Merged Independent Moderate Conservative candidate? / Evan McMullin (who?)

[Stacko]

Oof. Behind Inanimate Carbon Rod.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

On the basis that they are an undue burden to third party and independent candidates.

Look at what Perot did in 92 to get on the ballots when he reentered the race in october. The courts ruled that he had the support to be on the ballot.

I'll defer to carlitos response.

No he likely could not. You are wrong.

ETA - I just saw the reference to Ross Perot in 1992. He got the signatures as part of the "draft Perot" effort before he exited the campaign. Those efforts were still valid in October. He got on the ballot state by state just like any other independent or third party candidate. It's too late for someone to do this for the November Presidential election. He doesn't even have a running mate so that rules out even petitioning for access in around 25 states until he names one.

 

[Stacko]

Huh?

[IMGw=640]http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u492/rfstack/huh.jpg[/IMGw]

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

It's all the Kremln Trolls reading about him on Wikipedia so they can stay on message.

 

[Biscuit]

Maybe a spoiler candidate is a mistake. If trump loses on his own the establishment GOP can say, "we tried your way!" to the fringe that are supporting trump. If he loses with a third party drawing votes that same fringe will be beyond livid. Maybe the republican party as we know it is already dead so I guess it wouldn't make a difference how trump loses.

 

[pgwenthold]

Maybe a spoiler candidate is a mistake. If trump loses on his own the establishment GOP can say, "we tried your way!" to the fringe that are supporting trump. If he loses with a third party drawing votes that same fringe will be beyond livid. Maybe the republican party as we know it is already dead so I guess it wouldn't make a difference how trump loses.

Talk about the election being rigged against him! And it would be - by the Republicans.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Huh?

[IMGw=640]http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u492/rfstack/huh.jpg[/IMGw]

Just because Trump is trending does not equate to support for him. On the contrary, it's everyone looking up on Google what the next stupid, illogical, self-foot-shooting thing Trump has managed to do in the last 24 hours. And trying to see how far down the ****-schute he has taken the US presidential election process now. There is also an element of "We may think it's bad here at home, but really, take a look at the US Republicans!"

 

[Stacko]

Just because Trump is trending does not equate to support for him. On the contrary, it's everyone looking up on Google what the next stupid, illogical, self-foot-shooting thing Trump has managed to do in the last 24 hours. And trying to see how far down the ****-schute he has taken the US presidential election process now. There is also an element of "We may think it's bad here at home, but really, take a look at the US Republicans!"

It's comparing Donald to the irrelevant independent candidate this thread is about in their world wide trending. It looks like Russia fired up the opposition research machine on Evan McMullen.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[dudalb]

Just because Trump is trending does not equate to support for him. On the contrary, it's everyone looking up on Google what the next stupid, illogical, self-foot-shooting thing Trump has managed to do in the last 24 hours. And trying to see how far down the ****-schute he has taken the US presidential election process now. There is also an element of "We may think it's bad here at home, but really, take a look at the US Republicans!"

And that is Donald's downfall:He does not get that "Any Publicity is Good Publicity" does not apply to politics.

 

[catsmate]

Already too late to get on the ballot in many states.

Obviously too late to be anything more than a protest candidate. One that nevertheless gives a certain kind of Republican someone they can vote for and "remain pure". Enough to make a practical difference? Possibly??? If he can prevent Trump from winning Utah's electoral votes maybe. In other states where the margin is close, if he can draw even 1% of the vote it might make a difference.

There's more than just the presidency at stake for the Republicans.

 

[Suddenly]

The Utah strategy for McMullen:

1) Win Utah. Get on the ballot there and do nothing but campaign there. This is plausible. He's a Mormon, Trump is not liked in Utah, etc.

2) Hope that removing those EC votes from the Clinton/Trump total allows for neither to win a majority. Unlikely, but remotely possible.

3) Hope that the GOP controlled house chooses McMullen over Trump. Again, plausible.

This is all very unlikely to happen, but there is a theoretical path to a McMullen presidency even if he only contests one or two states...

 

[carlitos]

That sounds similar to the logic I heard from a Gary Johnson supporter. If he and Weld were to win one state, say, New Mexico, and it was thrown to the house, all bets are off. The House exercising some kind of principles and going against a Donald Trump who would have tens of millions of votes seems far-fetched, though.

I can't remember the dates - would it be this session or the next casting the Presidential vote?

 

[Stacko]

On the Colorado ballot.

 

[ddt]

The Utah strategy for McMullen:

1) Win Utah. Get on the ballot there and do nothing but campaign there. This is plausible. He's a Mormon, Trump is not liked in Utah, etc.

2) Hope that removing those EC votes from the Clinton/Trump total allows for neither to win a majority. Unlikely, but remotely possible.

3) Hope that the GOP controlled house chooses McMullen over Trump. Again, plausible.

This is all very unlikely to happen, but there is a theoretical path to a McMullen presidency even if he only contests one or two states...

That sounds similar to the logic I heard from a Gary Johnson supporter. If he and Weld were to win one state, say, New Mexico, and it was thrown to the house, all bets are off. The House exercising some kind of principles and going against a Donald Trump who would have tens of millions of votes seems far-fetched, though.

I can't remember the dates - would it be this session or the next casting the Presidential vote?

Utah has 6 electoral college votes, New Mexico has 5. That is quite a long shot, isn't it?

 

[Stacko]

Utah has 6 electoral college votes, New Mexico has 5. That is quite a long shot, isn't it?

Hope for the very unlikely tie in the EC. Congress gets to vote on the winner of the election and if Republicans retain control hope they pick Evan McMullen over the great pumpkin.

 

[carlitos]

Utah has 6 electoral college votes, New Mexico has 5. That is quite a long shot, isn't it?

The way that I was told (by the Johnson supporter) was that if neither major party candidate had the 270, it would go to the house. Yes, it's a long shot, but I don't believe that it would have to be a tie, just a lack of anyone hitting 270. So if Johnson took New Mexico's 5 electors, Hillary! got 269 and Trump got 264, that would still throw it to the house where in theory it would be up for grabs. If some independent moderate schmo takes Utah, that would be another 6 taken out of the mix, so there would be even more ways in which this could happen.

 

[ddt]

The way that I was told (by the Johnson supporter) was that if neither major party candidate had the 270, it would go to the house. Yes, it's a long shot, but I don't believe that it would have to be a tie, just a lack of anyone hitting 270. So if Johnson took New Mexico's 5 electors, Hillary! got 269 and Trump got 264, that would still throw it to the house where in theory it would be up for grabs. If some independent moderate schmo takes Utah, that would be another 6 taken out of the mix, so there would be even more ways in which this could happen.

Yes, that's right, if no-one achieves 270 votes in the EC, it goes to the House - and the VP election goes to the Senate - according to the Twelfth Amendment. And in the House, the Republicans have the advantage, as each state gets one vote, and the Republicans control all those sparsely inhabited states in fly-over country. Could be interesting if the Democrats retake the Senate - a Republican president with a Democratic VP.

But it's still a long shot as it means it has to be awfully close between Hillary and the Great Orange One. Your hypothetical numbers are indeed the two boundaries between which their votes must lie. And if McMullen contests Utah, the chances are a bit better, but then Johnson is out, as the House has to choose between the three best-ranking candidates.

ETA:
And according to George Will, the Democrats have a distinct advantage: 18 states have gone Democratic every election since 1992, with 240 electoral votes. Both McMullen and Johnson will primarily appeal to the Republican base and eat from those voters, not from Democratic voters.

 

[carlitos]

Oh, the House votes someone from the top three. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Romney entering the race at this point would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP. Trump's base has long been railing about how the election system is rigged. If Trump goes down legitimately, his support evaporates and he ceases to be a problem for the GOP in future election cycles. If members of the Republican base are seen as circumventing Trump's win in the primary, however...

 

[pgwenthold]

Romney entering the race at this point would be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP. Trump's base has long been railing about how the election system is rigged. If Trump goes down legitimately, his support evaporates and he ceases to be a problem for the GOP in future election cycles. If members of the Republican base are seen as circumventing Trump's win in the primary, however...

And it would be. But they can say he made it clear they had to. They had to sabotage his candidacy to prevent a disaster.