The Daily Signal - Victor Davis Hanson: Could Tucker Carlson Split the Republican Vote in 2028?

Episode Date: August 13, 2026

Tucker Carlson and a group of MAGA conservatives are reportedly considering a possible third-party movement ahead of 2028. The history of third-party campaigns shows how they can split an ideological coalition and hand victory to the opposing party, from Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party to Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. The proposed movement shares much of its agenda with the Trump administration but breaks sharply over foreign policy, the Iran war, Israel, and American involvement overseas. Personal disputes with Trump, growing divisions within MAGA, criticism of AIPAC and Israel, and controversial rhetoric surrounding Jewish influence have also become part of the emerging fracture. A third-party challenge could ultimately act as a spoiler in 2028, dividing the MAGA coalition and hurting the Republican candidate attempting to succeed Donald Trump. The Alliance for Secure AI - Visit http://www.secureainow.org Learn how we're working to mitigate risks and protect humanity in the advanced AI revolution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Daily Signal podcast, where we provide intelligence for the intelligent. Now, without further ado, here's today's take. I don't know the purpose of what the Tucker Carlson group is, because historically it would suggest that all they want to do is make sure that Donald Trump's successor, JD Vans or Marco Rubio, loses the 2008 election. I'm Brendan Steinhauser, CEO of the 112, Alliance for Secure AI. We're working every day to make sure that AI is safe, secure, and aligned with American values.

Hello, this is Victor Davis-Hansson for the Daily Signal. Tucker Carlson recently assembled a group of like-minded apostate MAGA conservatives for a meeting to discuss apparently a possible third-party run in 2008. I think a lot of us were mystified for a lot of us. of reasons. One of them was that third parties in American political history really have had no record in the modern era of ever winning. They do affect the election in some cases, but that's only to hurt the party that is more ideologically akin to the third party run. For example, in 1912, William Howard Tout, the incumbent president, was challenged by his predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, who didn't like the first term of Taft. He created the Bull Moose third party.

What was the effect of that? He split the conservative Republican vote, and thereby he elected one of the most liberal progressives in the history of the United States, contrary to both his views and Tafts, Woodrow Wilson. Ross Perrault was a conservative. He said he was from Texas, so was George H.W. Bush up for re-election in nine. 1992 against Bill Clinton. What did Perrault do? He ran a third party ticket. He was angry at the Bushes. He felt they were not correct on some conservative issues, debt, and other things. And he succeeded in ensuring that Bill Clinton, a Democrat, would win the election with less than 50% of the vote.

He did it again in 1996. He may have had an effect even on that election when Bob Dole lost the election, but Bill Clinton. and once again didn't win 50% of the vote, given the 10% that Ross Perot run. And of course, most famously in 2000, Al Gore ran against George W. Bush. It was a very close election. It was contested in Florida. And as you remember, after the vote was counted and George W. Bush won, Al Gore contested it. He lost that vote, but the margin was almost minuscule in Florida, which determined the entire election.

You could argue that the one or two percent of the vote that third-party candidate Ralph Nader got, ensure that Gore lost that in election. So I don't know the purpose of what the Tucker Carlson group is because historically it would suggest that all they want to do is make sure that Donald Trump successor, J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio loses the 2008 election. What is

their agenda? Well, they've said that they have 10 points if they really are going to form a third party. I looked at them I could say confidently that 8% 8 out of 10 are what they're getting right now with Donald Trump. They're worried about a porous

border. They're worried about crime. They're worried about DEI. They're worried about the family. They're worried about all of the all of these things, but who is giving them relief? Who's offering a remedy to their anxieties? Donald Trump is.

Do they really think the left has a better idea that will better fit their agenda on the border that saw 12 million people come in under Biden or defund the police or the DEI chauvinism that came in under the Democrats? So their agenda is very similar to what they're getting now, except on two issues of which they differ. They do not want wars abroad and they feel if we have collateral damage, we had it in World War II, we had it in Korea,

we had in Vietnam, we've had in every war we fought. Especially now in the Middle East where the enemy uses human shields on the premise that the United States doesn't deliberately hit civilians and therefore they are willing to expose their own civilians' lives to protect their

combatants. Tucker would have us pay cash bound cash reparations to any civilian who was killed in a war. You can imagine how that would work in the real world. So given all of this, the agenda they're getting pretty much dovetails with what we have in Washington, and given the record that third parties don't work too well other than to hurt the similarly, ideologically akin party, why are they doing this? and I think you could argue that they have two concerns.

One of them is their careers had once been rather spectacular. Tucker Carlson had the largest audience on Fox News. He was getting paid $20 million a year. And then for a variety of reasons, not all his fault, that career blew up and he was summarily fired on a Friday afternoon without warning. and now he's had to go out and he's done had some success but not quite the audience that he had or the influence and he's become kind of bitter about it marjorie taylor green was an intimate of the maga movement she was camped out at marlago she was on the phone with donald

trump Tucker crossed Donald trump on the ran war marjorie taylor green crossed him on the Epstein files, even though Trump released over a million files and the previous administration released none. And yet she now is out. She didn't even run for office because she wouldn't have even been nominated by her own party in her congressional district in Georgia. Thomas Massey was sort of famous as the ultra-pure mega-philosopher, intellectual, doctrinaire pro-Trump and he started to criticize Donald Trump on the Iran war like Tucker and support for Israel like Tucker.

And he felt he was invulnerable. He was incumbent. He had a national profile. He didn't even win the nomination of the Republican Party. His career is over. Joe Kent ran, as I recall, for Congress on two occasions in Oregon. He came close, but he asked for the endorsement of Donald Trump. it to him. He still failed. He wanted an appointment. He had military and intelligence

expertise. They appointed him. I think Tulsi Gabbard came to work. In other words, he was lifted out of obscurity by Donald Trump, and then he started to disagree, and he saw that Telsie Gabbard was going to leave Homeland Security. There was going to be shake-up and personnel, and he wanted to preempt that and quit. And with a Parthian shot, he blasted Donald Trump, my point is that all of them have personal grievances. Finally, there is another issue that has come up, and it's more controversial. Of those 10 points, as I said, they agree with Donald Trump on almost all of them. They even agree that RFK and his food agenda is exactly what they feel as well. Who would ever appointed RFK except Donald Trump? But there's two

areas where they of their ten points they disagree apparently. One of them is conducting wars in the Middle East or foreign wars. They feel at the expense of America. You could make the argument that they might be logical except Iran we know now

had the ability to produce a nuclear weapon probably within a year and it had rockets on like what it had pledged under prior treaties that could reach every European capital. And within four or five years would have reached the United States.

And given their nihilist's almost suicidal ideology, it would be very dangerous to have that country with that type of weaponry threatening our Western allies and ourselves. But nevertheless, that was one area of disagreement. And the other is they felt that the Israeli government was conducting undue influence in the United States. And by association, I think you can read between the lines, the Jewish lobby.

All of them have gone after A-PAC. But that's not just the end of it. They have said things, and they have had host or people with views like Daryl Cooper, who really blamed World War II the U.S. intervention into World War II on Jewish influence and has downplayed the deaths of Jews in World War II in various subtle ways, but nonetheless he has. And Nick Fuentes, who makes no apologies, he's forthright and candid that he's very critical of Jewish people in general, and their support of Israel is secondary to that.

He feels Jews don't represent the Christian tradition and that they have too much money and they're too vocal, and we know the whole story. And so really, to sum up, the third party movement, if that's what we want to call, it has no historical precedent that it works. it seems kind of incoherent because its ideology is 80 to 85% identical to the Trump administration. Most of the people who are guiding this movement owe allegiance to Donald Trump,

who has helped them in the past. They turned on, they had a fight, so much of their zeal is personal angst. And finally, there is an element of anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism. a Semitic anger that also fuels it. It's not going to go anywhere, but it may, as it's designed, as spoilers, try to hurt someone that they once and very recently assured us was essential to the United States. That is the Trump mega agenda, and Donald Trump is president. Thank you very much, Victor Davis Hansen, for the Daily Signal.

Thank you for tuning in to the Daily Signal. like, share, and subscribe to be notified for more content like this. You can also check out my own website at victorhansen.com and subscribe for exclusive features in addition.