ADVERTISEMENT

The Atlantic: The Long-Shot Candidate Who Has the White House Worried

Colonoscopy

HR Legend
Feb 20, 2022
11,047
11,975
113
51
Saint Louis, Mo
Joe Biden has a Cornel West problem.
By Mark Leibovich


Pull up a sticky green lawn chair, everyone. It’s time for another round of Mounting Democratic Jitters, cherished summer pastime from Wilmington to the West Wing. Today’s installment: Cornel West, unlikely MAGA accessory.

West, the famed academic and civil-rights activist, is a Green Party candidate for president. He probably will not win. Not a single state or, in all likelihood, a single electoral vote. But he remains a persistent object of concern around the president these days.

I’ve talked with many of these White House worrywarts, along with their counterparts on Joe Biden’s reelection team and the usual kettles of Democratic anxiety who start bubbling up whenever the next existential-threat election is upon us. Even with the nuisance primary challenger Robert F. Kennedy Jr. polling in the double digits, West inhabits a particular category of Democratic angst, the likes of which only the words Green Party presidential candidate can elicit.

You can understand the sensitivities, given the history. Democrats still recoil at the name Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee in 2016, whose vote total in key battlegrounds—Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania—wound up exceeding the margins by which Hillary Clinton lost in those states. What’s Dr. Stein doing these days, anyway?

“She is my interim campaign manager,” Cornel West told me this week in a phone interview. Not a joke, as Biden would say. Or an acid flashback. Apparently Ralph Nader was not available. Not Dennis Kucinich, either (already snapped up to run RFK Jr.’s campaign). It might be kind of funny if the stakes didn’t involve a return Trump ordeal in the White House.

“The fact that Jill Stein is running his campaign is a little on the nose,” one senior Democratic campaign strategist told me.

West has repeatedly denied that he might play a spoiler role. “I would say that most of the people who vote for me would not have voted for Biden,” he told me. “They would have probably stayed home.” In a recent CNN appearance, West dismissed the two parties as a “corporate duopoly” and professed “great respect for my dear brother Ralph Nader and great respect for sister Jill Stein.” This did nothing to assuage Democratic jitters.

I asked West whether he would campaign all the way to Election Day 2024, or if he might reconsider his venture at some point. “My goal is to go all the way to November,” he said, but allowed that circumstances could change and so could his plans. “I’m trying to be a jazzlike man,” he said. “Trying to be improvisational.”

In his campaign-launch video, West promised that his candidacy would focus on core progressive issues such as health care, housing, reproductive rights, and “de-escalating the destruction” done to the Earth and our democracy. “Neither political party wants to tell the truth,” West said, by way of explaining why he is running as a third-party candidate.

Notably, West has asserted that NATO was as much to blame for Russia’s war in Ukraine as the Kremlin. He has railed against the coalition as an “expanding instrument” of Western aggression, which he says is what provoked Russia’s onslaught. “This proxy war between the American Empire and the Russian Federation could lead to World War III,” he wrote in a social-media post calling for diplomatic talks. West also dismissed as a “sham” a House resolution—passed Tuesday—that affirmed U.S. support for Israel. “The painful truth is that the Israeli state—like the USA—has been racist in practice since its inception,” West wrote on Twitter.

Several Democrats were eager to tell their own truths about West’s endeavor, expressing uniform exasperation.

“This is not the time in order to experiment. This is not the time to play around on the margins,” warned Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison during a recent appearance on MSNBC. “What we see is a lot of folks who want to be relevant and try to be relevant in these elections and not looking at the big picture.”

“Too little attention is being paid to this,” David Axelrod, the former top Barack Obama strategist, told me. Axelrod recently gave voice to the gathering Democratic freak-out when he tweeted out some basic historical parallels. “In 2016, the Green Party played an outsized role in tipping the election to Donald Trump,” he wrote. “Now, with Cornel West as their likely nominee, they could easily do it again.”

In our interview, Axelrod noted that the 2020 race between Biden and Trump, in which neither Stein nor West was on the ballot, underscores how slim the Democrats’ margin of error remains. “When you have three states that you won by 41,000 votes combined, you just cannot afford to bleed votes, even a few of them,” Axelrod told me.

Ben Wikler, the Democratic Party chair of one of these states—Wisconsin—said he expects Trump allies to help prop up any third-party effort as a way to undermine Biden. “Regardless of the motivations of third-party candidates themselves, they can have the effect of delivering net votes to Trump next year,” Wikler said, “especially if a Trump-aligned super PAC pours money into targeted messages,” he added. “And those are exactly the kind of cynical games you have to expect.”

Cedric Richmond, a former Democratic congressman and White House adviser who recently signed on as co-chair of the Biden campaign, called West a “substantive person.” But Richmond argued that Biden has earned the support of the left through his record on the environment, health care, gun reform, and other progressive causes. “They also know that [Biden] could have done a hell of a lot more if not for this hostile Supreme Court,” Richmond told me. “And they know they got this hostile Supreme Court because ‘Hillary wasn’t good enough,’ because ‘we weren’t happy and we wanted to support Jill Stein’ or whatever the reason was at the time.” Now that voters have experienced a Trump presidency, he said, the cost of casting a protest vote with a third-party candidate should be much more apparent. “I think people have seen this movie, and they know the ending,” Richmond said.

In recent days, the putative-centrist outfit No Labels—which many Democrats have been quick to label as a pro-Trump collaborator—has been the main source of third-party hand-wringing. The group is trying to recruit a so-called unity ticket that would appear on ballots across the country, possibly led by Senator Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat.

“The idea that a third-party candidate won’t hurt the Democratic nominee is preposterous on its face,” Matt Bennett, executive vice president of Third Way, a center-left policy think tank that lately has been focused on stopping No Labels, told me. Recent polls show that in a head-to-head race between Trump and Biden, Trump is more likely to benefit when a third-party candidate is added to the mix. Likewise, an NBC survey from last month revealed that 44 percent of registered voters would be open to a third-party candidate—and there were considerably more Democrats saying this (45 percent) than Republicans (34 percent).

But Bennett explained that if No Labels does not recruit a serious candidate to actually run, the group will remain a largely hypothetical menace. West, meanwhile, is definitely running. The Green Party has an organizational structure in place in many states that will ensure the nominee’s position on general-election ballots. West has deep roots on the left, and is better known than Stein was in 2016. Like Clinton, Biden has faced uncertainty about how much enthusiasm he can expect from his own party, especially young progressives.

“Dr. West has a huge following among college-age voters and a lot of folks who are more interested in social movements than they are in supporting Democratic or Republican candidates,” Basil Smikle, a Democratic strategist who was the executive director of the State Democratic Party of New York from 2015 to 2018, told me.
 
West was a vocal supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign in the 2020 Democratic primary. He has said that he wound up voting for Biden in the general election because “a fascist catastrophe is worse than a neoliberal disaster.” He also dubbed Biden “mediocre” and “milquetoast” (a tepid endorsement, let’s say).

Supporters of Biden are hopeful that the blessing of progressive allies such as Sanders, who endorsed his reelection in April, will insulate the president from the threat of West-inspired defections to the Green Party. “What Bernie can do is say, ‘Look man, we thought the existential threat of Trump had waned, but it’s still here,’” Smikle said. “We need you to show up again.”

Another prominent Bernie booster from 2020, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, endorsed Biden during a recent appearance on the podcast Pod Save America. The host Jon Favreau asked a follow-up about what she thought of West. Ocasio-Cortez appeared to tread carefully but sounded deferential. “I think Dr. West has an incredible history in this country,” she said. “What he gives voice to is incredibly important.” She went on to slam No Labels as a source of great concern, given “the sheer amount of money and bad-faith actors involved with it.”

“Not all third-party candidacies are created equal,” Ocasio-Cortez summarized. But she landed on a pragmatic point. “The United States has a winner-take-all system, whether we like that or not,” she said, adding that the cost of messing around could be fascism. “We have to live with that reality,” she said. Live with Joe Biden, in other words. Because the alternative is far worse—not a joke.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: EasyHawk
Ralph Nader absolutely gave us W and the Iraq war. Stein very possibly gave us Trump and everything that went with that. And West wants to play that game again. Anyone voting for him is voting for Trump. Period.
Joe Lieberman was the VP on that Democratic ticket against W. He is now actively campaigning against Biden with the No Labels group he founded, and he supported the Iraq war. The Gore/Lieberman fantasy is one that is not rooted in fact. Who knows what would have happened.
 
GIF by Entertainment GIFs


Longshot is right.
 
Joe Lieberman was the VP on that Democratic ticket against W. He is now actively campaigning against Biden with the No Labels group he founded, and he supported the Iraq war. The Gore/Lieberman fantasy is one that is not rooted in fact. Who knows what would have happened.
The cabal around W created their own private intel agency that then fabricated the “evidence” to justify going into Iraq. The idea that this would have been replicated by a VP is fantasy indulged in by those who think a third party vote has any value at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
The cabal around W created their own private intel agency that then fabricated the “evidence” to justify going into Iraq. The idea that this would have been replicated by a VP is fantasy indulged in by those who think a third party vote has any value at all.
Well if I have learned anything in my life, I know for sure that I won’t suggest that Lieberman might be a part of any “cabal”.
 
[West] has said that he wound up voting for Biden in the general election because “a fascist catastrophe is worse than a neoliberal disaster.”
That was my reasoning, too, and then Biden turned out to be a little better than I expected.

I live in blue Maryland, so I can vote for anyone I wish. But I chose to vote for Biden anyway in 2020 and might do so again in 2024.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4
Story: Democrats feel entitled to working class votes and prefer doing the bare minimum to earn it because anything more usually conflicts with the the fundraising they need to do to win elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4
Because Nancy Pelosi advances some legislation I like means I should turn a blind eye to her obvious insider trading?
 
I hate this system . God I hate it.

Always trapped into the lesser of 2 evils argument.

Government owned by special interests via Citizen's United.

Blow it all up. Jefferson and Hamilton would be horrified.
The FFs were so ready to break with England they threw out the baby with the bath water. They completely missed the bind they put the country in with the EC.

Can you imagine a scenario where Biden gets right at 45% of the vote, Trump gets 35%, and third parties divide up 20%. And no one wins the EC! Now you’ve got an election that immediately goes to a lame duck House controlled by a Trump sycophant where every state gets ONE VOTE and the majority of states are controlled by the GOP.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: alaskanseminole
The FFs were so ready to break with England they threw out the baby with the bath water. They completely missed the bind they put the country in with the EC.

Can you imagine a scenario where Biden gets right at 45% of the vote, Trump gets 35%, and third parties divide up 20%. And no one wins the EC! Now you’ve got an election that immediately goes to a lame duck House controlled by a Trump sycophant where every state gets ONE VOTE and the majority of states are controlled by the GOP.

Using worst case scenarios to guide your thinking on this is why we constantly have compromised government.

I am not sure why we bother debating issues when Citizen's United has so corrupted the policy making process that any sort of honest intellectual discourse is pointless, because money talks and thats it.

We are in the world of Animal Farm. Those with money are 'More Free' than others.
 
Did you forget already? The idea that Lieberman - as VP - would have somehow gotten us into Iraq anyway?
You’re stuffing straw into my modest claim in order to make it easier to whack. My claim was nothing more than an observation that your claim was based on fantasy; a claim without evidence. The rest of my post was innuendo and food for thought; evidence without a claim.
 
Using worst case scenarios to guide your thinking on this is why we constantly have compromised government.

I am not sure why we bother debating issues when Citizen's United has so corrupted the policy making process that any sort of honest intellectual discourse is pointless, because money talks and thats it.

We are in the world of Animal Farm. Those with money are 'More Free' than others.
Hes Right GIF by MOODMAN
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennNole17
You’re stuffing straw into my modest claim in order to make it easier to whack. My claim was nothing more than an observation that your claim was based on fantasy; a claim without evidence. The rest of my post was innuendo and food for thought; evidence without a claim.
Lol…ok let’s examine your claim. 1) Lieberman is working for a third party campaign twenty years after he was on Biden’s ticket as VP. And?

2) He supported the Iraq War. Except without W’s admin pushing us into that war, there would be no war to support.

The rest of your post is based on information that is totally irrelevant to the fantasy that you then spin with your “innuendo and food for thought”.

And MY claim is based on fantasy? More lol.
 
Last edited:
Using worst case scenarios to guide your thinking on this is why we constantly have compromised government.
I have no idea what this means. What I presented is a very possible “worst case scenario”. Trump’s 30%-35% is locked in. The growing groundswell for third party candidates makes it likely that they could pull a significant number of votes. That this could prevent any candidate from winning the EC is hardly remote. And the Constitution requires that “immediately” after the EC vote in the Senate, the lame-duck House must convene to choose the president which would be done by the process I presented - one state/one vote.

They will never - EVER - install a third party candidate. So, once again, it comes down to a choice between the two major parties except it is now completely controlled by a “compromised government”.

What scenarios should I use to guide my thinking?
 
I have no idea what this means. What I presented is a very possible “worst case scenario”. Trump’s 30%-35% is locked in. The growing groundswell for third party candidates makes it likely that they could pull a significant number of votes. That this could prevent any candidate from winning the EC is hardly remote. And the Constitution requires that “immediately” after the EC vote in the Senate, the lame-duck House must convene to choose the president which would be done by the process I presented - one state/one vote.

They will never - EVER - install a third party candidate. So, once again, it comes down to a choice between the two major parties except it is now completely controlled by a “compromised government”.

What scenarios should I use to guide my thinking?

The whole two party system is corrupted. Quit blaming Stein for Trump. That is absurd. Hillary Clinton had high high negatives.

I would prefer we had a coalition system like Europe.
 
The whole two party system is corrupted. Quit blaming Stein for Trump. That is absurd. Hillary Clinton had high high negatives.

I would prefer we had a coalition system like Europe.
Yeah the corporate duopoly we have is pretty far removed from an actual democracy.
 
The whole two party system is corrupted. Quit blaming Stein for Trump. That is absurd. Hillary Clinton had high high negatives.

I would prefer we had a coalition system like Europe.
How is that in any way relevant to what I posted. I literally said the FFs threw out the baby with the bath water. That includes England’s parliamentary govt. Even with the system they devised, it’s the EC that locks in the two-party system. Period. The road to reforming our politics from the angle of its mechanics starts there. Money is a completely separate issue.

Maybe all the Stein voters - every one - would have stayed home absent her candidacy. Clinton had higher negatives than Trump. Let that sink in to give you some insight into the American voter. Maybe a high percentage of voters are so dumb they can’t see through the bullshit thrown at Clinton for decades for what it is. Maybe voters were so uninformed or so partisan that they didn’t believe Trump when he told them how vile and despicable he is. Maybe - all that being true - we deserve what we get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelly02
Lol…ok let’s examine your claim. 1) Lieberman is working for a third party campaign twenty years after he was on Biden’s ticket as VP. And?

2) He supported the Iraq War. Except without Trump’s admin pushing us into that war, there would be no war to support.

The rest of your post is based on information that is totally irrelevant to the fantasy that you then spin with your “innuendo and food for thought”.

And MY claim is based on fantasy? More lol.
Your claim is:

without Nader there would be no Iraq war.

My claim is:

I’m not 100% sure about that.

Your claim predicts an unknowable hypothetical alternate chain of events. My claim is not really a claim so much as I’m not buying wholesale your alternate timeline.
 
West definitely siphons off some votes from Joe.

With the no labels...depends on who they put up.
 
BTW, until this is addressed, voting third party is monumentally stupid pointless.
Maybe pointless is a better term. Exercising freedom of choice is never stupid. I agree with your point the EC locks us into a 2-party system. I vote 3rd party out of emotional rebellion.
 
Your claim is:

without Nader there would be no Iraq war.

My claim is:

I’m not 100% sure about that.

Your claim predicts an unknowable hypothetical alternate chain of events. My claim is not really a claim so much as I’m not buying wholesale your alternate timeline.
LOL...no claim is 100% certain. There is less than zero evidence to suggest that Biden/Lieberman would have even thought to lump Iraq in with Afghanistan while there is W's sense of unfinished business after reports that Saddam targeted his father for assassination. So how about this:

Without Nader, there is a 99.999% chance that there is no Iraq War.

There. It's qualified now. :rolleyes:
 
Maybe pointless is a better term. Exercising freedom of choice is never stupid. I agree with your point the EC locks us into a 2-party system. I vote 3rd party out of emotional rebellion.
A third party vote is a vote for the candidate you find most objectionable...as is refusing to vote. There is absolutely no other way to play that. You can either be comfortable with that or not, but that doesn't affect the reality. All freedoms come with responsibility, including freedom of choice, and the reality is we have two choices for president. Even if you dislike both, responsibility dictates choosing the one you think is least objectionable...or dangerous. If Trump gets the GOP nomination, that choice should be simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alaskanseminole
A third party vote is a vote for the candidate you find most objectionable acceptable...
FIFY

Sometimes a major party puts up an acceptable choice; sometimes not. But even when they do, that acceptable choice may not be the best choice.

I imagine you are making the argument that by not holding your nose and voting for the 2nd worst, you are effectively voting for the worst. But that's seldom accurate.

Usually there's a better reason for a bad outcome. Like this, for example:

Floridaballot.jpg
 
Yes...as bad as W was...in a two way race between him and Trump, I'd take W every time.
Tough call.

As bad as Trump is, he never took us into a criminal war that killed over a million people. And while the economy cratered on Trump's watch it was Bush and the GOP policies that tanked it in 2008.

Frankly I don't know how anyone can ever vote for a Republican above the local level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelbybirth
FIFY

Sometimes a major party puts up an acceptable choice; sometimes not. But even when they do, that acceptable choice may not be the best choice.
That's like going to McDonalds and ordering Waygu steak. It's certainly the best choice. You have a less than zero chance of getting it. What you get instead is the one item on their menu that you think is the absolute worst thing you could put in your mouth. If you do that, don't complain about the food you got - you knew what the choices were before you picked the steak.

You're right about Florida 2020.
 
A third party vote is a vote for the candidate you find most objectionable...as is refusing to vote. There is absolutely no other way to play that. You can either be comfortable with that or not, but that doesn't affect the reality. All freedoms come with responsibility, including freedom of choice, and the reality is we have two choices for president. Even if you dislike both, responsibility dictates choosing the one you think is least objectionable...or dangerous. If Trump gets the GOP nomination, that choice should be simple.
I do find it interesting that the majority of voters agree we need a viable 3rd party, but then most get cold feet when ballot casting arrives. Gary Johnson was polling quite well right up until a month or two prior to election day, then he lost all the steam.

The article itself is opinion, but I found interest in this part:

Gallup has been conducting polls regarding the need for a third party since 2003. In almost all of the polls, more than half of the adults surveyed reported they thought there was a need for a third party because the current system is failing to represent the people. In September of 2017, the poll yielded its highest percentage in the history of the poll. 61% of US adults reported that they felt a third party was needed. This spanned across both parties and independents; 77 percent of Independents, 49 percent of Republicans, and 52 percent of Democrats favored a third party. In 2015, prior to the last presidential election, 57% of Americans reported a need for a third party. However, third-party votes constituted only 4.9% of the total votes.


Gallop Poll:
 
Tough call.

As bad as Trump is, he never took us into a criminal war that killed over a million people. And while the economy cratered on Trump's watch it was Bush and the GOP policies that tanked it in 2008.

Frankly I don't know how anyone can ever vote for a Republican above the local level.
I thought we blamed Dick for OIF?

Looking back, Bush had so much momentum coming off 9/11 and moving us into OEF. Had he stopped there, who knows how things would have turned out. Did Saddam need to be removed? Absolutely. Was it our place to start a war over wrong premise (WMDs) and most importantly--a damn sustainment plan. We took that country over in record time not understanding the Kurds, Sunnis and Shias were NEVER going to play nicely together and literally require a dictator to keep everyone in line.

If I were king for a day, I'd divide the country into three separate ones, but then there's the oil...oh sweet sweet oil. ...I digress.

Bush Approval Ratings:
Post 9/11 = 85%
Post OEF = 82%
Post OIF = 40%

*assuming I googled it correctly.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT