The Alliance Party of South Carolina withdrew its nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. this week after Kennedy recently suspended his independent presidential campaign. As a result, Kennedy will not appear on the state ballot.
According to local media, the Alliance Party of South Carolina withdrew its nomination of Kennedy on Monday and does not plan to field or endorse another presidential candidate before the general election. A list of endorsed candidates maintained by the party shows it is still supporting five candidates for local, state, and congressional offices.
South Carolina was one of six states where Kennedy initially received the nomination from another political party. The others include Florida, where Kennedy was nominated by the Reform Party; California, where he was nominated by the American Independent Party; Michigan, where he was nominated by the Natural Law Party; Delaware, where he was nominated by the Independent Party; and Colorado, where the state Libertarian Party unsuccessfully attempted to give its presidential line to Kennedy.
Kennedy has already withdrawn his name from the Florida ballot. However, Michigan will not allow Kennedy to remove his name at this point. Kennedy remains on the ballot in Delaware as of this article’s publication, and Independent Political Report has contacted the American Independent Party of California for further information.
I found this unfinished in a tab.
Stewart, I think you must think voters pay much closer attention than they actually do. Much of whatever votes libertarians or greens get or got are not due to anything their own lackluster campaigns do but to collective efforts of past candidates and fellow party members over decades. As well, they benefit from the efforts of people not even involved with their parties.
Many people mistakenly believe Ron Paul. Rand Paul, Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck and many others are involved in the LP because they describe themselves or get described by others as libertarian. Ron Paul did run as one in 1988, but none of the other times he ran for congress or president. The greens may likewise benefit from a movement which is much larger than their party.
They both benefit from decades of past efforts by candidates from their parties all over the country. A classical liberal party would benefit from none of that, and would suffer from misconception about what they stand for based on the name (and perhaps takeover attempts on the same basis). I don’t see any past success by greens and libertarians in your state as predictive.
The current political climate is increasingly hostile to minor parties. Many things which were in the past only or primarily done by political parties are now done increasingly by other types of organisations. If your state does become competitive between major parties, that will earn you hostility from both of their supporters, but you’ll get a lot of it even if it doesn’t.
You’ll also suffer from ideological proximity from libertarians, at least from an outside perspective.
I don’t see this as very viable.
@Unimportant
“Of course. Someone suggested otherwise?”
Well, 270toWin did/does to some extent, in so far as they previously listed SC as “leaning red” and now as “likely red”, rather than the “safe red” one might expect.
And following up their sources, that seem to be attributable in particular to ABC’s Project 538 and to Jack Kersting’s JHK Forecast.
Are those bigger nonsense than any other polling? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know. Judge for yourself.
The Republicans took over, on paper, a little over 40 years ago. A significant majority of Democrats changed party, giving them instant control of just about everything.
I spent almost 20 years active in Republican politics in this state, including serving as the last chairman of the Republican party in Charleston. We started beating the Democrats – i.e., Riley – so he held an illegal election and outlawed political parties in the city and yes, he was even on television caught accidentally saying that it was not a proper election. But that didn’t matter.
I spent the next two decades working within the libertarian party. I left the libertarian party in 2020, and therefore consider myself politically homeless at present.
Over the past 40 years, the state has been gradually turning purple. At the local level, three decades ago, the Republicans controlled every single office. I believe they were 17 partisan positions at the time. I doubt they control more than two or three right now (not going to bother checking).
Several times over the past two decades, the green party, the libertarian party, or both, have been more than the margin of victory and have influenced local and statewide elections.
Ballot access in the state requires properly organizing every two years at the county level, holding county conventions, holding a state convention, and then running at least one statewide candidate every other election cycle. Running someone for US Senate, governor, or of course president, is required. That would be a very good reason for the alliance party to nominate Kennedy.
The libertarians frequently run candidates for US Senate, occasionally for governor, and of course always have a presidential candidate nominated at their national convention. They run local candidates, and they have at times won elections, including one libertarian who served two terms as mayor of a local town.
So yes, at the local level libertarian, Green, and other non-D/R parties have influenced and won elections. School boards are another level they win at times, although those are non-partisan so they do not show on paper which party a candidate belongs to. But everyone knows.
A classical liberal party would probably do very well in this state. Probably significantly better than the libertarian party has, because many libertarian candidates are not classical liberals. A lot of them are anarchist and for dissolving all government. That does not win elections. And the libertarian party has been slowly chewed up by the Trump supporters calling themselves the mises caucus. They are spitting out a dead carcass that will be useless very soon – assuming it still exists at all.
“Do you people fight everywhere?”
Who do you mean? Don’t tell me you still read comments that are marked none of our business. It’s not my business to read them, so I don’t. Likewise, you should probably skip comments marked unimportant, since I’m sure you have important matters to get to.
Me, I don’t fight. My fighting days are long over. I bloviate pointlessly about political crap because I still can’t seem to bring myself to ignore it altogether, as would be far more sane and logical, given that there is nothing I can realistically do to change it.
“South Carolina has not been competitive since 1980, any suggestion that it is in play is nonsense.”
Of course. Someone suggested otherwise?
Stewart Flood,
“We really need a classical liberal party in this state.”
Why? What do you realistically hope to accomplish, if hoping realistically is a thing you do? Can whatever you hope to accomplish be done through modes of organizations other than “political party”? Unlike a century or even half century ago, political parties aren’t the best method of doing a lot of things and other ways of doing those same things have become more advantageous by comparison, and continue to do so.
How many or what levels of office would you expect to win? Or change the outcome of elections for , and in what direction?
There are times and places for trying to educate the ignorant and apathetic masses about what a classical liberal is and how it differs from progressive socialist. Winner take all first past the post elections in an increasingly polarized and nationalized election environment aren’t that place, regardless of how lopsided your state is.
This environment is hostile to making a go of New parties and increasingly so. Sustaining whatever minor traction you gain is even harder, much less keeping it on track and not coopted.
So, you’re politically homeless. So what? I am too. Lots of people are. Deal with it. It’s totally ok to not vote. I don’t. It’s been decades since I did. Not a single election outcome changed as a result of my not voting.
“First, as I said a week ago on BAN, no modern campaign that has suspended itself has ever unsuspended.”
Is Ross Perot 1992 recent enough to qualify as modern? There are more minor examples such as Hornberger 2000 – dropped out months earlier, then dropped back in at the libertarian convention.
Gadfly, re dropped out see
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2024/08/tulsi-gabbard-endorses-donald-trump-as-robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-gabbard-join-trumps-transition-team/#comment-2741680
South Carolina has not been competitive since 1980, any suggestion that it is in play is nonsense.
With uncharacteristic astuteness dungfly has developed some kind of inferiority complex regarding myself, so he keeps attacking me everywhere regardless of whether or not I post there. While his obsession with me should be considered disturbing, living in his head rent free strokes my ego. And since he gives my posts free exposure everywhere he goes and I don’t give a flying f*** about his mental – or for that matter physical – well being, I’m content to feed his unhealthy obsession.
Are you certain the Alliance Party dropped Kennedy, and Kennedy didn’t ask them to withdraw him? South Carolina had been listed as “leaning red” on 270toWin’s “consensus map” for weeks. Currently it’s “likely red” – possibly due to the Alliance Party withdrawing Kennedy – but it still hasn’t gotten listed as “safe red”.
The other current “likely red” states on the map, are Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Ohio and Texas, as well as Maine’s second district; and Kennedy has withdrawn from Florida, Ohio, Texas and Maine. As such it may not be all that surprising for him to have requested to be withdrawn from South Carolina as well.
Do you people fight everywhere?
The political party with ballot access, the alliance party, withdrew his name. Based on Kennedy‘s comments that he still wanted people in red or blue states to vote for him, we have no way of knowing their reason. Maybe they just decided that the stench of being connected with him was not worth having a presidential candidate.
South Carolina is usually considered a bright red state other than some of the major counties such as mine, where Republicans no longer even control county council. Although they did recently elect the first non-democrat as mayor here since the election of 1873. That was a shocker.
You are, once again, substituting your own wishful thinking for reality. The reality is that Kennedy continues to urge people in blue and red states to vote for him:
“My name will remain on the ballot in most states. If you live in a blue state, you can vote for me without harming or helping president Trump or vice-president Harris. In red states the same will apply. I encourage you to vote for me.”
If he had dropped out, there is no way he would continue to seek their votes. No amount of spinning by uniparty mouthpieces, from USA Today to Fox News, from Google to Dungfly, is going to change that fact.
Again, please, the reality is that he **dropped out.**
First, as I said a week ago on BAN, no modern campaign that has suspended itself has ever unsuspended.
Second, per Mr. Spock’s a difference that makes no difference IS no difference? Brainworm Bobby has endorsed somebody else. He’s dropped out. He may physically be on some ballots, but he’s dropped out.
Third? Ain’t just me.
Google search for “Robert F. Kennedy” + “dropped out” has anybody and everybody from USA Today to Fox News.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=%22Robert+F.+Kennedy%22+%22dropped+out%22
Well, that certainly puts an end to the question of whether anyone in my state will vote for Kennedy.
Not that I would consider Kennedy to be a “home“, but I am now completely politically homeless.
We really need a classical liberal party in this state.