Dem
51
GOP
49
Jim Messina, Barack Obama's 2012 campaign manager, has written an op-ed for Politico about third-party candidates. Op-eds like this have been written before, but Messina has run actual presidential campaigns and knows a thing or two about them.
Messina notes that third parties have a huge barrier: the Electoral College. To win the election, you need to win multiple states. That means getting more votes than every other candidate in at least a dozen states. He looks at history as a guide. In 1968, George Wallace won five states in the Deep South and 46 electoral votes in a campaign with a clear (very racist) theme: "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" that resonated in those states. He was for something and had a clear goal in mind: keep segregation. Since then, no third-party candidate has won even a single state. No Labels, Robert Kennedy Jr., and Cornel West don't have any clear underlying goal or program. Saying: "I know you don't like the other candidates, so vote for me" just doesn't do the job. To win millions of votes, you have to be for something, not just against the way things are now. You have to say how you will change things.
Immigration could be such an issue (see above). A candidate who said "I will close the border and not let anyone in" might get millions of votes—except that Donald Trump is already saying that. Why would anyone vote for Joe Schmoe to close the border when Donald Trump promises that? Abortion is also an issue that could get millions of votes, except that no matter which side you are on, there is a major-party candidate who supports your view.
The Green Party and Libertarian Party have clearly formulated programs with specific goals. Theoretically, their candidate could win, but in reality they never will. Jill Stein is making her third try on the GP ticket. There is no reason to think she will do any better than the last two times, when she won 0 and 0 states, respectively. The LP doesn't even have a candidate yet and will ultimately pick a complete unknown. These two have the best chances of winning since they are actual parties with organization, ballot positions, and programs. But they never get anywhere.
Messina points out that support in the national polls means nothing. In June 1992, Ross Perot was the leading candidate nationally, with 39% in the polls. He actually got 20% in the end, but no states. And it's states that matter. In September 2016, Gary Johnson polled at 10%. He ended up with 3% (better than Stein's 1%), but he still got 0 electoral votes. It is clear that voters are willing to tell pollsters that they are fed up with the major parties and will vote for a third party, but come November they largely don't do it.
No Labels is trying to raise $70 million and is acting like a political party without registering as such. The legality of this is iffy but it has gotten on the ballot in 12 states so far. It has a wishy-washy program that avoids all the contentious issues like immigration and abortion, saying they would use common sense. With no program and no candidates, they are trying to sucker people who are unhappy with how things are going to take a chance on them. Multiple polls suggest that Democrats are more likely to fall for this than Republicans. Billionaire Republican megadonors, like Clarence Thomas' best friend Harlan Crow, know this and are supporting No Labels in hopes of it pulling enough support from Joe Biden to elect Trump. Other third-party and independent candidates also draw more from Biden than Trump. The definitive study of the 1992 election shows that Ross Perot decreased Bill Clinton's margin by 7 points.
Messina, who is highly knowledgeable (but not highly neutral), concludes that the evidence shows that a No Labels candidate would hurt Biden more than he or she would hurt Trump, especially if the top of the ticket was acceptable to many Democrats. If it is a Republican, say, Larry Hogan, he could draw votes from anti-Trump Republicans. In any event, Messina concludes that there is no way a third-party candidate could win.
One thing that Messina didn't mention but might solve a lot of problems is fusion voting, as in New York and some other states. With fusion voting, a small fringe party runs the same slate of electors as one of the major parties. The votes on both ballot lines for the same electors are added up. For example, the Working Families Party in New York almost always supports the Democrat, but allows progressive Democrats to let off steam by not voting for the Democratic Party, but also not hurting the Democratic candidate. The Conservative Party does the same thing for disgruntled Republicans. With fusion voting, you can make a statement but not throw the election to the enemy at the same time. In the 19th century fusion voting was common but now many states have banned it. Bringing it back would cost nothing and perhaps strengthen democracy by allowing people to express what they want without risking getting the precise opposite. (V)