Nikki Haley as a third party candidate

The establishment strategy and tactics are going to change. Nikki Haley got absolutely trounced in her home state of South Carolina in the 2024 GOP primary.  She has no path to victory.  So why does she keep running? The common theories are that she's delusional, or that she's staying in the race to secure a VP spot, or as a fallback in case president Trump is forced out for legal reasons, OR she's in it to hurt Trump's chances of winning because she's an establishment puppet.  This morning I had another thought.  What if the latter theory is true, and she wants to hurt Trump?  What is the best way to do that?  

It's not going to cut it with her staying in the race and losing state after state. She's not hurting Trump much at all.  Her support is coming from establishment Republicans and crossover primary voters (Democrats) who want to see anybody but Trump win. Firstly take a look at a few clips as the premise for my thinking.

1. Trump is doing everything right and it's no contest at this point:

Keep in mind that ABC is cherry picking to try to find how this is not good news for Trump when they talk about the electability of Trump after a possible conviction of a crime.  Keep that 36% in mind.

2. MSNBC exit polls tell an interesting story:

Yes, it's MSNBC, and yes it's just exit polls (and early ones at that), but there are still some takeaways that add context to the of the ABC report.  Firstly 31% non-Republicans voted. That could, and probably does account for the largest chunk of that 36% mentioned in the ABC exit polls about a Trump conviction.  Not all, but probably the majority.

Secondly, this means for Nikki Haley, is she does not have a shot among Republicans, who will always represent the vast majority of voters among the remaining primaries.  In some cases, they represent the entire primary electorate.   It means she CANNOT win the GOP nomination. But yet she persists, hence all the theories as to why she is staying in the race.

3. Her establishment financial support is also slipping away now too:

This makes her GOP primary win even more impossible (if that's even a thing). So what next? She's still not dropping out, and people like the Koch brothers are backing away because they are wasting money at this point.  Her strategy will have to change, and her tactics will have to also as a result of the strategy shift as well.

No matter the scenario that proves out to be the reason she is staying in the race, the following holds true: she would do better as a third party candidate.  Let's take a look at the possibilities.

She's delusional: If she believes she can win the GOP nomination, she is delusional. She has no path. But she's gotten pretty far politically prior to her run for president this cycle, and that doesn't happen because of delusions of grandeur.  I don't believe she's delusional, she has an agenda. That agenda may be to become president but we cannot pretend she doesn't understand the polls. But to entertain the notion, if she truly just wants to win the presidency, doing it as a GOP candidate is not her path.  An easier approach would be to run as a third party candidate and take the voters from both Trump and Let's Go Brandon with whom she believes she has a connection and can secure enough votes.

The VP slot: She's not really in it to secure a VP slot.  Trump has already intimated that she's not on the list. It's another scenario I'd simply rule out.

The fallback candidate: She does not represent the logical fallback candidate just because she was the last opponent standing. Loss after loss does not inspire confidence. She is hurting her chances in that scenario.  Instead going third party and trying to stand on her ideas seems more like the high road.  If for some (highly unlikely) reason Trump cannot serve as the Republican nominee, being called back in from an independent run seems far more positive and perhaps even gracious; stepping in to rescue the party from it's own flawed electoral 'mistake'.

The Establishment puppet: This scenario, to me, makes the most sense.  The GOP establishment and the establishment writ large, want to hurt Trump; they want to stop Trump by hurting him, constantly. Death by a thousand cuts if necessary. Keep hitting Trump with criminal cases, civil cases, a primary challenger, and whatever else they can throw in his way, so that (i) he cannot focus on his campaign, (ii) they find something that sticks and forces him to bow out and/or (iii) turns off his voter base. In that case having Nikki Haley in the reason is just one more speed bump for Trump. 

But it hasn't been working; Trump's support continues to grow (or at least, not falter) with each roadblock they attempt. Despite his focus being split his campaign seems to be humming along just fine. And with each case crumbling, finding something to stick on Trump seems to be not only falling further out of reach, it's making the establishment look more and more desperate, more and more suspicious and galvanizing support for Trump.  It's all a failure, which is why you are seeing the Koch money pull out.  The strategy has to change.

It won't make Nikki Haley president but that's not the establishment goal. The goal is to stop Trump. A third party run might do to Trump what the RFK Jr. run does to Let's Go Brandon; siphon off enough votes to make a difference. And the Koch money for Haley pulling out of the GOP primaries might be the signal to her to switch strategies.

To be clear, it's not likely to stop the Trump train, but the establishment is running out of options at this point. They may end up trying to ditch Let's Go Brandon as their last play, and if they do it's a sign of desperation. If they do though, it's also a clear sign the GOP establishment and the Democrat establishment are the same establishment, or at a minimum, they have almost identical agendas.  And that goes well beyond president Trump.

Trump's Cards

I'm a little surprised that Trump would do this at this point in the campaign, he's probably thinking he's got a legitimate shot and wants to trashcan any targeting opportunities against him prior to the next debate. It's not going to guarantee him what he might consider fair treatment going forward. But it's good news for Republican voters nonetheless;

WASHINGTON (AP) — Presidential candidate Donald Trump ruled out the prospect of a third-party White House bid Thursday and vowed to support the Republican Party's nominee — whoever it may be.

The billionaire businessman announced his decision in a raucous news conference at Trump Tower, the gold-hued skyscraper in midtown Manhattan where he launched his surging and front-running campaign for president.

"I have signed the pledge," Trump said, adding that he intends to win the nomination himself and face whoever the Democrats nominate.

"So, I will be totally pledging my allegiance to the Republican Party and the conservative principles for which it stands, and we will go out and we will fight hard and we will win," he said.

It's been pointed out ad naseum on CNN that the pledge is non-binding. But there's a moral implication that will be a sticking point for many Trump voters should he go back on his word.

THIS is where 3rd party candidates work

When third party candidates crop up with a leftward tilt, it's worth fully supporting getting that information out there.  It's far better to see the left split the vote than to see it happen on the right and see Tea Party candidates killing GOP candidates thereby effectively enabling more Democratic rule. A fractured right is damaging in the long term for conservatives. A fractured left is always helpful. So seeing this sort of thing, is encouraging.

Marianne Williamson, the best-selling author whose “A Return to Love” spent 39 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list in 1992, announced Sunday that she is running as an independent for the US House of Representatives in California’s 33rd District, a seat currently held by 74-year old Democrat Henry Waxman, one of the most powerful members of Congress.

Williamson, who made her candidacy official Sunday afternoon at the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills, has written extensively about the moral and spiritual underpinnings of US politics in many of her books, including “Healing the Soul of America,” a 2000 best-seller that focuses on transforming spiritual activism into social activism.

The theme of Williamson’s campaign is “Create Anew.”

Williamson writes on her campaign website that Waxman has been a good representative for 38 years and that she does not consider him an opponent. Rather, she sees them both as simply different candidates for the same position. In seeking to encourage “a new consciousness regarding our political discourse,” Williamson hopes to stem the trend toward corporatism that has been so prevalent in recent decades.

“American government has lost its ethical center and its deep commitment to democracy, drifting ever more consistently in a corporatist direction,” Williamson writes. “And no one specific legislative initiative can fix that. I believe that a wave of independent candidates, all committed to a huge course-correction, is necessary to turn our ship around. I feel my campaign, and most importantly my win, can help inspire such a movement.”

That's a certainly a liberal candidate.  Let's hope it amounts to a serious challenge. If the left splits functionally, that would be the only viable way for the Tea Party to split off from the GOP and be anything more than a spoiler party.

Bloomberg and Trump Wild Cards

Let's run!

Think of the worst possible scenario, an Obama win with a popular vote share of 41%.  How does that happen?  A third, and maybe fourth party candidate.  Two possible entrants along those lines are Donald Trump and New York City mayor Bloomberg.

If either or both of those independently wealthy, and not-really-conservatives run, on the basis that they want to rid the country of a leader that they think is doing a bad job, they'll just ensure that he wins.  It's not hard to figure out - a two or three way split of the anti Obama vote only helps Obama.  In an electoral college battle that is bound to be close and come down to a few key states, a percentage point or two each is likely to skew heavily towards the anti-incumbent vote.  And both potential candidates would probably take mo0re than 1 or 2 percent.  

Both candidates are smart enough to realize they are hampering their own stated cause by merely running. So why on earth would they run against him if they want Obama defeated?  Because they don't want him defeated, they want him re-elected.

Why I Now Support a Third Party Option For 2012

Leading up to the 2010 mid-term elections I wrote about the reason I felt the Tea Party should thrown its support behind the GOP and not start a third party to compete in the mid-terms.  In effect, they would end up splitting the vote and leaving a gaping hole for Democrats to waltz back into a comfortable majority.  Thankfully that didn't happen.  But reading something today has led me to do a 180 reversal on the subject.

Law of Unintended Consequences - A Third Party

There's been a lot of talk lately about the GOP not serving the needs of conservatives. They've lost their way since the days of Reagan and the Contract with America. That may be true. It's pretty much undeniable. How to extricate America from having a liberal party and a less liberal party though is where the splinters in conservative solidarity start to appear. Many people are swearing to never vote Republican again, and are looking seriously at third party options - new or exisiting. The Law of Unintended Consequences has been a subject I've been focusing on a bit more lately.  If ever the Law of Unintended Consequences were worth considering it's with respect to a third party for conservatives.

If you really are considering a third party option, regardless of the quality of candidate they might put up, you have to ask yourself two questions.  (1) Are you prepared to abandon the party of Reagan and the party of Goldwater because of a recent spate of weak candidates? Aren't you throwing out the baby with the bathwater? (2) Are you doing so with the full knowledge that there will be impacts from the Law of Unintended Consequences to your decision?  There are alternatives to a third party that would better serve the conservative agenda.  How can we expect to take back America from the liberals if we can't even re-take the GOP? 

The first question you need to answer for yourself.  But can you really consider yourself a conservative, if you are prepared to abandon the party because you feel the party has abandon you?  Where's your fighting spirit?  The run and hide approach is not what the country was founded on.  It's a weak solution akin to getting a divorce after 15 years of marriage because you don't like the way your husband/wife forgets to put the cap on the toothpaste.  Yes, this is more serious than that.  But it also has more history than 100 years.  The cut and run strategy is something we derided liberals for with respect to Iraq.  Do you really want to make that your solution now?  Conservative values mean fighting for something you value.  Conservative values mean valuing honored institutions.  Would you abandon your church if the most recent minister/priest/rabbi/etc. had views different than your own?  Or would you challenge them?  Or would you look for a third party church?  A third party wife?  Each has its own Law of Unintended Consequences related outcome.

The second question merits an even deeper consideration, because its focus is practical. There are a myriad of examples of where a lack of a united front has resulted in failure.  There are military examples.  There are parenting examples. There are international relations examples.  There are law enforcement examples.  There are lots of political examples. The proper focus however, is on electoral examples of third party intrusions and how the Law of Unintended Consequences ensured that the desired results could not possibly be achieved.

Example 1: Canada's 2 conservative parties

In the 1980's the conservative party of Canada won massive majorities in parliament, on more than one occasion.  Over time they fell from popularity with the same level of disdain that George W. Bush 'enjoyed'.  Liberals always hated them and conservatives realized that they were more liberal than conservative in many ways.  Subsequently they were decimated in elections in the 1990's to almost the same degree they had decimated the liberals. In 1987 initially as a result of the conservatives' leftward drift, a new conservative party was formed called the Reform party..  It's important to note that it was not a third party but in fact a fourth. It was the second conservative party aligned against a liberal party and a socialist party. It contested its first election in 1988 as a regional (western party) but did not win a single seat in parliament. By the 1993 election the party had grown substatianlly and took 16% of the popular vote.  The Law of Unitended Consequences had reared it's head however.  The party took the majority of it's votes from the collapse of the Conservative Party. The Reform party took 52 seats in Parliament the Conservative party, 2.  The Liberal party meanwhile managed to enjoy the results of the split and garnered a 177 seat majority. The socialist party netted 9 seats and a new Quebec separatist party (a regional fifth party) became the official opposition with 54 seats.

The next election in 1997 saw the same dynamic, but worsened for conservatives;

Reform had also failed in 1997 to establish itself as the clear right-wing alternative to the Liberal Party. The Progressive Conservative Party, which had been steadily rebuilt under Charest, enjoyed a modest revival in the 1997 election. It won 20 seats, up from the dismal two it had won during in the 1993 election. The split in the right-wing vote between Reform and the PCs allowed the Liberals to win a second majority government with only 40% of the vote, the combined vote of the Reform and the PCs in 1997 equalled the same amount. Political observers noted that it was a divided right which allowed the Liberals to gain a second majority government, and claimed that if the two parties did not put away their differences, the result would repeat itself.

There's a lesson to be learned there.  The various Canadian conservatives did learn their lesson and amalgamated the new parties under a single conservative banner.  They have since won two consecutive minority governments and are currently in power in Canada. The grip is tenuous but it is far better than the third party approach and the impact of the Law of Unintended Consequences that could have seen the conservatives in the wilderness for decades.  Instead it was only a single decade.

Example 2: Ralph Nader

Closer to home, in 2000 there was a beneficial example of the Law of Unintended Consequences and the impact of a third party.  George W. Bush beat Al Gore in 2000.  This despite garnering only 47.9% of the vote.  Al Gore in fact won 48.4% of the vote.  Everybody remembers the issues with Florida.  But had Ralph Nader not taken 2.7% of the vote, Florida might not have been an issue. Al Gore certainly would have won Florida. He also would have won New Hampshire.  Even Missouri would have been pretty close.  The net effect of the Nader campaign - a Bush win.

Remember the old saying, United We Stand, Divided We Fall?  How about patience is a virtue?  How about the words of Albert Einstein "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." As a conservative you are supposed to be standing on the shoulders of giants.  If you want to blow things up and start over, rather than trying to repair a fixable problem, you have to ask yourself if you really are all that different from the liberals who see a problem and decide that an entirely new solution is needed, rather than seeing all the greatness that has come from the old solution.  The solution that has already proven to work.

The alternative, to rebuild the GOP from within, concentrating on promoting and demanding real conservative candidates, would result in far quicker results and require much less work.

You really need to think about a third party option, and what the Law of Unintended Consequences will do for America for years to come.  You have to ask yourself, am I being practical?  Am I being petulant?  What do I hope this will achieve? And is this the best way to solve the problem, or are other alternatives a better idea?  If you can answer those questions honestly, really honestly and you still believe that you are doing the right thing, then by all means proceed.  Maybe you can live with the resulting Democrat dynasty and be happy with your principals, but realize that you have thrown all pragmatic concerns aside.