Four-Way Prez Race???

[Saratoga_Mike]

Scenario: Trump doesn't reach 1,237 and he's denied the GOP nomination. At that point, he runs as a indy (not a crazy thought). But what if Bernie decides to run as an indy, too?

What does a four-way race look like? Is there a poll out there for such a scenario? Is ballot access a big issue? I believe every state is "winner-takes-all" in the Electoral College, except NE and ME. "Winner takes all" is defined as the majority or plurality of the vote in each state (my understanding of the Electoral College). Who wins the Electoral College vote in the four-way race scenario? And why doesn't Bernie run as an indy (maybe ballot access is the answer, I don't know)?

[_______]

Mike-

Ballot access would be a big issue for any candidate waiting until after the conventions as I discussed here:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130110

I didn't cite my source there but if there is a website ballotpedia.com that lists the deadlines for each state.

I don't think there is the kind of animus on the Democratic side that would inspire a split. Post election survey's of both Sanders and Clinton voters show huge majorities would be satisfied with the other candidate. I don't think the two situations are the same.

With Trump you need to watch his actions, not his words which regularly vaccilate. If he is serious about an independent run, he needs to be acting on that now. Given the lack of any kind of traditional organizing that occurs in almost every other political campaign, I don't think there is much of a threat from a Trump 3rd party campaign.

The real issue for Republican's will be engaging his voters to get out in November when he isn't on the ballot, if it comes to that.

After Wisconsin, Trump could win every delegate available between now and the final week of the primaries without locking up the nomination before the last week. It will come down to elections in California and elsewhere for him. He was on track to barely miss a majority before Wisconsin and is now in even worse shape.

[Saratoga_Mike]

_____, I hadn't seen your post. I agree with you on the Dem animus point. I just think Sanders beats Hillary in a four-way scenario, but it sounds like ballot access is a huge issue.

[Tom]

Nirvana!

:jump::jump::jump:

[Actor]

Who wins the Electoral College vote in the four-way race scenario?The Electors in the Electoral College vote in their own states and send the votes to the Senate in D.C. If there is no majority in the Electoral College then the House of Representatives selects the President from the top three in the Electoral College. If the House selects the President each state gets one vote with the representatives from each state deciding how that state will vote. The Constitution does not say what happens if a state's representatives tie in deciding how to vote. Since the vote is by state it's possible for the minority party to outvote the majority party.

Bottom line: if the vote goes to the house it's most likely the democrats will select the President.

[_______]

The Electors in the Electoral College vote in their own states and send the votes to the Senate in D.C. If there is no majority in the Electoral College then the House of Representatives selects the President from the top three in the Electoral College. If the House selects the President each state gets one vote with the representatives from each state deciding how that state will vote. The Constitution does not say what happens if a state's representatives tie in deciding how to vote. Since the vote is by state it's possible for the minority party to outvote the majority party.

Bottom line: if the vote goes to the house it's most likely the democrats will select the President.

??

Given that the house is likely to remain in Republican hands, why do you think Democrats would prevail in a house vote?

[PaceAdvantage]

There won't be a three-way, let alone a four-way race.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The Electors in the Electoral College vote in their own states and send the votes to the Senate in D.C. If there is no majority in the Electoral College then the House of Representatives selects the President from the top three in the Electoral College. If the House selects the President each state gets one vote with the representatives from each state deciding how that state will vote. The Constitution does not say what happens if a state's representatives tie in deciding how to vote. Since the vote is by state it's possible for the minority party to outvote the majority party.

Bottom line: if the vote goes to the house it's most likely the democrats will select the President.
The Republicans have a 33-16 edge by state. I couldn't imagine they wouldn't consolidate behind the republican candidate, whomever that is.

[Saratoga_Mike]

There won't be a three-way, let alone a four-way race.

Because Trump will be the GOP nominee? Or he won't run as an indy?

[PaceAdvantage]

He definitely won't run as an independent.

I'm not as certain about Bernie...but I don't think he has it in him either, although the chances are certainly higher with him...

[Saratoga_Mike]

The Electors in the Electoral College vote in their own states and send the votes to the Senate in D.C. If there is no majority in the Electoral College then the House of Representatives selects the President from the top three in the Electoral College. If the House selects the President each state gets one vote with the representatives from each state deciding how that state will vote. The Constitution does not say what happens if a state's representatives tie in deciding how to vote. Since the vote is by state it's possible for the minority party to outvote the majority party.

Bottom line: if the vote goes to the house it's most likely the democrats will select the President.

Right, I'm suggesting in a four-way race scenario, Bernie could win a majority of the electoral votes (by winning the plurality of votes in enough states). I certainly don't support him.

[Saratoga_Mike]

He definitely won't run as an independent.

I'm not as certain about Bernie...but I don't think he has it in him either, although the chances are certainly higher with him...

Interesting! I hope you're right on both counts.

[PaceAdvantage]

The reason I am so certain about Trump is because he is all about winning.

And he even HE knows a third party run can't possibly win.

Bernie is more delusional.

But then again, Trump may concede he can't possibly win as a 3rd party man, but may do it anyway to exact some sort of revenge. Nah...too much work for too little payoff IMO.

[bks]

He definitely won't run as an independent.

I'm not as certain about Bernie...but I don't think he has it in him either, although the chances are certainly higher with him...

Disagree. Trump already feels he's been treated unfairly by the GOP (he has), and so he'll have less compunction about going out on his own. Any 3rd party candidacy that begins after the conventions is doomed from the start, since it'll be too late to get on the ballot in several states. Purely a protest move.

Trump is now under 50% in betting markets to win the nomination despite having an effectively insurmountable delegate lead. That price reflects the likelihood that he'll be outmaneuvered by his more seasoned political enemies in a brokered convention, which is also odds-on. Trump won't be happy to be denied the nomination despite 'winning' the primary, unless he never really wanted to win a knife fight in the first place.

Prediction: he'll 'make a deal' to step aside, allowing one of the other cretins (Cruz probably) to become the nominee.

[bks]

The reason I am so certain about Trump is because he is all about winning.

And he even HE knows a third party run can't possibly win.

Bernie is more delusional.

But then again, Trump may concede he can't possibly win as a 3rd party man, but may do it anyway to exact some sort of revenge. Nah...too much work for too little payoff IMO.

Bernie would bury Trump in a head-to-head, as every poll has indicated. Dream scenario for democrats. But Trump probably isn't going to win the nomination.

Clinton is a corrupt insider with extremely high unfavorables for a Democratic front-runner. She's pretty vulnerable at the moment for someone whose been the presumptive nominee for a year's time. Even Trump might beat her if he/she won the nomination.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The reason I am so certain about Trump is because he is all about winning.

And he even HE knows a third party run can't possibly win.

Bernie is more delusional.

But then again, Trump may concede he can't possibly win as a 3rd party man, but may do it anyway to exact some sort of revenge. Nah...too much work for too little payoff IMO.

You're implying that Trump is at least somewhat delusional. Welcome abroad the sanity train.

[Tom]

pssssssst.......they are ALL delusional. At best.

[betovernetcapper]

At this point it would be difficult if not impossible to get on all 50 state ballots. A 3rd party run is a fantasy. :)

[_______]

At this point it would be difficult if not impossible to get on all 50 state ballots. A 3rd party run is a fantasy. :)

There are a few states (my California being the largest) where getting on the ballot is a serious lift. But in most states, it's not that big a deal. If Trump was serious about a independent run, the clock would be ticking for it to get organized but hasn't yet run out.

I'd modify your point to say that for a candidate like Trump, it would be pretty easy to launch a independent run if he was interested. But the clock is rapidly moving against such a campaign.

And he doesn't seem to be all that much into organization.

Time is running short which is why I said earlier that what he says on the subject is less important than what he does.

[Actor]

??

Given that the house is likely to remain in Republican hands, why do you think Democrats would prevail in a house vote?Because if the house selects the president each state gets one vote. Even if the house remains in Republican hands there are more blue(Democrat) states than red(Republican) states. It's likely that there will continue to be more blue states than red states, ergo, the house would select the Democratic candidate. 26 votes elects the president.

[zico20]

Because if the house selects the president each state gets one vote. Even if the house remains in Republican hands there are more blue(Democrat) states than red(Republican) states. It's likely that there will continue to be more blue states than red states, ergo, the house would select the Democratic candidate. 26 votes elects the president.

Sorry, but you are so wrong. The Republicans control many more states than the Democrats. If the electoral college would finish 269-269 in a two way race, the Republican is assured the presidency.

Just off the top of my head. Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Virginia, West Virginia, Alaska.

That is 28 right there.

[zico20]

Scenario: Trump doesn't reach 1,237 and he's denied the GOP nomination. At that point, he runs as a indy (not a crazy thought). But what if Bernie decides to run as an indy, too?

What does a four-way race look like? Is there a poll out there for such a scenario? Is ballot access a big issue? I believe every state is "winner-takes-all" in the Electoral College, except NE and ME. "Winner takes all" is defined as the majority or plurality of the vote in each state (my understanding of the Electoral College). Who wins the Electoral College vote in the four-way race scenario? And why doesn't Bernie run as an indy (maybe ballot access is the answer, I don't know)?

Bill Hemmer did a projected final delegate count last night and he said Trump comes up 44 short of the 1237. But Bill also stated that approx 144 super delegates were unaccounted for, which could push Trump over the top. But he is likely to miss the 1237 unless something drastic changes in the polls in the remaining states.

[zico20]

Sorry, but you are so wrong. The Republicans control many more states than the Democrats. If the electoral college would finish 269-269 in a two way race, the Republican is assured the presidency.

Just off the top of my head. Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Virginia, West Virginia, Alaska.

That is 28 right there.

How could I forget Texas, :bang: That makes 29.

[zico20]

Right, I'm suggesting in a four-way race scenario, Bernie could win a majority of the electoral votes (by winning the plurality of votes in enough states). I certainly don't support him.

No way could Bernie ever win a majority of the electoral votes. Hillary would beat him easily in New York and California, thus ending any chance Sanders has of getting to 270.

[_______]

Because if the house selects the president each state gets one vote. Even if the house remains in Republican hands there are more blue(Democrat) states than red(Republican) states. It's likely that there will continue to be more blue states than red states, ergo, the house would select the Democratic candidate. 26 votes elects the president.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/114th_United_States_Congress#House_of_Representati ves_3

I count 33 state delegations under Republican control, 15 under Democratic, and 2 split.

[reckless]

]Bill Hemmer did a projected final delegate count last night and he said Trump comes up 44 short of the 1237[/B]. But Bill also stated that approx 144 super delegates were unaccounted for, which could push Trump over the top. But he is likely to miss the 1237 unless something drastic changes in the polls in the remaining states.

I saw that segment w/Bill Hemmer last night too.

First off, he 'gave' Trump 100 of California's 171 or so votes. Trump will win in California and he'll win a lot more than 100 delegates, for sure.

But let's say Hemmer is right about all these upcoming projections.

If Trump goes into Cleveland needing just 44 votes, and the GOP pulls a swerve to deny him the nod, then all hell breaks loose and Hillary wins in November.

This also will result in the following: the GOP will never, ever win a national election again -- or at least in the next 25-30 years.

As I originally said over a year ago... (GOP 1856-2016, RIP)

[mostpost]

??

Given that the house is likely to remain in Republican hands, why do you think Democrats would prevail in a house vote?
I very much doubt that we will end up with a four person race, or any race that ends up in the House,

It is possible for the Republicans to control the house numerically, while the Democrats control more of the state caucuses. Since each state counts for one vote, that means Democrats could elect the President even though Republicans control the House.

I say could because that is definitely not the case currently. Thirty five of the fifty states have a majority of Republicans in their Congressional caucus.

[mostpost]

Hillary wins in November.
First true thing you have ever posted.

See how I cherry picked four words from your long post to make it seem you were saying something you never intended. I am so clever! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Bernie would bury Trump in a head-to-head, as every poll has indicated. Dream scenario for democrats. But Trump probably isn't going to win the nomination.

Clinton is a corrupt insider with extremely high unfavorables for a Democratic front-runner. She's pretty vulnerable at the moment for someone whose been the presumptive nominee for a year's time. Even Trump might beat her if he/she won the nomination.You make no sense.

Bernie would bury Trump, but according to you, Trump might beat Hillary?

First off, my DOG could beat Bernie in a national election, and I don't even have a dog! There is absolutely no way on God's Green Earth that Bernie beats ANYBODY. I don't care what polls say or what these young, delusional WHITE Democrats think who are for some reason voting for Bernie.

He's winning nothing come November, if he's the nominee by some miracle.

I don't care who he runs against on the Republican side. These national polls that put Bernie on top of anyone are simply nothing but idle speculation based on some sort of false reality held by a select few.

[Clocker]

young, delusional WHITE Democrats think who are for some reason voting for Bernie.



Remember the Occupy Wall Street movement of kids wanting $20 an hour, "meaningful" jobs befitting their degrees in things like Holistic Transgender Bathroom Studies, and forgiveness of student loans?

Well, they are back, arisen from the gloom of their parents' basements and campaigning for Bernie.

P.S. I recently saw an old story from the NY Times, from back when Bernie was a mayor in Vermont. He said that there should not be charitable organizations like the United Way, because what they were doing was the proper function of government.

[PaceAdvantage]

BTW, it's absolutely amazing that the majority of the media and many on here deem Trump a potential DISASTER and NIGHTMARE for America...

Yet a truly delusional soul like Bernie Sanders...a man who basically has been so unsuccessful his entire life (I read some of the early accounts of his life), he can't even score out as a Senator, like most politicians do while sitting in Washington DC. -- Bernie gets a HUGE PASS from the media...they should have ripped this guy apart like nobody's business from day one.

If there is ANYONE running for President whose beliefs and potential policy objectives will bring this country to the brink of DESTRUCTION, it's Bernie Sanders.

But hey...let's reserve all that for Trump...a successful capitalist. :rolleyes:

[reckless]

First true thing you have ever posted.

See how I cherry picked four words from your long post to make it seem you were saying something you never intended. I am so clever! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Everything I ever posted was true -- you're only in denial pertaining to reality. :)

I have said countless times --beginning way over a year ago-- (1) the GOP is dead; (2) they are owned by the corrupt donor Fortune 1000 class; (3) if the establishment plays games and deny someone like Trump the nomination (I said if he's a 100 or so delegates short and the GOP pooh-bahs game the process, then all hell breaks loose; I also said if he's beaten fair and square then that's OK; (4) I said last year that the GOP will try to deny Trump the nomination, long before the mainstream media and Fox News started talking about it; (5) I always said that Hillary! is a serial failure; an enabler to a sex deviant; that she's corrupt, despicable, and loathsome. I always intended to say all that, and more. (6) I also said that I want her to be the Democrat nominee because she's the easiest candidate for the GOP to beat.

You should read my posts more often, mostpost, you'll learn something for a change. :)

[Tom]

You should read my posts more often, mostpost, you'll learn something for a change.

Uh........

[HalvOnHorseracing]

BTW, it's absolutely amazing that the majority of the media and many on here deem Trump a potential DISASTER and NIGHTMARE for America...

Yet a truly delusional soul like Bernie Sanders...a man who basically has been so unsuccessful his entire life (I read some of the early accounts of his life), he can't even score out as a Senator, like most politicians do while sitting in Washington DC. -- Bernie gets a HUGE PASS from the media...they should have ripped this guy apart like nobody's business from day one.

If there is ANYONE running for President whose beliefs and potential policy objectives will bring this country to the brink of DESTRUCTION, it's Bernie Sanders.

But hey...let's reserve all that for Trump...a successful capitalist. :rolleyes:
It's also within the realm of possibility that we'll all get free ice cream under president Sanders. But somehow I doubt it. If your platform is a moonshot and you have a Republican congress that needs to pass it, I might make that one 499-1.

[betovernetcapper]

BTW, it's absolutely amazing that the majority of the media and many on here deem Trump a potential DISASTER and NIGHTMARE for America...

Yet a truly delusional soul like Bernie Sanders...a man who basically has been so unsuccessful his entire life (I read some of the early accounts of his life), he can't even score out as a Senator, like most politicians do while sitting in Washington DC. -- Bernie gets a HUGE PASS from the media...they should have ripped this guy apart like nobody's business from day one.

If there is ANYONE running for President whose beliefs and potential policy objectives will bring this country to the brink of DESTRUCTION, it's Bernie Sanders.

But hey...let's reserve all that for Trump...a successful capitalist. :rolleyes:



The media like anything else has it's own way of working. The media liked Obama, Clinton & Kennedy. They showed up well in the cameras. Even if you hate every program they offer, people think " I could have a drink with this guy". Bernie is like that. He's a likeable guy. He appears trustworthy. He just shows up well in the media. Trump is the exact opposite. I'm not talking programs here, but presentation. When his wife was on TV the other day & said he didn't like to fight, but if someone else starts it "he will punch you very hard". The thought came unbidden to me "OMG does he punch her?".
A parallel is LBJ. The Kennedy's looked down upon him & when he got the job he swore he would outKennedy Kennedy. The media loved Kennedy, but he wasn't able to get much through Congress. LBJ, did more for civil rights than any other president since Lincoln & yet he's not remembered as such. I remember one article in the Atlantic that made a huge deal about him saying shall when he should have said will or some such. In the mean time he was getting Southern Democrats to fall on their swords to push his liberal agenda through.

I've said for a long time we needed a Republican who could dance, display a little wit & quote philosophy. A little style. :)

[Actor]

I've said for a long time we needed a Republican who could dance, display a little wit & quote philosophy. A little style. :)That would be Abe Lincoln. :cool:

[sammy the sage]

(2) they are owned by the corrupt donor Fortune 1000 class;

HHHmmmm....you LEFT out the FACT that the DemocRats are IDENTICAL....

[reckless]

HHHmmmm....you LEFT out the FACT that the DemocRats are IDENTICAL....

Sammy.... I know that too, but thanks for posting.

The greatest lie ever foisted on the American citizenry was that the Republicans are for the rich and the Democrats are for the little guy.

Shame on them, and shame on us for allowing it to happen.

[Tom]

Hillary is not for Andy?????

[Saratoga_Mike]

No way could Bernie ever win a majority of the electoral votes. Hillary would beat him easily in New York and California, thus ending any chance Sanders has of getting to 270.

I didn't say that. I said a plurality in each state, and the plurality takes all the electoral votes in 48 of 50 states.

[_______]

I didn't say that. I said a plurality in each state, and the plurality takes all the electoral votes in 48 of 50 states.

And by definition at least 3/4 of Maines electoral votes and 60% of Nebraska's.

In practice, a division of the electoral votes where it's possible has never happened although it's always discussed.

[Saratoga_Mike]

In practice, a division of the electoral votes where it's possible has never happened although it's always discussed.

That's because we've never had the potential for Italian-style politics (i.e., factions splintering into many parties). PA indicates it won't happen this fall. Given he predicted the potential rise of Trump a couple of years ago, I'll bow to his prediction.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Hillary is not for Andy?????

She feels betrayed by his stint at GP.

[betovernetcapper]

That would be Abe Lincoln. :cool:

For his time he could "dance". He was a great debater. He came off as believable. Times change & we need someone with style. :)

[zico20]

I didn't say that. I said a plurality in each state, and the plurality takes all the electoral votes in 48 of 50 states.

How many states do you think Bernie could win a plurality in. I would venture to guess maybe 15. And I am being generous there. That would fall far, far short of the 270 needed to be elected president, especially since he would not win California, New York, Texas, or Florida. Those four have a huge number of electoral votes.

[Tom]

Unless they put voting booths in welfare offices.
Then he could run the board.

[Spiderman]

This thread is an academic exercise. The Democrats are solid backers of either Bernie or Hillary. That leaves beadie-eye and bluster to split from the party. Bluster Trump does not have enough money to mount an adequate campaign! Most of his worth is leveraged and he would be the "pauper" in a campaign vs. DNC and RNC. Only his volatile ego could steer him toward an independent run.

[barn32]

This thread is an academic exercise. The Democrats are solid backers of either Bernie or Hillary. That leaves beadie-eye and bluster to split from the party. Bluster Trump does not have enough money to mount an adequate campaign! Most of his worth is leveraged and he would be the "pauper" in a campaign vs. DNC and RNC. Only his volatile ego could steer him toward an independent run.Trump didn't need a lot of money to knock Jeb Bush and his 100 million plus to the dirt.

[Spiderman]

Trump didn't need a lot of money to knock Jeb Bush and his 100 million plus to the dirt.

True. A national campaign is very different than the Republican primary.

[Tom]

This thread is an academic exercise. The Democrats are solid backers of either Bernie or Hillary.

Operative word being "or."

I don't think the younger voters who support Bernie will come out and vote for the Wicked Witch of the West.

But that is why hold the election.

Oh, wait, no it's not.,..it's so they can pretend that we are this great country where we elect our leaders. Of course, we elect them from the scrap heap of candidates they give us. Muck like a North Korean election,, but with far more trash.

[barn32]

True. A national campaign is very different than the Republican primary.True. However, I think the American people are waking up to and are tired of the fact that the Pacs and superpacs, RNC and the Koch brothers are buying all of the elections.

This probably contributed to Trump's early popularity.

Now we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[Clocker]

True. However, I think the American people are waking up to and are tired of the fact that the Pacs and superpacs,

The average Trump supporter thinks a pac is 6 cans of beer and a superpac is 12. :p

[Tom]

Or, they just need something to wash the terrible taste in their mouths left their by scumbags like Lyin' Ted.

Trump might be a loser, but so far, he is not a proven lose - ALL the rest were/are.

Cheers!

[Saratoga_Mike]

How many states do you think Bernie could win a plurality in. I would venture to guess maybe 15. And I am being generous there. That would fall far, far short of the 270 needed to be elected president, especially since he would not win California, New York, Texas, or Florida. Those four have a huge number of electoral votes.

Given Sanders beats Trump and Cruz in head-to-head polling match-ups, I'm not sure why it's so radical to suggest he could win a plurality in enough states to garner the request electoral votes. Again, this is under a hypothetical four-way (Trump/Est GOPer/Hill/Bern) race.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Unless they put voting booths in welfare offices.
Then he could run the board.

"Free" sells, you know that. There's a reason no major govt program is ever repealed. Given Bernie's polling against various GOP candidates, we've probably lost the war.

[Tom]

Maybe it's time we build wooden ships and went back to England.
Then who would feed the liberals, who are helpless?

[_______]

Given Sanders beats Trump and Cruz in head-to-head polling match-ups, I'm not sure why it's so radical to suggest he could win a plurality in enough states to garner the request electoral votes. Again, this is under a hypothetical four-way (Trump/Est GOPer/Hill/Bern) race.

Mike-

You shouldn't put much faith in head to head polling this early. For as long as this kind of polling has existed, there is very little correlation with November results this early.

Much of that comes from the measurements of candidates who won't be on the ballot in 7 months but even controlling for that, the variance from actual results is too wide to show significance.

Favorable/Unfavorable ratings on the various candidates have a stickiness that the head to head polling doesn't. Look at who has the lowest unfavorables between two candidates.

Those numbers almost always go up when the fall campaign starts but starting with a higher number is a distinct disadvantage.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Mike-

You shouldn't put much faith in head to head polling this early.

Favorable/Unfavorable ratings on the various candidates have a stickiness that the head to head polling doesn't. Look at who has the lowest unfavorables between two candidates.

.

You just made my point. Trump and Hill's unfavorables are very higher. No reason to believe that will change.

[barn32]

Early in the 1980 election between Carter and Reagan, Carter was leading 62 to 32. And at this time in the election he was leading 40 to 32. Two-weeks before the election Gallup had Carter up 47 to 39 (http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2012-09-20/gallop-poll-jimmy-carter-47-ronald-reagan-39#.VwmeUI-cGyJ) .

Trump is obviously not Reagan, but I'm just sayin...


http://i67.tinypic.com/2qkt9qw.jpg

[Saratoga_Mike]

Matt Drudge has been attempting to equate Trump to Reagan for the past few months. What a load of crap and an insult to Reagan's memory. Not saying you were doing this Barn, just reminded me of Drudge's absurd links/titles with the implicit Trump is Reagan message.

[DSB]

Almost as bad for the GOP as Trump going third party would be if he launched a movement to write in his name.

Most states either have no special requirements or minimal ones (intent form or registration) to be qualified to receive such votes.

Given his unprecedented media access, the fervor of his followers, and the ease of his name ... he could siphon off millions of votes and perhaps deny the GOP candidate a state or two which could swing the election.

It would be cheap and easy for him to pull off.

Trump strikes me as a particularly vindictive man who would have no qualms about causing this disaster.

Let's hope I'm wrong.

[PaceAdvantage]

That would be Abe Lincoln. :cool:But Abe Lincoln went through PERSONAL bankruptcy, did he not? Not even a business bankruptcy like Trump, but personal bankruptcy. But then again, maybe it was both, as the store he bought went belly-up during a time of economic boon, and I think the store and Abe both went bankrupt.

So he probably should have been disqualified from being president, if we listen to the Trump bashers today.

[Clocker]

So he probably should have been disqualified from being president, if we listen to the Trump bashers today.

I plead guilty to being a Trump basher. It is not because of his business failures. And despite the protests and hair splitting of some here, he did have business failures. I use those failures simply to show that success in one field, e.g., real estate, does not always imply success in another field, e.g., casinos. Or government.

Let's ignore the past for discussion purposes. I am a Trump basher because he doesn't understand how the government works, he doesn't understand economics, and he doesn't understand trade, especially international trade. His trade policies alone would result in a train wreck for the US economy. He is a statist and a protectionist. He wants to increase the power of the federal government, and especially that of the president. He wants to restrict rights, like the freedom of the press to criticize people like Donald Trump.

That's the bad news. The good news is that if he became president, he would never get any of his policies enacted because he would be stopped by Congress and the courts. His inability to get anything done in office makes him potentially a better choice for president than Hillary, but I could still never respect myself if I voted for such a buffoon.

[Tom]

....but I could still never respect myself if I voted for such a buffoon.

I didn't know you were Canadian.