In a recent PBS conversation with Margaret Hoover, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she would be open to supporting a third party Joe Manchin candidacy if Donald Trump and Joe Biden won their respective party’s presidential nominations. Murkowski’s comments and soft endorsement come on the heels of recent criticisms lobbed against the organization for being a potential spoiler.
In the interview with Margaret Hoover, host of PBS’ ‘Firing Line,’ Senator Murkowski stated that if faced with a situation between Trump and Biden, she doesn’t want to use her vote for the “lesser of two evils.”
“If it’s a match-up between Biden and Trump, I know exactly where I’d go. I would go with Joe Manchin,” Murkowski said in the interview.” “I am one who doesn’t like to use my vote for the lesser of two evils. I want to be proactive in who I think could do the job.”
When asked if Senator Murkowski sees a third party candidacy as a spoiler resulting in Donald Trump returning to the White House, she dismissed Margaret Hoover’s line of questioning and asserted that Americans are ‘hungry’ for an independent choice. Senator Murkowski also stated that her fellow Alaskan residents have approached her, asking her to encourage Joe Manchin to consider running as an independent candidate.
Unlike most elected Republicans, Murkowski has encountered challenges that third party and independent candidates often face while campaigning. In 2010, she won reelection as an independent write-in candidate after losing the Republican primary to Joe Miller, a candidate associated with the then-prominent Tea Party movement. During that election cycle, the Murkowski camp initially and unsuccessfully approached the Libertarian Party, seeking to run on its ballot line instead of its nominee. However, she eventually pursued a challenging sticker campaign that was further complicated due to the complexities of spelling her last name correctly.
Readers will notice a recurring theme in several recent interviews discussing third party and independent candidacies, particularly in conversations involving organizations like No Labels. The prevailing argument suggests that such efforts would only serve as spoilers, potentially damaging one major party candidate or the other. While some independent voters might support either the Democratic or Republican nominee if strictly limited to those two options, this perspective overlooks the significance that specific ideologies often play for emerging party supporters. Additionally, it’s unrealistic to assume that those party voters would align so cleanly with nominees of organizations as broadly encompassing as the two major parties, similar to how major party primary voters frequently do during a general election.
Earlier this week, No Labels CEO Nancy Jacobson responded to accusations of being a spoiler, asserting that her group would not help Donald Trump win again and would shut down if such a thing became likely. “We will not spoil for either side,” she said. “The only reason to do this is to win.”
Jacobson has also been echoed by former independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, another national figure with close ties to the organization. In a recent ABC interview, he stated that involvement largely depends on No Labels not being a spoiler.
“If the polling next year shows, after the two parties have chosen their nominees, that in fact we will help elect one or another candidate, we’re not going to get involved,” he said.
At some point though A.J. people that are apathetic become less so when reaching the conclusion “this all sucks”.
The senator is making the common mistake of confusing apathy for “moderation.” People who are apathetic about politics don’t vote and are not the people to build a political movement with.
Since push polling can prove just about anything, all the above commentary is just so much BS. Of course an independent ticket with sufficient funding and ballot access will “spoil” the election for whichever party loses. The salient point here is there will likely be no party nor independent organization that can be ready to challenge the duopoly within the time constraints of petitioning once it becomes clear who the two dominant parties will nominate. Just more media blather.