2016 Postmortem

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)

29. Highly unlikely.

Thu May 5, 2016, 01:59 PM

May 2016

Given where he does best (smaller, less diverse areas), the following scenarios are all more likely than Sanders reaching 270:

1) Trump reaching 270 with the help of Sanders splitting the vote with Clinton in traditionally 'blue' states (in New England and the Pacific NW)

2) Nobody reaching 270, leaving it up to the House of Representative to select the next POTUS

3) Clinton reaching 270 anyway, as enough people in swing states and traditionally 'blue' states recognize the risk of voting 3rd party

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Since Clinton and Trump have such high negatives, could a 3rd Party (Not Sanders ) run and win? [View all] Chasstev365 May 2016 OP

no dlwickham May 2016 #1

I believe it is too late to file WhiteTara May 2016 #2

Not too late for the general. pat_k May 2016 #27

No metroins May 2016 #3

NO awake May 2016 #4

No, not in this fucking country TM99 May 2016 #5

And yet, they'll place the blame elsewhere. n/t Jon Ace May 2016 #9

"...but rather Perot in 1992 that allowed Bill Clinton to just squeak by with the win" Tarc May 2016 #12

Yeah, that could definitely happen eggman67 May 2016 #13

I suspect they will. TM99 May 2016 #15

Ah yes, cutting off the nose to spite the face. Adrahil May 2016 #19

Clinton is merely the cleanest dirty shirt in the hamper, JPnoodleman May 2016 #47

I don't think so eggman67 May 2016 #6

Unless it's someone already known, and running in a party that already is listed on most states napi21 May 2016 #7

No. We have a two party system of government. A 3rd party procon May 2016 #8

The (not sanders) part is funny... dubyadiprecession May 2016 #10

Bernie is not going to run as an indy. Chasstev365 May 2016 #11

3rd party's are already running but they never come close. Live and Learn May 2016 #14

I'm just waiting for Republicans to pick the one... pat_k May 2016 #16

Which House picks? This year's House or next year's House? (nt) w4rma May 2016 #20

I assumed next year's, but am not actually sure. pat_k May 2016 #23

But all it takes to win all of a states's EV is a plurality within that state. Garrett78 May 2016 #21

A long shot, but their only shot. pat_k May 2016 #22

That's possible. Garrett78 May 2016 #24

True. pat_k May 2016 #30

Certainly you aren't advocatimg such a stupid scenerio Stuckinthebush May 2016 #17

Do hou understand that it's not enough to get 34% of the EV in a three-way split? brooklynite May 2016 #18

Which is why I'm just waiting for Repubs to pick the one... pat_k May 2016 #25

Not likely. But, worth a try. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #26

I know U said "Not Sanders", but if Sanders did run as an Independent NorthCarolina May 2016 #28

Highly unlikely. Garrett78 May 2016 #29

Which is why the Repubs are more likely to send in a "reasonable" alternative to both; pat_k May 2016 #31

As I wrote above, which states would be key. Garrett78 May 2016 #32

If it did happen, I know I'd be doing what I could to make sure you're right. pat_k May 2016 #35

Bloomberg wouldn't run against HRC. Nor would he take NY if he did. thesquanderer May 2016 #36

High negatives don't have much bearing on 'electability' rock May 2016 #33

Yes, negatives affect electability. thesquanderer May 2016 #37

Good one! rock May 2016 #38

Ah, so you think if Dems didn't like Hillary, she still would have won? On what basis? (n/t) thesquanderer May 2016 #39

Whether you know it or not rock May 2016 #40

Can't argue with logic like that! (n/t) thesquanderer May 2016 #41

No, YOU can't rock May 2016 #42

This message was self-deleted by its author thesquanderer May 2016 #43

Sorry if I offended you rock May 2016 #45

Thanks for that post. All is well. (n/t) thesquanderer May 2016 #46

Nope! Demi will stick together...Rethugs will not. Their hate and ignorance won't allow them to. Jitter65 May 2016 #34

Probably not (nt) bigwillq May 2016 #44