Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
what does it say about American politics that the two most UNpopular candidates should rise to the top?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
To view how things might work out, let us start with a template of how the race could work without a serious Third Candidate.


In 2012 Obama beat Romney, with only 409,500 votes deciding the race. This means if the right 205,000 voters had changed, Romney would have won. With an estimated Voting Eligible Population of 222,474,000 this means that less than one one-thousandth of the Eligible Voters decided the race, or less than 0.1%. With total vote count of 129,237,000 the percentage was about 0.15%.

Of course, no state has voted for Democrats in every elections since 1971, but Minnesota has done so for every election after 1972. Even when the most conservative President we've had in modern times was running, every other state voted for Reagan, but not MN. But they only had an 8 percent margin in 2012, meaning that if 4% of their voters had shifted, the state would have gone to Romney. In 2008 they had a margin of 10%.

Consider these groups of states.
Group 1. 102 Electors.
TX, SC, AL, OK, UT, KS, MS, NE, ID, WY, ND, SD, AK.
These states have voted Republican in every election since 1979, and the closest margin in 2012 was SC with 10%. Most people can assume they will go to the GOP in 2016. This group had 91 Electors in 1980, but they have embraced progress and Free Enterprise and flourished, expanding their proportional population.

Group 2. 19 Electors.
GA, MT.
These 2 have voted for GOP in each election since 1982 except for 1992. Both can be assumed to go for GOP in 2016, although GA had only an 8% margin in 2012. They had 16 Electors in 1980.

Group 3. 59 Electors.
TN, AZ, MO, LA, KY, AR, WV.
These states have voted for GOP in almost all elections since 1979 except for the Perot years, 1992 & 1996. They also each have a margin in 2012 of 9% or more. They are likely to vote GOP in 2016.

Group 4. 26 Electors.
NC, IN.
These 2 states have voted Right every election since 1979 except 2008. In 2012 IN voted R by a margin of 10%, and 2008 voted D by a margin of 1.0%. NC voted R in 2012 by a margin or 2% and in 2008 voted D by a margin of 0.32%. These would likely vote Republican if there was a decent candidate.

5. 29 Electors.
FL*.
Florida has voted R since 1979 except 1996, 2008, and 2012. The margin in 2012 was 0.9%. This would easily go to Republican if a decent candidate was available. Florida had 17 Electors in 1980.

6. 40 Electors.
CO*, VA, OH*.
These 3 States usually vote for the winner since 1979, and in 2012 voted Dem by a margin ranging between 3% and 5%. A decent candidate would put these back in the GOP column. Ohio has lost 28% of it's Elector count since 1980.

Group 7. 57 Electors.
NM*, MN, WI, IA, NV*, PA.
Other than the Reagan/Bush41 years, these states have mostly voted for Dems since then, and in 2012 had margins of between 5% and 10% for Obama. These would likely vote Democrat if there was a decent candidate. This group had 63 Electors in 1980.

Group 8. 31 Electors.
MI, OR, NH*, ME
These states have voted for Democrats since 1990, and had a large margin in 2012, with MI the tightest margin at 10%. These are likely to go to Democrats in 2016. This group had 35 Electors in 1980.

Group 9. 175 Electors.
CA, NY, IL, NJ, WA, MA, MD, CT, VT, HI, RI, DE, DC.
These states have voted for Democrats in every Presidential election since 1990. Unless the GOP puts up somebody similar to the most conservative of recent history - Reagan - these states are likely to stick with the Democrats. This makes them useless in terms of campaigning - no need to spend money or time in these states, other than to raise money to spend in other, competitive states. This group had 187 Electors in 1980, and other than CA and WA have lost 25 Electors as a group. Their liberalism has decimated their states, turning their back on progress, forcing populations to go elsewhere like conservative states, but they drag along their inept liberal thinking so they can destroy their new homes like they did the place they left.


States with an asterisk have voted for the winner in almost all elections since 1979. Only OH and NV have voted for the winner in every election since 1979.

Groups 1-6 would garner 275 Electors for the GOP, winning the Presidency. A reasonable expectation.

Regarding Electoral shift since 1980, the States with the largest percentage increase of Electors are NV 100%, AZ 83%, FL 71%, UT 50%, TX 46%, GA 33%, which are in groups 1-6 except NV.
The states largest percentage loss of Electors are NY 29%, OH 28%, PA 26%, IA 25%, MI 24%, IL 23%, which are in groups 6-9 and vote Democrat more often.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
There is only one third party that's going to be on the ballots in most if not all of the states, and that's the Libertarian Party. Only it doesn't really have a candidate. Or it does, but you've never heard of him, and never will.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
There is only one third party that's going to be on the ballots in most if not all of the states, and that's the Libertarian Party. Only it doesn't really have a candidate. Or it does, but you've never heard of him, and never will.


But by all means, keep telling us how "unelectable" Bernie is...


Filing deadlines have passed in most states, so no other party is going to get on the ballot. The game is rigged. It's a small club, and you and I ain't in it.

Privilege has its membership.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Herez your 3rd party: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/gary-johnson-aims-to-offer-vo
ters-a-plan-c-689358915619?cid=eml_mra_20160520

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The chart actually shows a curious trend. More often than not (which isn't to say "all the time") the more UNpopular candidate wins. If that trend holds true, Trump should win.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Herez your 3rd party: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/gary-johnson-aims-to-offer-vo
ters-a-plan-c-689358915619?cid=eml_mra_20160520

---

I thought your link must be outdated. Gary was the candidate in 2012, and I voted for him.

But he is also the candidate for this year - excellent news. It looks like Jim Gray will not repeat as Veep Candidate.

That is the Libertarian Party.

Other parties include:
A whole pile of Socialist and Socialists and Socialist Parties.
Constitution Party - Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley
Reform Party USA - Ken Cross and Lynn Kahn (Party recovering after attempted takeover by David Duke types)
Veterans Party - Chris Keniston and Deacon Taylor


Regarding being on every ballot in every state: This is not required. See the details I mentioned in above posts.
Getting on the ballot in states like AR, TN, MD, RI, VA, NC, LA, GA, AL, MS, SC could be quite pointless for the purposes of Election 2016. They had such poor showings for Perot in 1992, 1996 that similar results this year would prove a waste of time and money.

---

Quote:

---

In a 3-way race the third party only needs to win a few states to throw the Election to the Congress, and only a little over a third of the Electoral Vote (with 23 states) to reasonably argue to Congress that they should be the winner, and if the Third Candidate has 269 Electoral Votes (with 25 states), they likely won't get it from any of the states just mentioned, and they would still be the winner. This means getting on the ballot in 25 states would make it possible.

Please remember that this is envisioning a 3-way race, so the goals are completely different. A Third Candidate would not need to be on the ballot in every state in order to win.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Saw an interview where Gary Johnson stated that as President he would legalize Marijuana.

That might make CA, WA, CO swing to him. That is 76 Electoral Votes for the 3, or 67 votes for just CA and WA. The last time the election had a margin that could not withstand that loss, meaning Electoral total of 270 + 67 = 337. Obama only had 332.

California, when given the choice of Johnson, former Gov of neighboring Arizona versus new York Liberal #1 and New York Liberal #2, could very well go to pot legalization with Johnson.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Pay Attention To Libertarian Gary Johnson; He’s 10 Percent vs. Trump And Clinton

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pay-attention-to-libertarian-gary
-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
And Hilliary fell behind Trump in OH, PA, FL. Are these the 3 states that no President has ever won a race without winning one of these 3? Or is it that they won 2 of the 3 of these?
She is winning none of them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-polls-ohio
-pennsylvania-florida-2016-7

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
From your link:
'The poll found 21 percent of likely voters will not back Trump or Clinton. That compares with about 13 percent of likely voters who opted out of the two main choices at the same point in the 2012 race between President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
The poll also showed a majority of American voters have an overall "unfavorable" view of both main candidates, with 46 percent of Clinton supporters and 47 percent of Trump supporters saying their top priority when voting will be to stop the opposing candidate from reaching the White House.'

The Democrats needlessly shot themselves by shoe-horning Hillary into the slot, instead of letting the voters' choice freely play out. Hence the Democratic flight to 'other' candidates.

From my very small, non-representative vantage point, the lifelong Democrats I work with (and there are only about 2 republicans in 40 people) are planning on voting in this ratio: 2 Hillary : 1 Donald : 1 Gary : 1 undecided. So Hillary is getting less than half the historic Democratic vote.

I'd argue that Donald is also a third party, who just happens to be running under the moniker 'Republican'. But as a mis-labelled third-party, his personal negatives are high enough that ANOTHER third party candidate is also drawing substantial numbers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
After hearing Democrats chanting "Hilliary for Prison" I wonder how unfavorable she becomes in the upcoming polls. This is following Hilliary's latest scandal for subverting Bernie, disenfranchising Democrat voters, directing "news" retailers which fake stories to push and on which dates, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Recent poll: Gary Johnson gains, Trump moves ahead of Hilliary nationwide.

Of course, the nationwide polls are meaningless, except for qualifying inclusion in the debates.
Difficult to find polls which are including more than New York Liberal #1 and New York Liberal #2 in specific states. Looks like many states are considered tossups, yet no online poll data available.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3357391/gary-johnson-jill-stein-are-both-poll
ing-at-record-highs-are-americans-finally-waking-up-the-third-parties/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Recent poll: Gary Johnson gains, Trump moves ahead of Hilliary nationwide.

Of course, the nationwide polls are meaningless, except for qualifying inclusion in the debates.
Difficult to find polls which are including more than New York Liberal #1 and New York Liberal #2 in specific states. Looks like many states are considered tossups, yet no online poll data available.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3357391/gary-johnson-jill-stein-are-both-poll
ing-at-record-highs-are-americans-finally-waking-up-the-third-parties/

---

Newest Polls have Trump ahead in FL, OH, IA, AZ, GA, MO.
And Hilliary ahead in NC, NV, WA, CO, NH, MI, WI.
This indication of a tighter race means a third party could more easily deny them each the 270 Electoral Vote majority.

---