure. One thing groups such as Our Revolution and Justice Democrats do is run candidates for Democratic Party chair and positions within the Democratic National Committee (DNC). That way progressive officials within the DNC and local Democratic Party groups can push for open primaries and to increase outreach to Independent voters. On top of that, they can push the DNC to promote their primaries and push for more voters to participate in the primaries who don’t normally do so. Independent voter participation in Democratic Primaries tends to favor progressive candidates. One of the keys to Bernie’s victories in Nevada and California was participation from Independent voters. In fact, in states Bernie lost, he still won over Independent voters, the Independents who participated were outnumbered by Democrats hoodwinked into voting for Biden. So a progressive takeover of the Democratic Party should be more than electing progressives into government, but also electing progressives into Democratic Committees to help shape the rules and platforms of the Democratic Party and primaries. In addition to working to get more progressives into Democratic Party chair positions, progressives can also adjust their rhetoric. What does that mean? It means emphasizing on the fact that the ideas progressives support are ones supported by America’s most popular presidents. Medicare For All, Green New Deal, Living Wage, Universal Basic Income, and an end to war were policies supported by Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Abraham Lincoln. Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. supported the agendas pushed by progressives like Bernie Sanders. Progressives could invoke Franklin Roosevelt and Jack Kennedy to appeal to Democratic voters and destroy false electability narratives. Progressives could use Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower to bring Republicans into the progressive fold. If progressives emphasize the fact that their platforms were supported by presidents of both parties, it will destroy the false radical ideas narratives spread by mainstream media. These ideas are already supported by a majority of Americans, don’t let cable news pundits capture the narrative.
Now some may ask what do progressives do in November given that the race is between Biden and Trump? The best way to say it is to vote as you please. If you live in a swing state like Michigan, Wisconsin, or Florida it would better if you voted for the Democrat. If you live in a solidly red state like Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas or a solidly blue state like Massachusetts, New York, or California then vote however you want. Whatever you do, DON’T VOTE REPUBLICAN! Aside from that, your vote is up to you.
In conclusion, the 2016 election is the perfect example of why a third-party candidate will never succeed in an election. When Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were as hated as they were and yet neither Gary Johnson nor Jill Stein could access the debates or gain recognition from the FEC that should tell progressives that a third-party strategy will fail. In addition to the 2016 presidential election, state, local, and congressional races also show the failings of third-party candidates and further proves that reforming the Democratic party is the realistic path forward for progressive victories. Progressives could try adjusting their rhetoric to be more Rooseveltian and emphasize that America’s most popular presidents were progressives. Also, progressives should work to get into positions in the DNC to push measures like open primaries and to encourage Independent voter participation. Reforming the Democratic Party is already proving to be a more successful approach to implementing progressive goals than pushing third-parties so why give up now?
Stay tuned for my next piece on why I left libertarianism.
