REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Is 2016 the year of the Third Party?

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Saturday, January 22, 2022 19:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7215
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 7:41 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Never before have 2 Candidates for President been leading and also heavily opposed by voters as have Hilliary and Trump.

The anti-Trump percentage is over 60, and it's about the same for anti-Hilliary.
Mathematically speaking, does this not logically produce the best chance ever for a third party since either the first Republican in 1860 or the Bull Moose Party in 1912?

Although Clinton never won a majority of votes, both times Perot helped split the majority of votes, and the same could be done now, but with a higher percentage, and perhaps a winning percentage.

Who would it be? Or what party?
Libertarian Party?
The Conservative Party could really have a shot, providing contrast to New York Liberal Trump and New York Liberal Hilliary.

I am surprised I have not seen more discussion of this, which I attributed to the focus on the process of the Primaries. But this could gain traction once the nominating conventions are completed.


Election data source:
http://uselectionatlas.org/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 3, 2016 7:19 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Maybe tonight's results from Indiana will spur this thread.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 4, 2016 7:08 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


So which Party will make the biggest splash, outside Rep and Dem?

Which candidate will be in the top 3 vote getters in November?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 4, 2016 7:28 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 5, 2016 7:07 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Even with less than 20% unfavorable rating, Slick Willy could not garner half of the vote either time.
Hard to fathom that Hilliary will do better, with over 40% unfavorable - even if she is not in prison.


www.forbes.com/fsites/fjohnzogby/f2016/f03/f27/ftrump-vs-clinton-mr-un
favorable-vs-mrs-unfavorable



That link does not seem to work, but most polls seem to show Hilliary with 52-57% unfavorable rating, and Donald only 60%

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 9, 2016 7:18 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I had not considered that Ryan might step down from the Convention Chairmanship.

But it still seems we must wait for next month to find out who might step up for third party consideration.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 13, 2016 5:56 PM

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 those who voted.

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, shunning prosperity, 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, and OH since 1963.

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 with the 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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 14, 2016 11:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

But I have to ask, what does it say about American politics that the two most UNpopular candidates should rise to the top? Does it speak to the fact that the media tends to run content which is extremely partisan because it means ratings, and advertising dollars? Does it mean that people are polarized because of the relentless prodding of the media? Is this just another indication of the polarization that occurs under economic duress?



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 18, 2016 2:04 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

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




It means nothing more or nothing less than a vast majority of the people who actually DO vote, are so old that they hardly give a shit anymore Sigs...

It doesn't matter how many Celebs wear "Vote or Die" T-shirts, even if most of the kids listening to them will vote Democrat. Most of the time they don't even bother to get out of bed.



You and I have been Here a LOOOOONG time.

WE both didn't like Bush Jr.

WE both didn't like Obama.

WE both are way to smart to be surprised that it comes down to Trump and Hillary....



It's time for a 3rd Party for sure, but there is no chance that anyone would ever convince any Americans to EVER deviate from the "Norm" and vote for a 3rd party.

That would almost be like a Revolution....

There are WAY too many benefits like Food Stamps and Free Healthcare and Free Schooling for illegal kids and FREE EVERYTHING to anyone who isn't paying taxes for the Revolution to come.

Seriously... the ONLY demographic who is being oppressed today is the well-educated upper-middle-class white people who really worked to make it but even though they're not rich at all they pay nearly 40% of their income off the top to the Government for taxes.

Even though they'll be paying that half-million dollars in student loans off the rest of their lives, are THEY going to be the ones to FIGHT the BULLSHIT?

Of course not. Chances are they already have kids on the way or at least one or two on top of full time carreers and trying to raise kids not to be fucking idiots like most people who have kids and don't give a shit.


There is no Revolution here. No matter how shitty everything is here. NO matter that it's probably worse than it has EVER been in America.

There's so much "FREE" money floating around that nobody is hungry enough to throw the first stone.


Revolutions are built upon Martyrs.

There hasn't been a TRUE Martyr in America for over 100 years and Donald Trump knows that :)



Hillary is just an idiot that got as far as she did because she's a woman doing what she is doing. If she was a man who made that many mistakes it would already be a landslide in favor of Trump.


I'm not any happier than you or anyone else is about it, but Donald Trump is our next President.

I predicted this 4 years ago in the Predictions thread, although I never would have thought Trump would have been the White, Republican, Male I was predicting.

Left 2 his own devices, it is very possible that Trump is nothing more than the Bully he allows himself to be viewed as. He's a fucking Dick and He loves it.

But he's not left to his own devices....

I won't even go into detail about that statement.

Just you watch...

The rest of the R-Ticket is out of the way.

Donald Trump is about to make Hillary cry in a way that will make her long for the days when Bill was cheating on her.

I for one am kind of looking forward to a BULLY of a president that will tell everyone else to go fuck themselves.

At the same time, it won't surprise me if he gets "Jodie Fostered" either...

No matter what happens, it should be entertainting, huh?



And BTW.... I'm under the undeniable belief that no matter what happens, we're all fucked.

Like the late, great, Hunter S. Thompson said....

"Buy The Ticket. Take The Ride"....

I for one am going to enjoy a human apocalypse that is MUCH better than The Walking Dead stories.

Hey... Maybe Children really are our future?

At least, that's what Whitney Huston sang about people my age back when we were kids :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 18, 2016 7:36 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


Now let us look at how things shake out with a 3-way race. Although I have heard talk of a 4-way race, with an alternative for liberal Democrats who are anti-Hilliary, and an alternative for conservatives to vote for. The race between the 2 New York liberals could become trivial.

To start with, let us assume the third candidate has a somewhat centrist message, campaigning as a populist in liberal states and as a conservative in most states.
The Hilliary unfavorable currently sounds around 50%, and the chart shows 38%. Trump shows 53% in the chart. Between 1980 and 2000, no candidate had more than 20% unfavorable. A recent poll has 26% of respondents claiming BOTH anti-Trump and anti-Hilliary. Combined Hilliary and Trump unfavorable is over 100%.
Let us compare to the 1992 election when Perot was the third candidate. Bush41 had 19% unfavorable, and Clinton had 13%. Combined this was 32%.

So there is an increase of 34% unfavorable for GOP, and 25% for Dem (or 48% using Hilliary's 61% in the most recent poll), comparing 1992 to 2016. This is the key point of this thread.

The top vote getting states, percentage-wise for Perot in 1992 are: (percent figures in parentheses are the amount of increase needed for the third candidate to lead the other 2.)
ME 30%(+4%), AK 28%(+4%), KS 27%(+7%), ID 27%(+8%), UT 27%(+9%), NV 26%(+8%), MT 26%(+8%), WY 25%(+9%), WA 24%(+11%), AZ 24%(+10%), OR 24%(+10%), NE 24%(+10%), NH 23%(+10%), CO 23%(+11%), OK 23%(+11%), ND 23%(+11%), to start with. A total of 93 Electors.
Further: MN 24%(+13%), MA 23%(+13%), RI 23%(+13%), VT 23%(+13%), WI 22%(+12%), TX 22%(+13%), MO 22%(+13%), CT 22%(+13%), SD 22%(+13%), OH 21%(+13%), FL 20%(+13%), CA 21%(+15%) are all within only 15% of making the third party candidate the winner for each state.
Adding only MN, MA, VT, WI, TX, FL, OH brings the Electoral projection to 209 Dem, 117 GOP, 212 Third Party. That would be more than the others. All resulting from 13% or less shift away from the Dem/GOP vote.
Adding CA and RI would make the Electoral projection 154 Dem, 117 GOP, 271 Third Party - for the majority and outright Electoral College victor. For only a 15% shift of votes away from the Dem/GOP tickets.

If any ticket fails to achieve a majority of Electoral College votes (270), then the President is elected by the House of Representatives, and the Vice President is elected by the Senate. IIRC, the winner must be in the pool of candidates which won at least 1 Elector. The President and Veep can be from separate tickets.

So even if the Third Party candidate wins one state, a tight race between the New York Liberal #1 and New York Liberal #2 could deny both the majority - sending the election to Congress.
If the Third Party wins more Electors than the other 2 (but less than 269), a case could be made that the Third Party should be the legitimate victor.

If the Third Party wins 269 or more Electors, then the Electoral College would Elect him/her President.

All of this with only 15% or less of a vote shift away from Dem/GOP towards the Third Party candidate. And Hilliary(25-48%) and The Donald(34-46%) have already alienated more than that.


Mathematically speaking, there is no better year for a Third Candidate to run than 2016, with New York Liberal #1 and New York Liberal #2 splitting the "Anti-" vote, and both having unfavorable ratings over 50%.
I'm not sure if Carpetbaggger Clinton or Brooklyn-born Bernie as Dem Candidate would make a difference in a 3-way race.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 19, 2016 6:10 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 19, 2016 7:35 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Sorry for the delay in completing the above posts.
Hope they make sense.

If not, let me know.

Obama was 28% unfavorable in 2012, as comparison. That still makes Hilliary 11-33% more unfavorable, so any shift of 15% is not unreasonable or unfathomable.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 19, 2016 8:24 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


3rd and 4th!

Trump vs Hillary

Bernie vs Romney

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 20, 2016 2:25 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 21, 2016 1:41 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 21, 2016 2:41 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


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.



Garry Johnson. You shoud hav looked at the link I posted.



----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 21, 2016 4:56 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


Who in this thread has said that Bernie is unelectable, other than you?

From what I have seen poll-wise, Hilliary will have a difficult time beating Trump with her current poll numbers, and Bernie will have a great advantage over Trump. I cannot recall information indicating honestly that Bernie cannot beat Trump. However, Bernie snatching away the annointment of Hilliary is yet to be seen.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 21, 2016 5:29 PM

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.
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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 23, 2016 6:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


Carter lost in 1980, Bush41 lost in 1992, Gore lost in 2000.
3 races not conforming to your observation - 2 of them incumbents.

Reagan landslide in 84 with heavy dislike for Mondale, Bush41 in 1988, Clinton in 1996 with East-Coast Liberal Dole, Bush43 in 2004 with Kerry's dislike higher than any candidate of a prior year, and Obamination's 2 races against opponents more liberal than he.

It appears your theory only works when conservatives are disliked - which is obvious since the MainStreamMedia hates centrists or conservatives.
But when Liberals like Carter, Mondale, Clinton (both times had more votes against him than for), Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney are viewed unfavorably, voters vote against them.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 25, 2016 6:27 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I heard reported a recent poll that showed both Trump and Hilliary were more unfavorable than Vlad Putin by American voters.

The results on which of them would be better as Putin's Veep were less clear.

Their massive unfavorability and untrustworthiness are why this is the best opportunity for a Third Candidate, since 1940. And with Koch backing, Gary Johnson could win.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 25, 2016 6:40 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I failed to clarify a few points here.
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.


These 11 states have a total of 107 Electoral votes. A Third Candidate would not need them to win, and therefore would not need to even campaign in these states.
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.


In addition to the 269 Electoral Votes from the above mentioned 25 states, there could be several other states that could be campaigned as buffer, or backup plan victories. The remaining 14 states have an Electoral Vote total of 160.

Since Johnson is former Governor of Arizona, taking that state alone would net him 11 Electoral Votes - taking the same away from the New York Liberal #1 and/or New York Liberal #2, and if a tight race, throwing the election to Congress to decide.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 27, 2016 5:48 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 28, 2016 4:19 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


In fact, if CA, WA, CO vote for Johnson due to pot, AZ for their former Gov., plus ME (where Perot came in second in 1992), and NV and OR (voted heavily for Perot), that would be 102 electoral votes subtracted from the Dems. The last time a Democrat achieved 372 Electoral Votes was LBJ in 1964, following the Kennedy assassination. Before that, 1944 for FDR's final race.

So this would definitely throw the election to Congress at the minimum, or with more states could win the election for the Libertarian Party.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 30, 2016 1:11 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


Ralph Nader on Larry King Now | Ora.TV


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 31, 2016 6:32 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Sounds like Johnson has selected running mate Mass. Gov. William Weld.
MA would carry 11 delegates, taken from the Democrap column.

I have heard things about Weld, but cannot recall them now. Who has heard, good or bad about him? Is he a strength for the Libertarian ticket? Is he also pro-Pot?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 2, 2016 6:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


And now Bill Kristol has announced that he is supportintg another Third Candidate, to counteract Trump.
The reasoning seems confusing.
David French is supposedly the man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:34 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


With the Hilliary - Bernie circus about done, this means the top 2 candidates are each viewed unfavorably by more than 50% of the voters.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 20, 2016 8:57 PM

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
/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:45 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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
/


Yes.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60572

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 15, 2016 5:48 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2016 3:56 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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



Based on only a 2-way race:
With these 3 states going for Trump, if the election were held today, and all other states voted the same as 2012, Trump would win the Electoral College with 273 - assuming no 3rd party Electoral votes.

States that might flip to Hilliary, based upon recent polls:
North Carolina with current Clinton lead 42-40%, worth 15 Electors.
States that might also flip to Trump, based on recent polls:
Nevada, currently Clinton 45-43%, worth 6 Electors.
Iowa, currently tied with 40%, worth 6 Electors.
If these 3 flipped in this way, Trump's Electors would drop to 270, still a win.


Indiana looks safe for Trump, with 8% margin.
Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico look safe for Hilliary currently, with margins of 5, 7, and 9%.

North Carolina only gave 40% for Trump in the primary, but almost half of their delegates to Hilliary in the primary.
Indiana Primary went Trump and Bernie.
Nevada Primary went Trump with 48% and Hilliary with 47%.
Iowa Primary went Cruz, with 25% for Trump, and Hilliary got about half.
Wisconsin Primary went for Cruz and Bernie. This could be a puzzle, but only 10 Electors worth.
New Mexico Primary went Hilliary with about half.


Handy linky:
http://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2016/polls.php

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2016 4:31 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


In a 3-way race, some data is hard to get because most polls are not including anybody but Hilliary and Trump.

But some polls are still showing strong support for "Other"
Because of the strong unfavorable ratings for both New York Liberal #1 and new York Liberal #2, it is possible that many of the undecideds could go to a third party.

By adding the "Other" and the "Undecided" results, the total could represent the states most likely to give an Elector outside of Dem/GOP.
24% CO, for 9 Electors. 11% Other, 13% Undecided.
24% OH, for 18 Electors. 9% Other, 15% Undecided.
23% VA, for 13 Electors. 9% Other, 14% Undecided.
22% ME, for 4 Electors. 6% Other, 16% Undecided. Maine gave Perot the second-most votes in 1992.
21% PA, for 20 Electors. 8% Other, 13% Undecided.
21% FL, for 29 Electors. 8%, 13%.
21% WI, for 10 Electors. 5%, 16%.
21% IA, for 6 Electors. 7%, 14%.
18% NC, for 15 Electors. 4%, 14%.
16% GA, for 16 Electors. 3%, 13%.
15% AZ, for 11 Electors. 2%, 13%.
15% NH, for 4 Electors. 1%, 14%.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2016 7:36 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 6:53 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 27, 2016 5:15 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Another recent poll shows Gary Johnson is drawing from Trump's numbers, and Jill Stein (the first female Presidential Nominee of this year) is drawing from Hilliary's numbers.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/gary-johnson-donald-trump-poll/2016/07/
21/id/739764
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2016 3:26 PM

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
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 30, 2016 4:13 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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.





Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 1, 2016 8:33 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

Thanks for your poll.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 6:50 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Libertarian and Green parties are splitting the former Bernie voters, but Libertarian is swooping the former Cruz voters.

http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/07/27/parties-lose-disaffec
ted-voters-gary-johnson-wins
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 6:50 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Libertarian and Green parties are splitting the former Bernie voters, but Libertarian is swooping the former Cruz voters.

http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/07/27/parties-lose-disaffec
ted-voters-gary-johnson-wins
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 4, 2016 7:31 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


And Libertarian showing rebounds after the other 2 conventions for New York Liberal #1 and New York Liberal #2.

https://libertarianvindicator.com/2016/08/03/gary-johnson-rebounds-in-
new-fox-news-poll-debate-stage-in-sight
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 8, 2016 7:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


CNN doesn't seem to allow a direct link to their most embarrassing olls, but if you look at the link soon, you can seen that the cnn/orc poll has Wisconsin giving Trump 45% over Hilliary's 43%.


http://www.cnn.com/election

This flip of WI helps keep both from reaching 270 Electoral Votes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 8, 2016 8:05 PM

WISHIMAY


I think you are deluding yourself.

When given a choice between two things, 98% of the population will not EVER go with an outside choice.

It's between Hillary or Trump, unless one gets murdered.

You aren't even competing with intelligence, you are competing with human nature, and that is something that is pretty immutable. People don't change.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 8, 2016 11:23 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


New 3rd party candidate enterz the rase: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/8/1567859/-New-3rd-Party-Candid
ate-Enters-Race


----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:00 PM

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.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5361/can-trump-beat-hillary-here-are-lat
est-polls-james-barrett
#

And Real Clear Politics indicates that if Election held today, Hilliary would only win with 18 Electoral Vote margin, meaning a 9-vote swing or 18-vote denial would stop her from winning. No way the Republican House is going to elect her.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:07 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Yep....

Just like most of the races we've witnessed in our lives, the only role 3rd party candidates hold are fucking up political polls.


I voted for Ron Paul.

I would never vote for Johnson/Weld.

Johnson might be a Libertarian, but he's so isolationist that he doesn't have a clue what's going on outside of the US.

Weld is a scary dude though. Among other things, he supports combining Canada and Mexico with the US, something like the European Union, with a single currency.

When I first heard about this idea 12 or more years ago, I thought we (the US) were the losers in that equation.

Today? I think Canada should be the one to tell us to fuck off if that ever comes off.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 22, 2016 8:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.



This would make FL, OH, IA flips for Trump compared to 2012, for 53 Electoral votes and 259 total. And NC would be a flip for Hilliary, knocking Trump Down to 244, and Hilliary with 296, or a 26 Electoral Vote swing at this point, if all other states were the same as 2012.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:37 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Evan McMullin has 29% in polls in Utah, compared to Hilliary 28% and Trump 30%.
Not exactly a third party, but the same numbers apply - if he garners a win in Utah, these Electoral Votes could deny an Electoral College majority to the 2 New York Liberals.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 5, 2016 5:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Third parties could still make a difference.
if McCullin takes Utah and throws the

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 5, 2017 4:57 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I'm not sure I've found the correct thread, but further info about Voter ID at Election time.

Of the 6 States in 2012 that required Photo ID to vote, 1 went to Obama, 5 went to Romney.

In 2016, there were 7 states, and it went 6-1.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 21:40 - 495 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 21:25 - 981 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL