Frederica Freyberg:

In political news, the idea of launching third-party candidates in the 2024 presidential race is gaining steam. In addition to Cornell West planning on a Green Party ticket, the centrist group, No Labels, which is looking for a so-called unity candidate, is eyeing potentials like West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. Where does this put the major party candidates, Donald Trump and Joe Biden and how would Wisconsin swing with a third party entrant? For this and more we turn to UW-La Crosse political science professor Anthony Chergosky. Thank you for being here.

Anthony Chergosky:

Thank you, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

Given the major party candidates, is this upcoming election ripe for third party candidates?

Anthony Chergosky:

You know, I thought that was true of the 2016 presidential election. I looked back at the popular vote from that year and found that nearly 95% of the popular vote went to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. So count me as a third party skeptic. There tends to be a lot of talk about third party entrants potentially coming into the presidential race, and it ends up being a lot of hype and not a lot of votes for that third party candidate. I’m interested to see how the campaign unfolds, obviously, before making a final judgment, but the American political system makes it extraordinarily difficult for a third party ticket to succeed. I expect that will be true this time around. Of course we’ll have to wait and see exactly how the campaign unfolds.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let’s say we do have a third party entrant. Whose votes would it cut into more? Biden’s or Trump’s?

Anthony Chergosky:

That is the million dollar question Frederica. And right now, I’m seeing inconsistent data on whether the third party candidate would be a so-called spoiler for either side, and that is what the parties are focused on. They want to know if the third party is going to take away votes from their side or the other side. We typically don’t think about third party candidates as having a serious chance of winning. We think about them potentially playing that spoiler role where they could throw the election one way or the other. To the point about Wisconsin, the third party candidate could be highly relevant in Wisconsin, even if the third party candidate would not win the state because our elections here are so close. In Wisconsin, a third party candidate could make a big difference, even if they only take a small percentage of the vote.

Frederica Freyberg:

Looking back in presidential electoral history, what’s an example of a third party candidate that did, in effect, spoil candidates’ chances of taking the seat? I mean, Ralph Nader comes to mind, Ross Perot.

Anthony Chergosky:

Ralph Nader for sure comes to mind because Ralph Nader ran as a left-wing candidate. Thus, he would take away votes from Al Gore, the Democrat. There, it was quite clear who the third party candidate was taking away votes from. And in the case of Ralph Nader, Frederica, the big deal there was Florida, where Florida was decided by such a tight margin that even though Nader didn’t get a huge percentage of the vote he got enough of the percentage to potentially swing the election in favor of George W. Bush, and that’s what we would be really looking for if a third party candidate makes the ballot in Wisconsin in 2024.

Frederica Freyberg:

Right, so the trepidation on the part of the major party candidates in Wisconsin is real around a third party potential?

Anthony Chergosky:

It is because only a small number of states actually matter in the electoral college, and so the big question is, if a third party candidate would be on the ballot in that small number of pivotal states and which side that third party candidate may take votes from.

Frederica Freyberg:

So in the third congressional district where you are, Democrats are kind of lining up to run against incumbent Derrick Van Orden there. Rebecca Cooke who lost in the primary to Brad Pfaff is officially in. So they must think that the first-term Republican is beatable?

Anthony Chergosky:

I think so, Frederica. A lot is going to depend on the national political context in 2024. We don’t know if 2024 is going to be a Republican-friendly year or a Democratic Party-friendly year. That remains to be seen and that’s going to have a huge effect on the outcome in this district, but in anticipation of potentially a favorable political climate, a lot of Democrats are looking at running against first-term Republican Congressman Derrick Van Orden, viewing him as potentially vulnerable because he won his previous election by less than four percentage points.

Frederica Freyberg:

He has moderated, it seems to me, in political messaging since that time.

Anthony Chergosky:

I would agree with that, Frederica. He has focused a lot on, like, railroad safety. He’s focused on mental health, trying to find that common ground with Democrats, trying to have some bipartisan positions. Congressman Van Orden also takes some positions that are very much in line with his political party when you look at his position on immigration or his position on guns. So I would describe Congressman Van Orden as trying to generate some publicity and generate some momentum behind bipartisan efforts while also sticking with his party on other issues.

Frederica Freyberg:

So Brad Pfaff says he’s considering running again but awaits new district maps. How would that help him or other Democrats?

Anthony Chergosky:

There is a very real possibility that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court could enter the picture and redraw the congressional maps. Most likely, that would result in the third congressional district here in western Wisconsin becoming more favorable to the Democratic Party. There are several ways that the district maps could be redrawn, but a lot of Democrats are very much aware of the possibility that this district could be redrawn to make it more favorable terrain for their party.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Professor Anthony Chergosky out of UW-La Crosse, thanks very much for your expertise.

Anthony Chergosky:

Thank you.