The approaching November presidential election may hinge on the symbolic magic number of 34%. With President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump, and independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the mix, the pivotal question emerges: Which candidate can secure 34% or more of the popular vote?
While many experts still dismiss the likelihood of an independent or third-party candidate winning, there’s a palpable sense of concern among both Democratic and Republican operatives. This unease has intensified, particularly with the prospect of Kennedy running on the Libertarian Party ticket.
As discussed in a recent piece titled “RFK Jr.’s possible Libertarian bid rankles Democrats,” the potential ramifications of Kennedy’s Libertarian bid have been duly acknowledged.
RFK Jr.’s Increasing Path to Victory (Credits: The Hill)
This has not only raised apprehensions among certain Democratic operatives but also among Republicans. The primary concern lies in Kennedy’s increased likelihood of getting on state ballots, including crucial battleground states, by becoming the Libertarian Party’s standard-bearer.
Democratic strategist Doug Gordon downplays the odds of Kennedy winning the presidency but emphasizes the potential spoiler role, suggesting that Kennedy might inadvertently pave the way for Trump’s return to the White House.
To borrow from Hamlet, one might say, “Methinks the strategist doth protest too much.”
Whenever a Democratic strategist emphatically declares a candidate has “no chance,” it’s worth recalling past instances where similar assertions about candidates were proven wrong.
A quick trip to YouTube to revisit the confident predictions about Donald Trump’s electoral fate in 2015 and 2016 serves as a sobering reminder that political landscapes can shift unexpectedly.
A recent real-world example comes from Argentina, where the populist libertarian Javier Milei was elected president.
Campaigning with a symbolic chainsaw to emphasize reducing the government’s massive size, Milei’s message resonated with voters, especially the youth, who sought an alternative to entrenched elites.
RFK Jr. has been echoing a similar message across the United States, underscoring the failures of both the Republican and Democratic Parties, particularly for young voters.
This message, as demonstrated by Milei’s success in Argentina, appears to be gaining traction, with Kennedy now leading among young voters.
This sets the stage for a compelling electoral scenario. What if Kennedy, deemed a “spoiler” with “no chance,” not only ran on the Libertarian Party ticket, secured key swing state ballots but also continued to attract young and independent voters, along with dissatisfied Democrats and Republicans?
Some polls already indicate Kennedy at around 21% of the popular vote. With over nine months until the election, what if his support grows steadily each month, even if just by over 1%?
In a nation where 70% of voters express a preference for nominees other than Biden and Trump, the seemingly “impossible” might be a more achievable prospect.
The next crucial question arises if no presidential candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. In such a scenario, the presidential election shifts to Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, to elect the President from the top three candidates with the most electoral votes.
This brings us back to the magic number: 34%. If Kennedy were to secure 34% of the vote, it would exert substantial pressure on the House of Representatives to make a consequential decision.
Is it another “impossible” scenario? The precedent of Donald J. Trump’s election in 2016 suggests that what may seem impossible today could be entirely possible. This prospect is increasingly causing concern among both Democratic and Republican elites.
The next nine months promise to be intriguing and enlightening as the political landscape unfolds.
