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.
The first of potential independent candidates, Howard Schultz, may throw his hat in the ring. Although he is not well known to the majority of Americans, his $3.3 billion net worth means he can afford plenty of air time.
Being a former Democrat and a citizen of Washington State, he is considered a greater threat to Democrats than Republicans. Ross Perot did not take any EC votes, but he did a lot of damage to H.W. Bush in 1992 and most people assume he threw the election to Bill Clinton.
In 2000 in Florida Bush's 2,912,790 votes narrowly beat Al Gore's 2,912,253 votes by less than 650, so Ralph Nader who earned 97,488 votes for the Green party was seen as a spoiler.
In 1968 George Wallace won 5 states and took 46 electoral college votes. Nixon still had a clear majority of EC votes (301) even though he ended up beat Hubert Humphrey by less than 1%.
If 2020 ends up with no candidate winning 270 electoral college votes because a third party candidate takes a crucial state, then the "contingent election" is held in the House of Representatives with each state getting a single vote regardless of population size. If the state cannot agree on a candidate, then their vote doesn't count.
For the last several decades it was felt that a " contingent election " would go to the Republican candidate since they had majority delegations in many of the small states. But after 2018 the Republicans hold a clear majority in only 26 states. Another variable is the contingent election would be decided by the newly elected congress in 2020, and not the lame duck congress of 2018.
Do you think independent candidates bring much needed new ideas to a race, or are they just egotistical spoilers?
States with majority Republican delegations in 2018.
The first of potential independent candidates, Howard Schultz, may throw his hat in the ring. Although he is not well known to the majority of Americans, his $3.3 billion net worth means he can afford plenty of air time.
Being a former Democrat and a citizen of Washington State, he is considered a greater threat to Democrats than Republicans. Ross Perot did not take any EC votes, but he did a lot of damage to H.W. Bush in 1992 and most people assume he threw the election to Bill Clinton.
In 2000 in Florida Bush's 2,912,790 votes narrowly beat Al Gore's 2,912,253 votes by less than 650, so Ralph Nader who earned 97,488 votes for the Green party was seen as a spoiler.
In 1968 George Wallace won 5 states and took 46 electoral college votes. Nixon still had a clear majority of EC votes (301) even though he ended up beat Hubert Humphrey by less than 1%.
If 2020 ends up with no candidate winning 270 electoral college votes because a third party candidate takes a crucial state, then the "contingent election" is held in the House of Representatives with each state getting a single vote regardless of population size. If the state cannot agree on a candidate, then their vote doesn't count.
For the last several decades it was felt that a " contingent election " would go to the Republican candidate since they had majority delegations in many of the small states. But after 2018 the Republicans hold a clear majority in only 26 states. Another variable is the contingent election would be decided by the newly elected congress in 2020, and not the lame duck congress of 2018.
Do you think independent candidates bring much needed new ideas to a race, or are they just egotistical spoilers?
States with majority Republican delegations in 2018.
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
The only egotistical folks are the ones from either party who assume that they are so great that nobody dare challenge them if they aren't deeply rooted in the typical partisan BS of "their" side.
Just saw his 60 Minutes interview, it will definitely be interesting to see what happens. I think he should be able to get on the ballot in all 50 states, the real question is, does he have the poll numbers to be included in any of the debates like Perot was. I just don't see an independent being able to get any EC votes, will he play "spoiler", most definitely.
The first of potential independent candidates, Howard Schultz, may throw his hat in the ring. Although he is not well known to the majority of Americans, his $3.3 billion net worth means he can afford plenty of air time.
Being a former Democrat and a citizen of Washington State, he is considered a greater threat to Democrats than Republicans. Ross Perot did not take any EC votes, but he did a lot of damage to H.W. Bush in 1992 and most people assume he threw the election to Bill Clinton.
In 2000 in Florida Bush's 2,912,790 votes narrowly beat Al Gore's 2,912,253 votes by less than 650, so Ralph Nader who earned 97,488 votes for the Green party was seen as a spoiler.
In 1968 George Wallace won 5 states and took 46 electoral college votes. Nixon still had a clear majority of EC votes (301) even though he ended up beat Hubert Humphrey by less than 1%.
If 2020 ends up with no candidate winning 270 electoral college votes because a third party candidate takes a crucial state, then the "contingent election" is held in the House of Representatives with each state getting a single vote regardless of population size. If the state cannot agree on a candidate, then their vote doesn't count.
For the last several decades it was felt that a " contingent election " would go to the Republican candidate since they had majority delegations in many of the small states. But after 2018 the Republicans hold a clear majority in only 26 states. Another variable is the contingent election would be decided by the newly elected congress in 2020, and not the lame duck congress of 2018.
Do you think independent candidates bring much needed new ideas to a race, or are they just egotistical spoilers?
States with majority Republican delegations in 2018.
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
The leftists are worried he is going to run,I hope he does! The more the merrier!
I just don't see an independent being able to get any EC votes, will he play "spoiler", most definitely.
In 1964 LBJ/Humphrey (Democrat) lost Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, and Arizona
In 1968 Wallace (Independent) won Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and Arkansas
So the only independent in the last half a century to get a serious number of EC votes could hardly be called a spoiler, since he basically won states that the Democratic party lost in 1964. It is unlikely that Humphrey would have won them. But Nixon persevered and won 32 states.
Still the Democrats would rather John Kasich leave CNN and run as an independent.
Trump is a Republican in name only, and he was elected.
I think it's entirely possible the nation is still ready to vote the right Independent into the White House.
That's the only way the voters have to show their dissatisfaction with Congress.
The Democrats are just are just as unhappy as the Republicans are with their party's performance in Congress, and Nancy Pelosi's power play hasn't changed things all that much. Neither have the choices that have come forth so far.
I can see a lot of voters thinking "This guy didn't work out, but some of his ideas were good. Maybe that new guy, who has some of the same ideas, can do a better job."
If you look at Trump's other ideas, not just the wall, I think some have been pretty good. His failure has been mostly in the poor execution of those ideas, or no execution at all.
I continue to believe that if Trump had concentrated on rebuilding the nation's infrastructure instead of becoming obsessed with his idiotic wall he would be one of the most popular presidents in decades right now.
And that was an idea an Independent could easily endorse.
In 1964 LBJ/Humphrey (Democrat) lost Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, and Arizona
In 1968 Wallace (Independent) won Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and Arkansas
So the only independent in the last half a century to get a serious number of EC votes could hardly be called a spoiler, since he basically won states that the Democratic party lost in 1964. It is unlikely that Humphrey would have won them. But Nixon persevered and won 32 states.
Still the Democrats would rather John Kasich leave CNN and run as an independent.
When I use the term "spoiler", I'm referring to the Indy candidate not winning any EC votes (similar to Ross Perot), but causing EC votes to go to one candidate or another because that particular state vote was so close, that if Mr. Starbucks wasn't in the race it would have gone the other way (maybe), if you know what I mean.
For instance, in 1992:
Ohio
Clinton 1,984,942
Bush 1,894,310
Perot 1,036,426
Pennsylvania
Clinton 2,239,164
Bush 1,791,841
Perot 902,667
New Jersey
Clinton 1,436,206
Bush 1,356,865
Perot 521,829
I'm not saying all the Perot voters would have gone to Bush, but I feel Perot hurt Bush way more than he hurt Clinton. I mean Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote, the most since Wallace's 13.5% in 1968, I'm not sure we will ever see something like that again, or at least not in a very long time.
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.
