Independent presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. failed to qualify for the first presidential debate, which will be hosted by CNN next week. It’s the latest sign that Kennedy’s campaign is floundering.
On Thursday, CNN announced that Kennedy would not be allowed to participate in the presidential debate because he had failed to meet two of the criteria to qualify. First, he failed to receive at least 15% support in four national polls of registered or likely voters. Second, he has not yet gotten on enough ballots to win the Electoral College; Kennedy claims to be on the ballot in at least seven states, but remains far short of the 270-electoral-vote threshold to qualify under CNN’s rules.
Kennedy has had one of the best opportunities in decades to run an independent campaign, but it isn’t materializing the way it might have with a more charismatic or savvy candidate, or one whose views are more popular.
Kennedy’s exclusion from the debate is a major blow to his independent campaign. He has been stuck hovering around 10% in the polls for months, and sparring with former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden directly would have provided the most high-profile opportunity yet for him to make his case as a White House contender.
Kennedy has responded with fury to being barred from the debate. “My exclusion by Presidents Biden and Trump from the debate is undemocratic, un-American, and cowardly,” he said in a statement. He’s also filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission claiming that CNN “colluded” with Biden and Trump to keep him off the stage, and also that CNN has not applied its own criteria for appearing onstage fairly to all three candidates. At least one legal scholar says that Kennedy’s claim that CNN is not applying the rules fairly may have some merit. But it’s unlikely Kennedy’s complaint will receive support from the FEC — especially in time for him to be able to show up at the debate next Thursday. And while Kennedy’s argument about CNN may have some merit, it should be noted that CNN’s criteria involve trying to uphold the same norms that have been employed by the Commission on Presidential Debates for many years. In other words, this didn’t come out of nowhere.
Kennedy is not wrong that we live in a duopolized political system that makes it enormously difficult for third parties and independent candidates to enter the mix — and that this limits our spectrum of policy debate. But nobody forced him to go this route instead of pursuing the most obvious way to run a viable presidential campaign in the U.S. today — mounting a challenge within a major party. Kennedy initially launched his presidential bid as a Democratic candidate, but, despite impressive numbers, opted to leave the party in October. Alternatively, with his hostility to vaccines and his right-wing views on climate policy, he could have challenged Trump from within the GOP, which held a robust debate and primary process. Kennedy also declined to try to win the nomination of an established third party, such as the Green Party or Libertarian Party, which are going to be much more efficient with winning ballot access based on their performance in previous elections. Instead, Kennedy has gone it alone. The upside of total independence is not having to worry about being constrained by the encumbrances of a party, but the downside is losing all the advantages of a system designed around parties.
But even setting aside Kennedy’s debate woes, things haven’t been going particularly well for him. He has also been struggling with fundraising: In May, his campaign spent 2 1/2 times what it raised, according to Politico. May also marked the second consecutive month in which Kennedy failed to raise more than $900,000 from donors giving less than $200, suggesting that grassroots interest in him is waning. Kennedy has relied heavily on his running mate, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Nicole Shanahan, to pump millions of dollars into the operation to keep it chugging as it scrambles to win ballot access in enough states and gin up national interest.
Kennedy may have also been hurt by reports in May that he had said in a 2012 deposition that a worm ate part of his brain. The spread of that news corresponds with when Americans shifted from having a net favorable view of him to a net unfavorable view of him. That may have also helped cement his aura as an eccentric, whether fairly or not. Kennedy pushes debunked conspiracy theories about race and vaccines and the alleged health dangers of Wi-Fi. He invites reporters into his home to learn about his hobby of taming wild birds (he also shares stories about housing an emu that used to attack his wife). Kennedy doesn’t seem attuned to or interested in positioning himself as a candidate of mass appeal. A small but seemingly loyal segment of the electorate seems interested in his anti-establishment rhetoric, the most salient elements of which are his conspiratorial public health views. But a candidate most known for fringe views will remain a fringe candidate. That in turn raises the question of why he feels that his movement is best served by a general election presidential bid.
Kennedy has had one of the best opportunities in decades to run an independent campaign, but it isn’t materializing the way it might have with a more charismatic or savvy candidate, or one whose views are more popular. Biden and Trump are gearing up for the second-most unpopular presidential matchup since the Reagan era. Kennedy is armed with one of the most prestigious names in American political life and is extremely connected to political and business elites. But he’s not polling even close to where Texas businessman Ross Perot was in 1992 in polls at a similar point in the race.
Kennedy is still set to play a potentially decisive role in the outcome of the 2024 election if he remains in the race. But he has also boxed himself into a strange niche, and it’s unclear what exactly he hopes to get out of it.