Trump nightmare scenario

[BmorePat87]

Trump, Clinton, Sanders, and the GOP nominee running at the same time would give us another election of 1824. 4 candidates splitting all the votes. Jackson gets the most electoral votes and popular votes, but he fails to achieve a majority of electoral votes. As a result, the HOR voted for POTUS (and they picked JQ Adams) and the Senate voted for the Veep.

So if we had enough of the vote split with states going in many directions, the HOR would be divided into 50 state delegations and would vote for the President out of the top 3 electoral vote winners. The Senate would then all vote individually for the Veep out of the top two candidates.

Remember, you need 270 electoral votes to win. If Clinton had 269 with the remaining 269 divided between 3 others, she'd most likely not be President. 

[fredtoast]

(01-27-2016, 10:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump, Clinton, Sanders, and the GOP nominee running at the same time would give us another election of 1824. 4 candidates splitting all the votes. Jackson gets the most electoral votes and popular votes, but he fails to achieve a majority of electoral votes. As a result, the HOR voted for POTUS (and they picked JQ Adams) and the Senate voted for the Veep.

So if we had enough of the vote split with states going in many directions, the HOR would be divided into 50 state delegations and would vote for the President out of the top 3 electoral vote winners. The Senate would then all vote individually for the Veep out of the top two candidates.

Remember, you need 270 electoral votes to win. If Clinton had 269 with the remaining 269 divided between 3 others, she'd most likely not be President. 

And the current House votes, correct?  Not the House that will take over in 2017?

[fredtoast]

(01-27-2016, 09:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Trump will split the democrat vote as well .   He will take a chunk.  

In my scenario it doesn't matter how the vote is split up in the general election,  The House is still the only possible group that would elect Trump.

[StLucieBengal]

 fredto Wrote:In my scenario it doesn't matter how the vote is split up in the general election,  The House is still the only possible group that would elect Trump.

The house wouldn't vote trump over Cruz.

If pat's scenario played out it would Cruz as president. And probably Clinton as VP. This way the progressives have one of their in there to tip the senate since it's so close.

[BmorePat87]

(01-27-2016, 11:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And the current House votes, correct?  Not the House that will take over in 2017?

Correct, and the Republicans control 33 states, so they'd have 66% of the vote. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-27-2016, 11:23 PM)UStLucieBengal Wrote: The house wouldn't vote trump over Cruz.

If pat's scenario played out it would Cruz as president.    And probably Clinton as VP.   This way the progressives have one of their in there to tip the senate since it's so close.

The Senate selects the Veep from the Veep candidates. In our Electoral College system, separate votes are cast for each position because of the 12th Amendment and the Election of 1800.

Even if she were a Veep candidate, a Republican Senate would never vote for Hillary Clinton. 

[StLucieBengal]

BmorePat Wrote:The Senate selects the Veep from the Veep candidates. In our Electoral College system, separate votes are cast for each position because of the 12th Amendment and the Election of 1800.

Even if she were a Veep candidate, a Republican Senate would never vote for Hillary Clinton. 

While I agree with that statement in its spirit. I think there would be an anti Cruz/trump backlash from progressive GOP members. Much in the same way Boehner needed democrats to pass some of his nonsense.

But normally I would agree they would choose to stay In party. I just think there is some there who want to stick it to ether of those 2. Enough to swing it since the senate is so closes.

[BmorePat87]

(01-28-2016, 06:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: While I agree with that statement in its spirit.   I think there would be an anti Cruz/trump backlash from progressive GOP members.    Much in the same way Boehner needed democrats to pass some of his nonsense.    

But normally I would agree they would choose to stay In party.  I just think there is some there who want to stick it to ether of those 2.   Enough to swing it since the senate is so closes.

If Cruz were the nominee, his VP would be a moderate Republican. Why would the Senate want Hillary Clinton's VP over a moderate from their own party?

[StLucieBengal]

BmorePat Wrote:If Cruz were the nominee, his VP would be a moderate Republican. Why would the Senate want Hillary Clinton's VP over a moderate from their own party?

Why would assume that? The mistake Reagan made was making Bush VP. He wanted Rumsfeld.

If Cruz gets the nod it will be another conservative.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2016, 01:57 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why would assume that?   The mistake Reagan made was making Bush VP.   He wanted Rumsfeld.  

If Cruz gets the nod it will be another conservative.

Because in the month since Cruz has become the second highest candidate, his favorability with the GOP has gone from 64 to 55% with his unfavorability going from 16 to 23. That's +48 to +32. 

Meanwhile, with all voters, he is -4. 

If Cruz were to get the nomination, he would have to balance his ticket with a moderate if he wanted a shot at winning. He needs independents. Independents don't want someone who thinks fighting against gay marriage is a top issue. 

[StLucieBengal]

BmorePat Wrote:Because in the month since Cruz has become the second highest candidate, his favorability with the GOP has gone from 64 to 55% with his unfavorability going from 16 to 23. That's +48 to +32. 

Meanwhile, with all voters, he is -4. 

If Cruz were to get the nomination, he would have to balance his ticket with a moderate if he wanted a shot at winning. He needs independents. Independents don't want someone who thinks fighting against gay marriage is a top issue. 

That's not a general election top issue. The general will be about foreign policy and immigration. Gay marriage is an irrelevant issue in this election cycle.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2016, 01:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That's not a general election top issue.     The general will be about foreign policy and immigration.   Gay marriage is an irrelevant issue in this election cycle.

This past summer, Cruz said the issue of gay marriage would be "front and center" in his campaign. 

"That is very much front and center something I intend to campaign on," he said. "And marriage and religious liberty are going to be integral, I believe, to motivating the American people to come out and vote for what's, ultimately, restoring our constitutional system."

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/29/418398912/cruz-opposition-to-gay-marriage-will-be-front-and-center-in-2016-campaign

While it certainly should be irrelevant, someone who was just reassuring voters in Iowa this week that he would address the "crisis" of gay marriage isn't going to be winning over the hearts of many independents. 

[McC]

(01-27-2016, 02:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Do you need to win 50% to win a state?  If not, the Democrat should easily win a plurality in enough states against a split ticket.

Trump's negatives are so high that he seriously may not get an additional vote in the general election beyond the people who support him right now.

What are his negatives?  That he isn't a career politician?  Thank God.  Career politicians have been doing such a great job for so long.  That he speaks his mind?  It's about time someone did.  That he won't be lying for or selling his soul for money to buy an election?  That he won't be promising everything to everyone like the guy in office now?  Good.  Owing no one, having no one to pay back with favors--good things.

That he has proven he can run large things?  

What are his negatives?

[mallorian69]

(01-29-2016, 06:36 PM)McC Wrote: What are his negatives?  That he isn't a career politician?  Thank God.  Career politicians have been doing such a great job for so long.  That he speaks his mind?  It's about time someone did.  That he won't be lying for or selling his soul for money to buy an election?  That he won't be promising everything to everyone like the guy in office now?  Good.  Owing no one, having no one to pay back with favors--good things.

That he has proven he can run large things?  

What are his negatives?

His hair?

[XenoMorph]

(01-29-2016, 06:47 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: His hair?

So you just want a goodlooking president? kinda like a puppet?

[Vas Deferens]

(01-29-2016, 06:36 PM)McC Wrote: What are his negatives?  That he isn't a career politician?  Thank God.  Career politicians have been doing such a great job for so long.  That he speaks his mind?  It's about time someone did.  That he won't be lying for or selling his soul for money to buy an election?  That he won't be promising everything to everyone like the guy in office now?  Good.  Owing no one, having no one to pay back with favors--good things.

That he has proven he can run large things?  

What are his negatives?

Bankruptcy(s)?  

I understand he'd say its a great business strategy, but I personally think its different when all your wealth was handed to you in the first place.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2016, 06:36 PM)McC Wrote: What are his negatives?  That he isn't a career politician?  Thank God.  Career politicians have been doing such a great job for so long.  That he speaks his mind?  It's about time someone did.  That he won't be lying for or selling his soul for money to buy an election?  That he won't be promising everything to everyone like the guy in office now?  Good.  Owing no one, having no one to pay back with favors--good things.

That he has proven he can run large things?  

What are his negatives?

He lacks substantial foreign policy experience. He lacks any government experience. He spouts blatant racism, sexism, and islamaphobic sentiment. He's pretty petty and prefers to insult others than engage in policy discussion. He can't stand up to criticism.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-29-2016, 06:36 PM)McC Wrote: What are his negatives?  That he isn't a career politician?  Thank God.  Career politicians have been doing such a great job for so long.  That he speaks his mind?  It's about time someone did.  That he won't be lying for or selling his soul for money to buy an election?  That he won't be promising everything to everyone like the guy in office now?  Good.  Owing no one, having no one to pay back with favors--good things.

That he has proven he can run large things?  

What are his negatives?

He wilted under the pressure of facing Megyn Kelly. 

[StLucieBengal]

BmorePat Wrote:This past summer, Cruz said the issue of gay marriage would be "front and center" in his campaign. 

"That is very much front and center something I intend to campaign on," he said. "And marriage and religious liberty are going to be integral, I believe, to motivating the American people to come out and vote for what's, ultimately, restoring our constitutional system."

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/29/418398912/cruz-opposition-to-gay-marriage-will-be-front-and-center-in-2016-campaign

While it certainly should be irrelevant, someone who was just reassuring voters in Iowa this week that he would address the "crisis" of gay marriage isn't going to be winning over the hearts of many independents. 

June was a while back and I can't honesty see it being a real issue with all that's happening in the world.

[Beaker]

I'm still sticking with Rubio pulling out the republican nomination.