Hillary Clinton has a nation singing the same chorus "Can't Stand Ya." The only way Clinton can become President is for a strong third party candidate to emerge.
Hillary needs another Ross Perot. But there's one problem.
In a Seinfeld episode, George Costanza is haunted by his former gym teacher-turned homeless man named Mr. Heyman. Before being fired for giving George a wedgie, Heyman would call George "Can't Stand Ya" in place of his last name "Costanza." Today Hillary Clinton has a nation filled with Mr. Heyman's, singing the same chorus "Can't Stand Ya." Will it keep her from winning the Democratic nomination and general election? Probably. Unless a third party candidate can do for Hillary, what they've done in the past for her husband Bill.
In a poll released this week, 52% of Americans wouldn't even consider voting for Hillary Clinton for President. Even if she survives strong primary challenges, the outlook is bleak for her to win the general election. The only way Clinton can become President is for a strong third party candidate to emerge in purple swing states or Republican red ones.
She's seen it happen before. Twice before. Bill Clinton became President without winning the majority of votes. In 1992 he won just 43%. In 1996, it was 49%. Both times, third party candidate Ross Perot gave Clinton the victory. Hillary needs another Ross Perot.
In 1992, Clinton beat Bush-Quayle 43-37% with Perot taking a strong third with 18.9% of the popular vote. If Perot didn't run, Bush would have won re-election with a majority. Clinton would have won just one or two states, Arkansas and perhaps New York, which would have become a toss up. Clinton's impressive electoral victory (370 to 168) would have become a near record landslide for Bush, 499-39. For perspective, Reagan beat Carter with 489 electoral votes, he trounced Mondale with 525, and Nixon embarrassed McGovern with 520 electorals. Perot was the only thing standing in the way of Clinton being added to that hapless group of Democrats.
In 1996, Ross Perot wasn't as in '92 but he again made Clinton the winner. Clinton beat Bob Dole by 8.2 million votes. Perot's 8.08 million votes weren't enough to change the popular vote outcome. But a closer examination of the electoral votes, shows why a strong third party candidate turned the election. Had Perot not run, Dole would have won 11 more states (New Hampshire would have been a toss up if Perot sat out). Dole would have won Florida (25 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (23), Ohio (21), Missouri, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Washington (11 each), Oregon (7), Nevada (4), Arizona and Kentucky (8 each). Do the math: if Perot didn't run, Dole would have won 129 more electoral votes, beating Clinton 288-250, making it a larger victory than Bush beat Kerry in '04 (286-251).
While Perot helped the Democrat, Ralph Nader handed George W. Bush the election in 2000. Without Nader, Al Gore would have flat out won New Hampshire and Florida. As it turned out, Florida received all post election spotlight where Bush beat Gore by just 537 votes. Nader won 97,000 votes, handing the state's 25 electoral votes and the election to Bush. But Gore could have avoided "hanging chads" and court appeals if he had just won New Hampshire. Gore lost the Granite State by 7,000 votes. If Nader didn't run, Gore would have captured enough of Nader's 22,000 votes to give him 4 crucial electoral votes and the election.
In 2004, Nader had less direct impact on the outcome. Bush beat Kerry 50.7% to 48.2%. The closest state Nader played spoiler was in New Mexico where Kerry lost the popular vote by 6000. Had he won all of Nader's 4000 votes, Bush still would have carried the 5 electoral votes by 2,000 votes.
In the last three out of four elections, a strong third party candidate played a role in the outcome. Debates rage over how much of a role. Many third party voters would have likely stayed home and not voted had it not been for a third choice. Plus, regardless of exit poll results, the jury is out whether Perot or Nader took a disproportionate number of votes from either of the major candidates. But a third party candidate could benefit someone like Hillary Clinton and high negatives.
In this week's Mason-Dixon poll, Clinton's high negatives were everywhere. 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans were talking like George Costanza's gym teacher saying, they "Can't Stand Ya."
A strong third party candidate is the only way for any candidate to overcome a majority of negative feelings. But there's one problem for the establishment. With Republicans scarred by the American War in Iraq, and the prospect of Hillary as the Democratic nominee, that third party guy just might win the whole darn race.
For more original commentary, share WagTheNews.com, Challenging Politics, Media and Culture