The Trump campaign needs 3rd party voters to garner roughly 5-8% of the vote in battleground states. That’s enough to move a state from a clear loss to competitive.
One 3rd party candidate isn’t enough, because they need to motivate multiple segments of the electorate that would otherwise be prone to sit this one out, or vote against Trump.
Trump isn’t working with a large number of persuadables…they have their base, and not much else. The base is pretty solid, and isn’t jumping ship. They need the base to turn out in force, and they need as many people as possible that won’t vote for him…to vote for anyone else but the Dem nominee.
This is going to work out so well when Sanders is the nominee and he’s in the hospital the night before the election having a stent implanted in an artery.
The GOP just need 3-6% in most purple states.
So one with anti gun positions and one with anti tax cuts positions, and it’s President Trump’s 2nd term.
Maybe. Its hard to do any serious analysis this far out. But 3% probably won’t save him in 2020. It took about 5% in 2016 to swing WI and MI, about 3% in PA. He is going to need it to be even bigger this time around, because there is going to be bigger Dem turnout.
We need an environment that has favorable conditions for ethical parties. The Supreme Court has poisoned the ground that would have allowed ethical parties to compete on even footing with corrupt parties.
It is NEVER easy to mount a 3rd party campaign. Its incredibly expensive and time consuming to just get on the ballot in 50 states…or even just the so called battleground states.
If he isn’t running as part of an existing 3rd party (Greens or Libertarians, basically), then he will have to pay for multiple law suits as well.
Then he needs to pay for all his media coverage. No debate stage for him. No state infrastructure to help get the word out. And building a ground organization from scratch isn’t cheap, either.
He shouldn’t count on lots of free media coverage, either. The media gets bored with these type of candidacies pretty quickly…look at Howard Schultz.
There had to be no small amount of Trump fans that sat out 2016 at the polls. And Trump won a fairly comfortable Electoral College victory with only 46% of the vote. Dem turnout will be important, but only in a scant few states. Generating additional enthusiasm in NY, CA or MA does no good. Let’s hope party elders target a logical subset of states for voter turnout efforts. If the nominee spends appreciable time outside of OH, PA, MI, WI, AZ, NV and NC we’ll know we’re doomed. FL and GA may be in play, but a helluva lot of money and time would be required.
Those barriers are real and a good thing. However, finding the money these days by Trump’s cabal seems to be backed by Saudi Oil, Russian Oligarchs and Eastern European fascism. I’m not too hopeful that the current Ukrainian debacle will make them stop breaking the law to win.
FL is always in play, and will be again in 2020. Looking at 2018 when the Governor and Senate races (and every state wide race for that matter) were decided by less than 1% and deciding…oh, that on is out of reach, don’t go there is idiotic. Only TX and CA have more EVs, and there is NO path to victory for GOP without FL.
And there are already more Dems registered to vote then there were in 2018. And there will be even more by next November.
But yes, FL will be expensive. Its a big state, geographically, and has some of the most expensive media markets in the country. You don’t get to concentrate on just, Atlanta, for example…you have to be in Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Pensacola
If people want to worry, the real thing they should be worried about is what happens if Trump isn’t the nominee.
If Trump is gone, be it from resignation in disgrace, resignation for health, dies, or is removed…every analysis on next year gets thrown out the window. But almost assuredly, Dem turnout drops.
Well, I can see you are a strategic thinker, and that is a very good thing btw. This thought crossed my mind for a fleeting second but the thought was too scary. Not just because of the voter issues, but the chaos and revanchism that will take to the streets come next November.
My vision had face scarf covered Magat hat wearing thugs shooting up polling stations with their Wal-Mart AR-15’s out of revenge for overturning their dear leader. So I stopped thinking about it.
Stack told us he had the option to send the weapons his store removed back to the manufacturer for a refund between 80% and 85%. Another possibility would be to quickly liquidate the merchandise through discounts. Neither choice aligned with the company’s intentions
The egotism (and sheer boredom) exhibited among conservative billionaires these days has never been more apparent. I suppose they are sick of wasting their easily-earned money from exploiting American workers on such a rich slob of a Russian Mafia hood?
That’s all we need…another billionaire business man trying to govern as if it were a corporation.
I’ve worked in corporations…I’ve met lots of senior management in corporations. Not a one of them could lead a federal government. There’s simply too much they simply don’t get beginning with the fact that making a lot of money doesn’t qualify anyone to do anything. Rich people can as be dumb as a bag of hammers, as gramps used to say, and, frankly, often are.
My first goal is to always be snarky but serious. it was an honest question though, and the article does say he got 80-85% refunding. So not destroyed but returned.
From your fingers to the Great Spaghetti Monsters ends.