The Jo Jo Factor - Could Biden Have Won Without the Libertarian Candidate Running? Very Possibly Not

Was Libertarian Jo Jorgensen 
the unintentional kingmaker?

Though the intangibles make it impossible to prove this with simple math, here is a very conceivable scenario: If Libertarian Party presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen were not on Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona’s ballots we’d be agonizing right now over an upcoming second Trump term.

Those states have a combined 57 Electoral Votes, which, if added to Trump’s 232, would have given him 289 Electoral Votes and left Biden with 256. OMG, the thought of it.

Of course, we don’t have to think of it, except in the context of small parties’ tendencies to push the country decidedly in the opposite direction from which those parties themselves lean. (CLICK to see how a 1984 left walkout in Kentucky made McConnell a Senator.)

If the 1984 McConnell case is obscure, then do Nader and the Greens in 2000 ring a bell?

I was an organizer for Nader's Kentucky campaign in 1996, but was wary of his running four years later, and I supported the Democrats in 2000. And oh what we wouldn’t give to have two Gore-chosen Supreme Court Justices sitting where Samuel Alito and John Roberts sit today.

Of the four battleground states mentioned above, in a scenario whereby Pennsylvania still went for Joe Biden, but the other three for Trump, Biden would have 276 Electoral Votes, a win so thin as to add potency to Trump’s laughably weak legal challenges to the outcome, and subtract potency from a Biden presidency. Not a Trump win, but a much worse situation than the one we’re actually in.

So, let’s take the number crunch tour of these four states: Biden has won Georgia by 14,000 votes (2,472,278 to 2,458,250). To be sure, let’s give credit to the innovative and smart voter drive of Stacey Abrams and her Fair Fight organization -- it worked!

But let’s look at some math as well: Jo Jorgensen won 62,000 votes in Georgia, more than four times Biden’s margin over Trump in the state. The Libertarians historically have attracted voters with liberal and conservative mindsets, depending on the issue. But with marijuana legalization spreading within the major party duopoly, the Libertarians have been focusing on staunch anti-gun control and anti-tax messages, likely presenting many more Republican-leaning voters with an alternative.

Regarding left alternatives to the Democrats, there was no Green Party candidate on the Georgia ballot. As for the possibility that write-ins for Green Howie Hawkins took potential Biden votes away -- forget it, there were just 457 write in votes for president by Georgia voters.

Pennsylvania is not as clear; Hawkins also was not on that state’s ballot. Jorgensen was.

Biden won the state of his birth by 82,000 votes (3,444,794 to 3,362,693). Jorgensen won 79,000. There was a robust write-in total of 6,678 (States customarily don’t release the names of write-in vote recipients unless one of them wins).

Let’s amend our Pennsylvania scenario to see Green Howie Hawkins being on the state’s ballot and Libertarian Jo Jorgensen not being on it. That would likely have tipped the Keystone State to -- I can’t say it, but then I don’t have to.

On to Wisconsin: Biden won the state by 20,000 votes (1,630,716 to 1,610,151), while Jorgensen won 38,000. There also was no Green on Wisconsin’s ballot. There were 7,827 write ins, and Brian Carroll of the socially conservative American Solidarity Party won 5,266 votes.

A Wisconsin race without Jorgensen or the anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-death penalty Carroll is probably a race Trump wins.

In Arizona, it was close in 2020. Real close:

Biden won the state by 11,000 votes (1,672,143 to 1,661,686), while Jorgensen received 51,000. There was no Green candidate on the ballot, and there were just 551 write ins.

Those numbers spell: “Thank you, Jo Jorgensen,” as do Georgia’s and Wisconsin’s. Maybe Pennsylvania’s, too. But this sounds patronizing to the Libertarians, which is not my intent.

Nonetheless, running for office in a third or small party should be done to pursue a strategic outcome, not just to evangelize the party's doctrine.

Greens could accomplish a lot by visibly running candidates for the U.S. House and Senate. Someone of Ralph Nader or Jill Stein’s level of recognition might be able to win a House seat, or bargain with their votes to make the Democrats be more pro-environmental or pro-economic equity. They could then speak publicly for a slate of Congressional candidates in many states to gain seats and/or bargaining power for the Greens to move the Dems leftward.

Stacey Abrams’ building Fair Fight was a another smart strategic approach, working within a beyond partisan framework to fight voter suppression, an inspiring movement that is catching on nationwide.

But running as a third or small party presidential candidate, as said, should be done eyeing a specific outcome that advances the public policies the party advocates. That outcome cannot be intangibles such as increased visibility or rallying the populace, given the unabated rightward White House policies in the four years after Nader and Stein’s runs in 2000 and 2016.

It must be measured in how many Electoral Votes a candidate believes they can win, and how many coattail Congressional seats for their party their candidacy realistically can generate. If the honest answer is 0 to both, run for Congress instead, or help out with Fair Fight.

                                                            ________________________________________________ 

Brian Arbenz is a political activist, observer and commentator living in Louisville, Ky. USA.