Is 2016 the year of the Third Party?
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, June 5, 2025 14:21
VIEWED: 11479
PAGE 1 of 9
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe tonight's results from Indiana will spur this thread.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 theyNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME