Third Party Will Decide Election

The Year of the Spoiler [The Daily Reckoning] February 28, 2024 [WEBSITE]( | [UNSUBSCRIBE]( Third Party Will Decide Election Portsmouth, New Hampshire [Brian Maher] BRIAN MAHER Dear Reader, Yesterday we asked: Which democracy was superior, we asked — modern American democracy — or ancient Athenian democracy? We slanted in the direction of Athenian democracy. That is because Athenian democracy minded its money. Athenian democracy amassed a handsome budgetary surplus… over which the citizens themselves stood watch. They could have gotten their hands upon this vast amassing. Yet they did not. Against ancient Athens, we maintained, stands modern America. Ancient Athens amassed overflowing surplus. Modern America amasses overburdening debt. Presently, some $34.3 trillion of debt. This monstrous delinquency tarnishes and stains the national honor and the national reputation — such as they are. Yesterday’s assault upon American democracy drew heavy counter-battery fire. From, for example, reader C.S.: The United States of America was established as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a democracy. The Founding Fathers were careful to NEVER use the word 'democracy' in any of our founding documents. Reader J.F. lobs his own shell upon our position: “You do realize we are not a democracy but a republic?” Both readers are correct. The United States is not — in its construction — a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. Yet ancient Athens was a democracy. And it was a superior watchman of its money. The modern American Republic — meantime — is not. Upon what bedrock, then, does republican government assert superiority? Its constitutional barriers against democracy? We are not half so convinced these barriers are barriers. As one wag once noted: Whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. Meantime, reader M.A. trains his fire upon our central thesis. He maintains Athens was no true democracy. Thus any comparison to modern democracy is null and it is void: In Athens only the elite were citizens, the majority of the people living in Athens were not. Just so. Yet we do not deny that Athenian democracy and American democracy are twins. Yet they are siblings. And one capital fact remains: Athenian citizens did not ransack their treasury. American citizens do ransack their treasury — in exquisite collaboration with their elected officials. But to proceed… American democracy is on showcase this year, as it elects a president. Perhaps even a dictator! The spectacle will be so grand — we hazard — it will shame all comparison. Not even the 2016 and 2020 elections will come within miles of it. And we will have the best kind of time looking on… lounging… munching popcorn. Who will win? Jim Rickards believes he has the answer. What is it? And why does he believe it? Read on… Regards, [Brian Maher] Brian Maher Managing Editor, The Daily Reckoning [feedback@dailyreckoning.com.](mailto:feedback@dailyreckoning.com) Editor’s note: Today we have bad news… and [good news.]( The bad news is that the subscription price for Jim Rickards’ flagship newsletter is likely going up this year — significantly. The good news is that you can lock in the current price today. That’s right, you don’t have to pay the increase. Not only that, you’re also eligible for a [BIG upgrade]( to your subscription. For FREE! That means thousands of dollars’ worth of high-level research to your subscription — again, for FREE! But there’s a catch. This huge upgrade to your subscription comes off the table tonight at midnight. So you can’t afford to delay. [Go here now before the clock strikes midnight.]( [Apple Disruption Opens Tiny Wealth-Window]( Apple’s announcement totally disrupted the tech market…triggered new law proposals from politicians… And has opened a tiny wealth window that offers you the rare chance to potentially double or triple your money in just a matter of months or quicker… And make as much as 1,000% gains over the course of a decade. [Click Here To Learn More]( The Daily Reckoning Presents: The 2024 election will be like the 1912, 1968 and 1992 elections… ****************************** Third-Party Candidates Will Swing the Election By Jim Rickards [Jim Rickards] JIM RICKARDS Although my focus is on markets rather than politics, it’s impossible to forecast markets without understanding what’s going on in the political realm. While there are important Senate and House races this year, all eyes are focused on the presidential race likely (as of now) to be between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. A Trump vs. Biden (if he makes it) replay of the 2020 election could be close and is difficult to predict this far in advance. But we can say that the simple narrative of Trump vs. Biden does not come close to capturing the complexities of what’s ahead. In the first place, Biden may not even be the Democratic nominee because of his obvious physical and mental disabilities. I’ll save the Biden story for another day. For now, let’s look at the other wild card affecting the 2024 election — the role of third parties. Most observers disregard third-party candidates. They typically get 1–2% of the vote, don’t come close to winning individual states and have no impact on the final electoral results. That’s true, but there are some important historical exceptions. To understand the potential impact of third parties and get a preview of what might happen this year, we need to look at three critical elections. In reverse chronological order, they are 1992, 1968 and 1912. In 1992, Ross Perot won about 19% of the popular vote (that's huge for a third-party candidate) but he won no states. Still, his impact on the final result was enormous. Perot was an early version of “America First.” He leaned conservative, although he had unconventional views on a number of policy issues. On balance, he took more votes from George H.W. Bush than he did from Bill Clinton. In the end, Clinton won with 43% of the vote and carried 32 states (plus D.C.) compared to 37.5% of the vote and 18 states for George H.W. Bush. But if Perot’s 18.9% of the vote were divided two-thirds for Bush and one-third for Clinton (as some analysts suggest), Bush might easily have won several more states. Moving those electoral votes from the Clinton column to the Bush column would have changed the outcome of the election. Perot marked the downfall of Bush’s chances for a second term. In 1968, George Wallace as a third-party candidate actually did win five states (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia) and got 46 electoral votes. But that was not enough to stop Nixon, who won 32 states and got 301 electoral votes. The key to Nixon's victory was the dismal performance of Hubert Humphrey, who won only 13 states (plus D.C.) and got 191 electoral votes. The popular vote was much closer, 43.4% for Nixon and 42.7% for Humphrey, but the popular vote doesn't count; it's the electoral vote that decides elections. The lesson of 1968 is that even when a third-party wins states, it does not necessarily stop a major party candidate from winning the election outright. An even more interesting case is 1912. This election involved Woodrow Wilson (Democrat), William Taft (Republican) and Teddy Roosevelt (Bull Moose). Roosevelt had been president from 1901–1909 but stepped aside in 1909 to allow Taft to succeed him. In 1912, Roosevelt challenged Taft for the Republican nomination but lost. At that point, Roosevelt formed his new Bull Moose third party and ran in the general election. Wilson got 40 states and 435 electoral votes, a landslide. Roosevelt actually ran ahead of Taft. TR got six states and 88 electoral votes. Taft finished third with two states and 8 electoral votes. (A fourth candidate, Eugene V. Debs, got 6% of the vote and no states running as a socialist.) [URGENT: Regarding Your 2024 Strategic Intelligence Membership Dues!]( Hi, I’m Matt Insley. I’m the Publisher at Paradigm Press. Just moments ago, I just got off the phone with Jim and we agreed: it’s time we start charging more money for access to his newsletter. That’s why we may implement a massive price hike for all subscribers in the coming days. But if you [click here now]( you can lock in your current subscription price at 80% off – and never have to pay the potential new price of $500. Don’t waste any time… [Click Here To Claim This Special Offer]( The dynamic was also interesting. Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote about evenly, 27.4% for TR and 23.2% for Taft. Together, the Republicans had 50.6% of the vote, probably enough to win. Wilson got only 41.8% of the popular vote, but that was way ahead of TR and Taft when taken individually, so he won 40 states. The lesson of that election is when a major party feuds with itself, the other party wins big. So 1968 and 1912 are both cases in which a third party won a number of states (five for Wallace, six for Roosevelt), but still not enough to prevent a major party candidate from getting to 270 (depending on the year) electoral votes or much higher (Nixon was 301 and Wilson was 435). The 1992 election was one where the third party (Perot) won no states, but probably did change the outcome of the election in favor of Clinton. The 2024 election with third-party candidates looks like a blend of all three elections: 1992, 1968 and 1912. The third-party candidates running (so far) include Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West and Jill Stein. RFK Jr. is attempting to get on the ballot in key states on his own but may abandon that effort and become the Libertarian Party candidate. The Libertarian Party is already on the ballot in almost every state. The candidate and the party are in discussions and an announcement is expected in March. [image 1] Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is being attacked by the media as a “fringe” candidate. In fact, he is one of the most thoughtful and truthful voices in politics today. Those qualities may transcend voter disagreement with particular policies. Jill Stein is running as the Green Party candidate and will be on the ballot in almost every state. She is not expected to win more than about 2% of the vote, but in certain states, 2% is enough to tip the election if the Green vote comes from Biden. This happened in 2016 when the Jill Stein vote in Wisconsin may have cost Hillary Clinton that state in a contest decided by less than 1% of the vote. Cornel West has not set up his own party yet but is endeavoring to get on the ballot in key states as RFK Jr. is. West is a socialist but is highly articulate and charismatic and will make a strong candidate. His efforts would also cost Biden votes in some key states. Finally, there is the No Labels Party. They have been spending millions of dollars to get on the ballot in all 50 states. They have not announced a candidate yet, but they are in discussions about a fusion ticket that would include Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Jon Huntsman (though Manchin has announced he won’t run). The idea would be to run down the middle that considers Trump too radical and Biden too senile. I don't expect No Labels to win any states, but they will peel votes away from Biden, handing states to Trump. That could form the basis for a Trump electoral vote landslide similar to Wilson’s in 1912. The third parties combined — No Labels, RFK Jr., Libertarian, Cornel West and Jill Stein — could collectively take upwards of 20% of the vote like Perot in 1992. But they will principally take votes from the Democrats, the reverse of what TR did to Taft in 1912. This would guarantee a landslide victory for Trump like Nixon in 1968. It’s impossible to predict exactly how events will unfold. But it’s not difficult to see a wild election season with six credible parties fighting state-by-state and confounding the customary polls and pundits. Prepare for electoral and market volatility ahead. Regards, Jim Rickards for The Daily Reckoning [feedback@dailyreckoning.com.](mailto:feedback@dailyreckoning.com) P.S. Just recently, [my publisher broke the news]( that the annual subscription price of Strategic Intelligence may increase to $500 (or more) in 2024… As one of my readers, this price hike directly impacts you. This change could go into effect at any moment. But before it does, we’ve arranged a [special, limited-time offer]( for you that expires tonight at midnight. If you take action via [this link]( you can lock in your current subscription price at 80% off and never have to pay the new price of $500. It’s my way of saying thank you for being one of my readers. But that’s not all… When you claim the special offer, I’ll also give you a BIG upgrade to your subscription, 100% FREE. I’m talking about adding thousands of dollars’ worth of high-level research to your subscription… for FREE! That’s why I’m asking you to visit [this page]( right away. Again, you only have until midnight tonight to prepare. [>> Click here now to claim this exclusive Strategic Intelligence offer… <<]( Thank you for reading The Daily Reckoning! We greatly value your questions and comments. Please send all feedback to [feedback@dailyreckoning.com.](mailto:feedback@dailyreckoning.com) [Brian Maher] [Brian Maher]( is the Daily Reckoning's Managing Editor. Before signing on to Agora Financial, he was an independent researcher and writer who covered economics, politics and international affairs. His work has appeared in the Asia Times and other news outlets around the world. He holds a Master's degree in Defense & Strategic Studies. --------------------------------------------------------------- [James G. Rickards] [James G. Rickards]( is the editor of Strategic Intelligence. He is an American lawyer, economist, and investment banker with 35 years of experience working in capital markets on Wall Street. He is the author of The New York Times bestsellers Currency Wars and The Death of Money. [Paradigm]( ☰ ⊗ [ARCHIVE]( [ABOUT]( [Contact Us]( © 2024 Paradigm Press, LLC. 1001 Cathedral Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. By submitting your email address, you consent to Paradigm Press, LLC. delivering daily email issues and advertisements. To end your The Daily Reckoning e-mail subscription and associated external offers sent from The Daily Reckoning, feel free to [click here.]( Please note: the mailbox associated with this email address is not monitored, so do not reply to this message. We welcome comments or suggestions at feedback@dailyreckoning.com. This address is for feedback only. For questions about your account or to speak with customer service, [contact us here]( or call (844)-731-0984. Although our employees may answer your general customer service questions, they are not licensed under securities laws to address your particular investment situation. No communication by our employees to you should be deemed as personalized financial advice. We allow the editors of our publications to recommend securities that they own themselves. However, our policy prohibits editors from exiting a personal trade while the recommendation to subscribers is open. In no circumstance may an editor sell a security before subscribers have a fair opportunity to exit. The length of time an editor must wait after subscribers have been advised to exit a play depends on the type of publication. All other employees and agents must wait 24 hours after on-line publication or 72 hours after the mailing of a printed-only publication prior to following an initial recommendation. Any investments recommended in this letter should be made only after consulting with your investment advisor and only after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company. The Daily Reckoning is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. We do not rent or share your email address. Please read our [Privacy Statement.]( If you are having trouble receiving your The Daily Reckoning subscription, you can ensure its arrival in your mailbox by [whitelisting The Daily Reckoning.](