More and more likely: A third-party "real Republican" candidate for president.

[Hortensis]

More and more Republicans are reconnecting with their consciences and realizing not only that they cannot vote for The Donald but in the case of some major party players that they cannot allow him to become president. How to save their nation and their party from this walking bundle of dysfunctions and deficiencies who can't be allowed to take office?

Run a "real Republican" as a third-party candidate to split the conservative vote. They wouldn't necessarily expect to win. Rather, this could be a way of proclaiming "real Republican" values, while discretely throwing the election to Hillary Clinton.

Apparently most filing deadlines for getting on the ballot as an independent are in July and August and the signatures required would be easy to meet, though there are plenty of other hurdles. Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, a #NeverTrump leader who's been calling for a draft candidacy, is well regarded by others who like this idea and are calling for him become their "real Republican" candidate.

[merrily]

1. Great. I hope every one who ran for POTUS this time starts his or her own party.

[vt_native]

2. If only the Democratic Party

Would nominate a real Democrat.

[ViseGrip]

33. Your comment is unwarranted and disgusting.

The republicans made Trump promise not to run third party if he lost. They thought they could beat him. All bad faith around this republican third party run OP. What the hell does Bernie have to do with that?

You would compare Bernie to Ben Sasse?
If this is what Hillary attracks, now I understand why I just don't like her. I know I don't like her policies, but personally, I just don't like her.

[stonecutter357]

52. Your comment is unwarranted and disgusting.

[pnwmom]

58. Strong women are generally considered less "likable." It's a thing with some men. n/t

[tex-wyo-dem]

78. She's less likeable because she's less trustworthy...

Has nothing to do with her being a woman. Has everything to do with her record.

I think one of the most trustworthy politicians in Washington is Elizabeth Warren, and she's one of the strongest women I can think of.

[pnwmom]

80. That's just the perception with Hillary. Fact checkers say she's one of the more truthful.

http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-clinton-most-truthful-candidate/

[tex-wyo-dem]

82. That's a good one...you're funny!

Let's see...I think the latest is on coal...

[pnwmom]

83. www.politifact.com

[tex-wyo-dem]

87. What she says, and what she really means are two...

Entirely separate things.

[Katashi_itto]

55. The limousine liberal world.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Are you available to be drafted as the Democratic Party's real Democrat?

[IamMab]

15. We already did.

Bernie wasn't qualified.

[FLPanhandle]

26. Ah, the "no true scotsmans" argument

Re-branded as the we don't have a "true Democrat" argument.

Pathetic.

[Squinch]

35. You know that your statement runs counter to all Democratic values, right? A majority

(a huge majority) of Democrats voted for Hillary.

Deal with it.

[Katashi_itto]

56. DINOs are easy to run when you have corporate backers.

[Squinch]

61. Um, no. It's that not enough people like your candidate. By a factor of multiple millions.

Or maybe they all just dislike his followers. Either way. He lost.

[Katashi_itto]

64. Gosh, he did. Looks like the country will be in for a shitty four years. But hey your corporate

shill won. So thats something.

[Squinch]

65. Does it mean you are going to go away?

[Katashi_itto]

66. No

[Squinch]

67. You mean you aren't going to do a GBCW thread and leave DU in a flurry of fury at the oligarchs?

It would make a very important point. Are you sure you don't want to do that?

Give it some thought.

[Katashi_itto]

68. Honestly why don't you give some thought to these limp wristed comebacks.

Your corporate shill won. Someone that will sell the country out in every way possible. Thats not a victory.

[Squinch]

69. Limp wristed, huh? And of course you don't see it as a victory. That's because you lost.

[Katashi_itto]

71. God more mouth breathing?

Munches popcorn

[Egnever]

72. The end game is clear

We watched it play out already. People like this will hold on to the bitterness and look for every opportunity to snip at the democratically elected president after the election for every perceived failing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

75. Yup.

[Squinch]

88. I think they are in the minority of BS supporters, but they certainly are obnoxious.

And yes, you have called it exactly.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

74. I thought Bernie out raised and out spent Hillary

[Katashi_itto]

76. Corporate backers do not mean just money.

[leftofcool]

81. News Flash! Dems don't want Bernie period! They want a Democrat.

[Katashi_itto]

85. Well, that lets Hillary out.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

92. Obama clearly ran to the left of Hillary, but governed like the Second Clinton. For the life of me,

I'll never understand the New Democrats' Party. What are they so affraid of that they run to they immediately abandon core Democratic values and govern right of center. Then we just accept that Democrats don't vote as a given. Republicans don't have this problem. For worse or worser, they follow through on all of their awful promises. And the Democratic Party just tags along.

[sufrommich]

5. I could see them doing that. I think at this point they are fighting to

save their brand as opposed to winning the election.

[Hortensis]

11. Yup! Here are the 10 top names on #NeverTrump list.

According to The Hill

Mitt Romney
NE Sen. Ben Sasse
General John Kelly
NM ex-Gov Gary Johnson
MI Rep Justin Amash
OK ex- Sen Tom Coburn
SC Gov Nikki Haley
Ky Sen Rand Paul

Hey, The Hill! That's only 8 yucks. They really need a NEW brand for he "real Republican candidate."

[thesquanderer]

20. I figured Romney, but Paul is an interesting choice.

Romney is more mainstream, but I could see Paul as having more success in this "anti-establishment" year, being less establishment than Hillary while also not the offensive, inexperienced, loose cannon that Trump is. He could possibly pull more Trump voters than Romney could.

[thesquanderer]

23. Maybe it depends on who they want to pull more votes from.

Picking up from my earlier post... I think Romney might be their strongest choice if they want to pull more from Hillary, and Paul might be stronger if they want to pull more from Trump. But since their ultimate goal is probably to throw the election into the House, what matters is who gives them the best shot at hitting 270 between two candidates (leaving fewer than 270 for the other)... and that probably means Romney.

The problem with the others on the list is that I don't think they're well known enough, they've never had a major presence o the national stage. (Even Paul may not be well known enough.)

[Hortensis]

37. Could that be an asset in these angry days? Even

most establishment conservatives no longer trust their leadership and finally disagree with party doctrine that they should continue to dismantle all regulation of business.

[JimDandy]

60. They want to run a strong candidate with a chance of beating Clinton and Trump. The OP is wrong.

Their Independent candidate will be a Republican who is acceptable to 1980's style Republicans, religious conservatives and the Koch brothers. Their aim in running their candidate is to actually shoot for the required 270 electoral college votes, but, at the very least, the candidate must be capable of simply getting the most votes of all 3 candidates. This is so that, if it is necessary for the Republican-held House of Representatives to choose the candidate, the House will be presented with a clear winner, which not only gives them the legitimate cover to choose that Republican candidate, but satisfies the need of the country for the president to be cloaked in the mantle of democracy.

They are going to run large numbers of negative ads that lump Clinton and Trump together, on issue after issue, and feature photos of the two together. Their candidate needs to be morally unassailable, especially sex scandal wise in order to pull this off.

[thesquanderer]

24. Other people they could put up...

Paul Ryan?

Colin Powell if he wasn't so old.

Or George Pataki, just for the goof.

[malaise]

62. Add Scott Walker

[thesquanderer]

91. I didn't remember that Johnson was the libertarian candidate. That could have legs.

He's got a jump on getting on the ballot in many states, and there is an additional base of support to be found there.

Plus there's this:

Monmouth also tested a potential three-way race involving Clinton, Trump, and former GOP governor, now Libertarian, Gary Johnson. In this hypothetical contest, Clinton earns 42% of the vote...Trump gets 34%...Johnson takes 11%.

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/7714a05b-515f-4ad3-bdaa-e72a6e5f8e61.pdf

I read elsewhere that 15% in national polling qualifies you for the debates, and he's not that far off. (Though a well known name like Romney or Ryan would probably get there easily as well.)

What's funny about that poll is that it also says

Johnson is largely an unknown commodity. Just 9% have a favorable opinion of him and 15% an unfavorable opinion, while 3-in-4 (76%) don’t know enough about him to form an opinion.

Getting 11% when 76% haven't heard of you is impressive. An awful lot of people who had heard of him want to vote for him against these opponents (his 11% vote being even more than the 9% who viewed him favorably)... but I wonder if some taking the survey were so unenamored of Clinton and Trump that they would vote for the third choice even if they didn't know who it was!

[vi5]

6. Nope. Not going to happen.

Each and every one of them, to a number are going to come around and vote for Trump.

All it's going to take is one ridiculous "rumor" or story or whatever about Clinton and they will go scampering back to the grand old party to cast their vote for Trump.

[Hortensis]

9. Vi5, it IS happening. Google "third party run"

all by itself and check out how many major media have published on that subject in the last 2 days alone. Like The Hill's "Third-party push gaining steam" a few hours ago.

[vi5]

10. It's 6 months away.....

....I'll be happy to be wrong, but come September and October polls will be where they are every single presidential election. The same battlegrounds will be the same battlegrounds.

The media will start "normalizing" Trump, Trump will slightly moderate his heavy handed tone, and Democrats will do what Democrats always do and rather than pointing out every stupid, racist, hateful, misogynistic thing Trump has said, will also start treating him like a real candidate.

Again, happy to be wrong. But I'm quite confident I won't be.

[Hortensis]

12. Remember, they don't have to get on all state ballots

if they are willing to lose. This third-party strategy recognizes that, barring a miracle, winning is not possible and that it would be embarked upon to achieve the other goals described.

A Washington Post opinion piece, clearly from a conservative viewpoint, points out other potential benefits: "Even if a third candidacy still yielded a Clinton victory, it would be worthwhile. It would, first, deny the Clinton campaign the illusion of a mandate from American voters who would have, en masse, turned out to reject Trump. If nothing else, a strong third-candidate vote would send her a message to govern from the center, rather than in deference to her party’s increasingly powerful left wing."

[vi5]

13. "govern from the center"

LOL

[Hortensis]

16. I enjoyed the worry about "increasingly powerful left wing."

Hope he's speaking for a whole lot of them.

[Hortensis]

32. Forgot to mention, I'll be happy if you're right. :)

[gratuitous]

36. I think the calculation is going on now

If some credible political operative somewhere (not Karl Rove, but someone of that ilk) can plot a way that a third party candidate can poll enough votes to deny Clinton a majority of the popular vote, a third party candidate might materialize. The Republicans will still get munched in the general election, but they'll wave the poll percentages like a bloody battle standard: "See? We would have won with a True Republican candidate!"

I don't think that's very likely, and I think your analysis is correct: The longer Trump sits in the catbird seat, the more Republicans will slouch toward supporting the party's candidate.

[Hortensis]

8. People as disparate as Bill Kristol and Eric Erickson

of Red State are heading up separate groups to choose a third-party candidate.

Although, the almost certain result would be to throw the presidency to the Democratic candidate, the initial responses to this thread did remind me of another:

One outcome, though rare, may be that no candidate crosses the necessary threshold of 270 votes in the U.S. Electoral College. In that case, the vote for the next president would pass to the U.S. House of Representatives, currently controlled by Republicans

I think we have to assume the "real Republican" campaign will at least try for that.

There aren't near enough hostile left-wing anti-Democrats to throw the election, of course, even if they all crossed to Trump or the "real Republican." But what if a newly inspiring draft candidate also drew, for instance, Hispanic and other minority conservatives? Like so many other conservatives, before now they haven't had a viable GOP choice.

[thesquanderer]

21. Yes. All they need to do is find a candidate who can throw it to the house, no need to win outright.

If the Republicans can come up with another candidate who--in conjunction with Trump--can amass 270 delegates between the TWO of them (with neither of them getting it individually), that will mean the Republican house will pick the next president.

This could conceivably be done even without running the third candidate in every state.

[hamsterjill]

25. THIS!!!!!!

This is the strategy that I've heard is being bounced around. Texas and Florida, most likely.

[thesquanderer]

30. Texas, Florida...

Last edited Fri May 6, 2016, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Jeb? Rubio? Perry? Cruz?

Nah, not Cruz. If it's going to be decided by the House, it has to be someone the Republican establishment actually likes.

Rubio couldn't carry Florida against Trump in the primary, not a good sign.

Perry has already endorsed Trump, so we might be spared that possibility.

So many people who don't want another Clinton in the WH don't want another Bush there either, that's kissing off an awful lot of votes.

What a crappy set of options, even if you're a Republican.

[hamsterjill]

34. Paul Ryan

I agree - crappy set of options even for Republicans, but it is Ryan who's name I'm hearing.

Love that he keeps saying "no" when he really wants someone to beg him to run.

[Hortensis]

51. Speaking of libertarians: The Libertarian PARTY

and its candidate Gary Johnson as an alternative to Trump and the Democratic candidate.

The problem for the GOP pushing this option, of course, has to be that many might not come back for another election or two, or more. A while ago I read that the libertarian party leadership, watching the GOP trainwreck happen, was saying it wasn't about to let the mammoth GOP "take it over" either, so both parties are undoubtedly concerned about what a temporary union might do.

Nevertheless, there's been a big jump in searches on the libertarian option from people who aren't consulting the leadership of either party.

(Btw, libertarian is a personality type before it's a political ideology, and not one that could appeal to conservative personality types for very long at all. For very good reasons.)

[Hortensis]

31. That's one of 2 "all"s, though. The other is

to get on the ballot in enough states to make that possible. Apparently there are a bunch of hurdles in the way, not ruled out by the many who apparently want/plan to proceed, but...

I'm wondering what plan that strategic team put together at the beginning of the year for the "almost a dozen" anonymous conservative billionaires who wanted to run that other general. If they were able to provide a path and funding for an effort now, they'd probably be interested in "providing" a candidate also.

[Midwestern Democrat]

48. I don't see how they could possibly pull it off.

The only path to denying Hillary 270 electoral votes would be in the swing states - Trump's support in one of these states would have to vaporize to almost nothing to pull off a victory for the third party Republican. Take Ohio - suppose they recruit John Kasich to run as a third party candidate in that state. Suppose he could beat Hillary one on one - 55 to 45 (and I think that is very generous). If 45 is her minimum, Trump would have to be held to under 10% to allow Kasich to eke out a win.

The only electoral benefit I could see to running a third party Republican candidate might be helping save down ballot races - bringing out Republicans to the polls to cast a protest vote against Trump who might otherwise have stayed home.

[thesquanderer]

57. It's not specifically about the swing states, it's also about the blue-ish ones.

Last edited Tue May 10, 2016, 11:34 AM - Edit history (1)

One perspective is that Hillary's unfavorables (outside the base) are so high, that if she were running against a more popular Republican, she could actually lose some states that would otherwise lean more strongly to the Dem candidate. So it's not necessarily so much about the third candidate getting the swing states that Trump has a decent shot at, it could be more about taking away some of the blue-ish states where Trump has very little support, but where Hillary could be more vulnerable to a stronger opponent. Where--to extrapolate from your Ohio example--it may indeed be easier to hold Trump to small numbers.

With that in mind, look at the chart at http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard

Let's assume Hillary is going to get the states that are "Solid D" no matter what, that gives her only 190 truly solid EV, everything else is at least slightly in play.

So for example, if the third candidate takes (with as little as 34%) just Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, and some fifth state (i.e. any one out of Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, a Maine split, or any one of the swing states), Hillary can't get to 270 based on that chart (giving the rest of the blue or leaning blue states to Hillary, giving Trump the red and leaning red states, and giving the rest of the swing states to either one of them), and of course neither can Trump. So that tosses the election into the House.

As for your other point about the swing states, even using your premise that one-on-one against Kasich Hillary gets 45% in Ohio, I don't think that necessarily equates to her having a floor of 45 if she is up against two candidates instead of one. Basically, in a two-person race, almost every state has a floor of 45 for each of the two candidates, rarely do you see huge blowouts, but a third candidate can change the calculus.

I'm not saying it's easy, or even likely... just that it's not impossible.

[Nitram]

14. I don't think anyone is going to take that chance.

Expensive and doomed to failure.

[Hortensis]

17. You don't believe they can prevent Trump from

being elected, Nitram? My guess is that they almost certainly can if they do this and that Sufrommich is right that they will be fighting to save their brand from the gutter and polish it up. That would give them something other than this disastrous primary season to build on. If they do it right.

[Nitram]

18. No Hortensis, that is not what I said. I said that a third party conservative candidate

is unlikely to volunteer. It is Clinton and a majority of voters who will prevent Trump from winning.

[Hortensis]

19. Oh, sorry. Sure. A symbolic run could be paid for

by others, though. "Close to a dozen" anonymous conservative billionaires were reportedly trying to draft General Mattis to run earlier a few months ago, but Mattis declined. They'd put together a strategy team back then that may never have been dismantled. I'm wondering if the General Kelly, also USMC close to Mattis, on the list might be their fallback offering, or an offering to them?

For a career politician, like Senator Sasse, it could be a nice career boost to national prominence as a symbol of all the GOP's supposed to be (but isn't).

[former9thward]

38. Ahh no, it doesn't work that way.

The "Close to a dozen" anonymous conservative billionaires" can only contribute $2700 each to fund a candidate per campaign finance laws. There is no money to fund a third party at this point. Despite what the OP said some states deadlines are coming quickly. The deadline in Texas is three days from now (and a party would have to collect 80,000 signatures in those three days).

[Hortensis]

39. Um, dark money ads can generate a lot of donations.

And other candidates can invest unused campaign funds in other candidates. But I hope you're correct. That Senator Sasse looks really good in front of cameras.

[former9thward]

42. No, other candidates can't.

They are under the same $2700 limitation as everyone else.

[Hortensis]

43. True, forgot that important little limitation.

But call me cynical, but I don't think we need to overhaul campaign finance laws for nothing. No one talking on O'Donnell mentioned the impossibility of funding as a reason it wasn't going to happen. They discussed who though.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

46. It's a complex political calculus

I'm surprised Ben Sasse is not swallowing his pride and endorsing Trump, as he is putting his political future in extreme jeopardy. I didn't think he had that in him.

The fact that the Bushes despise Trump is clearly driving part of this, but I think there is more to it: few Republicans would admit this, but any Democratic President is a) unlikely to get a lot through Congress and b) is likely to be a one-termer. On the other hand, in the event that Trump wins, he'd likely be a one-termer, and he could damage the Republican brand for a generation. Take the argument further: a Republican-lite party that is more like Bush 1 or Ford -- fiscally conservative but not strident on conservative social issues -- could appeal to white suburbanites. They may be looking ahead to the inevitable split in their party, and hoping to reinvent themselves for 2020.

[KamaAina]

22. I've never even heard of Ben Sasse. And I'm a political junkie.

If they hope to take votes away from the vulgar talking yam, they'll need someone with name recognition outside the Senate office buildings.

[Hortensis]

28. Me either, but apparently he's very well regarded

among his colleagues and seen as an up and comer. If they're going to elevate someone to party leader, it'd be desirable if it was someone they want to move up anyway. Ryan would be, and I was wondering why he wasn't on the list. Romney and Rand Paul at least wouldn't make that list.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

47. Young, very conservative Senator from Nebraska

He ran on an anti-Obamacare platform, and had been considered a rising star in the GOP. He is not pretty much gambling his entire career.

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. I will believe it when someone declares their intention to run.

Until then, it is a pipe dream.
I do expect the libertarians to have a banner year in this election.

[oldandhappy]

29. what a crazy year

If you fell asleep in 2008 and woke up in 2016, what would you think? Zowie.

[Hortensis]

53. I think I'd be really afraid to fall asleep again!

It is truly bizarre. But it makes me wish I'd become a political scientist and was studying and analyzing knowledgeably. What an era.

[hughee99]

40. Who would it be? The republicans themselves didn't seem to like any of the "real" republicans that

ran in the primary.

[octoberlib]

41. Just saw this on Twitter

Robert Costa ?@costareports 16m16 minutes ago
NEWS: ROMNEY took the meeting... he met privately w/ Kristol on Thurs at JW Marriott in DC. Kristol urged Romney to consider indpnt bid...



Robert Costa ?@costareports 15m15 minutes ago
Romney remains unwilling to run, per person close to him. But Kristol courted him. Said he should run or at least support bid, if it happens


https://twitter.com/costareports

[Egnever]

44. This begs the question

If they ran another republican and that republican gets less votes than Trump. Where does that leave the party?

[Hortensis]

49. Good point. But what if it was a very high-road campaign,

mainly a marketing campaign for "true" conservative values, restyled for what focus groups say appalled mainstream pubs want to hear now? Designed both to split the presidential vote but also to achieve as many down-ticket victories as possible?

Although, of course, they'd love to throw the election to the GOP-controlled House, if that was really possible, shouldn't they would have gotten moving as soon as they realized Trump was likely to win?

The original discussion I heard was just of the GOP considering what they had to do to keep Trump from becoming president. They realized that they had created Frankenstein and they had to stop him from rampaging in the GOP house -- with the nuclear codes. Just to block him and repair a lot of the damage so far, they could let the GOP voters know this wonderful shining "real Republican" candidate knew he probably could not win but was running FOR conservative values -- because someone has to stand up for them, yada-yada. A lot of conservatives right now have no one to vote for, even symbolically.

[Egnever]

73. I think this is the scenario they would be shooting for.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7812446

Neither Trump nor Clinton is acceptable to them.

The reasons for running a third candidate are twofold:

1. The electoral college requirement that the president receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (270) makes it so that if a very strong third candidate is running, then all 3 candidates are likely to not receive 270 votes. In that case, the Republican controlled House of Representatives picks the President. They will pick the Republican-backed third candidate.

2. There is actually a decent chance in this climate that such a candidate could win the electoral votes outright, but only if a MASSIVE GOTV campaign was started immediately (this is where the Koch brothers make their first entrance), because the 3rd candidate will need overwhelming numbers of voters to win under those conditions. They will need to push absentee ballots, early voting and same day registration in every strongly controlled Republican state that currently allows them (Ironic since Repubs have tried to disenfranchise us Dem voters by stifling early voting and same day registration) in order to garner those kind of numbers. In only strongly held Republican controlled states that don't yet have those laws they will need to have the Republican State Legislators quickly enact them. They will need to appeal to Independents who are moderate conservatives to pull this off and that is where the Koch brothers money comes in again--with ads--and they need to be 3/4 negative ads against the other 2 candidates and 1/4 positive re the 3rd candidate.) They will need to get this going before the end of this month to make it work and they will need to convince every Republican they can to withdraw all financial, infrastructure, and physical support from the Republican convention that they can that is not already under contract-ads, businesses, moderate down-ticket candidates, media etc. Bring a dark curtain down on it.

That's the strategy to save their party and get an acceptable candidate in.

[Skittles]

45. they didn't care to save the nation from Dubya

remember that "real republicans" stink too

[Hortensis]

50. Didn't save from? Didn't they ELECT that buffoon twice?

Oh, their behavior has stunk bad for a very long time--ever since they all allowed themselves to be manipulated right and into one group virulent nutcases to their right because they supposedly all shared the same "family values." Old-fashioned Southern Christian white values.

[glowing]

54. I think it would be interesting if they do... Many have said, if there are 2 Pub candidates in the

GE, then Bernie running as an Independent would be pushed as well. It could make for a very interesting GE year if we had 4 candidates for the American people to choose from...

The thing is, with say a Trump, Hillary, and establishment Republican, in a year of voters rejecting the establishment, big money, corporate candidates, is that Trump may actually win. How different would Hillary or an establishment Republican really sound at a debate against Trump? On the economy, foreign involvement and hawkish stances to up the war against ISIS, and the issues of the economy with trade and loss of good paying jobs? Trump is saying "populist" types of ideas. He doesn't do an inclusive agenda like Bernie takes, but uses misogynistic, racist, and divisive rhetoric to blame these problems that millions of people are facing in their real lives on an "other".

Now, if Bernie came in as a 4th candidate in the GE, he would have the populist message, be anti-establishment, speak inclusively, and tap into the Independents who weren't allowed to vote in many primaries and caucuses to rally around his message. And I think he would bring a lot of people into the process. I think Voter participation would increase; especially with the 30 and younger generation who haven't participated all that much. He might actually pull out a victory of 270 with a 4 way race. Plus, you know how nasty 2 Republican candidates would be piling up the assault on Hillary. If you think Bernie has been "tough" on her (lol), just wait until the nasty from the Pukes start in on her. Trump is already calling her Corrupt Hillary. The e-mails and items within those e-mails will be dripped out and thrown around from now and until November. AND they will go after the Clinton Foundation and her roll in the State Dept. AND Libya will be a humongous focus. They will even have President Obama's own words saying his biggest regret was Libya. AND then the connection from Ghadaffi's opponent placing $500,000.00 into the Foundation's coffers, and then the US involving itself in regime change within a few days. It's going to be one ugly GE season. Having a Bernie choice in the race may just save the US from itself.

[sendero]

59. I'll bet you.....

..... this doesn't happen. For so many reasons I don't have time to type them in.

Biggest reason: the party does not like Trump but they are not going to just throw away the election over him, and the senate.

Not going to happen.

[L. Coyote]

63. Can they set the rules for the convention still, have delegates free to vote any way they want?

Are they this backed into the corner already?

[GOPblows431]

70. If that happens, hopefully that candidate will eat into Trump's votes

And guarantee a Democratic win.

[Demonaut]

77. split their vote all the way to the polls and a democratic win!

[Egnever]

79. There is a frightening scenario in that.

I will let another poster lay it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7812446

Neither Trump nor Clinton is acceptable to them.

The reasons for running a third candidate are twofold:

1. The electoral college requirement that the president receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (270) makes it so that if a very strong third candidate is running, then all 3 candidates are likely to not receive 270 votes. In that case, the Republican controlled House of Representatives picks the President. They will pick the Republican-backed third candidate.

2. There is actually a decent chance in this climate that such a candidate could win the electoral votes outright, but only if a MASSIVE GOTV campaign was started immediately (this is where the Koch brothers make their first entrance), because the 3rd candidate will need overwhelming numbers of voters to win under those conditions. They will need to push absentee ballots, early voting and same day registration in every strongly controlled Republican state that currently allows them (Ironic since Repubs have tried to disenfranchise us Dem voters by stifling early voting and same day registration) in order to garner those kind of numbers. In only strongly held Republican controlled states that don't yet have those laws they will need to have the Republican State Legislators quickly enact them. They will need to appeal to Independents who are moderate conservatives to pull this off and that is where the Koch brothers money comes in again--with ads--and they need to be 3/4 negative ads against the other 2 candidates and 1/4 positive re the 3rd candidate.) They will need to get this going before the end of this month to make it work and they will need to convince every Republican they can to withdraw all financial, infrastructure, and physical support from the Republican convention that they can that is not already under contract-ads, businesses, moderate down-ticket candidates, media etc. Bring a dark curtain down on it.

That's the strategy to save their party and get an acceptable candidate in.

[Feathery Scout]

84. Ben Sasse has rejected Running as a 3rd Party Presidential Candidate.

Although he strongly supports the idea of another Republican competitor entering the race, as he despises both Trump and Hillary.

[lindysalsagal]

86. If fRump got most of the gop vote in primaries, why would those voters change?

The same people are going to vote for him again in the general, if not more.

The gop's gonna lose members by the millions if they do that.

[dembotoz]

89. my understanding is that it is too late to get on a lot of ballots

the 2 major parties like it that way.
ever since the populist party of williams jenning bryant

they rigged the deck

[Corey_Baker08]

90. Not Likely, Republicans Know This Would Hand Democrat's The Election