Recent presidential polling is inviting people to take a second look at third parties.
Conflicting polls are yielding confusing results about where the presidential race is and how it might end up. While the differing results are nothing new — methodologies, sample sizes, and partisan weighting all factor in — the performance of third-party candidates such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. against the presumed nominees, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, have surprised many.
CLEANUP UNDERWAY AFTER VIOLENT PROTEST AT DNC HEADQUARTERS LEAVES SIX OFFICERS INJURED
For example, dueling Bloomberg/Morning Consult and New York Times/Siena polls in six states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Wisconsin) that Biden narrowly won in 2020 appear to show third parties having a potentially outsize impact on next year’s presidential election.
When both sets of polls (Bloomberg/Morning Consult on Oct. 19 and New York Times/Siena on Nov. 5) tested a Biden-Trump rematch in the six battleground states, each showed Trump ahead in enough states to flip 2020’s results (assuming he held the states he won in 2020).
The curve came when third parties were added. On Nov. 7, New York Times/Siena released polls showing that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s inclusion reduced Trump’s margin substantially. Instead of leading in enough states to flip 2020’s outcome, he now led in only Georgia and Nevada, with ties in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
On Nov. 10, Bloomberg/Morning Consult followed with polls including both Kennedy and Cornel West. This four-candidate race showed Trump leading in five battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Wisconsin) and tied in Michigan — again more than enough to flip 2020’s results. To make matters more confusing, the four-candidate polls showed Trump’s margins increasing in three states (Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin), unchanged in two (Arizona and Pennsylvania), and decreasing in one (Michigan).
So, what gives?
First, the focus on these six states is correct. Until proven otherwise, we should assume these will be 2024’s battleground states, just as they were in 2020. In other words, national polls are meaningful as a general indicator, but national results will not be the decider.
Second, just including Kennedy in the mix is deceptive unless he is the lone third-party candidate in these six states. In the New York Times/Siena polls, he is drawing more voters from Trump currently. But for accuracy, the polls must also include West, who is drawing more from Biden, as the Bloomberg/Morning Consult polls show.
However, the third and most notable point in both poll sets is how high Kennedy and West are registering. In the New York Times/Siena polls, Kennedy earned more than 20% in each state except Nevada (19%). In the Bloomberg/Morning Consult polls, Kennedy and West combined were only about half that but still registering in double digits in every state except Pennsylvania (9%). These are levels of support that third parties have rarely achieved in presidential voting.
Third parties’ historical performances offer an important caveat to poll consumers. From 1960 through 2020, only two third-party candidates have broken into double-digit popular vote percentages: George Wallace in 1968 (13.9%) and Ross Perot in 1992 (19.6%) and 1996 (10.1%). In the 16 elections over the last 60 years, third-party candidates combined have averaged just 4.7% of the popular vote. Remove Perot and Wallace’s results, and the combined third-party average is just 2.4% of the popular vote.
Third parties generally wilt. What people say in polls and what they do at the polls are usually widely discordant. As proof, compare RealClearPolitics’s latest average of national polling to actual election returns. In the five elections from 2004 through 2020, the percentage of support not going to the Democratic and Republican candidates dropped 54% from the last average to the actual popular vote.
Third-party candidates have numerous hurdles to overcome — not just the considerable ones to getting on the ballot, but with the electorate. Unlike the two major parties, they have little structural support. This means they also have little organizational loyalty — supporters who “vote the ticket” come hell or high water. Nor do they have substantial personal loyalty because few have been before the public for substantial and sustained periods.
The result of these limitations, and others too, is that potential voters balk in various ways. They are hesitant to throw away votes on candidates who will not win, instead switching to one of the two major contenders. Or perhaps they simply stay at home. Whatever the reason, they materialize less support than they poll and generally register in only low percentages.
This is not to say third-party candidates cannot have an impact. We know they can — just look back to 1968, 1992, and 1996. But they are most likely to have an impact when the race is so close that a single state can determine the outcome, such as Florida in 2000.
This year, there are six battleground states with 77 electoral votes. Trump needs to flip just 35 of these to win and can do so in several different combinations. And if today’s general polling is correct, there may be more states in play than we currently recognize. In 2020, another five states with 36 electoral votes were in a second tier of closeness. All 11 states with 113 electoral votes ended up in Biden’s 2020 column.
Today’s polling with the inclusion of third parties needs to be taken with more than a grain of salt — it needs the whole shaker. Can Kennedy and West, both veritable national unknowns now, hold on for a year of scrutiny that will only increase by the day? Unknown, untested, unorganized, and in a race still not started, their current combined support is surprising but does not tell us much. That does not mean a third-party impact cannot happen; it just means that it rarely has.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
J.T. Young was a professional staffer in the House and Senate from 1987-2000, served in the Department of Treasury and Office of Management and Budget from 2001-2004, and was director of government relations for a Fortune 20 company from 2004-2023.