The Connundrum Continued

A thought came to mind on my previous post, and it is this: Does a stake need to be put in the ground?

Was Ross Perot's 1992 run a "stake in the ground" against NAFTA and globalism which only bore it fruit in 2016 after more people came to his views?

Would a third-party or independent candidate with traditional, centrist, mainstream views of economic classical liberalism, realism in foreign policy, and a balanced view on immigration put a "stake in the ground" against a Democratic nominee embracing Democratic Socialist economic policies, non-interventionist foreign policies, and amnesty for illegal immigrants, and a GOP incumbent embracing protectionist economic policies, non-interventionist foreign policies, and restrictionist immigration policies?

Such a candidate may be destined to lose in 2020, and may swing the election in a way that is undesirable for the populist Democratic Socialist left or the populist paleoconservative right, but would stand as a stark contrast to both the populist  Democratic Socialist left and populist paleoconservative right. That candidate would likely be burned by the objection of one side's extremists, but the positions they espouse could be a starting point for more mainstream 2024 or 2028 candidates from either or both parties.

The risk is, if there is no centrist "stake in the ground", there may be no rallying point for those future mainstream candidates. How could a mainstream Republican run against populist paleoconservatism without being able to point to the votes lost by the paleoconservative populists to the mainstream centrist independent candidate? How could a mainstream Democrat run against populist Democratic Socialisism without being able to point to the votes lost by the Democratic Socialist populists to the mainstream centrist independent candidate?

The zero-sum politics of both sides is a problem, because while it seeks to preserve the next election, it may poison more elections further in the future.

This "stake in the ground" concept is why I supported the Libertarian Party ticket in 2016. I thought Trump would lose and the GOP would be left picking up the pieces. But I also thought the LP ticket would get more than the 3.3% it received. If a major candidate loses, and there is a minor candidate who draws from only one side and gets about 8% of the vote, they represent about 15% of that side, which is fairly significant. The candidate may be seen as a spoiler, but chances are their key supporters and staffers will emerge as power brokers, and a similar candidate will emerge under the official party banner.

The last issue is who would emerge as the "similar candidate" on each side in the future if a centrist mainstream independent spoils the 2020 election? There are a number of potential candidates on the GOP side, but it is less clear on the Democrat side.