The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: ABX on October 23, 2016, 08:54:22 pm
-
With Evan McMullin now tied for the lead in Utah, the knives are help with the claim he is helping Hillary. This infographic explains why that is incorrect.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvewqgXUkAAj8kG.jpg:large)
-
I see scenario # 3 as most probable.
She will translate the Trump undesirability factor to think she has a Mandate and if Schumer's in charge of the Senate, it's gonna be a gloomy, but survivable 4 years.
-
McMullin is not "helping Hillary", he is running against her (and trump)
-
Bumping this thread as I'm seriously considering voting for McMullin.
-
The big question for me is why Trump is going to Maine in pursuit of ONE electoral vote. Does he have a side chick up there?
-
Bumping this thread as I'm seriously considering voting for McMullin.
Would too, but there are only four candidates on the ballot for POTUS here in TX. None acceptable.
-
RCP has McMullin 5 points behind Trump in the average,and even with McMullin Trump is still winning the state. He might not even matter.
-
Would too, but there are only four candidates on the ballot for POTUS here in TX. None acceptable.
Thought he'd qualified as a write in in TX? Or am I thinking Castle?
-
Would too, but there are only four candidates on the ballot for POTUS here in TX. None acceptable.
@catfish1957
I looked it. As (obviously as per my avatar) I live in Texas. McMullin is a legitimate write in candidate.
-
Would too, but there are only four candidates on the ballot for POTUS here in TX. None acceptable.
McMullin did qualify as a write-in candidate in Texas.
-
With Evan McMullin now tied for the lead in Utah, the knives are help with the claim he is helping Hillary. This infographic explains why that is incorrect.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvewqgXUkAAj8kG.jpg:large)
Under Scenario #2 we could end up with a McMullin/Pence Presidency and I could support that.
-
Under Scenario #2 we could end up with a McMullin/Pence Presidency and I could support that.
Any third party candidate doing well in any state is a boost to the 270 reset button scenario. Be it Johnson, McMullin, or Castle, all they need to do is keep the two major party candidates from reaching 270.
it is a legitmate Constitutional check and balance strategy and it means that people can vote their values and conscience without feeling guilty.
-
McMullin is not "helping Hillary", he is running against her (and trump)
Of course he is..McMullin is a #Nevertrump puppet whose sole purpose is stopping him.
-
Of course he is..McMullin is a #Nevertrump puppet whose sole purpose is stopping him.
Of course his purpose is to stop him (and her). That's what competing political candidates do, they run against opponents.
That is what most of us learned in kindergarten, if you are competing against someone, you compete to win.
-
Any third party candidate doing well in any state is a boost to the 270 reset button scenario. Be it Johnson, McMullin, or Castle, all they need to do is keep the two major party candidates from reaching 270.
it is a legitmate Constitutional check and balance strategy and it means that people can vote their values and conscience without feeling guilty.
As I understand it - a 3rd party candidate has to WIN the state to get the electors. Johnson or Castle don't have a chance. McMullin has a slim chance to win the 9 electors in Utah.
-
I don't see why Scenario #2 necessarily results in Hillary losing. For that to happen, either Trump or McMullin would have to win in the House, and I'm not sure that's so certain.
Trump himself is very unpopular among some people, and among some members of Congress as well. If push came to shove, I'm not sure we could count on a party-line vote by the GOP to choose Trump over Hillary. There might be enough defections that Hillary would actually win.
If that is possible, then for Scenario #2 to be a sure thing, we'd have to count on all those Republicans voting for McMullin. And I'm not so sure of that either. Sure, a lot of Republicans would prefer him to Hillary. But I also think a number of them would be extremely uncomfortable with the idea that some guy who is virtually unknown by 90% of the country, only really ran in one state, and only won in one state dominated by a single religious minority, should be chosen as President. Some of the RINO's might believe that is sticking a finger in the eye of all the voters in the other 49 states. In fact, I personally believe that McMullin winning a fight in the House is the least likely alternative should it make it that far.
I'm not saying that is definitely what would happen. But at the same time, I don't think there's any guarantee that forcing the House to choose between Hillary, Trump, and McMullin is an easy "Hillary loses" scenario.
-
As I understand it - a 3rd party candidate has to WIN the state to get the electors. Johnson or Castle don't have a chance. McMullin has a slim chance to win the 9 electors in Utah.
Correct. Looks to me like Trump will win the state even with McMullin... for now.
-
Of course he is..McMullin is a #Nevertrump puppet whose sole purpose is stopping him.
If Utah's 6 electoral votes is the only thing keeping Trump from winning then there would be a fair chance that McMullin himself would be in the mix for the Presidency. Talk about your 6 dimensional move.
-
As I understand it - a 3rd party candidate has to WIN the state to get the electors. Johnson or Castle don't have a chance. McMullin has a slim chance to win the 9 electors in Utah.
Not all states are winner take all.
-
Not all states are winner take all.
Only Nebraska and Maine aren't, not Utah.
-
I don't see why Scenario #2 necessarily results in Hillary losing. For that to happen, either Trump or McMullin would have to win in the House, and I'm not sure that's so certain.
Trump himself is very unpopular among some people, and among some members of Congress as well. If push came to shove, I'm not sure we could count on a party-line vote by the GOP to choose Trump over Hillary. There might be enough defections that Hillary would actually win.
If that is possible, then for Scenario #2 to be a sure thing, we'd have to count on all those Republicans voting for McMullin. And I'm not so sure of that either. Sure, a lot of Republicans would prefer him to Hillary. But I also think a number of them would be extremely uncomfortable with the idea that some guy who is virtually unknown by 90% of the country, only really ran in one state, and only won in one state dominated by a single religious minority, should be chosen as President. Some of the RINO's might believe that is sticking a finger in the eye of all the voters in the other 49 states. In fact, I personally believe that McMullin winning a fight in the House is the least likely alternative should it make it that far.
I'm not saying that is definitely what would happen. But at the same time, I don't think there's any guarantee that forcing the House to choose between Hillary, Trump, and McMullin is an easy "Hillary loses" scenario.
You might have individuals in the Republican Party that could vote for Hillary but if the election was thrown to the House each state gets one vote. Since 33 states have a majority of Republicans in the house that would require a lot of defections to give Hillary the victory.
-
You might have individuals in the Republican Party that could vote for Hillary but if the election was thrown to the House each state gets one vote. Since 33 states have a majority of Republicans in the house that would require a lot of defections to give Hillary the victory.
I believe it would be the newly seated House, not the current one, that would vote for President. And in that case, we may not have all 33 states. It may be a lot closer, and the number of Republicans unwilling to vote for either Trump or McMullin could be enough to swing it.
Again, I'm not saying that is what would happen. I'm just saying it's not a slam dunk that Hillary would lose in that circumstance.
-
RCP has McMullin 5 points behind Trump in the average,and even with McMullin Trump is still winning the state. He might not even matter.
But RCP has a lag because his polling has been rising quickly. So it's including polls showing him at 20% a few weeks ago with the ones with him at 30% or more now.
-
Has Trump gotten his ducks in a row, or is there a chance if some faithless electors? If it was close, I could see Hillary operatives calling up electors and threatening to hang Trump around their necks.
-
Has Trump gotten his ducks in a row, or is there a chance if some faithless electors? If it was close, I could see Hillary operatives calling up electors and threatening to hang Trump around their necks.
Now here's a question for the forum...
What will happen when faithless electors actually change an election?
-
Now here's a question for the forum...
What will happen when faithless electors actually change an election?
21 states do not legally prevent an elector from voting for someone else. It has happened before, just on a very small scale. Nothing that shifted power in recent history.
-
I don't see why Scenario #2 necessarily results in Hillary losing. For that to happen, either Trump or McMullin would have to win in the House, and I'm not sure that's so certain.
Trump himself is very unpopular among some people, and among some members of Congress as well. If push came to shove, I'm not sure we could count on a party-line vote by the GOP to choose Trump over Hillary. There might be enough defections that Hillary would actually win.
If that is possible, then for Scenario #2 to be a sure thing, we'd have to count on all those Republicans voting for McMullin. And I'm not so sure of that either. Sure, a lot of Republicans would prefer him to Hillary. But I also think a number of them would be extremely uncomfortable with the idea that some guy who is virtually unknown by 90% of the country, only really ran in one state, and only won in one state dominated by a single religious minority, should be chosen as President. Some of the RINO's might believe that is sticking a finger in the eye of all the voters in the other 49 states. In fact, I personally believe that McMullin winning a fight in the House is the least likely alternative should it make it that far.
I'm not saying that is definitely what would happen. But at the same time, I don't think there's any guarantee that forcing the House to choose between Hillary, Trump, and McMullin is an easy "Hillary loses" scenario.
That's not quite how it works. If the election is thrown to the house, the vote is by state, with all the representatives for each state voting to determine how their state's vote will be cast. This means that the number of Republicans and Democrats isn't the determinative factor, but the number of each in each state's representation.
-
That's not quite how it works. If the election is thrown to the house, the vote is by state, with all the representatives for each state voting to determine how their state's vote will be cast. This means that the number of Republicans and Democrats isn't the determinative factor, but the number of each in each state's representation.
And that's where 2010 was the ace in the hole. Because of gerrymandering following the 2010 statehouse routs, the GOP was able to squeeze out more Republican districts in each state. That's also bad news for Trump, because in the primaries, his strongest states were blue states in the Northeast that will almost certainly vote Clinton in that scenario.
Combine that with McMullin's inside connections as a policy hack for the House GOP, and the odds of a President McMullin look a lot better. Perhaps that's why the Trump caucus is scared all of a sudden.
-
And that's where 2010 was the ace in the hole. Because of gerrymandering following the 2010 statehouse routs, the GOP was able to squeeze out more Republican districts in each state. That's also bad news for Trump, because in the primaries, his strongest states were blue states in the Northeast that will almost certainly vote Clinton in that scenario.
Combine that with McMullin's inside connections as a policy hack for the House GOP, and the odds of a President McMullin look a lot better. Perhaps that's why the Trump caucus is scared all of a sudden.
Trump has long odds and because of that McMullin has long odds.
-
I believe it would be the newly seated House, not the current one, that would vote for President. And in that case, we may not have all 33 states. It may be a lot closer, and the number of Republicans unwilling to vote for either Trump or McMullin could be enough to swing it.
Again, I'm not saying that is what would happen. I'm just saying it's not a slam dunk that Hillary would lose in that circumstance.
And I'm saying if the Electoral vote was pretty much a toss up I don't see that big of a state shift in the house.
-
Of course he is..McMullin is a #Nevertrump puppet whose sole purpose is stopping him.
Dude, the math is hard, but it ain't that hard.