No Candidate Reaches 270

[Moderate Right]

Hillary has high negatives. Trump has high negatives. Assuming that this is the year of the third party and the most viable third party candidate is Gary Johnson, let's also assume that Johnson gets enough electoral votes that no candidate reaches 270. In this event the House of Representatives votes to determine who will be president out of the top three candidates getting electoral votes. Realistically, since the House is Republican controlled by a large margin, Hillary is automatically out of the running so the contest is between Trump and Johnson. Who does the House elect president?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Hillary has high negatives. Trump has high negatives. Assuming that this is the year of the third party and the most viable third party candidate is Gary Johnson, let's also assume that Johnson gets enough electoral votes that no candidate reaches 270. In this event the House of Representatives votes to determine who will be president out of the top three candidates getting electoral votes. Realistically, since the House is Republican controlled by a large margin, Hillary is automatically out of the running so the contest is between Trump and Johnson. Who does the House elect president?

Don't get your hopes up, its not going to happen. If a Republican wants to win the presidency, they have to win 40% or more of the Hispanic vote. Trump does not stand a chance in hell of doing that. He won't just lose, electorally he will lose by a good margin.

This notion that Trump will make up the difference with white men is ridiculous. Romney got a bigger percentage of the white vote than even Reagan did yet he still lost. There is no more white vote to get for Trump than what Romney or McCain got.

 

[Harshaw]

Don't get your hopes up, its not going to happen. If a Republican wants to win the presidency, they have to win 40% or more of the Hispanic vote. Trump does not stand a chance in hell of doing that. He won't just lose, electorally he will lose by a good margin.

This notion that Trump will make up the difference with white men is ridiculous. Romney got a bigger percentage of the white vote than even Reagan did yet he still lost. There is no more white vote to get for Trump than what Romney or McCain got.

This really does not address his question at all, save to actually bolster the scenario of it.

 

[Moderate Right]

Don't get your hopes up, its not going to happen. If a Republican wants to win the presidency, they have to win 40% or more of the Hispanic vote. Trump does not stand a chance in hell of doing that. He won't just lose, electorally he will lose by a good margin.

This notion that Trump will make up the difference with white men is ridiculous. Romney got a bigger percentage of the white vote than even Reagan did yet he still lost. There is no more white vote to get for Trump than what Romney or McCain got.

I realize that it is the longest of the long shots but sometimes HailMary's win a football game. The future has yet to be written and who knows what events will happen in the next few months. Maybe there will be several large terrorist attacks by Muslims in the US and Trump's message will resonate more and more. And, by the way, I'm not saying that I hope that happens.

 

[Harshaw]

Hillary has high negatives. Trump has high negatives. Assuming that this is the year of the third party and the most viable third party candidate is Gary Johnson, let's also assume that Johnson gets enough electoral votes that no candidate reaches 270. In this event the House of Representatives votes to determine who will be president out of the top three candidates getting electoral votes. Realistically, since the House is Republican controlled by a large margin, Hillary is automatically out of the running so the contest is between Trump and Johnson. Who does the House elect president?

Hard to say. It certainly wouldn't automatically be Trump.

 

[Goshin]

Hillary has high negatives. Trump has high negatives. Assuming that this is the year of the third party and the most viable third party candidate is Gary Johnson, let's also assume that Johnson gets enough electoral votes that no candidate reaches 270. In this event the House of Representatives votes to determine who will be president out of the top three candidates getting electoral votes. Realistically, since the House is Republican controlled by a large margin, Hillary is automatically out of the running so the contest is between Trump and Johnson. Who does the House elect president?

I can't accept the premise. No Libertarian candidate has ever won a single electoral vote.


Let me emphasize that properly:

No Libertarian candidate has ever won a single electoral vote.


Ross Perot, despite a well-funded and rather popular independent campaign, did not take a single electoral vote.



The odds of Johnson taking enough electoral votes to prevent one of the main party candidates from reaching 270 does not even rise to "snowball in hell" odds. More like the odds that you'll be struck by lightning while being bitten by a shark.


(Correction: in 1972 the first-ever Libertarian candidate got ONE electoral vote but it was not "won", it came from a "faithless elector"--- an electoral rep who didn't vote as his constituency voted. No Libertarian has gotten one since, and the Libertarian candidate has rarely gotten over 1% of the vote, never 2%. Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote and zero electoral votes, and his was the best 3rd party result in over 50 years.)

 

[Harshaw]

I can't accept the premise. No Libertarian candidate has ever won a single electoral vote.


Let me emphasize that properly:

No Libertarian candidate has ever won a single electoral vote.


Ross Perot, despite a well-funded and rather popular independent campaign, did not take a single electoral vote.



The odds of Johnson taking enough electoral votes to prevent one of the main party candidates from reaching 270 does not even rise to "snowball in hell" odds. More like the odds that you'll be struck by lightning while being bitten by a shark.

There's also never been a year where large portions of both parties are sickened by their respective nominees, both of whom are deeply unpopular in general.

 

[Crovax]

Let me emphasize that properly:

No Libertarian candidate has ever won a single electoral vote.

Well that's a lie or maybe you are just a kid

Study some history and get back to me

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972

 

[Goshin]

Well that's a lie or maybe you are just a kid

Study some history and get back to me

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972

I edited my post to correct that, but my statement was still CORRECT: he did not "win" that electoral vote, it came from a "faithless elector" who did not vote as his constituency required. It was given wrongfully, not won.


I am 50 years old sir. Hardly a kid.

 

[Crovax]

I edited my post to correct that, but my statement was still CORRECT: he did not "win" that electoral vote, it came from a "faithless elector" who did not vote as his constituency required. It was given wrongfully, not won.


I am 50 years old sir. Hardly a kid.

You don't "win" electoral votes, whoever the elector votes for is who the vote goes to. The libertarian got the vote in a correct, albeit unusual, manner.

If you don't want to be mistaken for a kid then I would refrain from making childish statements

 

[Goshin]

There's also never been a year where large portions of both parties are sickened by their respective nominees, both of whom are deeply unpopular in general.

Perhaps not to this degree, but there have been plenty of elections in the past 50 years where many people were deeply displeased by their own party candidate. Bush vs Clinton is one example, Bush II vs Kerry another. Neither generated 2% for the Libertarian candidate.



I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that THIS election, with so much general disgust for our choices, MIGHT see the very first time a Libertarian breaks 2% in the Presidential election. Maybe. The odds of changing a single electoral vote are still snowball-in-hell.


Vote for Johnson if you like. He will NOT win. It WILL be either Hillary or Trump.


Making hard decisions between unpalatable choices is sometimes unavoidable.

 

[Harshaw]

Perhaps not to this degree, but there have been plenty of elections in the past 50 years where many people were deeply displeased by their own party candidate. Bush vs Clinton is one example, Bush II vs Kerry another. Neither generated 2% for the Libertarian candidate.



I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that THIS election, with so much general disgust for our choices, MIGHT see the very first time a Libertarian breaks 2% in the Presidential election. Maybe. The odds of changing a single electoral vote are still snowball-in-hell.


Vote for Johnson if you like. He will NOT win. It WILL be either Hillary or Trump.


Making hard decisions between unpalatable choices is sometimes unavoidable.

I'm not making any predictions. I'm only saying that this is not a typical year, and things which wouldn't normally be possible are possible this year.

I've already made my decision; I'll vote Johnson even if I think he's only going to get 0.0001%.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I don't know. I'm convinced that the majority of Republican leadership doesn't want Trump to win. Most of those who have endorsed him did so as not to alienate Trump voters and because they don't think he will win anyway.

While I don't want the vote to fall into the hands of the House it would actually put them on the hook. If Trump turned out to be the disaster many of them think he will be and voted for him anyway, their careers would be over. Of course their careers would likely be over if they voted for Hillary. Hmm, maybe Johnson WOULD have a chance.

 

[Goshin]

You don't "win" electoral votes, whoever the elector votes for is who the vote goes to. The libertarian got the vote in a correct, albeit unusual, manner.

If you don't want to be mistaken for a kid then I would refrain from making childish statements

Telling the truth and facing reality are not childish acts.



Insulting those who do so, however.... hmm.

 

[Goshin]

I'm not making any predictions. I'm only saying that this is not a typical year, and things which wouldn't normally be possible are possible this year.

I've already made my decision; I'll vote Johnson even if I think he's only going to get 0.0001%.

I begrudge no man to act according to his conscience.


I just hope a year or two from now circumstances do not compel regrets.


President Trump is not a thought that fills me with joy and confidence... but President Hillary may be more than the tattered shreds of our Republic can bear.


I have made my choice as well: namely that keeping Hillary out of the Oval Office is the most important thing that needs to happen this year. She may well be the most corrupt and selfish individual to run in my lifetime, and may make Obama's tenure look like a mere speed-bump in comparison.


If the choice is going to come down to one kind of asshole or another, the buffoon will probably do less damage than the witch.

 

[Harshaw]

I begrudge no man to act according to his conscience.


I just hope a year or two from now circumstances do not compel regrets.


President Trump is not a thought that fills me with joy and confidence... but President Hillary may be more than the tattered shreds of our Republic can bear.


I have made my choice as well: namely that keeping Hillary out of the Oval Office is the most important thing that needs to happen this year. She may well be the most corrupt and selfish individual to run in my lifetime, and may make Obama's tenure look like a mere speed-bump in comparison.


If the choice is going to come down to one kind of asshole or another, the buffoon will probably do less damage than the witch.

I do not begrudge that calculus either.

 

[rocket88]

In such a scenario, Trump wins. Congressmen are creatures of their party.

What would be interesting is to look into how the Congressional delegations break down by state, as each state casts one vote. In other words, while there are a lot of Republican Congressmen from Texas, they only get one vote between them. I don't really have the time or inclination to do this analysis, but a quick glance indicates a Trump win.

 

[DaveFagan]

In such a scenario, Trump wins. Congressmen are creatures of their party.

What would be interesting is to look into how the Congressional delegations break down by state, as each state casts one vote. In other words, while there are a lot of Republican Congressmen from Texas, they only get one vote between them. I don't really have the time or inclination to do this analysis, but a quick glance indicates a Trump win.

I disagree, I think they are rentiers. If the Kock bros and the like pay the right Congressman, the election can be bought or sold at that point. The Repubs will claim they are supporting what is good for Big Business.

 

[rocket88]

I disagree, I think they are rentiers. If the Kock bros and the like pay the right Congressman, the election can be bought or sold at that point. The Repubs will claim they are supporting what is good for Big Business.

The Kochs, interestingly, are no friends of Trump.

 

[shrubnose]

Not going to happen.Hillary Clinton will win by a decent margin.

 

[earthworm]

Well that's a lie or maybe you are just a kid

Study some history and get back to me

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972

Why be mean and nasty ?
Or is this the way conservatives are ?? .. one lousy electrical vote for a libertarian .. big deal ..this means NOTHING ..

 

[earthworm]

I voted for Mrs Clinton .. she is the closest to being a republican of the three .. But, I do not think this can be .. we are smarter than that .... not a landslide for Clinton , but a definite win , this November ..
I think that libertarians are gaining in strength ..maybe 50 years from now ...

 

[radcen]

1) I don't see this scenario happening.

2) I see Hillary winning outright.

3) But, in the spirit of the question asked, *IF* it came to this I believe the House would pick Trump. As a matter of party loyalty and "never Hillary" solely.

4) And if #3 were to come to pass, we'd get renewed accusations of "President Select" and all that other dumb arse rhetoric for years to come.

5) If #3 and #4 come to pass, just shoot me now.

 

[joG]

Don't get your hopes up, its not going to happen. If a Republican wants to win the presidency, they have to win 40% or more of the Hispanic vote. Trump does not stand a chance in hell of doing that. He won't just lose, electorally he will lose by a good margin.

This notion that Trump will make up the difference with white men is ridiculous. Romney got a bigger percentage of the white vote than even Reagan did yet he still lost. There is no more white vote to get for Trump than what Romney or McCain got.

Also, Clinton is offering huge vote buying programs and tapping hate by taxing persons of higher income. Most voters seem not to understand the economic implications, so the package will pack a lot of punch.

 

[PirateMk1]

Telling the truth and facing reality are not childish acts.



Insulting those who do so, however.... hmm.

Artistically done my friend. Artistically done. :good_job: