IF Sanders runs 3rd party.. does that help Clinton win??? [View all]

[basselope]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by cyberswede (a host of the General Discussion forum).

I have outlined the problem in several posts in what I see as an impossible task for Hillary to beat Trump.

First: The polling has been fairly, consistently WRONG in favor of Hillary and other establishment republicans. If you look at the vast majority of the polls on the democratic side, Bernie has FAR outperformed expectations.. most recently Indiana, where polling said he would lose by 6.8, but he won by 6. Indiana Republican polled Trump up by 10, but it was Trump by 17. PA had Trump by 21, but he won by 36. PA Dem had Hillary by 16, but she won by 12. Maryland had trump by 21, but he won by 36. Yes, there are some that got it right, but the MAJORITY had it very wrong and by large margins.

So why is this happening so often? It is because they are using MOSTLY LIKELY VOTER polls. However, because this election is about establishment vs anti-establishment (in both primaries) it is attracting people who don't qualify as "likely voters". These "unlikely voters" are people voting for the anti-establishment candidates.


Second: The GOP has spent the last 8 years making voting EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for democrats in some very key states (Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc..) They have perfected a strategy for suppressing the democratic vote (by reducing polling locations in urban areas, meaning long lines... voter ID laws, etc..) However, these conditions are friendly towards GOP voting areas (Suburbs or urban) where you don't have large crowds.

This means that for a democratic nominee to win, they need to inspire OVERWHELMING turnout. Not Obama 2012 numbers.. but Obama 2008 numbers. I think we can ALL agree that Clinton will be VERY VERY lucky if she even comes close to Obama 2012 numbers.


When you combine those two points, you realize these polls showing Clinton winning in states like Florida (RCP average of 5) Ohio (Clinton RCP average of + 3.5) North Carolina (RCP average of Clinton +3.3) Even Pennsylvania (an average of Clinton +7 ) aren't very safe numbers at all.

Combine the complete unreliability of the polls tilted against anti-establishment candidates (meaning Trump iis a hell of a lot closer than those polls show) along with voter suppression tactics which is sure to shave 2-3% off the democratic totals.. and you have a pretty clear Trump victory.

So, let's ponder something....

IF Bernie ran as a 3rd party candidate, thereby SPLITTING the anti-establishment vote. He would increase overall turnout significantly, likely tilting critical house and senate races towards the democrats. Further, he would keep critical anti-establishment votes from Trump and yes there are a significant number of Bernie people who would vote for Trump BECAUSE he is anti-establishment. You don't need LARGE numbers, just a few % of them to swing the election.

However, if Bernie is in the race, Clinton would likely win, either A) because she get a plurality in enough states OR if Bernie managed to capture a few states and kept anyone from reaching 270, the race would get thrown to the NEW HOUSE, which would likely be democratic because of the increased turnout.

This is JUST A QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION.. not an endorsement of 3rd party candidacy.