They Came in Third
2008:Â Â 00.56%:Â Ralph Nader
2004:Â Â 00.38%:Â Ralph Nader
2000:Â 02.74%:Â Ralph Nader, Green
1996:Â Â 08.4 %:Â Â Â Ross Perot, Reform
1992:Â Â 18.9%:Â Â Â Â Ross Perot, United We Stand
1988:Â 00.47%:Â Ron Paul, Libertarian
1984:Â 00.25%:Â David Bergland, Libertarian
1980:Â 06.6%:Â John Anderson
1976:Â 00.9%:Â Eugene McCarthy
1972:Â 01.4%:Â John Schmitz, American Independent
1968:Â 13.5%:Â George Wallace, American Independent
1964:Â 00.0%:Â Eric Hass, Socialist Labor Party
1960:Â 00.42% “Unpledged” to Harry Byrd
1956:Â 00.2%Â Â Â Â Â T Coleman Andrews, States Rights
1952:Â 00.2%Â Â Â Vincent Hallinan, Progressive
1948:Â 02.43%Â Â Strom Thurmond, States Rights Democratic Party
1944:Â 00.2%Â Â Â Â Norman Thomas, Socialist
1940:Â 00.2%Â Norman Thomas, Socialist
1936:Â 02Â %Â Â Â William Lemke, Union
1932:Â 02.23%Â Norman Thomas, Socialist
1928:Â 00.7 %Â Â Norman Thomas, Socialist
1924:Â 16.6%Â Robert La Follette, Progressive
1920:Â 03.4%Â Eugene Debs, Socialist
1916:Â 03.2%Â Allan Louis Benson, Socialist
1912:Â 23.2%Â William Howard Taft, Republican
1908:Â 02.8%Â Eugene Debs, Socialist
1904:Â 03Â %Â Â Eugene Debs, Socialist
1900:Â 01.5%Â John Granville Wooley, Prohibition
1896:Â 0.96%Â John Palmer, National Democratic
1892:Â 08.5%Â James Weaver, Populist
1888:Â 02.2%Â Clinton Bowen Fisk, Prohibition
1884:Â 01.7%Â Benjamin Franklin Butler, Greenback / Anti-Monopoly
1880:Â 03.3%Â James Weaver, Greenback / Labor
1876:Â 0.9%Â Â Â Peter Cooper, Greenback
1872:Â 0.3%Â Charles O’Connor, Bourbon Democrat
1868
1864
1860:Â 18.1%Â John Breckinridge, Southern Democratic
1856:Â 21.6%Â Millard Fillmore, Know Nothing
1852:Â 04.9%Â John Parker hale, Free Soil
1848:Â 10.1%Â Martin Van Buren, Free Soil
1844:Â 0.33%Â James Birney, Liberty
1840:Â 0.33%Â James Birney, Liberty
1836:Â 09.7%Â Hugh Lawson White, Whig
1832:Â 07.8%Â William Wirt, Anti-Masons
There are three third party candidates who were former presidents — Van Buren and Theodore Roosevelt are most comparable of the three — animated by quarrels about the direction of their political party or personal animus. Van Buren either was taking it out on his former party as its Southern wing grew larger than his designed stronger Northern wing, was just upset he wasn’t nominated again, or sincerely cared about slavery. The Free Soil Party was the second of three parties to take on slavery — more diluted in focus than the previous Liberty Party though less diluted than its successor Republican Party. Millard Fillmore ran on one of the two sucessors to the Whig Party he saw collapse before him — the xenophobic and conspiratorial party — the Anti-Masons for a new generation — but not even the fire power of a Millard Fillmore could keep the party from losing the Post-Whig Derby to the Republican Party and its flaky adventurer candidate, the founder of the “Bear Flag Republic” in California.
Clearly James Weaver was the Populist, or Greenback Party’s, best candidate. Absent him, they were liable to fall behind the Prohibitionist Party. But just as it seemed the party was going anywhere, with Weaver at 8.5% in 1892, the Democrats nominated Bryan and the Populist Party absorbed itself into the Democratic Party. Cleveland’s loyalists maintained some control of the party by running a spoiler candidate with the stated goal of keeping Bryan out of the White House. (Taft would do the same against Roosevelt, but with the Republican Party.)
Eugene Debs for the Socialists maintained an even 3 percent through five elections, with an outlier in the year he went fourth but with 6 percent. Norman Thomas’s tenure was either more erratic or just shoved further into the margins where more noise in vote tally can take place — his high in the Depression era of 2.23 percent goes down to .2 percent against the shadow of World War.
That .2 percent for Vincent Hallinan from a beat up party apparatus post Henry Wallace is of the same type as John Schmitz’s 1.4 percent from the beat up party apparatus post George Wallace. You might say the same for the various “States Rights” candidacies as against Strom Thurmond, but then again — everyone liked Ike.
I can’t really figure why Ralph Nader rebounded from a 2004 low back to his 1996 level. My theory about Nader’s 2000 run as set against Obama is that in 2012, “elements of the left” or liberals who sublimated their frustration of Obama will again be ready to run a third candidate — to the tune of a similar couple percentage of the vote. In the meantime, for 2012, I note that Ron Paul, after 24 years, is back in position for a re-energized presidential campaign — Jesse Ventura would be a willing vice presidential running mate. There is a flavor of the “Anti-Mason” party in that one — oddly enough, that Anti-Mason candidate? He was a Mason.
The most curious figure on this list, in the “studying rare exotic species of floral” type, might be Eric Hass of 1964 — who, if you round his vote total to the nearest 100,000 would have zero votes. His is the oldest Socialist party in the United States, currently a paper organization. Reading the wikipedia article, it appears the two most famous members of the party — people anyone might recognize — are Jack Landon, and the author of schlocky science fiction who has the distinction as being the writer of the first Star Trek novel. The vote total in 1964 was part of a focus on electoral elections, representing a series of elections which was historically large for the party but — is rounded to zero. It is amusing that they came in third, but I suppose if we follow Richard Holfstadter’s thesis the votes of discontent moved into Barry Goldwater’s campaign — I suppose later showing up with the Schmitzs of the world.