Poll: Forty percent considering third party vote in 2020

[corbe]

Poll: Forty percent considering third party vote in 2020

by Guest Contributor • November 1, 2019

The 2016 election included the strongest third-party campaign since Ross Perot in 1992 and it looks like the two major parties have not gotten any more popular in the intervening three years. A new poll shows that just under 40 percent of likely voters are considering a third-party vote in 2020.

A new poll from Rasmussen shows that 38 percent of voters are likely to vote for someone other than Donald Trump or the Democratic nominee next year. That number includes 22 percent who said they were very likely to eschew the two candidates from the big parties.

At this point, it is impossible to say which of the main party candidates would benefit more from a strong third-party candidacy, but the Libertarians are the third-party best positioned to take advantage of the widespread voter dissatisfaction. If the Libertarian Party can overcome its self-destructive tendencies and convince the experienced and charismatic former Republican, Justin Amash, to be their standard-bearer, the Libertarians could be a force to be reckoned with next year.

<..snip..>

https://www.stridentconservative.com/poll-forty-percent-considering-third-party-vote-in-2020/

[libertybele]

I haven't heard of any viable 3rd party candidate running.  Time is running out for serious candidates to get their ground games and money together in order to meet deadlines.  Unless a candidate can qualify and get on the ballots in all 50 states, then IMHO voting for a 3rd party candidate is truly a wasted vote.

[Applewood]

I keep saying this and no one seems to agree with me:  If Trump wants to win next year, he has to attract the independents and undecideds.  But I think the Democrat candidate, whoever that will be, may have the same problem.  Not sure too many voters are happy with the choices offered by either party.  I knw I'm not. 

[Applewood]

I haven't heard of any viable 3rd party candidate running.  Time is running out for serious candidates to get their ground games and money together in order to meet deadlines.  Unless a candidate can qualify and get on the ballots in all 50 states, then IMHO voting for a 3rd party candidate is truly a wasted vote.

I don't consider any vote to be "wasted."  Ted Cruz once said, vote your conscience, and that is what every voter should do.  No one should be forced to vote for a candidate he or she doesn't like. 

Yes, absolutely vote your conscience, but logic should also enter into the equation.  Why vote for a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning; not because they aren't popular, but because they can't get on the ballot in all 50 states, then truly it is IMHO silly to vote for them.  If they can't get on the ballot in all states than they honestly have zero chance of winning.

I did vote for a candidate from the Constitution Party several elections back and then I familiarized myself with how truly difficult it was for a 3rd party win and I also came to the realization that they never have qualified to be on the ballot in all 50 states.  Disappointing yes, but that is reality.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I haven't heard of any viable 3rd party candidate running.  Time is running out for serious candidates to get their ground games and money together in order to meet deadlines.  Unless a candidate can qualify and get on the ballots in all 50 states, then IMHO voting for a 3rd party candidate is truly a wasted vote.

Oh sure -- it's that abstract, purely mythical third party candidate who somehow manages to reflect the precise personal preferences of every one of the tens of millions of voters disenchanted with the two candidates nominated by the major parties.  He/she/it is always very popular.

[dfwgator]

Oh sure -- it's that mythical third party candidate who somehow manages to reflect the precise personal preferences of every one of the tens of millions of voters disenchanted with the two candidates nominated by the major parties.  He/she/it is always very popular.

They say the most popular player on a football team is the backup quarterback.

[GrouchoTex]

They say the most popular player on a football team is the backup quarterback.

Being from DFW, you would know.
 
Just to name one, do you remember Hogeboom/White?

[libertybele]

I keep saying this and no one seems to agree with me:  If Trump wants to win next year, he has to attract the independents and undecideds.  But I think the Democrat candidate, whoever that will be, may have the same problem.  Not sure too many voters are happy with the choices offered by either party.  I knw I'm not.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you.  His rallies are fabulous, and it is important that he maintains his base, but he needs to broaden his base in order to win and that equates to being able to attract independents and the undecideds.

[cato potatoe]

I haven't heard of any viable 3rd party candidate running.  Time is running out for serious candidates to get their ground games and money together in order to meet deadlines.  Unless a candidate can qualify and get on the ballots in all 50 states, then IMHO voting for a 3rd party candidate is truly a wasted vote.

I'm not sure how much the rules have changed since 1992, but Perot waited until April to jump in.  The person would have to be wealthy and possess a similar amount of name recognition.  Mark Cuban may have an opening since both parties have become authoritarian.  Maybe Kasich, though I wonder how much support he would garner away from the Midwest.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I keep saying this and no one seems to agree with me:  If Trump wants to win next year, he has to attract the independents and undecideds.  But I think the Democrat candidate, whoever that will be, may have the same problem.  Not sure too many voters are happy with the choices offered by either party.  I knw I'm not.

@Applewood
The problem is reaching out to the independents and undecideds may cause disenchantment with the GOP base.  I'm not sure that keeping the GOP base embedded with feelings of Deep State persecution is an unwinnable strategy.  They are almost immune to any critical logic, even after a long string of disasters and 3 years of bizarrely atrocious behavior.  If Trump can hold the base and the Democrats pick an unlikable dog like Warren maybe he wins.  In fact barring a sharp change in attitude due to impeachment hearings, or an economic crisis, I'd put money on Trump to win re-election today just based on election history. 

[Chosen Daughter]

I keep saying this and no one seems to agree with me:  If Trump wants to win next year, he has to attract the independents and undecideds.  But I think the Democrat candidate, whoever that will be, may have the same problem.  Not sure too many voters are happy with the choices offered by either party.  I knw I'm not.

I don't think Donald is as popular as he thinks he is.  The country was divided almost equally in 2016.  Some people who supported him may not like him anymore.  Some that didn't vote for him probably will.  But there isn't anything certain.  The World Series incident showed that with the people he is unpopular with it isn't just a vote for the lesser of evils.  They just don't like him. 

Most people do not want the liberal socialism that is being pushed.  I would be a third party supporter if they got someone electable.  Time is running out.  Someone needs to step up or we will have to see how Trump does. 

I am farther away from Trump than I was in 2016.  He isn't truthful.  He's a buffoon who thinks he can do whatever he wants.  Probably not impeachable but what is the next scandal?  That is who Trump is.  He enjoys a good court battle.  If you don't believe me look at how many times he has been involved in lawsuits.

[libertybele]

I 've stated that before, but I still believe that a 3rd party could win if there was a mass exodus of conservatives like Cruz to the Constitution Party. However, the Constitution Party would have to get onboard with the idea as well as Cruz and others.  The second problem is that it would take someone with very deep pockets supporting this transition.

[roamer_1]

I am farther away from Trump than I was in 2016.  He isn't truthful.  He's a buffoon who thinks he can do whatever he wants.  Probably not impeachable but what is the next scandal?  That is who Trump is.  He enjoys a good court battle.  If you don't believe me look at how many times he has been involved in lawsuits.

Me too. I just don't get what folks see... Whatever it is, it is an enchantment to which I am immune.
I am however heartened that a 3rd party might be at play...

[Sighlass]

It is a fool's errand to assign the likelihood any 3rd party will appeal to... The constitutional party which I tend to align with value wise ran someone last time that was more suited to the libertarian party. The libertarian party ran someone that was just weird. Getting good candidates to fill running positions has always been a pain. Odds are, I will just write in someone that I feel would do a better job as president if elected. The need to be part of the winning team has long since departed, I have gone 3 major elections without winning and it is looking like in my lifetime I will not see another. Winning has become just voting for the best I can fathom winning and letting the chips fall into other's lap for what they elect.

[aligncare]

Vote your conscience, huh?

Well, my conscience tells me first, believe my eyes—good economy and employment, overflow crowds at Trump rallies, growing support among blacks and Latinos, a foreign policy that favors America and values its warriors.

Second, believe my head—historically, viable third-party candidates never succeed.

Third, my conscience tells me to consider the consequences of stupidly splitting the vote—taking your eye off the ball—and allowing democrats to succeed and get away with treachery and deceit, and their unconscionable arrogance to think they could nullify the 2016 election.

My conscience is clear.

[roamer_1]

My conscience is clear.

So is mine.

[skeeter]

The rats are desperate for any advantage. It didn't take much imagination to guess they'll pump the 3rd party challenge angle.

The way things are going for them, though, they have to most to lose.

[libertybele]

I don't think Donald is as popular as he thinks he is.  The country was divided almost equally in 2016.  Some people who supported him may not like him anymore.  Some that didn't vote for him probably will.  But there isn't anything certain.  The World Series incident showed that with the people he is unpopular with it isn't just a vote for the lesser of evils.  They just don't like him. 

Most people do not want the liberal socialism that is being pushed.  I would be a third party supporter if they got someone electable.  Time is running out.  Someone needs to step up or we will have to see how Trump does. 

I am farther away from Trump than I was in 2016.  He isn't truthful.  He's a buffoon who thinks he can do whatever he wants.  Probably not impeachable but what is the next scandal?  That is who Trump is.  He enjoys a good court battle.  If you don't believe me look at how many times he has been involved in lawsuits.

@Chosen Daughter I agree with some of what you stated, but what scandals has he truly been involved in other than those falsely manufactured by the leftists?  No Russian collusion and from what I can determine, Biden and the prior administration(s) were much more involved in the Ukraine which resulted in billions (with a B) of dollars missing. I don't see any quid pro quo honestly, especially if you look at it from the point of view that Trump obviously knows billions of dollars are missing and doesn't want to lose any more U.S. taxpayer dollars and that the Ukraine needs to investigate what happened.  It is also my understanding that the Ukraine was investigated under the Bammy administration, however, the Dept. of State (Clinton) laid out to the Ukraine's how they were to investigate ... so to me it looks like another witch hunt that is pointing fingers at the wrong party in order to divert attention from the real criminals. It is no secret that Biden's son was involved, but absolutely no focus remains on him.  None. Meanwhile, DEM investigations give them time to clean up and discard evidence.  Just sayin'.

[truth_seeker]

A great idea, is for several third party vanity parties, to split the votes.

Nader, Buchanan, Johnston, etc.

That works out ??

--Does your conscience opt for the highest probability of actual conservative policies, 0r....

---Does your conscience desire attention, to claim how clever and unique you are, voting for Harry Browne, or Bill Weld,

[roamer_1]

A great idea, is for several third party vanity parties, to split the votes.

Yes it is. Tearing power away from big government socialists in both current parties has to start somewhere.

Nader, Buchanan, Johnston, etc.

Funny how you forgot Lincoln.

That works out ??

It really doesn't matter if it works out this time... It's the only thing left but war or submission.

--Does your conscience opt for the highest probability of actual conservative policies, 0r....

---Does your conscience desire attention, to claim how clever and unique you are, voting for Harry Browne, or Bill Weld,

Actual Conservatism of course... Which requires an actual Conservative, and a conservative party... Something the Republicans have failed miserably at for my whole life.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and again, expecting a different result.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

A great idea, is for several third party vanity parties, to split the votes.

@truth_seeker
I hate it when you're right  , but I agree a third party probably benefits President Trump.

[Victoria33]

I'm not sure how much the rules have changed since 1992, but Perot waited until April to jump in.  The person would have to be wealthy and possess a similar amount of name recognition.  Mark Cuban may have an opening since both parties have become authoritarian.  Maybe Kasich, though I wonder how much support he would garner away from the Midwest.

@Cato potato
@mystery-ak
@Cyber Liberty
@roamer_1

In Texas, the cutoff date for filing for office is a set date in the fall.  No candidates can be added and no candidate taken off the ballot.

In our Texas county, where husband was the Republican County Chair, we had a Republican running for county judge.  He was liked in the county.  While standing on his property he was hit by a lightning bolt.  It went through his body from top to bottom and came out his shoes.  He was taken to hospital and seemed to be okay.  A few days later, he dropped dead, his heart stopped.

It was past the date we could take his name off the ballot, so his name was still on the ballot.   The election happened, and even in death, he almost beat the candidate running against him.  He was so popular, people voted for him as a testament to his life.

[DB]

It is extreme party arrogance that demands people have nowhere to go besides them, like it or lump it. It is this arrogance that will undo them. Give people something to vote for and not only something to vote against i.e. the lesser of two evils. When that happens the floodgates will open.

[roamer_1]

It is extreme party arrogance that demands people have nowhere to go besides them, like it or lump it. It is this arrogance that will undo them. Give people something to vote for and not only something to vote against i.e. the lesser of two evils. When that happens the floodgates will open.

 

[Mesaclone]

Maybe a pink unicorn will show up and magically turn us all into LoveBears.

Unlikely...but more likely than the scenarios in this thread...and yet similar in its realism as to the quaility of 3rd party candidates being discussed.

And for the record, the only thing that "demands" you vote for a party candidate is reason, common sense, ethics and some sense of reality. There's nothing arrogant in hoping that you will use those qualities to make a voting decision. Other than that you're spot on, DB.