Which historical third party candidate is Evan McMullin most similar to?

[AltWorlder]

I'm going to say John Anderson. He's not going to be of considerable influence or importance after this election. He's just the one establishment Republican this year willing to put his money where his mouth is for #neverTrump. But after whatever resulting fallout 2016 has, he's just going to quietly go back to whatever he was doing prior to this year. He's not Perot because he doesn't have any bold new ideas or issues. He's not going to create some new political movement that will be used in the future, he's just doing what the Bushes and Romney and so forth are unwilling to do. He's a party splitter (interestingly, from the establishment faction), not a new party-maker. Which is a shame, because if he does get 5% that potential third party credit won't actually go towards a third party that can use it. Too bad he can't donate it.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Meh, McMullin is getting most of his votes from Republicans, Anderson got most of his from liberals tired of Carter.

[AltWorlder]

Okay, that is an interesting point, but Anderson ran himself as an anti-Reagan Republican, right? In the Rockefeller mold, which would be akin to McMullin being a standard NRO Republican.

I guess I made this thread to point out it sure is weird that unlike in '92/'96, what we have here is a prominent third party campaign that, if it happens to break 5%, will be wasted because it's unlikely to go to support a new third party. Unless in 2020 the GOP establishment continues to be stumped.

[Podgy the Bear]

I would say he resembles more the 1960 unpledged Democratic electors that won in Mississippi and got a substantial vote in Louisiana plus picked up electoral votes in Alabama.  As a result, 14 normally Democratic electoral votes were lost to JFK and went to Harry Byrd that year.

McMullin's strength is primarily in Utah (with some additional support in Idaho).  At this time, his major appeal is to the Mormon population that is normally very Republican but is so repelled by Trump.

The question will be whether these voters will drift away in the future to another party or movement--which is what happened to the Democrats in the South from the 1950s on.  I think not--they'll come back.

[Lyin' Steve]

Stephen Douglas in 1860?  A bunch of nuts take over the party's constituency and nominate John Breckenridge, but Douglas runs defiantly as a moderate figure from the old guard of the party and wins one state.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

I would say he resembles more the 1960 unpledged Democratic electors that won in Mississippi and got a substantial vote in Louisiana plus picked up electoral votes in Alabama.  As a result, 14 normally Democratic electoral votes were lost to JFK and went to Harry Byrd that year.

McMullin's strength is primarily in Utah (with some additional support in Idaho).  At this time, his major appeal is to the Mormon population that is normally very Republican but is so repelled by Trump.

The question will be whether these voters will drift away in the future to another party or movement--which is what happened to the Democrats in the South from the 1950s on.  I think not--they'll come back.

That's what I was thinking as well. Quite concentrated and taking only a small percentage of the overall vote. It'll be interesting to see how McMullin does as a write-in in Wyoming (10% Mormon).

[Famous Mortimer]

Joseph Smith

[Mehmentum]

Stephen Douglas in 1860?  A bunch of nuts take over the party's constituency and nominate John Breckenridge, but Douglas runs defiantly as a moderate figure from the old guard of the party and wins one state.

I like this comparison.

[Mike Thick]

I would say he resembles more the 1960 unpledged Democratic electors that won in Mississippi and got a substantial vote in Louisiana plus picked up electoral votes in Alabama.  As a result, 14 normally Democratic electoral votes were lost to JFK and went to Harry Byrd that year.

McMullin's strength is primarily in Utah (with some additional support in Idaho).  At this time, his major appeal is to the Mormon population that is normally very Republican but is so repelled by Trump.

The question will be whether these voters will drift away in the future to another party or movement--which is what happened to the Democrats in the South from the 1950s on.  I think not--they'll come back.

That's what I was thinking as well. Quite concentrated and taking only a small percentage of the overall vote. It'll be interesting to see how McMullin does as a write-in in Wyoming (10% Mormon).

This is also what I was thinking, except what came to mind for me was Thurmond in 1948. This is a better example, though.

[Lief 🗽]

Strom Thurmond 1948.

[Orser67]

John Palmer, 1896. He ran as a "Gold Democrat" against William Jennings Bryan (who supported bimetallism) and won about 1% of the vote. Bryan didn't have the personal scandals of Trump, but he did represent a major ideological change for the party, and Bryant's intraparty opponents were motivated enough to run a third party candidate after Bryan won the Democratic nomination.

Palmer didn't have the sort of focused appeal that McMullin seems to have in Utah and a couple surrounding states. But the split among Democrats in 1896 was a bit like the split among Republicans today.

[Maxwell]

John Palmer, 1896. He ran as a "Gold Democrat" against William Jennings Bryan (who supported bimetallism) and won about 1% of the vote. Bryan didn't have the personal scandals of Trump, but he did represent a major ideological change for the party, and Bryant's intraparty opponents were motivated enough to run a third party candidate after Bryan won the Democratic nomination.

Palmer didn't have the sort of focused appeal that McMullin seems to have in Utah and a couple surrounding states. But the split among Democrats in 1896 was a bit like the split among Republicans today.

yes yes this is correct.

this election most resembles 1896 in so many ways - including the democratic nominating process for william mckinley Hillary Clinton:

[AltWorlder]

Great historical examples, everyone.

No one remarked on my 5% comments, though upon second thought yeah he's probably not going to get 5% or more.

[Wisconsin+17]

Evan McMullin. Easy.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Great historical examples, everyone.

No one remarked on my 5% comments, though upon second thought yeah he's probably not going to get 5% or more.

He simply isn't on the ballot in enough states for him to get more than about 1% of the vote.  Johnson is the one who is more likely to get around 5%.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

William McKinley was also assassinated in the beginning of his second term. Luckily for Hillary, she won't have a second term.

[Sedona]

I'm going to say John Anderson. He's not going to be of considerable influence or importance after this election. He's just the one establishment Republican this year willing to put his money where his mouth is for #neverTrump. But after whatever resulting fallout 2016 has, he's just going to quietly go back to whatever he was doing prior to this year.

Anderson actually didn't originally intend to fade away quietly.  He had planned to start a third party called the National Unity Party, which would run a candidate in 1984.  Ultimately though, he did not wish to end up being a spoiler, and he endorsed Mondale.  But I do think it's a decent comparison.

John Palmer, 1896. He ran as a "Gold Democrat" against William Jennings Bryan (who supported bimetallism) and won about 1% of the vote. Bryan didn't have the personal scandals of Trump, but he did represent a major ideological change for the party, and Bryant's intraparty opponents were motivated enough to run a third party candidate after Bryan won the Democratic nomination.

Palmer didn't have the sort of focused appeal that McMullin seems to have in Utah and a couple surrounding states. But the split among Democrats in 1896 was a bit like the split among Republicans today.

This is pretty accurate as well.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The more I think on it, the more this campaign reminds me of the election of 1832. Then, as now, you have a brash, uncensored populist (Jackson in '32, Trump in '16) who disparages the existing political and economic institutions and claims to speak for the common man running against a former Secretary of State (Clay, Clinton) whose long and distinguished record in public office has been tarnished by a series of scandals and allegations of corruption. On the margins, the nation's largest third party (the Anti-Masons, the Libertarians) prioritized experience over purity when selecting their nominee, hoping the chaotic state of political life will allow them to break onto the national scene, while a rump faction of the populist's party (the Nullifiers, the McMullin camp) stands a fair chance of carrying a state famed for its stubborn independence (SC, UT), despite a negligible following in the rest of the country. The one difference is that Jackson trampled Clay in a landslide victory, while I fully expect Clinton to win comfortably two weeks from now.

[AltWorlder]

They don't make American populists like they used to, that's for sure.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Evan McMullin. Easy.

He is unique.

If he carries Utah, he's be most similar to John Bell in 1860.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Perot, lol.

[BaldEagle1991]

He's his own league man. It's like comparing Stephen Curry to Michael Jordan.

[rbt48]

I would choose Robert Lafollette in 1924, especially if McMullin carries Utah similar to the way Lafollette carried Wisconsin that year.  The similarity is that they would both have carried one state.  The dissimilarity is that McMullin won't get anywhere near 16.6% of the nationwide popular vote.

[°Leprechaun]

John Hospers who got one electoral vote:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1972&off=0&f=1

[ill ind]

Henry A Wallace
Got a little over 1% nationwide and about half his votes came from one state - New York
Mc Mullin will get half his vote from NY and another third from Idaho.