Third Party Candidates in 2020

[Lucas_Toledo__ 0]

21 hours ago, Patine said:

You didn't include any full and complete Third PARTY other than the Libertarian Party... :S

Hello, Patine.

It's possible to talk to you about the scenario when I wish to made "France - 2017"?

I await your reply.

Att, Lucas.

[Patine 444]

16 hours ago, wolves said:

And? Conservatives will still vote for Trump and if Trump has a guaranteed record by 2020, he won't lose all of his base. Cuban will probably pick off more democrats due to his social and economic positions than Republicans.

These kind of comments show, from less than three months in office, with a fair number of controversies and botches already, that a lot of those who support Trump, believe it's inevitable that Trump's first term in office will be stellar and great, the economy will skyrocket, and all his promises will be fulfilled, and in the best possible way... :S

14 hours ago, CalebsParadox said:

I feel that after a candidate has run a certain number of times, they become a joke, even if they are a third party candidate.

Actually, the person who held the Guiness Book of World Records for the most times running for an elected office of any sort and losing every time (until his record was beaten by a little-known far-right-wing Evangelical Christian candidate in Canada), was specifically and deliberately a joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screaming_Lord_Sutch

8 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

I'll be honest, imagining third parties is pretty damn fun- hell I am writing an undergrad 'thesis' on one- but this election has proved that it is nearly damn impossible to win as one. Aside from the two Senators in the northeast, virtually no third party showed some serious gains; and this is when you factor in how unpopular that the two main presidential candidates were. And when you factor in that how loyal the GoP is to Trump, I doubt we will see a big name go third party- though I can see a same namer try to make a name for himself and try to do so. 

But remember the last time the nation saw a major party politician break for a third party, and get a sizable share of the popular vote, was John Anderson back in 1980. And he only received a paltry 5%. 

This is because I personally believe the US has become a 'Party of Power' system, but in a unique (at least one not seen since Turno Pacifico-era Spain, Vota Contado Era Argentina, and the era of exclusive Tory and Whig dominance over the House of Commons of England, then, Great Britain, then the United Kingdom) - that is, a competitive, two-party 'Party of Power' system, but whereas a true 'Party of Power,' was no real ideology, in the two-party version, one is just 'big-tent right-wing,' and one is 'big-tent left-wing,' but, like with a single Party of Power system, the two main parties' collective grip on the bureaucracy, judiciary, electoral commissions, other standing levels and offices of government, the media, and most potential donors and endorsers is a big problem for outside challengers too, and, in my opinion, can easily (and probably has) sabotaged the 'will of the people' in a representative sense, as I'm not convinced that the very low popular %'s of the vote won by Third Party or independent candidates are always truly indicative of actually how intrinsically or honestly unpopular they are among US voters.

[Reagan04 658]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

by a little-known far-right-wing Evangelical Christian candidate in Canada), 

 

I must hear more of this man.

[Patine 444]

13 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I must hear more of this man.

Here he is. His monetary policies are a bit outside the standard for US Christian Evangelists, but most of his policies fit the bill (and modern Evangelists seemed mixed on the gambling issues, so his status as "professional gambler" could be within certain lines).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Turmel

[servo75 30]

21 hours ago, CalebsParadox said:

I think that this is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I believe that third parties are going to have a weaker influence in the 2020 election than they had in the 2016 election. I'm talking 3% max if they put up decent candidates, though there is no candidate who is respected enough to gain votes willing to jump ship for political suicide. 

2016 was a different year because the two major party candidates were so, so unlikeable. Going into President Trump, he hasn't ruined the country. That alone will make him appear to be better than he was in 2016 if he chooses to run, and I doubt there will be anyone like McMullin since conservatives will rally around Trump like they would any other Republican.

The Democrats will hopefully have learned their lesson and put up someone somewhat likable, there's few political dinosaurs left to become the next Hillary Clinton, and the party isn't going to push through someone like her again so soon. All in all, I think this was the peak of 3rd party activity and interest for several election cycles, and it was squandered by a crazy, definitely not presidential, old lady and a goofy, non presidential, old man. 

Unfortunately, I think you're probably right about that.  If Trump does what I hope he'll do, he'll get re-elected with 40 states and 400 votes.  If he doesn't, then you'll at least see GOP Congresspeople getting primaried, but it opens the door further for 3rd parties.

As for 3rd party viability, I am optimistic that it can happen though it will take at least another 12-20 years.  I think the first thing that we need is to change our voting system to go with a instant-runoff system.  Yes it will be logistically different but I believe that if we allow Libertarian, Green, and Constitution party supporters to hedge their bets, you'll see a change because there are millions of people out there, I think, who would have voted 3rd party but for they didn't want to throw away a vote.

[jnewt 35]

30 minutes ago, servo75 said:

If Trump does what I hope he'll do, he'll get re-elected with 40 states and 400 votes.

How could Trump possibly win 40 states and 400 EVs?  He'd have to win reliably blue states (including, at the very least, New York and Illinois) that would vote for almost anybody before him.

[Reagan04 658]

4 minutes ago, jnewt said:

How could Trump possibly win 40 states and 400 EVs?  He'd have to win reliably blue states (including, at the very least, New York and Illinois) that would vote for almost anybody before him.

 

http://www.270towin.com/maps/AgBZz

[jnewt 35]

23 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/AgBZz

This includes Trump somehow winning Illinois, Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, and Minnesota, all of which have gone Democrat the past 4 election cycles.  Trump couldn't even win those states against one of the worst Presidential nominees in the history of our country, I can't imagine he'd go on to win all of those states against an average nominee.

[Reagan04 658]

Just now, jnewt said:

This includes Trump somehow winning Illinois, Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, and Minnesota, all of which have gone Democrat the past 4 election cycles.  Trump couldn't even win those states against one of the worst Presidential nominees in the history of our country, I can't imagine he'd go on to win all of those states against an average nominee.

 

I was supporting your point.

[Bruce Fischer 0]

5 hours ago, jnewt said:

How could Trump possibly win 40 states and 400 EVs?  He'd have to win reliably blue states (including, at the very least, New York and Illinois) that would vote for almost anybody before him.

I think this is the best case scenario for Trump. If Trump does well (moderates his behavior and policy so as to actually try to unite people rather than just paying lip service to unity, the economy is as good or better than today, Syrian war (which I think we'll get way more involved in, a fact I think would've been true regardless of who won last year's election) goes well and ends quickly a la Gulf War, ISIS is defeated or significantly weakened, people don't lose their healthcare all at one time and during the 2018 and 2020 election years, Russia scandals amount to nothing and stop coming to light, coal magically comes back, AND he finds ways to "bring jobs back" from Mexico and China without resorting to border taxes or tariffs) AND there's a terrible Democratic nominee (Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, or Anthony Weiner would be the worst, and Tim Kaine would be boring and lose as well), then this is probably the best he can do. I find it extremely unlikely he wins CA, OR, WA, IL, all of Maine, most New England states, MD, and I can pretty much guarantee he won't win DC even if Jesus Christ himself returns and endorses him. Though what do I know about "extremely unlikely," I laughed at the idea of President Trump from the time back in 2011 when my dad told me about him and that he was maybe going to be running in 2012 (I remember the day, I, at the age of 12, was sitting in a McDonald's eating pancakes for breakfast and he was on the news, probably at CPAC or something, in hindsight. My dad, a Republican who voted for him last year, also thought the idea of him running was absurd) up until about Super Tuesday, and I was like 60% sure he'd lose until about 12AM on November 9th.

I think this is the best case scenario for the Democrats. If Trump does terribly (e.g. Syrian war like the Iraq War, ISIS still exists and is moderately strong, economy isn't great, AHCA passes and 20ish million lose their healthcare, coal hasn't come back, he's still dogged with Russia scandals, maybe he's even challenged in the primaries, probably by Ted Cruz, AND trade wars with Mexico and China driving up the prices of everything) AND they nominate good Presidential and VP candidates (say, Warren and Julian or Joaquin Castro, Kamala Harris and Sherrod Brown, or Al Franken and Tammy Duckworth, though I doubt the Dems could take Texas without a Castro or equivalent popular Texas politician) which basically in this scenario means someone not named Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Weiner, or Tim Kaine, and preferably one is from the Rust Belt and the other is from AZ or TX, then this is somewhat achievable. If Hillary Clinton can come within 10 points of winning GA, AZ, and TX, then I can't imagine how someone who's actually appealing to people and not ethically questionable could do against a failing President Trump.

I'm pretty sure Trump won't be either a total success or total failure, and I'm almost certain that the Democrats won't run a widely hated two-time loser, a widely hated elderly Representative, or a widely hated borderline repeat sex offender who didn't get very far politically as their nominees for either President or Vice President, though the Democratic party's total lack of common sense and the ability to lose elections that should be cakewalks never ceases to amaze me. That probably won't change under Perez. In what I see as the most likely scenario, where Trump is moderately successful and the Democrats nominate people who're decent if unexciting (like my very own Senator, Chris Van Hollen as President and Kirsten Gillibrand as VP or vice-versa), I think the map will look like this in, say, late August/early September 2020.

As for third parties, I doubt any will fare well in 2020, unless they nominate well-known people, say, Jesse Ventura or Rand Paul on the Libertarian ticket and Bernie Sanders or maybe Al Gore (???) on the Green ticket, though even then (plus I highly doubt Bernie would do that). I doubt either will get 5% of the vote. I could see Cuban running as an independent, maybe with Bloomberg as VP, but I think he'd act more as a spoiler for the Dems than for Trump. Plus does anyone like Cuban or Bloomberg? Bloomberg is the worst parts of the Democrats (taxes that are seen as frivolous) and the worst parts of the Republicans (strong support for the Iraq war, to the point of endorsing Dubya in '04) rolled into one person, and Cuban is a weird mix of the social positions of the Democrats (which immediately repels most Republicans) and excessively pro-business economic policies (which immediately repels most Democrats).

I'm about 97% certain I'll be not only voting for the Democratic nominee in 2020 (even if it's Clinton/Pelosi, Clinton/Weiner, or, worst of all, Weiner/Pelosi) but making trips up to PA to volunteer for their campaign, but I'll try keep an open mind. It'll be my first time voting for President (I'm turning 18 roughly 11 months before the 2018 midterms) so I'm excited no matter who I end up voting for.

[pilight 233]

12 hours ago, servo75 said:

As for 3rd party viability, I am optimistic that it can happen though it will take at least another 12-20 years.  I think the first thing that we need is to change our voting system to go with a instant-runoff system.  Yes it will be logistically different but I believe that if we allow Libertarian, Green, and Constitution party supporters to hedge their bets, you'll see a change because there are millions of people out there, I think, who would have voted 3rd party but for they didn't want to throw away a vote.

It would be up to the states to switch systems, which any of them could do at any time.  There's no chance any state will adopt an instant-runoff system.  The trend has been towards making it more difficult for smaller parties, which is why we've gone 12 consecutive presidential elections with only two parties earning electoral votes.  That's by far the longest such streak in US history.

[jvikings1 39]

Here are my maps:

Best Case Trump: http://www.270towin.com/maps/AgBmz

Best Case Democrats: http://www.270towin.com/maps/6AOz4

 

[Take Me to La Riva 0]

As a card-carrying member of a third party myself, i'm sorry to dampen the general enthusiasm i'm feeling among many here in this thread vis-a-vis a viable third-party candidacy in 2020 or any time soon. The younger voters today are, in general, seemingly following the same language as teh parents and grandparents, which goes like so:

I won't vote for third-party candidates because third-party candidates can't win because I won't vote for ahird party candidates because thrid party candiidate can't win because, etc.

The system that the duopoly has establishes emphasizes the importance of dumbshow debates, primaries, the electoral college system and all the other traditional trappings of campaign season which simply do not include -- indeed, patently exclude -- third parties.

Third-party revolution? Nothing to see here, i'm afraid...

[servo75 30]

28 minutes ago, Take Me to La Riva said:

As a card-carrying member of a third party myself, i'm sorry to dampen the general enthusiasm i'm feeling among many here in this thread vis-a-vis a viable third-party candidacy in 2020 or any time soon. The younger voters today are, in general, seemingly following the same language as teh parents and grandparents, which goes like so:

I won't vote for third-party candidates because third-party candidates can't win because I won't vote for ahird party candidates because thrid party candiidate can't win because, etc.

The system that the duopoly has establishes emphasizes the importance of dumbshow debates, primaries, the electoral college system and all the other traditional trappings of campaign season which simply do not include -- indeed, patently exclude -- third parties.

Third-party revolution? Nothing to see here, i'm afraid...

Well a revolution implies something sudden.  While it's true I did use that word in my 2020 scenario, it's mainly tongue-and-cheek and every time I simulate, the Libertarians rarely take more than 1-2 states.  So by revolution (at least the way I express it), I mean an increase in strength, so if we, say, got 5-10 3rd-parties in the 2018 House, and a Libertarian Senator in 2018 or 2020 I would consider that a revolution.  But 20-40 years down the road, it's absolutely possible we'll see another party rise.  Otherwise I think we need grand changes in our voting methods and in how electoral votes are allocated, but absent of a Constitutional Amendment that's not going to happen.

[servo75 30]

On 3/16/2017 at 7:45 AM, jvikings1 said:

Here are my maps:

Best Case Trump: http://www.270towin.com/maps/AgBmz

Best Case Democrats: http://www.270towin.com/maps/6AOz4

 

Best Case Libertarian: http://www.270towin.com/maps/DXk42

[Rarename91 0]

On 3/14/2017 at 6:03 PM, vcczar said:

Mark Cuban should just run independent in order to drain Trump voters, appealing specifically to Trump issues, as if he were Trump himself. If I were a wealthy CEO, I would come together with several CEO's that wanted to stop Trump. I'd have all of us run independent, each on Trump issues, each spending time exclusively in his strongest states, in order to diminish him so the Democrats, or a progressive independent wins. 

that would kind of help trump with outsiders.