but thanks for playing

as a 3rd party.

The Democratic and Republican nominees haven't even officially "filed" yet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511902389#post16

Not worth a discussion at this stage.

There are a lot of other parties one can vote for but none but the top two can win. Do not fool your self this is not a Democracy.

but a third party can and will decide elections.

Contrary to popular opinion here, it was not Nader in 2000 that best illustrates this but rather Perot in 1992 that allowed Bill Clinton to just squeak by with the win.

If the Clinton New Dems fuck over enough progressives in their own party and continues to piss on leftist independents, I could see the Greens drawing enough votes that Clinton will lose to Trump easily.

And she and they will only have themselves to blame.

If it does, I'd hope they'd get the 5% necessary for automatic ballot access.

Either Trump is doing Bill's dirty work to make Clinton president, or we are truly seeing the birth of the new conservative party. It will be center right moderates from the New Dems, former moderate Republicans, and MIC representatives. It will call itself the Democratic Party but it is not the Democratic Party of pre-1990's America.

The progressives and other liberals left or far left of center will be without a party until either a third party takes them in or another is formed.

This realignment occurs in the body politic in America quite regularly.

Always a great idea!

Ho boy.....

Its still to stained in blood and grime to be wearable and still look presentable.

I think the best they'd be able to do is to monkey-wrench it enough throw the election into the house, and even that would be highly unlikely, IMO.

ballots, like the Green Party, or Libertarian Party, I don't think there's any chance. Even running on a known party ticket, I'm not sure there's enough time to become KNOEN well enough to a whole lot of people who would vote for that person.

would need to have equal standing and power to be competitive with Rs and Dems at the local, state and national level. Since none of the other existing 3rd parties have ever been popular enough to be competitive, another one would fair no better.

but there is no one left to run; michael bloomberg says he doesn't want the job. Plus it is too late in the year for someone new to get any real traction with the electorate. With that said, that candidate would have an uphill battle to get their name on the ballot in all 50 states.

He will go back to the Senate and fight the good fight as a REAL Democrat!

Who knows in the future but currently the system is pretty much rigged against them.

...they'll be putting up against Trump as an independent.

Their hope will be to deny Clinton a majority of the electors and send it to the House.

Even Perot, as well as he did, couldn't prevent Clinton from reaching 270 (and then some).

I think there just might be enough "stop Trump" Republicans that they'll take the shot. And with two candidates that are so roundly disliked, a "reasonable" republican asshole just might be able to pull off winning a couple states.

But which states? That would be key.

Chances are they'd split the vote and Clinton would win by an even larger margin (in terms of EV) than she would otherwise. Just as Bill Clinton won a whopping 370 EV in '92.

A Clinton victory is most likely whether it's Trump/ Clinton/"reasonable" Repub or just Trump/Clinton. But who knows? Bloomberg could change his mind and weigh in. If he did, he might win NY and all bets are off.

I'm certain that all Dems will rally behind the eventual Democratic nominee to prevent the catastrophic result of president trump.

If no oxy gets an absolute majority of electoral votes, the House picks the President.

...they're going to send into the ring. With two candidate so roundly disliked a "reasonable" Republican asshole might be able to win a couple states and deny Clinton and Trump the majority. Then the House appoints the "reasonable" one.

It's a long-shot, but their only shot at stopping both Clinton and Trump. I won't be surprised if they go for it.

I have little doubt he would be 45 in a landslide.

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

...someone they think has a shot at winning a couple states and denying Hillary a majority. Then the House appoints the "reasonable" one.

There is 0 chance Sanders would jump into the ring. And if he did, some supporters might applaud, but more would be extremely disappointed that he'd get in and thereby make a Trump victory more likely (when he has vowed to do everything he can to stop Trump).

Your Bloomberg running and winning New York idea might just fit the bill. That's a lot of electoral college votes right there. Still, if he didn't win any other blue or swing states, he might not be able to keep Clinton from reaching 270.

It's a scenario I dread, but I hope (1) they don't try it, and (2) if they did, we stop them from pulling it off.

To the first point, when he was talking about mounting an independent bid for the presidency, he said he would only do it if it looked like Clinton was not going to get the nomination, he had no desire to run against her.

To the second, I think Clinton is much more popular in NY than Bloomberg is. His third term as mayor was such a disaster that it torpedoed Quinn's "sure shot" at being his successor.

Look at Clinton with high negative versus Sanders with low negatives, yet she ground him into dust. Look at trump. So to put it succinctly, no. Welcome to DU. Stay a while.

Clinton may have high negs vs. Sanders nationally, but WITHIN the Dem party--i.e. among those who vote in Dem primaries--her negs aren't bad at all. She wouldn't have beat him if her negs were as bad within the party as they are for the general.

You are a riot!

Bazinga!

I was just engaging in light banter.