Worried about another third-party candidate affecting Clinton's victory?

[MineralMan]

Don't. There's no reason to. Any candidate who steals votes from Trump benefits the Clinton campaign. Here's why:

Presidential elections in the states don't require a majority win for a candidate to get a state's electoral votes. That isn't how it works. A plurality is enough. So, an additional anti-Trump third-party candidate that gets votes that would otherwise go to Trump makes it easy for Clinton in the electoral college.

In fact, in some states that wouldn't otherwise be swing states, the entry of an additional third-party on the right could easily push that state's electoral votes over to Clinton. A conservative third-party will not take votes from Clinton. Instead, it will take votes from Trump, while still not getting enough votes to hurt Hillary in any way. It will simply make a plurality victory easier for her.

No majority is required in state elections for President. A plurality will do just fine.

And that, my DU friends, is why we have the Electoral College and why it should remain part of our presidential election process.

[MineralMan]

1. Want an example. Look at the 1992 election.

Ross Perot stole almost 20 million votes from George H. W. Bush, but won no electoral votes, despite his surprising success. He got 18.9% of the popular vote. GHWB got 37.4 of the popular vote. Bill Clinton won with only 43% of the popular vote, but got 370 electoral votes, far more than he needed for election.

Perot didn't steal any votes from Clinton. He stole votes from Bush, instead. A similar thing is in play in 2016. A right-wing third party, along with the Libertarian party, is likely to rob the Orange Haired Marmot of votes, not Hillary. She might end up with less than a majority of the popular vote, but will win in the Electoral College. I am predicting 350+ electoral votes for Clinton this year.

There were other parties running as well, almost all of which took votes from Bush, rather than from Clinton.

The 1996 election was similar, but Clinton came closer to a majority. Perot was the spoiler in that election, too, taking just over 8 million votes from the hapless Bob Dole.

For more information, see this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

[Wilms]

2. You are WRONG! The Green Party is evil incarnate.

They MUST be stopped!!11!1

[emulatorloo]

3. Lighten up, Francis.

Stein's not going to impact the election, but that doesn't mean she's a sacred cow.

[Wilms]

4. Go on. Fail to take things Ser!ously.

Soon we'll all be speaking Russian and eating vegetarian meals.

[emulatorloo]

5. Obviously, the wifi 'screens' have scrambled your brain 1!11!!!

Or was it overexposure to the drunken anti-Bernie rants of VP Baraka?


Good one by the way!

[MineralMan]

6. Jill Stein, with the Soylent Green Party,

will see to that second thing.

[MineralMan]

7. Hey! This is a serious thread, here.

Knock it off! Oh, yeah, please...

[Wilms]

8. I AM being Ser!es.

I don't speak Russian and I like a good burger from time to time.

Everyone knew the whole email/Ben Ghazi dustup was a bunch of nonsense that would blow over. But J!LL STE!N...she'll be the end of the Democratic Party.

We're going DOWN if we don't stop her and bomb Russia right away!

[emulatorloo]

14. Yes SATAN Hillary herself gave the kill order at Ben Ghazi! But Jill Stein had Harembe MURDERED

Simply because he was ahead of her in the polls!

But you are right, I will vote for JILL STEIN because of her brilliant strategy to STOP TRUMP by helping to get him elected!!!!!

Like you I have seen the many sophisticated and nuanced political arguments put forth by Internet Memes.

If only people would do more photoshops of Hillary! Stein would win in a landslide!

[Wilms]

15. Gary Johnson is likely stealing votes from Clinton.

There are plenty of repukes unwilling to vote for Trump. They could ote for HRC, but Johnson gives them alternative.

Must. Stop. Johnson!11!

[emulatorloo]

16. I know! It was WONDERFUL when Bernie wanted to attract Republican voters

But when Republicans say they are going to vote for HRC rather than the FUCKING INSANE guy, it sends CHILLS DOWN MY SPINE!

[Hiraeth]

9. so reassuring. thanks.

[MineralMan]

10. You're most welcome.

[Hortensis]

11. What do you think about down-ballot races, MM?

The presidency seems ours for the losing. Knock wood, of course.

But I've just started feeling cautiously optimistic about the Senate and deep-breath/cross-fingers/deep-breath about just-maybe possibilities for the House.

[MineralMan]

12. I'm pretty sure we'll end up with a majority in the Senate.

I'd bet on it. However, the House is another matter, and is complicated by gerrymandering that was made possible by the dismal turnout of Democrats in 2010. There's an outside chance of us picking up the 30 seats we would need, but not a great chance. We will, however pick up some seats. How many is anyone's guess. I believe that MN CD-2 could flip, but that's uncertain yet. We're having our primary tomorrow, so which Republican gets the nod in that district will make a difference.

The Senate, though, I think we'll take back, with maybe a couple of seats to spare.

It's all going to depend on Democratic turnout, frankly. If we GOTV like crazy, the House could look better, especially if we turn out the Hispanic and Black vote in very high numbers, especially in some southern states that are verging on becoming swing states, like Georgia.

I'm not so good a predicting congressional races, since I don't follow individual states other than my own closely.

[Hortensis]

13. Apparently Trump was doing very badly in Utah,

possibly putting it in play, at least for the presidency. I'm guessing this third-party guy from Utah will spoil that chance...? Our GA senator is just 9 points ahead of his Democratic challenger... I'm hoping this guy bombs and isn't seen as a real alternative and doesn't make it onto most ballots.

79 degrees and sunny in Rio right now.

[auntpurl]

17. No, I think the opposite re: Utah.

Let's say for the sake of argument Hillary and Trump are split 50/50 in Utah (I know that's not accurate, it's just for illustrative purposes). Add Gary Johnson. He takes more from Trump than Hillary, so now it's 48 Hillary/42 Trump/10 Johnson. Now add Egg McMuffin or whatever the new guy's name is. He will also take more from Trump than Hillary. So now it's 47 Hillary/38 Trump/10 Johnson/5 Egg McMuffin. Hillary still wins with a plurality.

[Hortensis]

18. So the three conservatives/libertarian split the

right traditionally. I guess I was locked into the hope of wooing some people away from the GOP, but this makes perfect sense, and no doubt is far more more likely. Thanks, AuntPurl.

A new JMC poll today in Georgia confirms the others in the past couple of days but even better - 4-way split also: Hillary 44%, Trump 37%.

[lancer78]

19. Nice analysis, but I think you have a problem

That problem being that HRC is doing so well in the polls right now is that she is getting a lot of Indie and moderate right voters. If a sane Republican enters the race, he/she might begin to steal a lot of those center-right/center votes from HRC. Remember, HRC has high negatives as well.

Look what happened in Connecticut in 2006. Lieberman entered as an Indie, and all the Republican voters ran to him. The Rep got 10%, Lieberman got 50%, and the Democrat got 40%. Same thing could happen if this McMuffin (sp) is seen as a viable candidate.