Benjamin Morris at fivethirtyeight.com:
With the election only weeks away, Hillary Clinton appears to have the lead and the momentum. As of this writing, the FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast gives her around an 87 percent chance of winning — up from around 55 percent in late September – and that may not have fully absorbed the fallout of Trump’s lewd video, debatable debate performance or the daily deluge of fresh scandal jeopardizing his candidacy.
But if Clinton doesn’t run away with this, there is another candidate who may also have seen his chances of becoming president skyrocket. The third-most likely person to be the next president of the United States: Evan McMullin.
“How far Johnson falls at this point depends largely on how bad the scandals get for Trump. Latest news had 15 women confirming Trump’s various forms of assault that he bragged about in that video. ”
However, Trump’s supporters almost all dismiss that and either say they women are all lying and part of a vast left wing conspiracy, or that Clinton is just as bad because she helped cover up similar activities by her husband, or that it doesn’t even matter if the allegations are true or not due to a host of other things that they believe make Clinton even worse. The polls really have not shifted nearly as much as you are making out. For example, see this trend line over time:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
Granted Clinton is trending up, but lots of things can change that: a bad debate performance, a terrorist attack, gaffes, Clinton scandals (who knows what else is in the wikileaks emails that have yet to come out?) etc. And even if Clinton does stay well ahead she is not likely to be as far ahead as BR is making out here. It’s possible, but I would guess not likely.
Salt Lake City Tribune:
Presidential update: new poll cements Utah as a swing state
See: http://www.sltrib.com/news/4476877-155/presidential-update-new-poll-cements-utah
robert,
Isn’t that blindingly obvious from the interviews?
br: he had no issues prep and was unprepared for the media coverage he got.
me: so you ARE on the campaign staff, then? How else would you know that he had “no issues prep”?
The GJ campaign was badly managed from the outset: incompetent campaign mgr had no clue about POTUS campaign advertising.
They didn’t manage the candidate: he had no issues prep and was unprepared for the media coverage he got.
McMullin was the dupe of the cabal chosen to prevent the LP from succeeding in becoming a major player. He has helped to deflate Johnson by sapping GJ’s strength in his best states. GJ’s gaffs and his incompetent manager’s total waste of advertising dollars, plus looting the bulk of the funds for “consultants” made that easy.
How far Johnson falls at this point depends largely on how bad the scandals get for Trump. Latest news had 15 women confirming Trump’s various forms of assault that he bragged about in that video. As Clinton surges past 400 EVs, Johnson could still get some decent vote totals from disgusted voters who can’t vote for H but can no longer pull for T. Although many will just stay home. Rs could face a rout losing both houses of Congress.
Johnson, that is.
He is in free fall everywhere. How far will he tumble in three weeks…2012 levels? Lower?
According to the KOB-TV/Survey USA poll released on Wednesday, Johnson is also slipping in his home state of New Mexico. That poll shows Johnson at 14% — down a full 10 percentage points from the October 2nd poll conducted by the Albuquerque Journal.
Clearly, you must be very invested in the adamantly held idea that you MUST be right. I don’t care to engage that type of mentality. I think the 538 article describes a barely plausible but highly unlikely scenario. I’m OK with you disagreeing with me on that, as it’s a very,, very low probability scenario regardless.
Incidentally, McMullin winning Utah just became more likely; the latest poll I saw has him in second place at 29% with Trump statistically tied at 30% and Clinton at 28%. Johnson is down to 5% in Utah, once one of his strongest states.
“And even supposing you are correct that neither of them could win the House vote, you are also presuming that the electors are all rational types who have a realistic assessment. I don’t know exactly how each state party chooses elector candidates, but I’m going to guess that a lot or at least some of them are Trump loyalists who are chosen for that reason.” = Matt
*
Again you missed the point and failed at reading comprehension.
*
As already stated, even if 200 of the chosen electors decided to stick with Trump and Clinton, the rest could easily work together on a compromise candidate.
Since electors tend to be long-term party members, activists and office holders, their political skills, survival skills and sincere interest in making the best choice in such a situation would make the need to dump both C and T paramount.
*
The electors would realize that the House will not elect either C or T and a large number of House members would privately signal that they would prefer a compromise be made by the EC, or at least better choices be sent up as the top three.
House Ds would never back Trump. They would, however, be unable to muster a majority for C.
House Rs would never back Clinton, and even if in control, voting for Trump for P could be a career ender – especially if Trump turns out as bad as he appears to be. So, it’s unlikely they could muster a majority for T.
But neither group could ever vote for an unknown nobody like McMuffin. They are just as likely to elect Bob Capozzi or Andy if sent up third.
*
At this point, the only ray of hope for America is for both C and T to fall below 270 on election day and for 270 + electors to dump both a make a compromise choice that an overwhelming majority could respect, trust and admire.
But, unless something else really bad comes out about Clinton, she’s heading toward 400+ EVs. Along with McMuffin, Trump has no chance of winning.
That 22% was within 4% of the lead. Not so with Johnson.
Interesting. McMullin hits 22% in his home state, and it gets on network TV news, the NY Times, and everywhere else.
Gary Johnson hits 24% in his home state, and it gets into the Albuquerque paper, Reason, and (of course) the Political Animal.
Oh, Weld may also support granting state marriage licenses to gays, and Romney opposes it.
Taxing and regulating marijuana and granting state marriage licenses to gays are probably Weld’s most “radical” libertarian stances (assuming that he is not lying about his stances on these issues, which given his record of lying, I would not automatically assume).
I think Weld may disagree with Romney on marijuana, as Weld, if he is to be believed, says he is for tax and regulating it, and Romney is for keeping it illegal as is.
This is probably about it.
“You always miss the point Matt”
Always? Then you must really like listening to yourself type, since I am hopelessly incorrigible.
“neither Trump nor Clinton would be likely to be chosen by the House.”
I would not presume that to be the case. Trump may win the House because Republicans control most of the state delegations, and the Republican Party may be able to discipline their state delegation representatives to vote for him. Clinton may win the House because, if she is the popular vote winner, they may face a great deal of popular pressure to accept the popular vote winner.
And even supposing you are correct that neither of them could win the House vote, you are also presuming that the electors are all rational types who have a realistic assessment. I don’t know exactly how each state party chooses elector candidates, but I’m going to guess that a lot or at least some of them are Trump loyalists who are chosen for that reason. If that is the case, my guess is that they are not going to either accurately assess what the House will do or care.
” it would only take a small number of electors agreeing to back Romney and/or Biden to push McMullin or Johnson out of the third spot, down to fourth, fifth or even lower meaning they cannot be considered by the House at all.”
True. That makes the McMullin scenario less likely. Unless McMullin somehow made a deal with the GOP establishment to back him, which is unlikely but not impossible. Perhaps they would see him as someone they can completely control, unlike someone better known. He already agrees with their views.
” They would finally conclude that a compromise candidate that everyone can agree on, someone liked and admired by all Americans would be the best choice.”
Jesus Christ is, as as far as I know, not available. I doubt Trump loyalists, for example, see Powell as being all that different from Clinton.
“Yes he does.”
Not based on what I have seen in his media interviews.
“We would be better off if Bob Barr came back too. ”
Or maybe you could get the candidate he endorsed, Gingrich, or Romney who he has also endorsed later on. With candidates like that you will be sure to seriously threaten the establishment.
By the way, what all does Weld disagree with Romney on and what is the evidence that he does?
Saying that William Weld threatens the establishment is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read on IPR.
If Weld really threatened the establishment, he would have been kicked out of the CFR by now, he would not have praised Hillary Clinton and said that he wants to work with Mitt Romney to rebuild the Republican Party, and he would not have donated money to Chris Sununu.
You’re being silly about McMullin. Neither the EC nor the House could ever choose him. He’s never held any office and nobody has heard of him. That would be an impossible choice by any rational human being entrusted with such a serious decision. Even his own electors are likely to abandon him. Johnson as an elected and re-elected governor would have some credibility, but he’s not well enough known at this point – (due to the lack of TV advertising by the campaign) – to be taken seriously by the EC, although he could win in the House under the right conditions.
“The message being spread this year is very similar to the very successful Clark message: the public is learning that the LP exists, that it stands for personal liberty, non-intervention overseas and smaller government.”
Weld stands for that?
Yes he does.
And a moderate Libertarian message that wins and shrinks the size of government, cuts taxes, reduces the size and overseas presence of the US military, and increases liberty for LGBT and marijuana users would be a major movement toward liberty. That threatens the establishment far more than a bunch of screaming radical hot-heads who get less than 1% of the vote.
A lot of sitting officeholders have come over the LP because of Johnson/Weld. We need to keep them. We need to keep Johnson and Weld. We would be better off if Bob Barr came back too. We need to grow with a big tent Libertarian party and a moderate message of more liberty now and we need to actually change the direction America is moving, instead of pointing the way to liberty while the statists win and destroy what’s left.
You always miss the point Matt. You still do.
A lot of electors can stick with Trump and Clinton, they could each have 100 holdouts and it would make no difference, a large group from both parties could still cut a deal and elect a compromise like Powell. They would know that neither Trump or Clinton would make the 270, so intellegent electors would have no reason to hold out and not make a deal since neither Trump nor Clinton would be likely to be chosen by the House.
Now, they could work for the best alternative from their own party, but that would also mean dumping Clinton and Trump. The Ds and Rs could then send other names to the House, maybe Biden and Romney, leaving Clinton or Trump as the third and fourth choices, one of which would already be out. The House can only consider the top three, so it would only take a small number of electors agreeing to back Romney and/or Biden to push McMullin or Johnson out of the third spot, down to fourth, fifth or even lower meaning they cannot be considered by the House at all.
Once they realize the risk, holding out for Clinton or Trump will be obviously a failed strategy as would lying about their intentions, they would then quickly realize that it’s also too risky to hold out for a Biden or Romney, sticking with a partisan choice and that it would leave America unhappy with the choice made by the House. They would finally conclude that a compromise candidate that everyone can agree on, someone liked and admired by all Americans would be the best choice.
Once a large group forms for a compromise candidate, that person quickly becomes one of the top three, likely to be chosen over Trump or Clinton in the House. At that point, realizing that they can make history and make the choice themselves, more will fall behind the compromise choices for P and VP.
All of this negotiating can take place behind the scenes before the Electoral College votes in December.
If no one makes it to 270, we are not likely to have Clinton, Trump, Johnson, McMullin or anyone who is currently on the ballot emerge as President, and that would be a good thing.
“Everyone is being silly about Weld. He is a libertarian and he is a threat to the establishment if he stays in the LP. ”
How so? I’ve watched his town halls and interviews. What positions does he take that threaten the establishment? Even if he somehow propelled the LP to major party status nationwide, he would still not be any threat to the establishment with his policy views, and neither would an LP remolded in his image.
“The next election would bring funding enough to allow an LP POTUS campaign some real advantages from the outset if they allocate the money properly to targeted advertising.”
But what is it that they would advertise? That pot of money would bring out a bunch of Democrat and Republican sore losers, con artists and wackos from every corner of the ideological chart. Think Reform Party 2000. They would bloody and bruise each other trying to get that pot of money, have a bloody fight at the convention, walk out and have a rump convention (or several) and spend the next few years suing each other. By the 2024, expect the LP under this scenario to be roughly where the Reform Party was in 2004. By 2036, expect the LP to be where the Reform Party is now. Eventually, Pat Buchanan became the Reform nominee, alienating big chunks of their support base, and claimed the big pot of money – and used it to come in barely ahead of Harry Browne, despite having been on national radio and TV and syndicated in newspapers for decades.
“The message being spread this year is very similar to the very successful Clark message: the public is learning that the LP exists, that it stands for personal liberty, non-intervention overseas and smaller government.”
Weld stands for that? I thought he stood for supporting the Federal Reserve, Bush’s wars, gun control, admiring Romney and Clinton, supporting managed trade, Bush/Obama-level defense budgets, no significant cuts in any part of government, maintaining the domestic surveillance state, supporting the war on drugs other than marijuana, etc.
” Johnson made himself look foolish.”
Yes, he did. Many times, and that most certainly included his VP choice.
“And the electors have a month after election day to email each other, plan, discuss, make deals before voting.”
So, maybe they will select McMullin, since he is basically a Bush/Romney type anyway. Although, yes, it’s more likely that they would select someone higher profile, such as the actual Jeb Bush or Romney, and get those McMullin delegates in the process. Again, no one is saying that McMullin winning is even close to being likely, just that it’s not completely impossible under this scenario.
Everyone is being silly about Weld. He is a libertarian and he is a threat to the establishment if he stays in the LP. The LP getting up to 5% makes it viable and dangerous to the establishment. The next election would bring funding enough to allow an LP POTUS campaign some real advantages from the outset if they allocate the money properly to targeted advertising.
The message being spread this year is very similar to the very successful Clark message: the public is learning that the LP exists, that it stands for personal liberty, non-intervention overseas and smaller government. The message is that the LP is very radical, perhaps too radical, but more acceptable than crazy. The unfortunate mistakes by Johnson hurt, of course, but they were definitely not planned. Johnson made himself look foolish. The next LP candidate will have to be quite serious, well prepped and articluate – someone like David Boaz would be ideal (if only he were an elected LP officeholder, he’d be prefect). With 5% they would be guaranteed enough money to target about 10 small states throughout the election.
Matt.
In the long-shot scenario where no one makes 270, everyone will know in advance who the electors were selected and elected to vote FOR. And the electors have a month after election day to email each other, plan, discuss, make deals before voting. They only have one ballot – in December – so they have time to plan, meaning that deal making is quite viable. Since they have only one shot, and knowing that if they fail the vote goes to the House, they will have every incentive to make deals and to keep them.
Large groups of the electors already know and trust each other. They can work together quietly behind the scenes. If no one makes 270 on election day, this year the electors will jump ship and excercise their role as a real body of electors. The only question will be, do they insist on sticking with their parties and throw the election to the House, or will they make a compromise and choose the P and VP themselves.
“No. Ridiculous.”
We disagree.
“Weld makes the ticket more viable as does Johnson. It gives the LP votes, credibility for the future, and 5% brings a lot of cash. ”
All of which is meaningless and self-defeating if the Libertarian Party stops criticizing the most fundamental aspects of the establishment consensus, such as the federal reserve/bankster financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.
One way to neutralize the Libertarian threat is by promoting a controlled opposition “third party” or independent flash in the pan campaign. Another is to infiltrate the Libertarians and get establishment stooges like Weld on the Libertarian ticket, and steering that ticket away from more fundamental criticisms of the established order.
Incidentally, there are no second ballots in the college of electors. It’s not clear that all electors would necessarily reveal how they plan to vote until they cast their ballots, so not only are the games of the type you fantasize unlikely to work in practice, but they may be entirely impossible.
“You missed the point Matt. ”
no, I addressed it specifically.
Once again:
” keep in mind that many Trump electors are Trump loyalists and will vote for him regardless of how it impacts the eventual endgame, while others are Republican Party regulars who will abandon Trump in the below-270 scenario, so it’s not likely that any deal in the electoral college is likely to keep it out of the House in a pre-emptive move, since electors are not that disciplined.”
You are so adamant that you must be right that you can’t conceive how anyone could disagree with you as opposed to “missing” you points, apparently.
“One might equally argue that the LP’s own ticket, especially the VP nominee, is another tactic by such a cabal, if one exists.” – Matt
No. Ridiculous.
Weld makes the ticket more viable as does Johnson. It gives the LP votes, credibility for the future, and 5% brings a lot of cash. This is what the cabal doesn’t want. It’s why they had Americans Elect as a reserve option previously (dropped when not needed) and why they had to find an alternate candidate this year to take votes from Johnson, it’s why they could settle on a nobody who will remain a nobody after the election and only run him in a few states where Johnson is strong, skipping the rest of America, even states where they had time and money to get on the ballot.
McMullin is worse than a wasted vote. He was duped into running. McMullin is the insurance policy for the perpetuation of the duopoly.
” If for some unforseen reason some really horrible last minute scandal reduces Hillary below 270 EVs, with Trump below 270 EVs, McMuffin would at best (for him) still only carry Utah. In this case, as described earlier (above), the D and R electors will not just vote for Clinton and Trump. They will plan, conspire and vote for alternate candidates either choosing the best D and R who is moderate and popular enough to have a shot in the House ” – BR
You missed the point Matt. So, I quoted myself. I will elaborate on what you didn’t comprehend:
In the case where no one is at 270 on election day, the electors will not stand still and allow the three choices to be Clinton, Trump and McMuffin. They will change their votes. They will work together in groups.
Some may stick with Clinton and Trump, but if both C and T fail to win 270, that option would be essentially dead. Most would move on.
A large group of D electors could work together to nominate a popular alternate candidate to be one of the top three, someone they think is popular enough to win against C and T. Who? Some D senator or governor? Joe Biden?
A large group of R electors could work together to chose an alternate, popular R candidate, maybe Romney or McCain.
A group of D and R electors could work together to choose a compromise candidate and give that person 270 so that the election doesn’t have to go to the House: Colin Powel could be such a compromise. In fact, most of America would be relieved and happy to find Powel elected as a compromise instead of either Clinton or Trump.
There is no chance for McMullin to be one of the top three in any scenario where no one gets 270 EVs and with the vote going to the House because enough electors in the Electoral College will change their votes to prevent it, so there is no chance for McMullin to win.
McMullin electors may or may not change their votes as well. Johnson electors, if any, would likely stick with Johnson. Johnson would not be likely to be among the top 3 if the election proceeds to the House, McMullin would never be among the top three if the election goes to the House, and neither is going to be the compromise choice of the D and R electors if they choose to make their own selection and avoid going to the House. Johnson’s only chance, nearly zero now, is to win outright. McMullin has no chance whatsoever of being elected outright, by the EC or by the House.
“1) Hillary is destined to win big at this point, possibly with over 400 EVs.”
Not really. The poll with the best record last time around is an outlier this time, actually showing Trump winning right now, although within the margin of error. We have no idea how additional scandals and revelations to be released between now and the election, gaffes, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, debate performance in the final debate, etc., may impact the outcome. And there is at least one theory that there is secret support for Trump that is not reflected in the polls because he is considered to be unacceptable in many areas.
” If for some unforseen reason some really horrible last minute scandal reduces Hillary below 270 EVs, with Trump below 270 EVs, McMuffin would at best (for him) still only carry Utah. In this case, as described earlier (above), the D and R electors will not just vote for Clinton and Trump. They will plan, conspire and vote for alternate candidates either choosing the best D and R who is moderate and popular enough to have a shot in the House ”
The House will probably still have more than 25 states dominated by Republican delegations. Some of those may find Trump to be unacceptable. It’s possible that McMullin, as one of the top three candidates receiving electoral votes, could convince the remaining Republican delegations to back him as the only candidate who could avoid hopeless deadlock in the House. No one, including the 538 article author, thinks this is likely; only that it is possible. But keep in mind that many Trump electors are Trump loyalists and will vote for him regardless of how it impacts the eventual endgame, while others are Republican Party regulars who will abandon Trump in the below-270 scenario, so it’s not likely that any deal in the electoral college is likely to keep it out of the House in a pre-emptive move, since electors are not that disciplined.
“McMuffin is nobody’s preferred choice and no party nominated him. He was selected by the ongoing cabal whose purpose is to hinder the LP in a case such as this where the LP actually has a shot at taking a large number of votes and becoming credible in the eyes of a large segment of the public.”
One might equally argue that the LP’s own ticket, especially the VP nominee, is another tactic by such a cabal, if one exists.
Interesting point by Welch in the post above about McMullin not being polled in battleground states where he may impact the outcome.
Why it is essentially impossible for McMuffin to win:
1) Hillary is destined to win big at this point, possibly with over 400 EVs.
2) Even if McMuff wins Utah by some miracle, Hillary is destined to win.
3) If for some unforseen reason some really horrible last minute scandal reduces Hillary below 270 EVs, with Trump below 270 EVs, McMuffin would at best (for him) still only carry Utah. In this case, as described earlier (above), the D and R electors will not just vote for Clinton and Trump. They will plan, conspire and vote for alternate candidates either choosing the best D and R who is moderate and popular enough to have a shot in the House or working to cobble together a mutually accepable compromise, moderate P and VP to avoid going to the House. This would never be McMuffin: he’s not popular, not credible, not acceptable to the public, not known.
McMuffin is nobody’s preferred choice and no party nominated him. He was selected by the ongoing cabal whose purpose is to hinder the LP in a case such as this where the LP actually has a shot at taking a large number of votes and becoming credible in the eyes of a large segment of the public.
McMullin is worse than a wasted vote. He is the insurance policy for the perpetuation of the duopoly.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/14/evan-mcmullin-could-tip-the-election-so
Despite the long-shot wishes expressed in the original article, however, there is no chance whatsoever of McMullin winning the White House. His only purpose in being selected as the dupe to run for the anti-LP cabal is to injure the LP. They didn’t tell him, of course, he was just the only one self-deluded enough to take the role of the dupe of 2016. The purpose of this article is also to encourge the voters of Utah to be duped along with McMullin to put the brakes on the LP.
The only way Clinton’s electors will defect en masse is if she falls below 270 on election day; the same for Trump’s electors. That will require more revelations about both candidates, enough to drive voters in several states to swing to Johnson, depriving both Trump and Clinton of a victory. Vermont swinging to Sanders as a write-in could be part of such a movement. McMullin winning Utah would actually work against it, since that would indicate that Johnson would be unable to carry enough states to deny 270 to Clinton.
If both C and T were to fall below 270 the real mischief would begin. The EC members would realize what’s happening. The vote will go to the House. If the Rs retain control of 26 or more delegations, Clinton will be unelectable and Trump will also be unelectable. So, some of the Democrat electors will have reason to dump Hillary and to coalesce around a moderate alternative who can take the 3rd spot and have a shot at winning in the House. LIkewise, Republican electors would caucus to do the same thing. Those electors who formed the biggest group and chose the most palatable alternate candidate would have a good shot at having their choice picked up in the House. There would likely be several such coalitions formed, the outcome would be uncertain. It’s possible for three alternate candidates to all defeat Clinton and Trump in such a scenario, giving the House three choices that are each more acceptable than either Trump or Clinton. It’s alsopossible that the electors themselves could choose to work together and elect alternate choices for both P and VP themselves, avoiding any role for the House.
Either of these outcomes would prove the wisdom and necessity of the Electoral College system, to override stupidity when it appears in an election year such as this.
I remain steadfast that Hillary will win 400+ electoral votes. I’d LIKE to see Elector mischief, but the country is not angry enough.
Faithless Electors would actually SAVE us! This lemming-like “by the system” got us two horrible nominees while very good candidate don;t get media attention.
I actually (for once) am impressed with the McMullin. Long shot, but I would love to see him take Utah.
Thank you, Richard Winger. I suspected it was unconstitutional. In someways I hope this fellow does break his “pledge” and then take the Democrats to court when the state party tries to punish him for his action.
I doubt the Washington law is constitutional. It is bedrock constitutional law that individuals cannot be punished for exercising a constitutional right. Article II of the US Constitution seems to say that the electors have complete freedom to choose the president, if the person they vote for is age 35, a natural born citizen, and a resident of the US for 14 years.
Congress has always counted ‘disobedient” electoral votes. The only votes Congress ever threw out were 3 cast for a dead person in 1872. The last “disobedient” electoral vote was from Minnesota in 2004, when a Democratic elector voted for John Edwards for president.
Speaking of the potential Democratic defecting Elector. I have read that the Wa State Democrats have rules whereby their Electors have to pay a fine if the Elector goes against the outcome of the election. My question is: can state parties create rules and punishments for federal Electors? I haven’t researched the particularities of the constitutional stipulations abt rules regarding Electors.
George, when did I say anything about changing to popular vote?
The electoral vote will be a Hillary landslide. If it’s not, feel free to point and laugh at me in 27 days
An amendment may be unlikely but National Popular Vote may very well pass, and I wouldn’t rule out either a constitutional convention through Article V or an emergency suspension as plausible.
Tony,
Please check the batteries in your sarcasm detector. Sorry.
It seems unlikely that we will go from electoral college to popular vote–which requires revoking one of the fundamental points that led to an agreement on the constitution. For starters, getting 3/4 of the states to agree to is not going to happen.
In my opinion, partition is more likely than a popular vote for President, and I am not enthused about partition.
George
“Do these polls ever have and lasting impact on election results? People always talk out of their ass about voting against the duopoly and then go and vote for it anyway.”
Not always. If the polls don’t put non-duopoly candidates within a competitive range come election day, their support tends to fade as “lesser evil” calculations take hold. But in those cases where non-duopoly candidates are seen as having a real chance by being competitive in the polls in the home stretch, for example Ventura for Governor, those calculations don’t apply, and their momentum can build higher on election day rather than falling as usual.
Do these polls ever have and lasting impact on election results? People always talk out of their ass about voting against the duopoly and then go and vote for it anyway.
If an election with the worst the Democrats and Republicans have to offer cannot yield significant gains for other parties and independents, it’s never going to happen.
One would think 2000 would have done that. People appear to have forgotten how to pull off the amendment process.
Tony, one Democratic presidential elector from Washington state has already said he almost certain won’t vote for Hillary Clinton in the electoral college in December. I am told there is another one from the same state who also has the same intentions, but he has not gone public the way the first one has. This could be the election that causes the nation to learn that if it wants a popular choice for president, it had been amend the US Constitution and get rid of the electoral college.
George, democratic electors have ZERO chance of casting for anyone else. Hillary has the support of 99% of dem house and senate members. Trump on the other hand . . . not so much with his party.
McMullen has no path because the electoral vote count will not be close. Would be interesting if it was, but it won’t happen.
Clinton will win every state President Obama won in 2012 (with the exception of maybe Iowa). She will pick up North Carolina and possibly Georgia, Arizona, Utah (thanks McMuffin) and South Carolina. Latest poll from Texas has her down by 4.
It will a very fun election night watching Trump go down in flames. How will he handle it? IT’S RIGGED!! Very dangerous.
Requires that an adequate supply of Texas legislators do not switch over to Cruz, ditto Massachusetts electors and Warren.
The irony is that the path for McMullin depends on Trump doing better than Trump is now doing. So Evan almost needs to stop attacking Trump and start attacking Hillary more.
Zero chance of Evan McMullin becoming president.
I would imagine a far more likely scenario, if he wins Utah, is for McMullin’s electors to switch their loyalty to Mitt Romney. That could get interesting.