Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I'll just repeat AGAIN that Ross Perot got 19% of the vote and ZERO electoral college votes. Johnson is polling at less than half of that. He's not winning any states, and he's especially not winning enough electoral college votes in what is looking more and more likely to be an electoral college blow out by Hillary.........
We all know that.
Nothing new here, except for the disdain felt toward both candidates. That's new.
Today, it is looking like a blow out; today, Johnson has not qualified to be in the debates. But they are not going to cancel the debates because of that.
Oh, I understand exactly how the system works. I'm not the one who claimed that the House selection process is by elimination - you did (wrongly).
I'm just pointing out that you're delusional if you think the House is going to select Johnson. Now, let me school you on what would happen in a scenario in which no candidate gets an Electoral College majority.
First, if all Representatives held to their political affiliations under the current array of delegations, 33 state delegations would go for Trump compared to 14 for Clinton. But you've already conceded that many Republican state delegations would refuse to support Trump. I agree that some might.
But what apparently eludes you is that we don't know how many state delegations will be controlled by Republicans and how many will be controlled by Democrats. You think you do - but you're wrong, again, because you don't understand the process. The new Congress is sworn in on January 3rd of every year that follows Congressional elections. Electoral College votes are counted by a joint session of Congress on January 6th of every year following a Presidential election. Only after the votes are tabulated in the joint session can the consideration of the selecting of the President by the House begin. That's right - the House we elect in November, not the current House, selects the President in the event that no candidate gets to 270 Electoral College votes. My schooling is obviously the first you're hearing of this.
Finally, there's the fact that Johnson has no chance of carrying 50-60 Electoral College votes, and that even in any hypothetical situation in which he did, he would bleed off more states that Trump has to carry than Clinton (such as Utah, Arizona, Idaho). And if Johnson is doing that well among conservative voters, it means Clinton has already won every Blue Wall state as well as Florida and Ohio and Virginia and North Carolina and is way past 300 EC votes in any case.
But, even assuming your silly, practically impossible scenario happened, most politicians would stay true to their party. This election has, after all, demonstrated with Donald Trump that no matter how odious he is, most GOPers are subservient lackeys bending to his will. Thus, the House would simply remain deadlocked. And in that case, the Presidency, being vacant, would devolve upon the next in line, the newly-elected Vice President. And since the Vice President, in the absence of an Electoral College majority vote, is selected by the Senate from among the top two recipients of Electoral votes, and since the sitting Vice President (Biden) would cast the tie-breaking vote, there is no chance that the vote there could be deadlocked. And at any rate, that tie-breaking vote would not be necessary because WI and IL and IN are already gone for the Republicans in the Senate, with half a dozen other GOP-held seats currently toss-ups. So the newly-elected Democratic Senate would select Tim Kaine to become Vice President, and he would immediately ascend into the vacant Presidency. Yes, that's how it works. You can run along to check your links to confirm that (I didn't have to look this up - I actually know it).
Not only do you clearly not understand the Constitutional process of the House selecting a President, you also clearly have no idea how American electoral dynamics work, demonstrated by your idea that Johnson could somehow siphon off states from Clinton's majority.
But then, that's precisely the sort of lack of knowledge I'd expect from someone who was asserting that the Democrats were going to get 'slaughtered' in 2016.
Again, a snarky, uniformed post by a zealot who pounds keys with his eyes closed. Thankfully, you are beginning to understand the process. You're evidently not a very good student, but keep at it. You'll get it.
I know that the new house selects the president - not the old one. I am so happy to see you have gotten that far in your studies.
But NOW you assert that most politicians would stay true to their party, since that fits your meme a little better. This, AFTER you Dems proclaimed that Republicans are abandoning him!
My contention is that Hillary and Trump will both be abandoned in droves and this is substantiated by their mutually enormous negative numbers - nearly 50% in both camps.
You disagree, but your limited vocabulary and ability to express yourself leaves you sounding sophomoric angry and condescending. I give you a "D".
Again, a snarky, uniformed post by a zealot who pounds keys with his eyes closed. Thankfully, you are beginning to understand the process. You're evidently not a very good student, but keep at it. You'll get it.
I know that the new house selects the president - not the old one. I am so happy to see you have gotten that far in your studies.
But NOW you assert that most politicians would stay true to their party, since that fits your meme a little better. This, AFTER you Dems proclaimed that Republicans are abandoning him!
My contention is that Hillary and Trump will both be abandoned in droves and this is substantiated by their mutually enormous negative numbers - nearly 50% in both camps.
You disagree, but your limited vocabulary and ability to express yourself leaves you sounding sophomoric angry and condescending. I give you a "D".
Beats the F for Fantasy that your scenario is.
No one is claiming Congress is going to abandon their respective parties' candidates. Yes, Trump is disliked by many Republicans. But the vast majority of elected Republicans are ignoring that fact and prioritizing party over anything else and supporting him already. In the beyond extremely unlikely scenario that a contested electoral college election goes to the house, Congress will vote on party lines, not for Gary Johnson as some purported compromise candidate.
No one is claiming Congress is going to abandon their respective parties' candidates. Yes, Trump is disliked by many Republicans. But the vast majority of elected Republicans are ignoring that fact and prioritizing party over anything else and supporting him already. In the beyond extremely unlikely scenario that a contested electoral college election goes to the house, Congress will vote on party lines, not for Gary Johnson as some purported compromise candidate.
Either way, Hillary will lose and not become president if she does not get 270 in November.
Either way, Hillary will lose and not become president if she does not get 270 in November.
So we agree.
Other than the fact that a more likely scenario is Hillary winning with long enough coattails to flip not just the Senate but the House blue, sure, we agree.
I fully believe if there ever was a time when a 3rd party has a chance it's THIS ELECTION CYCLE.
The Libertarian Party could have a serious shot if they play it right and persuade some serious money to jump on board (aka Koch brothers et al).
People don't like Trump/Clinton for obvious reasons. Both have SERIOUS defects that could damage this nation to its core. One is a proven CROOK,LIAR and CHEAT, the other is well, Trump.
Why not elect two governors who did well for their respective states and don't have all the baggage that Clinton/Trump have?
Why not elect someone who's actually got experience in running an efficient government and has pretty much DONE everything Clinton/Trump SAY they will do?
Could they REALLY be any worse than what we've had for the last 16 years or who the media sycophants say we'll be getting next?
Unless they saw them in a post or article, I would bet that most people wouldn't even know the "third party" candidates names.
No, the "best chance" a third party had was when Ross Perot was leading in the polls - then tossed it.
Yep, we've really had QUALITY candidates for the last few cycles haven't we? They've done sooooo much to help this nation and bring us closer together, increase the well being of everyone and make things better for our children.
Isn't that's your, mine, and everyone's job. Not the politicians. They are representative of who we are, not masters who have us on a leash.
If we want something out of the politicians, we have to choose better. There were what? 13, 16 in the republican primaries? Out of that large number of qualified(?) politicians, the people chose Trump. He should have been cut off at the knees when he first started to insult, instead of debate... But apparently that is what the people wanted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
The parties are evolving? Try DEVOLVING into who has the most money to BUY the office.
I must say that it seems (I don't have the figures) this year the candidate spending is in inverse to the amount they spent...
Everyone should take the quiz at www.isidewith.com. Even if you know you're going to vote for Trump or Clinton, you should do it, just to see how your views align with the various parties.
We all know that.
Nothing new here, except for the disdain felt toward both candidates. That's new.
Today, it is looking like a blow out; today, Johnson has not qualified to be in the debates. But they are not going to cancel the debates because of that.
As of this minute he is on 39 ballots, but they are still counting signatures which are required for non major parties. He will likely be on 49 states as a Libertarian and 1 state as an independent.
If they are on less then 49 states it will be a huge embarrassment. Ohio is working hard to keep them off the ballot. They are trying to delay their decision until it will be too late to get on the ballot.
Edit: Johnson is now polling at 15%+ in 2 states, Utah and Colorado. He got polled at 10% in Maine before their advertising starts there, I expect him to break 15% in Maine.
Nationally however it's looking unlikely that Johnson will meet the 15% required for the debates. If he doesn't make the debates his goal will change to getting 5% to achieve major party status.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
