Prediction, go ahead and bookmark this and revisit it when the time is right.

[Eliot Rosewater]

A candidate will eventually run 3rd party.

That 3rd party candidacy will assure the reelection of rump or if impeached whoever the GOP runs for prez.

If by SOME MIRACLE it doesnt reelect the nazi, it will be because people like myself and others FOUGHT against the 3rd party candidacy.

No reason to discuss this now, just bookmark it, nothing more.

[Funtatlaguy]

1. You mean Starbucks Schultz or someone else?

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. Stay tuned

[Funtatlaguy]

3. You are a tease. Lol.

[MH1]

4. Any chance of Weld unseating Rump for the R nomination?

Okay I guess not likely but I know there are a lot of R voters who would be relieved to be able to vote for an R who was respectable even if not fully in line with their policies. These are people who would NEVER vote Dem but also hate having to vote for Rump. I could see them (the ones I know personally in this category) complaining about Weld being not conservative enough, but voting for him anyway.

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. Interesting question.

The base of the GOP are now ignorant people of a certain color that I cant use the word for without drawing MASSIVE unwanted attention who HATE anyone who are not also that color.

But, as you ask, are there enough semi decent people in the GOP to turn the tide, I doubt it but maybe.

[sacto95834]

19. Maybe...

I think Weld did damage to his standing in the mainstream Republican Party when he ran as the Libertarian VP nominee recently. He is definitely on the left side of the Republican Party - what used to be the Ford Republican.

If it's just him and the Orange Menace he might have a chance. He would get all the NOT Trump voters of the party. In 2016 that block of voters had more candidates to choose from and no one really gained traction. I think if Jeb Bush ran again, as repulsive a thought that is, he might fare well if it's just him and Orange.

[dsc]

48. zero

He is pro choice and appointed the majority of the court that gave Massachusetts marriage equality.

[Awsi Dooger]

60. It's unbelievable that zero wasn't the first reply

Zero is the only answer. Once I see a non-Zero reply to that question it's difficult to take anything else seriously, because that person is overthinking matters

[jalan48]

6. There's a third party candidate in every Presidential election.

[Eliot Rosewater]

7. More than one usually, but the one I am talking about wont have 2% support like Stein

or whoever else.

I guess any candidate NOT in one of the two parties is a 3rd party candidate.

[jalan48]

10. Yes. I don't see it happening this time around but maybe in the future.

[11 Bravo]

27. Thanks for the reminder. I haven't said ...

FUCK JILL STEIN for way too long!

[BlueFlorida]

8. His/her ego will prevent him/her

from running 3rd party and going down in history as a traitor to his/her own cause.

He/she will sit back and let his/her minions vote for some stooge like Stein and then he/she will write an "I told you so" book. There is money in books you know?

[Eliot Rosewater]

9. Not this time. stay tuned

[murielm99]

11. Depends.

Many states have rules against someone running as a "sore loser" candidate. If they have already run in a primary as a candidate for one political party, they cannot not get on the ballot as a third party candidate in the general.

This would be true of some announced candidates who are likely to be sore losers. I will not dignify anyone by naming him/her.

If that person is an announced candidate right now, they would have to drop out before the primaries and caucuses.

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. I did NOT know that. If that is the case then my prediction may not come true.

Thanks for the info, I wonder if everybody knows this.

[murielm99]

17. I think this covers it:

https://ballotpedia.org/Sore_loser_laws_in_the_50_states

I like ballotpedia.org

[Celerity]

22. Only the states of Connecticut, Iowa, New York, and Vermont have neither a sore-loser law nor

simultaneous registration deadlines in regards to Presidential candidates.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sore-loser_law

In most states, these laws do not apply to presidential candidates. Many states accomplish the same requirement by having simultaneous registration dates for the primary and the general election. Only the states of Connecticut, Iowa, New York, and Vermont have neither a sore-loser law nor simultaneous registration deadlines.

[murielm99]

64. I don't trust Wikipedia on this.

When it says the laws do not apply to presidential candidates, we will see. I think it may have to be decided in court, on a case by case basis.

[Celerity]

65. re-read, most all of the states have simultaneous primary/general registration dates

In other words, you have to register for BOTH the primaries AND the general on same date.

Many states accomplish the same requirement by having simultaneous registration dates for the primary and the general election.

[radical noodle]

61. I'm not sure but

I think if that person becomes the nominee of an existing party (such as the Libertarian Party, for example) that would be allowed.

[murielm99]

63. I think the simultaneous registration

and the sore loser laws cover nearly everything.

Illinois had 102 counties. The county clerk is the election authority in each county. They are responsible for putting people on the ballots and printing the ballots. The "sore loser" would need enough resources and feet on the ground to get on the ballot on all 102 counties. And this is only one state. Some states would sue. It would be a mess. A write-in campaign might produce the desired chaos some people prefer, but it is not a path to victory. Surely the person would not get on the ballots in all fifty states.

[JonLP24]

13. Sanders didn't run as a third party in 2016

And this year he is more likely to win the nomination. Find something real.

[Eliot Rosewater]

14. Who?

[JonLP24]

15. You didn't say who to post #8

Who also thinks you mean Sanders.

[murielm99]

18. LOL

[W_HAMILTON]

16. He's less likely to win the nomination.

If he couldn't win the nomination with ~45% of the vote in 2016, he ain't gonna win it with 20% - 30% of the vote in 2020.

[JonLP24]

20. There are a lot more candidates splitting the vote

If Biden doesnt run he picks up most of his support if he doesn't he is first or second in the polls. He is a lot more likely than last time.

[Autumn]

21. Why would Bernie run third party when he's running under the Dem banner as a Democrat

with the Democratic leadership blessings? Do you realize how many time third parties have run in our countries presidential elections?

Now with Bernie, it's a real problem.

[BlueFlorida]

23. The question is

what will he do if .. I mean when ... he loses?

[NurseJackie]

24. Very much looking forward to finding out.

Can't wait! (Yes, "when".)

[Autumn]

28. He'll do the same thing he did last time. Campaign for the nominee. EOM

[BlueFlorida]

31. I must have missed that

I saw him campaigning for our revolution but the nominee?

Do you have a link where they had a joint rally or two?

[Autumn]

36. He campaigned for Hillary and yes they appeared together. Maybe you were busy and missed it

There's even a picture of them together on stage where they look pretty happy and energetic in the link if you decide to read the article.

https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59097b9ac14b3c606c10949c/master/w_649,c_limit/Davidson-BernieSandersStillontheCampaignTrail.jpg

Bernie Sanders, who has spent weeks travelling on behalf of Hillary Clinton, appeared with her and Pharrell Williams at an event in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Thursday night.

One of the many things that makes Donald Trump angry is that Bernie Sanders does not seem to hold grudges. In recent speeches, Trump has pointed to the information that has come out, through WikiLeaks’ disclosures of John Podesta’s e-mails, about the Clinton team’s attitude toward Sanders during the primaries: the slights (“doofus”), the schemes (“where would you stick the knife?”), and the eye-rolling (“socialist math”). Perhaps worst of all—at least from Trump’s point of view—was Donna Brazile’s passing along of debate questions. "Now, Bernie Sanders should be angry right? Shouldn’t he be angry?” Trump asked a crowd in Florida. He sounded a little bit puzzled—he would be so mad.

The truth is that Bernie Sanders is very, very angry—at Donald Trump. He is angry enough to have spent weeks travelling on behalf of Hillary Clinton, speaking for her in union halls and arenas, to students and activists. When he talks, he is entirely Bernie—“We are going to fight for that democracy; we are not going to become an oligarchy”—and he hints strongly that he has done some negotiating with her before getting on the stage, and will continue to do so after, as he hopes, she is elected. When praising her positions, he often says “Secretary Clinton has told me” or “Secretary Clinton has promised,” as though he knows that it might not work, with the sort of swing audiences he is dispatched to persuade (students, working-class voters), simply to declare that taking these stands is in her nature. But he knows what he wants: for her to win. “This campaign is not a personality contest,” Sanders said near the beginning of a speech in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Thursday night. “We’re not voting for high-school president. We’re voting for the most powerful leader in the entire world.” He had been introduced by Pharrell Williams, the musician, who was now sitting on the stage with Clinton herself, as if it were an actual high-school election. Statements like that serve to remind Sanders’s supporters that they don’t need to be charmed by Hillary Clinton—he is over it, and they ought to be, too. But, if personality doesn’t matter, the person does.

“There are many, many differences between Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump,” Sanders told the crowd. "But there is one that is very, very profound. Are you ready for a very radical thought right now? I don’t want anyone to faint! I think we have some paramedics here”—“paramedics here” is, it turns out, an excellent phrase for demonstrating a Brooklyn accent—“but I do want to make this announcement. Are you ready for it?” The crowd indicated that it was. "All right. Madam Secretary, you correct me if I’m wrong here; I don’t want to misspeak for you—Secretary Clinton believes in science!”

When the cheering had abated, Sanders continued, "I know I put her in a difficult position—2016, to believe in science, a little bit dangerous—but what the heck.” He then referred to her "very specific ideas” for combatting climate change, before turning to the mind of Donald Trump. “After years and years of studying the issue from a scientific perspective—I’m joking, I’m joking—he has concluded that climate change is a hoax emanating from China. Now, why he chose China and not Mexico or some Muslim country, I don’t know.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/bernie-sanderss-hard-fight-for-hillary-clinton

[George II]

51. That was just days before Election Day. The Convention closed July 28.....

....he didn't make an appearance for Clinton until Labor Day, about six weeks after the Convention.

[NurseJackie]

33. Delayed. Grudgingly. It lacked vigor, energy and sincerity...

... what we actually heard was more like his regular old stump speech (setting the stage for 2020?) and less about creating unity and supporting the party's nominee. The convention ended on July 28th, and Bernie was nowhere to be seen until September. Five weeks later!

Why? What was the delay? Where was he? What was he doing all that time?

All I'm saying is that that Bernie missed the boat when it comes to that crucial period of rallying his old supporters to support the party's nominee. AFTER the convention, there's a brief window of opportunity to show unity and to be the type of leader who puts personal feelings and disappointments BEHIND the bigger priorities of defeating the GOP.

I just didn't see that in Bernie's words or actions. I'm amazed that anyone would find what appeared to be lethargic and perfunctory appearances, to be a point of pride. Most reasonable people saw it as somewhat of a lackluster disappointment.

[BlueFlorida]

37. That was my impression as well

Nothing like what Hillary did for Obama in 2008 -- she worked her butt off.

[George II]

46. As reported in the Washington Post (pay site, sorry):

September 5, 2016

"He reluctantly and belatedly endorsed her."

"The Vermont senator will make his first post-convention campaign pitch for Clinton on Monday" [Labor Day]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/05/bernie-sanders-is-finally-campaigning-for-hillary-clinton-but-does-she-even-need-him/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8659d6b7e32d

[NurseJackie]

52. Yeah... that's how I remember it. It was LATE and UNENTHUSIASTIC...

Yeah... that's how I remember it. It was LATE and UNENTHUSIASTIC. I think a lot of BS supporters probably followed his lead. I know that Jane certainly did with regard to her election day tweet. She couldn't even be bothered to say "vote for Hillary". It was, instead, a very non-committal tweet that it didn't matter who you voted for as long as you voted. (Fact of the matter is, it DOES matter who you vote for.)

EDIT: Found it (below.) What an amazing thing to say. "Head and heart at odds for many" ??? Seriously, Jane? Not very inspirational or motivational! Honestly, it sounds like she's giving permission to NOT vote for our party's nominee... or maybe she was hinting how she was going to vote.



What was she trying to prove, anyway? Clearly she had no more fucks to give.

[Eliot Rosewater]

58. On Steph Miller today poll says 20% of BS followers will NOT vote for ANY dem in general

I wonder what the percentage is on message boards.

[NurseJackie]

59. Among angry and bitter malcontents, it's likely to be higher...

Among angry and bitter malcontents, it's likely to be higher... no matter where they hang out in real life or in digital life.

That's why I just give up on them all as lost causes. I've been criticizes for having that opinion and I'm chided with reminders about "big tent" and "every vote counts" and all that. BUT, I continue to maintain that for the amount of time and effort it takes to convince ONE malcontent to support Democrats, the same effort could result in dozens of enthusiastic party supporters and members (who would in turn go out and spread the Gospel, too.)

All I'm saying is the ROI (return on investment) is greater, more productive, more efficient... and it reaps greater rewards than focusing all one's effort on a solitary voter who, when it comes right down to it, may not even bother to vote anyway.

[Hortensis]

53. We knew it and all his remaining, zealous supporters knew it.

[George II]

45. Last time he didn't make an appearance until Labor Day, which was almost six weeks....

....after the convention.

Contrast that with 2008, when Hillary Clinton joined nominee Barack Obama on a campaign bus tour just a couple of days after the convention.

[Celerity]

25. If Bernie wins our nomination, I will predict Schultz and Bloomberg both jump in

3 way crossfire backed by well over a billion and half between the Rethugs, and the 2 billionaires. I say both will jump in due to a pact, so one of them (say Schultz) would not take all the blame for Trump's re-election. Would be interesting to see if any of our big guns join either as VP. I cannot see any who would. The 2 billionaires would probably grab Kasich and another never-Trumper Rethug (Weld maybe, but sore-loser laws will block him if he mans up v the orange bloat in the primaries), especially Schultz as he hates us Dems anyway.

Let us all hope my nightmare stays a fantasy.

[BlueFlorida]

26. Bloomberg may end up winning

Many republicans would vote for him.

25% for Trump with his racist/nazi base
19% for Bernie with his anti-corporation anti-rich people base

Plenty of voters left on the table for Bloomberg to take.


Disclaimer: I'll vote for Bernie if he is the nominee of the Democratic party.

[Autumn]

29. They will do what they will do. If Liz or Pete win what's to stop them from doing the same?

[Celerity]

30. Warren maybe, Pete is not nearly as far far left as Sanders, that is why (and the fact he is taking

votes away from Bernie) that the (non DU) OR/TYT/Sirota hardcore storm-troopers are going full attack mode. I went to a Bernie site and they HATE HATE Buttigieg, almost as much, if not more than Biden and Harris. They even dislike Warren (WTF?), Cory, and Gabbard (figured they would like her and she is a Bernie huge supporter). It is a cult IMHO.

I love a lot of Bernie's policies, but I want to beat Trump. I do NOT love the non-DU Berners. I have brought over a lot of my friends to support Pete, but some still are for Bernie, and a couple are so not like last time, in 2016. They are just nasty atm. One I stopped talking to for now. I grew up with her in London (we both are dual citizens, US/UK and we had a falling out over Brexit (I was Remain, she was Leave). I do not understand the animosity flowing from the camp. Thank dog there are zero Sanders supporters here like that (unless I have yet to meet them).

If Pete cannot take Biden in the primaries, then Joe has a warrior in me come the general. Same for Warren, Harris, Beto, Booker, Abrams (IF she runs and wins, which I think she runs for the Senate, which I prefer). Same for Bernie, but I will admit to being in great fear of Trump winning at that point.

[Autumn]

34. Wow. I belong to a couple of closed Sanders FB groups and they don't

hate Pete or Warren. Warren and Sanders have a lot in common. For the most part, everyone in the groups were all okay with Biden, till the "he wants to kill Bernie " remark after the Flores story broke.

[BlueFlorida]

38. Closed FB groups

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Autumn]

39. Yeah, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. They are closed to avoid trolls and bots.

[BlueFlorida]

40. That would be one reason nt

[Autumn]

41. I take it you will read the link proving Bernie campaigned with and for Hillary later?

[BlueFlorida]

42. Just one joint appearance is not enough in my book

Hillary had 9 joint appearances with Obama in 2008.

But then again, she was smart and conceded when it was mathematically certain that she wouldn't win the nomination so she had more time.

[Autumn]

43. I have discovered that for some nothing Bernie will ever do is enough. A hundred joint

appearances together wouldn't be enough.

[BlueFlorida]

47. I can't speak for "some"

but to most, a handful of heartfelt and sincere joint appearances would have been more than enough. In solo appearances, showcasing Hillary would have also helped instead of the focus being on "our revolution" with barely a mention of Hillary.

Most people are reasonable and understanding. Their eyebrows are raised when something falls below the minimum expected.

[George II]

49. Pls. see post #46

[George II]

50. That explains a lot.

[Hortensis]

54. "Warren and Sanders have a lot in common"? NO.

Warren wouldn't endorse Sanders for president because their differences are far more profound. He courted her for months and even though, or perhaps because, she is passionately committed to her issues, she couldn't.

But, why are Sanders' folk suddenly claiming HE is a lot like HER now? One week they're badmouthing her, trying to sink her candidacy, the next, what? She has respectable coattails he's trying to grab onto?

[Autumn]

55. You want to find a post where I have bad mouthed Warren? Go for it, you won't find one. nt

[Hortensis]

56. No, and I'm not going to search and grab various

hostile posts from anyone here on DU, much less a storm of them elsewhere. It was kind of astonishing for me to see, given that she was the original progressive on steroids that Sanders copied. And I was hardly the only one struck that issues seemingly meant nothing to those attacking her, only that she was competition for Sanders.

[Autumn]

57. Whatever. Like I said you won't find one. nt

[TCJ70]

66. Look...Warren is in my top three, but there's no way she was the "original progressive...

...that Sanders copied". She was a Republican until the 90's...

[Hortensis]

67. She created the can-do excitement in this century

and then a disappointed vacuum when she declined to run in 2015 that Sanders decided to try to fill. I know. I was one of the disappointed ones who then looked eagerly at him to see if he might do and realized after very little research that he wouldn't do.

As expected, he's failed miserably to take her place, but I couldn't predict then how disastrously.

Before that, though, I-Sanders was notable only for the I next to his name in pictures of senate members and funny anecdotes among his colleagues about his boorish, disrespectful behaviors. He had and still has no record of any significant achievement in going on 30 years in congress, progressive or otherwise.

[keithbvadu2]

35. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader

Ross Perot and Ralph Nader

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. There are always multiple parties.

Some times the hurt the left. Some times they hurt the right. And some times they hurt both parties equally. But they seem to hurt us more than the right. The law third party candidacy to hurt the right was George Wallace's third party run in 1968.

[Awsi Dooger]

62. If we lose it will be due to incumbency, and not a third party

The benefit of incumbency is never emphasized enough. Issues don't even matter. Logic doesn't matter. People will vote for the known quantity if they feel comfortable with their daily lives.

Third party candidates allow people who fixate on trivial day to day issues to fixate on yet another one.

[Eliot Rosewater]

68. WRONG