Comment: Why ‘Never Trump’ conservatives must vote for Harris

Even in ‘blue’ states, they don’t have the luxury of voting for a third-party candidate, as I did in 2016.

By John J. Pitney Jr. / Los Angeles Times

Some right-leaning voters who oppose Donald Trump are thinking of voting neither for him nor Kamala Harris.

I understand how they feel. In 2016, I published an article urging Never Trump conservatives to consider casting their ballot for a third-party candidate. In the election that year, I did just that.

I regret writing that column. I regret casting that vote.

To people like me, Trump represented a repudiation of everything that Ronald Reagan stood for. But as a conservative and former GOP staffer who had never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, I harbored reservations about Hillary Clinton.

Voting for neither Trump nor Clinton seemed to be a “safe” way to express disapproval of both. Most polls at the time showed her on track to win comfortably. It seemed reasonable to argue that a significant tally for a third-party candidate might check her liberal ambitions. After all, the number of votes for independent candidate Ross Perot in 1992 may have nudged Bill Clinton to accept bigger budget cuts than he wanted.

But the 2016 election did not go according to expectations. Despite losing the national popular vote, Trump squeaked into office by edging out Hillary Clinton in states key to the Electoral College, where polls were way off the mark.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson won 3 percent of the national vote, a high-water mark for that party. An exit poll asked his supporters whom they would choose in a two-person race. Though many said they would abstain, more picked Clinton than Trump.

We will never know whether Trump would have lost if more such voters had switched to Clinton. We do know what happened because he won. He blew up the federal debt. His incompetent handling of covid-19 caused tens of thousands of needless deaths. He finished his term by trying to overturn an election he lost and instigating a violent rebellion against the government he had sworn to protect.

Trump turned out to be a catastrophe for our country. Hillary Clinton was a candidate with whom I just disagreed. I wish I had voted for her and encouraged others to do the same.

The next president of the United States will be Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, not anybody else. The election will almost certainly be close. We don’t have the luxury of voting third party or writing in the name of a fantasy candidate. (In most states, those write-ins won’t even count.)

Currently, many states are likely to give a lopsided margin to one candidate or the other. For example, California will probably go for Harris and West Virginia for Trump. Voters in such states might think it is OK to skip the election or vote for somebody who can’t win, thinking: “What the heck, it won’t make any difference in the electoral count, right?”

That attitude is wrong in two ways.

First, “likely” does not mean “certain.” As we have already seen, the polls can err. Never Trump folks do not want to wake up on the day after the election to find that their wasted votes have helped him score a narrow upset in their state.

Second, the popular vote matters. Under any circumstance, Trump will almost certainly refuse to accept defeat. But if he loses big in the popular vote, as well as losing the electoral vote, it will be harder for him to claim that he is the people’s choice. The larger the margin, the weaker his claim.

For us Never Trumpers, as for everybody else, the 2024 election is a binary choice.

If you abstain or vote for somebody other than Kamala Harris, you effectively vote for Trump. Consider the consequences for our country. Don’t do something you’ll regret.

John J. Pitney Jr. is a professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College. From 1989-91, he was deputy director of research at the Republican National Committee. ©2024 Los Angeles Times, latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, Nov. 24

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Story Corps
Editorial: Political debate isn’t on Thanksgiving menu for most

A better option for table talk are family stories. Share them with the Great Thanksgiving Listen.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Sunday, Nov. 23

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Brooks: We’ve given politics over to chasing conspiracies

Meanwhile, both parties look to capitalize, while ignoring the core problems and coming challenges.

Comment: GOP can blame itself for Texas redistricting loss

A letter from the DOJ with factual, legal and typographical errors doomed the case before an appeals court.

Comment: Cheaper coffee, tomatoes small potatoes against inflation

The tariff rollbacks for some items make sense, but broader action is needed by Trump and Congress.

Comment: Why posecution of the 2020 ‘fake electors’ scams matters

If it seems like old news, consider that excusing election fraud only encourages it in the future.

Comment: Four jobs where AI can replace humans. But should it?

AI can handle legal aid and copy editing, but then how to we train lawyers and editors?

FILE — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) speaks during a news conference about the Epstein files on Capitol Hill in Washington, Sept. 3, 2025. Greene has broken with the Trump administration in calling for files related to the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to be released. (Eric Lee/The New York Times)
Comment: MAGA, the Epstein files and Trump

Why they want to see them; why Trump said yes to their release and why he’s the MAGA whisperer.

Bill in Congress would increase logging and wildfire risk

Regarding a recent commentary (“Misnamed Fix Our Forest Act would worsen wildfire… Continue reading

FILE — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau logo is seen through a window at the CFPB offices in Washington on Sept. 23, 2019. Employees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were instructed to cease “all supervision and examination activity” and “all stakeholder engagement,” effectively stopping the agency’s operations, in an email from the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, on Saturday, Feb. 8, 2025. (Ting Shen/The New York Times)
Editorial: Keep medical debt off credit score reporting

The federal CFPB is challenging a state law that bars medical debt from credit bureaus’ consideration.

Thoughts appreciated on how to fix education

Finally, someone from the school system is making sense for grading students… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.