2020 Presidential Election

[PackMan97]

I think it's a legitimate concern, even if almost no one will vote for Schultz. Jill Stein's 1.4mm vote might have swung 2016.

So is Schultz...

1) Vainly delusional and thinking he actually has a chance to win?
2) Actually a Trump supporter, and doing this to help throw the election his way?
3) Doing this in the most vain way possible to make sure Democratic voters don't put someone too liberal on the ticket?
4) Trying to sell a book?

In an election like 2016 it is a fallacy to suggest that Stein, Johnson or any other third party/independent candidate could have swung the race one way or the other. I think more so that most other election, those that voted third party were not and would never vote for the two major party candidates.

Now, if we want to rewind to 1992 and discuss the effect a strong Perot run had on things. His candidacy certainly set the tone of the mid 90's political culture which at times were dominated by the fiscal conservatism trumpeted by Perot.

1) You have to be delusional to run for President in the first place, so I think this is just a rhetorical question. I think after the 2016 results, there is no such thing as "no chance to win".
2) I highly doubt that. I think an independent moderate has as much chance as pulling dissatisfied Republicans away from Trump as it does anything else.
3) I don't see any moderate Democrats throwing their hat in the ring yet. Seems like they are intent on running a candidate with strong progressive ideals.
4) Selling a book now, or after two successful terms as President? Either way a book will be written.

I'm well known for wanting our current system disrupted, so I would certainly welcome independent running a well financed campaign, even if he is tilting at windmills.

[PackMan97]

NYT has an article up on the possibility of a Republican primary challenge. An interesting name raised was William Weld, former Massachusetts governor and the Libertarian VP candidate in 2016. He is also considering a run for the Libertarian top spot.

Also mentions that Kadijah and Flake have TV gigs now so their desire to run may be blunted.

I didn't know much about Weld until the 2016 nomination as the VP for the Libertarians, but I would welcome him as a choice at the top of any ticket.

[El_Diablo]

In an election like 2016 it is a fallacy to suggest that Stein, Johnson or any other third party/independent candidate could have swung the race one way or the other. I think more so that most other election, those that voted third party were not and would never vote for the two major party candidates.

Stein and Johnson voters may not have had a strong preference between Trump and Clinton, but it's accurate to point out that they could have swung the race. It's just math.

If everyone who voted for Stein and Johnson had voted for Clinton instead, then Clinton would have won the electoral college resoundingly--by 100 electoral votes--and would be the President right now. Specifically, she would have won Florida (which Trump won by a margin of 112,911 votes), Pennsylvania (which Trump won by 44,292 votes), Michigan (which Trump won by 10,704 votes), Wisconsin (which Trump won by 22,748 votes), Arizona (which Trump won by 91,234 votes) and Nebraska-2nd (which Trump won by 6,534 votes). In all of those states, Stein and Johnson received more votes than the final Trump-Clinton margin. In fact, if just the Stein voters had voted for Clinton, Clinton still would have ended up winning, albeit more narrowly with only 278 electoral votes.

Now, it may not make sense to conclude that these voters "cost" Clinton the election or to blame them for the outcome (for the reasons you stated), but it is indisputable that these voters would have collectively changed the overall result had they voted differently.

[RPS]

So...Howard Schultz.

What say you all? No impact? Significant? Who will he appeal to?

Since both parties seem unalterably commited to ignoring moderates on account of their bases, I think a truly moderate candidate ought to be able to draw from both parties. However, it's hard to be a moderate -- shot at from both sides. Even worse, the odds are heavily (and institutionally) stacked against any independent runs. Finally, does Schultz really qualify as a moderate or is the progressive wing of the Democratic Party so ascendant that he merely seems moderate?

[gus]

I think it's a legitimate concern, even if almost no one will vote for Schultz. Jill Stein's 1.4mm vote might have swung 2016.

So is Schultz...

4) Trying to sell a book?

Hey lookie here: Publication Date: January 28, 2019.

ETA - He should be disqualified on the basis of that stupid pun alone.

[PackMan97]

Stein and Johnson voters may not have had a strong preference between Trump and Clinton, but it's accurate to point out that they could have swung the race. It's just math.

No, it's not accurate and it's not "just math".

It's a bit like counting donkeys and elephants except that you are now trying to ask an armadillo to be either an elephant or a donkey. It's not going to happen.

For someone to sit through the 2016 campaign, to know what Trump and Clinton brought to the table (both their pros and cons) and then to take the time vote and select "neither" tells me there is no mythical world in which they become a Clinton or Trump voter.

You would have more luck finding the 2.7% of the voting age population that voted in 2008 when turnout topped 58.2% and saying THEY could have made the difference in 2016 when only 55.5% voted.

[OldPhiKap]

I think Clinton’s problem was turnout in two specific suburban areas — the outskirts of Philly and Green Bay — than third party candidates.

Ultimately though, it seems to me that it is the candidate’s job to win votes as opposed to voters supporting someone they would rather not.

[Acymetric]

I think Clinton’s problem was turnout in two specific suburban areas — the outskirts of Philly and Green Bay — than third party candidates.

Ultimately though, it seems to me that it is the candidate’s job to win votes as opposed to voters supporting someone they would rather not.

I'm not sure Tim Kaine was the right VP pick to attract marginal voters either, although I can't really remember the specifics of who else would have been an option that would have been an improvement. He was just kind of...a guy, didn't really move the needle or appeal to any particular part of the base that Hillary didn't already appeal to other than maybe pulling in more Virginians.

(Case in point: I had to look up who the VP pick was because I had completely forgotten already)

[gus]

I think Clinton’s problem was turnout in two specific suburban areas — the outskirts of Philly and Green Bay — than third party candidates.

Ultimately though, it seems to me that it is the candidate’s job to win votes as opposed to voters supporting someone they would rather not.

Probably yeah -- didn't mean to start a 2016 discussion here. I just was saying it's plausible that Schultz could cost the Democratic candidate (whoever that ends up being).

[OldPhiKap]

Probably yeah -- didn't mean to start a 2016 discussion here. I just was saying it's plausible that Schultz could cost the Democratic candidate (whoever that ends up being).

Certainly true, Ross Perot arguably got Bill Clinton elected twice.

It is hard for me to draw many concrete conclusions from 2016 because HRC got 3 million more votes — just not in the right places. She underperformed in a few suburbs that tilted PA, WI, and perhaps other states to cause an Electoral College loss.

[El_Diablo]

No, it's not accurate and it's not "just math".

I am sorry if the implications are troubling for a third party supporter to come to terms with, but it really is just the simple math. Johnson and Stein voters, mathematically, exceeded the margin by which Trump won in various states that collectively accounted for enough electoral votes to give him the victory in 2016. All I am doing is refuting your earlier point that those voters could have changed the outcome, because they clearly could have.

You would have more luck finding the 2.7% of the voting age population that voted in 2008 when turnout topped 58.2% and saying THEY could have made the difference in 2016 when only 55.5% voted.

That's true also. But those points are not mutually exclusive.

[PackMan97]

Probably yeah -- didn't mean to start a 2016 discussion here. I just was saying it's plausible that Schultz could cost the Democratic candidate (whoever that ends up being).

I think in order for an outside candidate (outside as in noting being an R or a D) to start threatening one of the two parties they have to attract folks that are reliable R and D voters. The last time that happened was 1992 with Perot.

Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, Harry Browne, Gary Johnson, they pull in the reliable third party voters and that's about it. The folks that vote for them are the same 2-5% that will almost always vote third party. If you ask them at the point of a gun to pick the R or the D, they will pick the metaphorical bullet.

[PackMan97]

I am sorry if the implications are troubling for a third party supporter to come to terms with, but it really is just the simple math. Johnson and Stein voters, mathematically, exceeded the margin by which Trump won in various states that collectively accounted for enough electoral votes to give him the victory in 2016. All I am doing is refuting your earlier point that they could have changed the outcome, because they clearly could have.

I don't know what to say. Yes, their votes exceeded the margin of victory, but that doesn't help you if you can't access those voters and get them to flip.

I think we may be talking towards each other, but not to each other. I understand your point about margin of victory. Do you understand my point that those votes were inaccessible to both Trump and Clinton?

[El_Diablo]

I don't know what to say. Yes, their votes exceeded the margin of victory, but that doesn't help you if you can't access those voters and get them to flip.

I think we may be talking towards each other, but not to each other. I understand your point about margin of victory. Do you understand my point that those votes were inaccessible to both Trump and Clinton?

Oh, I certainly agree with that. Candidates are not entitled to receive votes from anyone, and it's clear that neither Trump nor Clinton was able to convince those voters to vote for them.

[Acymetric]

Oh, I certainly agree with that. Candidates are not entitled to receive votes from anyone, and it's clear that neither Trump nor Clinton was able to convince those voters to vote for them.

I think PackMan's point is taking it a little further, and saying that for a significant chunk of those third party voters, there is nothing Trump or Clinton could have done to convince those voters to vote for them (or at least not enough to matter). Some people are going to vote for a 3rd party come hell or high water.

[El_Diablo]

I think PackMan's point is taking it a little further, and saying that for a significant chunk of those third party voters, there is nothing Trump or Clinton could have done to convince those voters to vote for them (or at least not enough to matter). Some people are going to vote for a 3rd party come hell or high water.

I don't dispute that either.

[CameronBornAndBred]

This is an excellent look at why a third party run is nearly impossible, and why one could get Trump re-elected even if he were to come in third.

Imagine the following hypothetical Electoral College outcome on Election Day 2020: Republican Donald Trump with 130; Independent Howard Schultz with 190; and the Democratic nominee with 218. Despite Trump winning the least number of electoral votes in this scenario, if the makeup of Congress remains the same, the winner of the presidency would be Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/polit...lty/index.html

[Acymetric]

This is an excellent look at why a third party run is nearly impossible, and why one could get Trump re-elected even if he were to come in third.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/polit...lty/index.html

Am I wrong to suggest that Schultz with 190 seems...unlikely? I guess it is a fun hypothetical to play, but I don't think it approaches anything close to a plausible scenario.

[OldPhiKap]

I think he would have to poll around 15% to get invited to debates, which is unlikely.

I do not know the status of the lawsuit referenced here, however:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.realc...33045.amp.html

[PackMan97]

This is an excellent look at why a third party run is nearly impossible, and why one could get Trump re-elected even if he were to come in third.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/polit...lty/index.html

"With the elections of 2016 and 2000 still fresh in the minds of a lot of voters, most Americans have a basic awareness of the Constitution's rules for how presidents are elected"

I am crying on the inside.