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.
Long answer: Assuming Bernie Sanders doesn't run as an independent (which he has said many times he won't do,) the Democrat vote won't be split two ways like the GOP vote would be. This could be a repeat of 1992: GOP nominates someone a substantial percentage of their voters don't like, the independent candidate makes a lot of waves in his campaign (and gets the votes to boot), and a Clinton heads the Dem ticket.
Part of the answer lies in the spoiler effect: the more and more popular a third party candidate is, the more that hurts their own voters by taking away votes from the major party candidate who's the ideologically closest to him, leading to a victory for the guy (or girl) they absolutely didn't want in office whatsoever. To apply this to 2016, if Trump runs as an independent, he'll get a substantial amount of votes, but the Democrat would benefit from the GOP split enough to win the election. However, even if the Dem benefits from split votes enough to win 400+ electoral votes, that isn't necessarily an approval of what the Dem candidate stands for, just the result of a structural deficiency in the first-past-the-post electoral system we use.
THAT BEING SAID, a note of caution, even for an FPTP hater like myself: this is a very unconventional campaign season. Trump is mincing his words even less than Perot did, and yet for every crazy, anti-PC, and ludicrous thing that comes out of his mouth, he's still atop most of the GOP polls. Nothing can hurt the man. I find it unlikely, but I would not be 100% surprised if the 2016 election turns out to buck the trend of 1912, 1992, and 2000.
I am wondering if the presence of Trump has already been a fatal blow. Even if he doesn't win the nomination, he will probably get a lot of write in's among Republican voters.
I honestly see the 2016 election as the climax of the long battle between the Tea Party and the establishment GOP. It looks likely that there will be a big split between the two groups, and that the GOP will have a terrible election night.
The bad news for the Democrats is that after Trump or Cruz goes down to defeat, the GOP will finally begin to reunify. I find the current situation very analogous to 1964; after Goldwater's landslide loss, the GOP became a highly unified party within just a few short years. Meanwhile, there are huge fissures that are existing within the Democratic Party; however--because Hillary has managed to scare off any serious competition--the divisions that are arising among the Democrats aren't nearly as visible as the GOP divisions currently are. The Democratic Party has moved very far to the left during the Obama presidency, and now consists of different factions that are vocal about very different issues. (For instance, the Black Lives Matter extremists are focused on demonizing law enforcement, while the Latino left wants more and more illegals to be granted citizenship. And then you have a segment of white Democrats--who are the die-hard Sanders supporters--pushing for socialism.) Part of Obama's political talent was that he has been able to unify all of these disparate groups, but Hillary simply cannot do this. (Indeed, should she win in 2016, it will be solely due to the fact that the GOP was dumb enough to nominate somebody unelectable.) If the Democrats wind up winning by a huge margin in 2016 (due to the GOP's stupidity), the far-left will incorrectly believe that the American people are in full support of their agenda, and will only grow more militant in their demands. In fact, this is exactly what happened after the 1964 election; LBJ, of course, was unable to unify all of the different Democratic interest groups, and the party consequently descended into chaos. Because the far-left is suspicious of Hillary (much like they were towards LBJ), it creates the ideal atmosphere for a huge civil war among the Democrats post-2016.
I honestly see the 2016 election as the climax of the long battle between the Tea Party and the establishment GOP. It looks likely that there will be a big split between the two groups, and that the GOP will have a terrible election night.
The bad news for the Democrats is that after Trump or Cruz goes down to defeat, the GOP will finally begin to reunify. I find the current situation very analogous to 1964; after Goldwater's landslide loss, the GOP became a highly unified party within just a few short years. Meanwhile, there are huge fissures that are existing within the Democratic Party; however--because Hillary has managed to scare off any serious competition--the divisions that are arising among the Democrats aren't nearly as visible as the GOP divisions currently are. The Democratic Party has moved very far to the left during the Obama presidency, and now consists of different factions that are vocal about very different issues. (For instance, the Black Lives Matter extremists are focused on demonizing law enforcement, while the Latino left wants more and more illegals to be granted citizenship. And then you have a segment of white Democrats--who are the die-hard Sanders supporters--pushing for socialism.) Part of Obama's political talent was that he has been able to unify all of these disparate groups, but Hillary simply cannot do this. (Indeed, should she win in 2016, it will be solely due to the fact that the GOP was dumb enough to nominate somebody unelectable.) If the Democrats wind up winning by a huge margin in 2016 (due to the GOP's stupidity), the far-left will incorrectly believe that the American people are in full support of their agenda, and will only grow more militant in their demands. In fact, this is exactly what happened after the 1964 election; LBJ, of course, was unable to unify all of the different Democratic interest groups, and the party consequently descended into chaos. Because the far-left is suspicious of Hillary (much like they were towards LBJ), it creates the ideal atmosphere for a huge civil war among the Democrats post-2016.
I have utmost confidence in both parties ability to overreach when they win.
Hey, Dole McCain, do you see the GOP nominee winning Colorado next year? I remember you being from there. Hillary is polling terribly there now. I'm not sure she can pull off a win there unless the GOP nominates an imbecile.
Say if the GOP picks either Cruz or Bush leading to Trump running independent. Would this scenario be a guarantee win to the Democrats?
It could but in the past only a few times has the entrance of a independent candidate changed the outcome. of course it would also depend on who the Republicans nominate? Bush would really help the Dems, he just doesn't seem to have what it takes and is name will be an issue. Rubio would most likely be the choice of the party, or maybe Cruz. Cruz might be too far to the right for the mainstream voters.
ticking: just wanted to let you know, many states do not allow write in votes and even if they did, he wouldn't get enough to make a serious difference I don't think. He would need to run as an independent to make a difference.
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.
