Jim Webb quits the Democratic race: Will he run as an independent?

'I have no doubt that if we ran as an independent, we would have significant financial help,' Webb says.

Andrew Harnik/AP
Former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, accompanied by his wife Hong Le Webb (l.) announces he will drop out of the Democratic race for president, on Tuesday, during a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington.

Jim Webb bowed to the inevitable on Tuesday and quit the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The former senator from Virginia never drew more than one or two percent in polls and didn’t help himself at last week’s debate in Las Vegas. He complained about lack of speaking time and came across as peevish, despite some crisp answers on foreign and defense topics.

In the end, Mr. Webb seemed too idiosyncratic and conservative for a party that’s lurched to the left in recent years. On Tuesday, asked about his reluctance to embrace the Black Lives Matter movement and the effort to remove Confederate battle flags from public display, he complained that Democrats as a group are too invested in “interest group politics."

“As of today, I am not involved in the Democratic Party’s primary process,” Webb said at a National Press Club press conference, his wife standing by his side.

The interesting remaining question is whether Webb might run as an independent. He didn’t say he would and he didn’t say he wouldn’t. But he said he’d received hundreds of letters begging him to remain in politics in some capacity and that he’d now be talking with people he had been reluctant to approach while a Democratic candidate.

In other words, he might be looking for new support from disaffected Republicans, including rich ones.

“I have no doubt that if we ran as an independent, we would have significant financial help,” Webb said.

He added that he was aware independent candidacies typically top out at around 20 percent of the vote. But given the political paralysis of the system, this time might be different, Webb said, adding that he felt he could beat Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in a general election.

“If we ran an independent race that worked and got traction, I honestly could see us beating both of them,” Webb said.

Ballot access is a big problem for independent candidates, however. The rules are arcane and different state by state, and favor the big existing parties.

Nor could Webb draw on a large and growing pool of independent voters. Political scientists use this rule of thumb: US voters are divided into thirds, with one-third Republican, one-third Democratic, and one-third self-professed independents. But the independents are also split in three, with one-third actually leaning Republican, one-third Democratic, and one-third truly independent.

Of those real independents, half don’t vote.

“People like to think of themselves as independents, but they mostly end up voting straight ticket for one party,” tweeted political journalist Steve Kornacki Tuesday afternoon.

In any case, Webb on Tuesday seemed not so much middle-ground as contrarian, in a manner that could be interesting for an award-winning novelist (which Webb is) but might be wearisome in a politician.

“If I’m in a roomful of Republicans, I think I’m a Democrat. If I’m in a roomful of Democrats, I think I’m a Republican,” said Webb, in a statement of self-reflection.

That sounds like a pundit, not a bring-the-sides-together compromiser, doesn’t it? Maybe if the independent bid does not work out, Webb can serve as a questioner at the remaining debates of both parties.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.