Gary Johnson won’t win, but he still matters

Last weekend, former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson captured the Libertarian Party’s nomination (with former Governor of Massachusetts Bill Weld as his running mate), after a rowdy convention in which Donald Trump was frequently targeted by the newly formed ticket. Johnson described Trump’s immigration plans as “just racist”; Weld likened them to Kristallnacht, tossing around worn out Nazi imagery just like so many others have done.

Trump has already fired back, saying: “I don’t talk about [Weld’s] alcoholism, so why should he talk about my foolishly perceived fascism?” Trump, it seems, has no plans to make friends with Libertarians, but he should at least take them seriously. Although their chances of winning a state in November resemble John Kasich’s chances of winning California next Tuesday, they could still spoil Trump’s election night plans.

In a year when both the Democratic and Republican nominees are disliked at record-breaking levels, a third party ticket is nothing to shove under the rug. Johnson will not win, of course, but that does not mean he will not matter. Recent polls have him at around ten percent, and one poll conducted before Johnson became the Libertarian nominee showed that nearly half of respondents would consider a third party candidate. Under normal circumstances, barely avoiding single digits would spell the end of a campaign — but this is far from a disheartening number.

2016 is ripe breeding ground for a successful third party run, something we have not seen since Ross Perot in the 1990s. If Johnson can break the 15 percent threshold in five national polls recognized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, he would share the stage with Trump and Clinton, like Perot did with Bush and Bill Clinton in 1992, the only time a third party candidate has been included in televised presidential debates. It would surely please those repulsed by either a Clinton and Trump presidency if Johnson clawed his way into the limelight. He would have nothing to lose. But even if he manages such a feat, on Election Day we should not expect him to match Perot’s 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 — and neither will he exceed Perot’s 1996 result of eight percent.

As the election draws near, party loyalties will harden. Some of those Republicans who refused to back Trump throughout the primary season will come around. Some of Sanders’ voters will back Hillary. This is especially the case if the race is close, and many indicators now show a dead heat. If the race is a toss-up (or if voters perceive a toss-up), they will have the impression that their ballots matter more, especially in battleground states. They will be less inclined to support a third party candidate who they know cannot win (thus avoiding a “wasted” vote), and will instead pick one of the two inevitable winners. The American public is well versed in the implications of this archetypal three-way scenario that has reared its head in presidential elections every few decades.

Since Johnson will not replicate Perot’s success, neither will he match Theodore Roosevelt’s historic third party performance in 1912 in which he received more votes than Republican William Howard Taft. As a candidate, Trump is immeasurably stronger than Taft as he represents not just Republicans but many independents, some Democrats, and many first-time voters. Trump has already capitalized on the public’s populist, anti-establishment fervor; any third party candidate by nature has to rely primarily on that sentiment, but Trump has monopolized it from day one. Furthermore, Johnson is not even close to being as popular as Roosevelt was; whereas Roosevelt was a revered ex-president, having served over seven years championing progressive causes, Gary Johnson has limited appeal other than to the people of New Mexico and the small percentage of the electorate who voted for him in the past.

The most likely comparison for Johnson’s expected showing this year is Ralph Nader in 2000. As the Green Party candidate, Nader received 2.74 percent of the popular vote, nearly 2.9 million votes in total. Due to the Green Party’s similarities with the Democratic platform, he is believed to have cost Al Gore the electoral votes of states like Florida and New Hampshire that narrowly went for Bush. (Bush won Florida by 537 votes; Nader received over 97,000 statewide votes. Bush won New Hampshire by 7,211 votes; Nader received over 22,000 votes). Nader was, in effect, a spoiler candidate. Depending on the amount of traction Johnson gets in the next six months, he could be to Trump was Nader was to Gore.

In 2012, Johnson obtained one percent of the popular vote — nearly 1.3 million votes nationwide. In 2016, with the political climate more conducive to third parties, this number will likely increase. A reasonable estimate would have him doubling his performance this time around, but this prediction is quite flexible and depends on many factors: is Johnson part of the debates in September and October? If yes, how is he treated by Clinton and Trump? How do Sanders supporters act in the voting booth, if they show up at all? What if Sanders ends up endorsing Johnson? What do the polls show in the days before the election: a close race or a landslide?

Of course, an increase in the popular vote nationally has few implications other than a show of party strength. What matters is how Johnson performs in certain states. One hundred Libertarian votes in New Hampshire will mean more than one thousand in Wyoming. Johnson could do just well enough in key states to make a difference in the Electoral College tally even if he consistently underachieves in the pre-election polls. In 2000, Nader did not qualify for the debates yet still had a decisive role. So could Johnson.

It boils down to this: would Johnson hurt Trump or Clinton more? The Libertarian ticket will siphon votes from both of them, but since Trump strays from the typical Republican candidate’s platform in some areas, it is difficult to predict how Libertarians will see him based on their attitudes about previous Republican nominees. (Historically, Libertarians have tended to side with the Republican over the Democrat). They may be intrigued by his :America First: vision of world affairs but turned off by his illegal immigrant deportation plan which could create a heightened police state. (Clinton also raises red flags; she is a hawk on foreign policy and tough on Second Amendment rights). Most Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which is how Johnson, a Republican governor of a blue state, describes himself. Right now, it would not be a stretch to say that, if forced to choose between the two, libertarians would tend to pick Trump over Clinton. But this is not set in stone.

It is interesting how we assume most Libertarians will side with one of the major parties — or not vote at all. In fact, a recent Gallup survey showed that 27 percent of respondents identified as libertarians, the highest number ever recorded. Johnson has said there are about 30 million Libertarians in America who just don’t know it. At the same time, those who identify as Republicans or Democrats has hit historic lows (26 percent and 29 percent, respectively, in 2015). Party polarization is increasing year by year, alienating those in the middle. So why haven’t all these self-identified libertarians stuck by their guy in the last few elections?

This is a tricky question that many researchers have tried to answer. Explanations include lack of Libertarian funding, lack of candidate exposure, the party’s “fringe” or illegitimate reputation, people who have libertarian ideas yet pick the Democrat or Republican because that is how they have always voted, people want to avoid “wasting” their vote on a loser, or they despise one candidate so much that they vote for the competition out of spite.

Whatever the reasons are, what is important now is if these libertarians will do the same this time around as they did last year. “Gary Johnson got one percent last time,” Trump said in a press conference Tuesday. “I watched that whole situation. It was really pretty disgraceful. I think it’s a total fringe deal. I think he’s a fringe candidate.”

On paper, this year’s Libertarian ticket poses the most formidable third-party threat in decades. But when that party tolerates this at its most important gathering (in a building shared by a comic convention), it is difficult for undecided voters to take it seriously:

Johnson needs to prove why voters should vote for him rather than just against Clinton and Trump. That starts by improving the Libertarian Party’s image.

“Fringe” force or not, it is still a force, the effect of which could be election-altering. We cannot be sure until the votes are cast.