David French does the right thing…
…and says he will not run for president.
Perhaps you missed the original story, which was that Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol had supposedly suggested French as a conservative 3rd party candidate. I never posted about the story for the simple reason that I never thought it would happen, and therefore I decided to wait.
I also thought that, although French is an excellent writer and excellent guy with an excellent resume, he hadn’t a chance of winning. And that was not because I think a third-party candidate could not win or would not be a good idea, at least in principle; it’s because French doesn’t have the name recognition or experience (not that experience seems to matter to most people anymore) or the political chops .
Apparently, French agrees:
I spent the last several days with some of the best minds in politics. I learned that the ballot-access challenge can be met with modest effort (by an existing network ready to activate), that the polling for a true outsider independent was better than most people know, and that there are many, many Americans ”” including outstanding political talents ”” who are willing to quit their jobs ”” today ”” to help provide the American people with an alternative.
“But given the timing, the best chance for success goes to a person who either is extraordinarily wealthy (or has immediate access to extraordinary wealth) or is a transformational political talent…it is plain to me that I’m not the right person for this effort.
That seems correct to me—including the fact that the ballot-access problem is not at all insurmountable, and that people are hungering for an alternative to both Trump and Clinton. But a “transformational political talent” is apparently needed, whatever that might mean (I would say that Obama was one, as is Trump, so not all transformations are positive). Or maybe we just need a “political talent,” which French does not appear to be.
This Examiner article ends with the following sentence:
It is not clear whether another candidate is ready at the moment to jump in.
Ha! You can say that again. Actually, I think it’s pretty clear that another candidate is not ready at the moment to jump in, or that person would have already jumped. The problem is that it’s also not clear who this person could possibly be. It’s easy to imagine (Bill Kristol imagined, I can imagine, you can imagine) that a third-party candidate has a good chance of actually getting a lot of votes this year and not just acting as a spoiler, or at the very least acting as enough of a spoiler to throw the election to the House. But it’s difficult to get down to brass tacks and imagine who this candidate might actually be.
This sort of conundrum has been characteristic of the entire 2016 campaign season. For the Democrats, it was always obvious that Hillary Clinton was not a great candidate, but it was not at all obvious who might be a better one. For the Republicans, the problem was different but ended up being similar: it was easy to imagine better candidates (there they were, right up there on the stage), but it seemed impossible to get enough of them to drop out in time to give a non-Trump candidate a fighting chance. Now that the two most unpopular nominees in history seem inevitable (barring a few details like possible indictments), a vast number of the country’s voters on both sides feel a sense of horror and unreality that we’ve arrived at this rotten predicament, as well as a sense of powerlessness at how to change it.
I think Bill Kristol has gone off the deep end. Can’t explain the David French maneuver any other way.
Bloomberg was the only one with a remote chance and he bowed out early.
You would think Ross Perot & Ralph Nader would have made a bigger impression on these elites !
Hard to think of anyone that fits the bill. But, that could be lack of imagination or information on my part. Condi Rice would meet many of the criteria, assuming that someone would set up a very large super pac to handle the advertising. Of course she would still need to raise a lot of money very quickly for all of the direct expenses–so there is that.
I would have voted for Bloomberg as the lesser of three evils, but not enthusiastically. I just don’t need a President to tell me how big my soft drink can be (actually I don’t drink them), or otherwise manage my personal choices. I have a wife for that.
I don’t know what Kristol had in mind. I do know he is a very smart and savvy guy; and I assume that he has not gone bonkers. So, there must have been a plan. The question is whether it was the obvious one, or was that a smoke screen for one yet to be revealed?
Alackaday!
On other sites I see the Libertarian Party candidate mentioned as a third choice, in particular Gary Johnson.
I too cannot think of a viable third party candidate. They would have to have broad appeal to both sides and be wealthy too. No one comes to mind that embody’s those qualities. As neo implies, that is the greatest obstacle to a successful third party candidacy.
So again, it’s Trump or Clinton. Unless… Trump is assassinated, (IMO an attempt is certain) and/or Hillary drops out, which if not a probability is IMO a distinct possibility.
BTW, I just caught much of on interview by Glenn Beck with David Horowitz. Beck is #neverTrump (like myself); Horowitz thinks Hillary would be way worse. Horowitz made convincing arguments about supreme court justices, etc. But, I didn’t hear discussed whether Trump is an ill informed, compulsive, rigid megalomaniac. I don’t know that Trump would confront national security challenges any better than Hillary would. For me, it’s still the devil I know v. the one I don’t. I still plan to not vote for that office in either the primary or the general. Not living in blue California would make that a harder decision.
Geoffrey Britain:
I have never thought Hillary will drop out, and I still do not think it’s going to happen.
See this for the prediction I made in 2012. Hillary’s negatives have risen since then, and I certainly did not foresee the Trump phenomenon, but otherwise it describes the situation fairly well, I think, considering how long ago I wrote it.
There are no real alternatives to her for the Democrats, and that’s why I don’t think she’ll be going. The only way they would put pressure on her to leave (or indict her, which I do not think will happen) is if she suddenly looks like a loser to Trump. That has not happened and I don’t think it will happen.
I agree with Neo’s analysis (as usual). I am surprised to not have heard any pundit mention the example of Arnold Schwarzenegger. That was the start of a revolution in California. Unfortunately, Arnold was ultimately defeated by the well organized progressive powers (including media). He already had name recognition, especially with low-info-voters. He was able to appeal to those people not as a conventional Republican, which would have been a turnoff to them. David French is certainly nothing like Arnold.
One item not widely mentioned is that French looked good because he adopted a black child. This, I guess, was thought to give him immunity to a racism charge.
mollyNH:
What’s up with this “elites” stuff? It’s one of those buzzwords that have come to grate on me.
I’ll tell you why. David French is not an “elite,” unless you consider all journalists, lawyers, and Iraq war veterans elite. Yes, he’s an accomplished man and a leader, but he’s only “elite” in a good sense, as in “outstanding.”
Bill Kristol is also a journalist and pundit. He has some influence with the GOP, but he’s just one of many, and is mainly a writer, speaker, and a former professor. Again, that’s “elite” in terms of accomplishments, but I cannot stand how “elites” has become a pejorative. To me, using the term that way smacks of leftist class antagonism.
There are no real puppet-masters, as the 2016 campaign should have shown. The “elites” have been powerless to stop the Trump juggernaut, as well as disorganized and flailing.
As far as Perot and Nader go, I disagree that their history has anything to do with this year. This year is quite different. Never before have there been two—count ’em, TWO—such disliked candidates. People are aching for alternatives. That was not true of the years Nader or Perot ran.
Alan F:
Maybe they should ask Clint Eastwood.
Unfortunately, he’s 86. Wow, I had no idea he was that old!
I’m a voter who feels a sense of despair about the weakened and degenerate state of our country that seven years of Obama’s rule has produced. Despair turned to horror as it appeared certain that Mrs Clinton would become the next President, which would demolish the last remnants of the shining city on the hill.
Until now, I’ve felt a sense of powerlessness at how to change that.
None of the makes sense except as a way to throw the election to Hillary. You can accuse me of indulging in “conspiracy theory” if you wish, but there has been no there rational reason for #NeverTrump since March 15 when Rubio lost Florida, big.
I certainly understand why Trump worries some people, but in the real world there has been no viable alternative since Mar. 15. For a while, one could think in terms of trying to establish leverage with Trump, but at this point even that rings very hollow.
It is looking like this election will come down to whether we will continue to have free elections, or surrender to mob rule from the left. Everything else is secondary or less. And the #NeverTrump-ers are voting for mob rule, even if they don’t know it.
Trump may, probably will, make a lot of mistakes, but in 2020 there will be an open and fair election and he an be replaced, if he even runs (he’ll be 73). Put Hillary or Sanders in there with 2-4 Supreme Ct appointments and a Democratic Senate to confirm them, and it’s very hard to think there will be another fair and open election in my lifetime.
Gut check time, people… in the world as it is, not as we wish it were.
MHJ:
You might not agree with them, but there are plenty of rational reasons.
One is the idea that a third-party candidate could have a good chance of winning or at least throwing the election to the House. There is nothing irrational about that, although you may think it’s incorrect.
Another is the idea so aptly stated by commenter “Bill” here. Please read it.
Again, you no doubt disagree, but it is quite rational and possible. Those who do agree with Bill have a reason for being NeverTrump, and it’s not irrational at all.
The fact that rational people can differ on such all-important issues and forecasts about a possible Trump presidency is one of the incredibly difficult things about this election and the decisions we face. Trump is terra incognita.
Say rather “Tedra Incruznita.”
Rational people can disagree: on specific things, and on the relative importance of those things. And, as Neo notes, this time around there’s less certainty than usual.
Don’t get in the habit of thinking that only irrational people or saboteurs can disagree with you.
MHJ Says:
“None of the makes sense except….”
You went one word too far.
The viable alternative, without some miracle “third party dream team”, is Libertarian. That is the real world.
Gary Johnson is an experienced Governor, and seems to be on the up and up, is transparent, and has a cohesive set of principles and ideas to move forward. Cannot agree 100%, but he is for smaller government, and seems to be bound to the Constitution.
Bill said it well (follow Neo’s link).
Bottom Line: Trump has a huge downside tail risk, that IMHO too many conservatives are underestimating.
If we wait around for that dream team, we will lose (again) an opportunity to stop Trump and possibly Clinton.
We can choose Libertarian at the top and GOP down ticket.
And we will all be proud, DAMNED PROUD!, watching you do it.
I just don’t know what we’d do in this country if it weren’t for the Libertarians!
Help us Rogue Electors; you’re our only hope.
Didn’t Johnson say that he agreed with Bernie 73% of the time? He has also said that he is fiscally but not socially conservative. While I’m not a rigid social conservative, I don’t think that giving in to the left on every issue (bathrooms, anyone?) is a good idea. I want social conservatives to be able to make their case and not worry about being sued for not wanting to bake wedding cakes for gays.
I don’t trust Johnson. He is sure not our saviour.
Neo I consider Kristo l an elite, so too Romney & Jeb Bush.
Trump doesn’t have their stamp of approval so they work against him, they prefer to see Hill in the WH.
Sorry you’d on t see a connection between Per ot. & Nader
Run and French’s . Back then there was a significant disgust
with business as usual out of Washington that spurred on Pert & also when Nader ran zing ING the Democrats only this time
DJT succeeded in getting hitched to a major party, Ross & Ralph did not.
“transformational political talent” = competitive social activist movement.
Individually, neither Obama nor Trump is a “transformational political talent” What they’ve had are viable activist teams.
neo,
In no way did I even imply that you had ever suggested that Hillary might drop out. You’ve made that clear in multiple comments.
If Hillary loses in California, internal support for her (among delegates and the powers-that-be) will decline and what remains will be shaky. Sanders is simply a non-starter but the voters who support him are critical, as are Hillary’s. Retaining both those factions is the obstacle that a Biden ticket would face.
If after she won the nomination, Hillary did drop out, IMO a Biden/Warren ticket would not only be a viable alternative but would stand a better chance of winning the election.
I’m not familiar with Johnson. expat’s points certainly give pause. But the libertarian party is IMO, not a viable alternative, as it lacks the degree of bipartisan support needed.
expat:
Gary Johnson also said he didn’t know whether the U.S. should have fought in World War II. The guy is a dope.
Been all downhill since the golden age of
RON PAUL!
Neo:
“a sense of powerlessness at how to change it”
If they’re powerless, that’s a collective choice. Activism is just as available to them as any other competitor in the arena. Activism is, and has always been for the American nation since the Founding Fathers/activists, the power of the people available to anyone for any cause. But to work, activism does need to be a collective commitment.
But due their activism aversion, it appears conservatives are still choosing to commit the fundamental error of looking for an individual magical messiah, when in fact, their competition are primarily succeeding as social activist movements.
Obama and Trump aren’t cult leaders. At best, they’re cult figures with emphasis on the ‘cult’, which is to say, their stature is primarily a product of their respective social activist movements. The ‘cult’ is a product of activists.
So if conservatives are passively looking for an individual “transformational” magical messiah, then they’ve invented their own dead end to cop out of the activist game. Because that has never existed for the Democrat-front Left nor the Trump-front alt-Right. They have social activist movements that produce cult figures, instead.
The problem is conservatives steadfastly refuse to come together as a competitive social activist movement, which is the primary and basic necessity for a viable 3rd-option alternative, and keep looking to pass the buck on their core responsibility of activism, the same irresponsibility that doomed the GOP against the activist usurpers.
“I don’t trust Johnson. He is sure not our saviour.”
“The guy is a dope”
My gosh. We are arguing like we have a plethora of choices.
Of course we are not going to find someone we agree anywhere close to 100% on. That ship has already sailed.
However, if the GOP can retain the House (likely) or the Senate (looking slim right now), they can probably limit some of the downside with Johnson, and get help on the upside – smaller government, balanced budget – where our biggest long term threat lies.
IDK his full story, but Johnson seems not likely to be the kind of person who would pull Obama’s moves to circumvent Congress, based on his track record in NM.
There is plenty not to like about the Libertarian policies and in some of Johnson’s ideas – but how much of those are ideas he is trying to sell – how much of that did he actually do in NM? He seems a realist when governing.
Maybe there are some skeletons not yet surfaced, but short of that, he as POTUS seems to be a FAR less risky choice.
And, consider this… the Libertarians are the only party that has the infrastructure in place to make a go of it.
But, if we continue to sit on the sidelines, waiting for that perfect egg to our chicken, the only effective choice will be Trump vs Clinton… simple as that.
Jennifer Rubin asks a question that’s been on my mind as well — “So why ISN’T Mitt Romney running?”
Ann:
I have thought about that question and I think the answer is that he is aware that his time has passed and that he probably would act as a spoiler. It has to be someone fresh and new in some way, not one of the 2016 candidates or the 2012 candidate. I think he probably has done polling that tells him that.
Also, his family is probably also strongly set against it, and he may have made a promise to them about that.
On Johnson’s WWII comment… better context…
http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/03/libertarian-gary-johnson-clarifies-forei
On Johnson’s foreign policy…
http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/06/gary-johnson-on-foreign-policy-war-we-ne
Definitely NOT an isolationist, hands off approach.
Neo:
I see your point about being a spoiler, but I also think Rubin has a good point when she says if he “fears an independent run would simply hand the election to Trump” that’s contradicted by the fact that “he was willing to support such a run” by someone else.
I am puzzled at all this talk of finding some third party choice who could shift the Presidential election to the House. But with the Electoral College, Presidential elections are not decided on popular vote. A third party candidate would have to score a majority in enough States, or in the proper selection of States, to deny an Electoral majority to both parties.
Fact: no third party has taken even a single electoral vote in 100 years: not since Teddy Roosevelt made his run.
No, my friends, the time to discuss third party formation and candidacies for 2016 was in 2012. Today, we have what we have.
Steve S:
As I said, this is a completely unique situation. I cannot think of a parallel, so I don’t think comparisons to previous races matter.
There is one state in which a third party conservative candidate has an excellent chance of winning. It’s Utah. Of course, that’s only one state. But there may be others, depending on the third party candidate and who he/she is. Take a look at this article.
One of the many unique things about this race—besides the remarkably high unfavorables of both candidates—is the fact that, although we keep using the term “third-party” for a Trump alternative candidate, it’s not really correct. It was Trump who was the actual third-party candidate, running within the GOP. The people looking for the “third-party” candidate are mostly conservative Republicans and mainstream Republicans, not a third party at all. They are looking to offer what they consider the real Republican candidate, even though that person won’t have been nominated through the usual primary/caucus process.
neo,
True, it is not impossible for a third party (real third party, not GOP-convention-surprise) to get the correct configuration of States to kick the election to the House. As the article you’d linked to pointed out, there are indeed several ways it could happen. Had there been a third party pulling a majority in Florida in 2000, we would have witnessed such an occurrence.
But the stars have to align nearly perfectly for it to happen. For every manner that the article pointed out to achieve a House-determined outcome, there are a hundred scenarios that render all this moot.
But what the heck: just to further stir things up, suppose the stars do align. There is then an interesting potential conflict between the 12th Amendment and the 20th Amendment; the first allowing the process to drag on until March 04, and the other seating a President on January 20. Might as well start gaming that one, too – that no one pulls 26 States in the House.
What hath God wrought!! Thanks for an interesting blog.
Eric Says:
June 6th, 2016 at 6:53 pm
Neo:
“a sense of powerlessness at how to change it”
If they’re powerless, that’s a collective choice. Activism is just as available to them as any other competitor in the arena. Activism is, and has always been for the American nation since the Founding Fathers/activists, the power of the people available to anyone for any cause. But to work, activism does need to be a collective commitment.
(RTWT)
***
Excellent commentary.
As long as we’re gaming scenarios:
1. Both Trump and Clinton select VP candidates with higher favorables than themselves (that includes just about any known politician in each party).
2. ???? (health, indictments, assassination by some fanatic – Sirhan Sirhan ring a bell?)
3a. Election becomes a contest between the two VPs with NO ONE on the ballot for President.
Does the Constitution even cover that eventuality?
3b. The Prez names stay on the ballot but obviously will “abdicate” before or just after the “coronation”.
Even dead people have won elections IIRC.
Neo,
I very much agree with your analysis. Trump really is the third party candidate, the party formerly known as Republican having shown once again that it would patronizingly appear to hear the grubby little members, all the while planning on running yet another fortunate son. Trump will have to get new people to replace the stuffed shirts, and he won’t have a lot of money to run with. In this last regard, I would note that he uses social media effectively, though I would expect Silicon Valley to cancel his accounts unless he agrees to back off on the immigration issue.
Big Maq,
I get your take on Gary Johnson. I am a lower case libertarian. I find much to agree upon and much to disagree with the Libertarian Party. That said I can see the possibility that this cycle might gain the party some electoral votes, but not enough to trigger Article 12. Why? Because I can not see djt gaining electoral votes above the threshhold of 100. Thus 50 to 75 electoral votes for the Libertarians, while ground breaking, is not enough.
@parker – so, you are arguing it is going to be a landslide for Clinton anyway, correct? (~400 electoral college votes for Clinton vs ~100 Trump and ~50 Johnson).
You may be right and there is no need to seek a third party.
Wish I were that confident in that result.
Still, I’d rather work to ensure an outcome than to expect one. Since “the polling for a true outsider independent was better than most people know”, as Trump and Clinton are each distasteful enough to enough voters (even now Clinton is only +2 over Sanders in California, in the final days of the Dem race), there is an opportunity to beat normal expectations.
Johnson actually won TWO terms in NM. So, between those and his 2012 run, I’d hope that he has learned enough that he’d mount a reasonable campaign towards winning votes from BOTH Dem and GOP camps – (something I doubt a conservative third party can do to ).
In an election year like this, don’t know what the topside could be in electoral votes Johnson / Libertarians could gather.
Regardless, personally won’t have a hand in directly bringing Trump nor Clinton to power. If it is Clinton, as you predict, well, I can “live with that”, as Trump is a grave gamble, and most (who are on the fence or leaning Trump anyway for fear of Clinton) are wishfully, and grossly under-rating the downside tail risk with him.
.
To the rest of us here…
The challenge is the classic chicken/egg, and we saw this play out in the GOP candidacy race. Voters and contributors were divided on what to do and were “waiting” for a “viable” alternative to appear.
To appear “viable” the Libertarians need media attention. If they continue to only hover around 10%, no go. If they meet the 15% threshold for the debates we will see much more attention and put them on a momentum track.
But they won’t get there if people are “waiting” to see if the Libertarians are “viable”. The stars don’t align themselves.
Eric makes some great points about activism. That activism has to start with decisions. People have to start making choices now, well BEFORE they will see any media attention come to the Libertarians (or any other “third party”), and their “viability” is obvious.
The “elites” are people who did not earn their position, yet are given positions of power and authority to lord it over the peons.
They were responsible for upholding their political and ruling class credentials, the claim that their elite status was the result of virtue, accomplishment, and earnings.
They failed to uphold that when they allowed Leftist intellectuals and rulers in. So now all of them get the mud effect.
One of the first things an elite were told and taught was that they were the rare and the elite only because of standards, high standards, which kept the riff raff out.
“The “elites” are people who did not earn their position, yet are given positions of power and authority to lord it over the peons.” – Ymarsakar
This is looking at it backwards, or at the wrong point, and makes it seem much more centrally organized than it is.
IMHO, people left the “politics” to others, and it is those others who involved themselves that have shaped who we get to “choose” at election time.
Within the bounds that our Founders set up, the political system has been relatively self-organizing (though hardly perfectly spontaneously so, given incumbent advantages, gerrymandering, etc.).
The world where elites uphold their own class, etc., is more reflected in today’s Russia than it is of the USA. The elite there are markedly different in their path to the top from the Mark Cubans, Howard Schultzes and hundreds (thousands?) of their peers in the USA.
Not that we don’t need change in DC, but thinking in the terms you describe leave people externalizing the problem and giving up on something that is essentially in their hands to change.
Furthermore, it feeds back into a victimization mode, and a “we vs they” attitude that divides us all against each other – something that gets used against us.