Macho Madness
Member
Precisely how I see something like that potentially playing out:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
HuffPo: "How Paul Ryan Will Pick the Next President" (with a GOP Spoiler Candidate)
- Thread starter jgwhiteus
- Start date
- Status
Ninja Scooter
Member
At this point it feels like the smart republicans know this election is lost, but might feel like they have to make moves like this to distance themselves as far as possible from Trump and other radical parts of the party, so that they can still hold positions of power and authority and be taken seriously in whatever is left of the GOP after Trump and his followers burn it to the ground. Once Trump gets his ass handed to him the party could realize being as radical as possible is a stupid idea and come running back to Mitt and co.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Yeah, makes sense from this perspective. They wouldn't run it to win, they'd do it for an alibi.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
About as well as Gary Johnson did.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Precisely how I see something like that potentially playing out:
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. It doesn't seem like it will cause any change in outcome.
Sir Alemeth
Member
Think the GOP rather have Hillary in the house than Trump.
Box of Kittens
Banned
As an aside, there have been two four way battles before.
1824 resulted in the election being sent to the House of Representatives. Interestingly, all four candidates were from the same party. The Federalist Party had died off leaving the Republican Party (now typically referred to as the Democratic-Republicans to distinguish them from the modern Republican Party, which wasn't founded until 1854). Essentially the party system was collapsing and the result was chaos. To date, this is the last time a presidential election was decided by the House of Representatives (it also happened in 1800, but under very different circumstances).
1860 was rather famous for sending Abraham Lincoln to the White House and leading to the Civil War. The Democrats had split into Southern and Northern factions, and the election was also contested by the short-lived Constitutional Union Party (which ran strongly in the "border states" between the North and South). Lincoln managed to win a majority in the Electoral College with just under 40% of the vote. Although this is popularly attributed to the other candidates splitting the anti-Lincoln vote, had all those votes coalesced into a single ticket, Lincoln still would have won the Electoral College because his votes were extremely efficiently distributed across states. He won a bunch of Northern states with 50-60% of the vote, while receiving virtually no votes in the South. In short, Lincoln had astonishingly few "wasted" votes from an Electoral College perspective.
One could argue that 1836 was a five-way race, but that's a little misleading because the Whig Party's strategy was to run four different candidates in different parts of the country to try and get one of them elected by the House of Representatives when no one got a majority. In effect, there were four different two-way races taking place in different regions. You could say it's somewhat analogous to the anti-Trump strategy Mitt Romney advocated in the Republican primary this year.
Wowfunhappy
Member
As others have said, the Republican Party would never run a second candidate. It would be stupid.
However, let's say that there IS a brokered convention--which is still perfectly plausible--and the nomination is then taken AWAY from Trump--which is also plausible--despite him winning more states than any other candidate.
In that case, Trump is likely to run as a third party candidate himself. And then, I could see this theory becoming a reality.
However, let's say that there IS a brokered convention--which is still perfectly plausible--and the nomination is then taken AWAY from Trump--which is also plausible--despite him winning more states than any other candidate.
In that case, Trump is likely to run as a third party candidate himself. And then, I could see this theory becoming a reality.
They're fucked either way. You force Trump out and then you have a highly marginalized and niche party without the electorate and numbers (aka the dumb base that voted GOP because of social issues) that made up the real workhorses of the party. They'll get slaughtered.
They give Trump the nomination and they're screwed anyway since they scare away every reasonable voting demographic. What does Trump top out at 35-40% of the voting pop? That's landslide territory for Dems.
They give Trump the nomination and they're screwed anyway since they scare away every reasonable voting demographic. What does Trump top out at 35-40% of the voting pop? That's landslide territory for Dems.
Oh word. Never say "of all time" lol. I mixed up my facts: Perot's the most successful of the primary era.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Sore Loser laws in some states don't allow you to appear in a primary for one party and against in the general for another.
Precisely how I see something like that potentially playing out:
Yep... Hell, it could be extended to Hillary Clinton voters being essentially Democratic voters and the debate between Clinton and Sanders is about how far left the Democratic Party should go. It is the reasonable debate between a Centrist Democrat and a Progressive Democrat. However, Trump & Cruz has succeeded in answering how far right the Republican Party should go. It is unfortunate for the Republican Establishment that the answer ended up being all the way right. I fear Trump and people like him are the future of the opposition to the Democrats, be it the Republicans or the Trump Party.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Trump doesn't take votes away from Hillary, though. At least by no conventional wisdom other than potentially some of the fringe Bernie base. So I still wouldn't see how a Trump 3rd party run results in a House election.
Only way this is plausible is if the Democratic base becomes split.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Technically it's an open question due to how poorly the 22nd Amendment is worded. No one would ever try it because why make your choice of Vice President subject to a Supreme Court ruling. I say nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?
ISWThunder
Member
That's definitely the most interesting party of this for me. If the GOP doesnt think Trump can win the GE (which I think they don't) then they have no chance with another candidate. You can't deny that Trump has rabid support, and opposing him like this would assure that the GOP's voter base is split.
So realistically, the GOP needs to find a way to keep their control of congress. Personally, I feel like a straight Hillary vs Trump ticket would be beneficial to the democrats in this respect. While running 2 GOP candidates would sink the GE race, I wonder if it would bolster their numbers in the other races.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Might also help save some of their down ballot to have the conservatives that will never vote for trump or hillary have a reason to get out and vote.
There's also the possibility that they don't want Trump to win, as that'd probably fundamentally shift the party itself away from the policies that establishment republicans think are core.
Not that I wanted a 4 way electoral battle, but no I didn't know that before this thread. I don't remember that particular fact ever coming up in school
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Extremely terribly. It's probably the worst combination you could have electorally.
Box of Kittens
Banned
The best part is that the House votes in an extremely stupid way. Instead of each Representative having one vote, each state has one vote. They must choose among the top three vote getters in the Electoral College, and to win you need the votes of a majority of states. You can imagine the chaos that could occur if there are a significant number of states whose delegations are split evenly among Democrats and Republicans. Oh, and prior to passage of the 20th Amendment, the votes were cast by the outgoing House of Representatives.
hydrophilic attack
Member
If Mitt failed to win almost any swing state in 2012, how the fuck would he manage to do it with Trump eating up a lot more of his support than of Hillary's?
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Bernie? You said you wouldn't!
No, that still wouldn't work. The days of a Dem needing either Ohio or Florida are long since past.
Again, this article is really fucking stupid.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Sure, why not.
It lets Hilary just walk right into the presidency because Trump and the GOP third party would tear each other for conservative votes. Sounds good to me.
It lets Hilary just walk right into the presidency because Trump and the GOP third party would tear each other for conservative votes. Sounds good to me.
If this strategy is pursued, I think the Republicans are in trouble.
For all their, frankly, brilliant moves at the state and federal level to retain power and achieve their ends despite a shrinking demographic base, this is remarkably short sighted.
So they do this and Mitt comes in third place. Best case scenario realistically they win a few states as spoiler. Then the House of Representatives, tea party loonies and all, contentiously end up with a vote that gives the presidency to the third pace candidate.
Pissing off everyone but the small percentage that rallied around Mitt. Probably even upsetting a few Mitt voters who think it is ethically unfair. Then what???
Because shit sure as hell isnt going back to normal after that. Trump supporters would be fucking livid! Trump is also not one to likely take losing in that fashion very well and would probably actively feed the flames. Democrats would be beyond pissed. The party would be in an even worse position long term and Mitt would be DOA.
And if this doesn't end up in best case scenario land, the republicans have essentielly proven Trump right on his rhetoric about the establishment and the results will show voters buy into him as their leader and not the establishment, permanatelt weakening them.
For all their, frankly, brilliant moves at the state and federal level to retain power and achieve their ends despite a shrinking demographic base, this is remarkably short sighted.
So they do this and Mitt comes in third place. Best case scenario realistically they win a few states as spoiler. Then the House of Representatives, tea party loonies and all, contentiously end up with a vote that gives the presidency to the third pace candidate.
Pissing off everyone but the small percentage that rallied around Mitt. Probably even upsetting a few Mitt voters who think it is ethically unfair. Then what???
Because shit sure as hell isnt going back to normal after that. Trump supporters would be fucking livid! Trump is also not one to likely take losing in that fashion very well and would probably actively feed the flames. Democrats would be beyond pissed. The party would be in an even worse position long term and Mitt would be DOA.
And if this doesn't end up in best case scenario land, the republicans have essentielly proven Trump right on his rhetoric about the establishment and the results will show voters buy into him as their leader and not the establishment, permanatelt weakening them.
Box of Kittens
Banned
That's what's so crazy about this whole idea. Running two (de facto) Republican candidates won't siphon off votes from Clinton, they'd just cannibalize each other's support. The only reason for Republicans to try and run one of their own as a "third party" candidate would be to help downballot candidates if they decide the presidential election is a lost cause (basically, give anti-Trump Republicans someone to vote for so they'll vote for GOP House/Senate/state/local candidates instead of staying home).
Primethius
Banned
What a stupid article.
If it's Hillary vs Trump vs Mit (or any other Repub candidate), Hillary is going to win that election even harder.
And Bernie's not dumb, he's not gonna run third party.
If it's Hillary vs Trump vs Mit (or any other Repub candidate), Hillary is going to win that election even harder.
And Bernie's not dumb, he's not gonna run third party.
GoldenEye 007
Member
What are you talking about? And there can be 10 candidates. Or 50.
The only reason they might do this is to give them a moderate republican who can campaign for downticket senate and house races. That would allow them to put some distance between vulnerable candidates and Trump.
It wouldn't ever be to try and actually win the presidency - it would just be to isolate Trump and shore up republican votes for downticket candidates.
It wouldn't ever be to try and actually win the presidency - it would just be to isolate Trump and shore up republican votes for downticket candidates.
echoshifting
Banned
The real question in this scenario is if the damage control would be effective enough to justify alienating Trump's base.
I don't think the gerrymandered House represents the people correctly. I also don't think choosing a candidate that doesn't get the popular vote reflects the people correctly.
Precisely how I see something like that potentially playing out:
It's like Osmos.
Square2015
Member
I think they'll draft Jeb! Bush If the DEM's pick another cLinton it will be a sign the establishment has won out (in both parties) and the GOP will go with (another) Bush (Romney's not interested in running again anyways).
TheFuzz
Member
Am I crazy? Wouldn't a state like Ohio go to Clinton in the GE? A potential third-party candidate with Kasich on the ticket may very well fall Republican. A couple more states following Ohio's lead could be disastrous for both candidates, and give me the rapture election I'm hoping for.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Sure, if it's Clinton v. Trump v. Kasich, then maybe Kasich takes Ohio (though I wouldn't bet on it), but he'd mostly take votes from Trump and cause Clinton to win a bunch of states she otherwise wouldn't with a plurality of the vote. Again, see 1912 for how this works out in practice.
SenorArdilla
Member
This is stupid. Running a third candidate isn't going to steal votes away from Clinton. Numero Tres is going to end up eating Trump's voter base and pissing him off.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Technically there was just one viable party, the Republicans (or "Democratic-Republicans" as they are often now called) but they couldn't agree on a nominee and so there were four viable candidates, all technically from the same party. The factions that caused the party to split eventually wound up coalescing into the Democratic Party and the Whig Party.
If they did run a third party candidate to counter Trump we'd see a landslide for Clinton, the sort we haven't seen since Reagan.
That's one state.
What "couple of other states" are you talking about? Be specific.
Because I specifically want to show you how it is very improbable for him to win any other state if he's polling this poorly against Trump right now. And how, using the current primary numbers, a third candidate that's a conservative or neoconservative Republican could put Clinton in play in nearly every state.
Ninja Scooter
Member
So pathetic lol. Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of bigots and douchebags.
I love the fact that clearly a memo went out amongst the Republican elites about the terminology for the convention. I think I've seen "open convention" used more time in the last week than in the last 20 years. I don't think I've EVER heard someone call it an open convention before now.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Hey, at least that bit you quoted from the 12th Amendment was better than the old system where each whoever finished first in the Electoral Vote became President and whoever finished second became Vice President. That led to the other time a presidential election was decided by the House.
- Status