Patrick MacFarlane
Commander-in-Chief of Russian Armed Forces TKR RP
The two presumptive nominees, Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R), have historically low approval rating for this point in the election year. If it was between those two alone that I believe it would be a very close race between Clinton and Trump. The Electoral College is stacked to favour the Democratic Party a little this election year but I think the populace is underestimating just how much damage Trump can do to opponents when backed into a corner, remember, this is the kind of thing he has done all of his life. That would balance the playing field and it would be a toss up.
However, unlike many elections in the recent past, 2016 is not a two-party election. There are at least one very viable third-party candidate, possibly three. Those I wish to point out would be the Libertarian ticket of Gov. Gary Johnson and Gov. Bill Weld, Green candidate Jill Stein, and Independent Bernard Sanders. The requirements in place currently to reach the presidential debate stage is 15% of the popular vote (as an average of five accredited polling institutions in the US) which as a major building block for a successful campaign. At least two of the possible third party candidates should be able to reach this minimum by the deadline.
The Libertarian Party has made great strides this election cycle by getting on the ballot in all 50 states as well as so far having approximately 10-11% of the popular support in the nation. Between the Presidential candidate former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld have a stronger political history than either presumptive nominee from the two "big" parties. Bill Weld was also a Prosecutor and is a charismatic fund-raiser. They are running on a campaign of "fiscally conservative and socially 'I don't give a damn!'" (according to Johnson) which they argue would please most Americans.
Green Party candidate Jill Stein has also grown greatly in the polls this election cycle. Last I saw they were polling around 4-6% of the popular vote. From what I understand, the Greens run on a social justice, equality, feminism and decentralization. They are a liberal third party. Stein has been a strong candidate for Massachusetts governor twice but has fallen short both times.
And Bernard Sanders, still a part of the Democratic Party scene, is a possible third party candidate. Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist wishing to follow much in the footsteps of successful European nations already taking on his radical progressive ideas. He has expressed little loyalty to the Democratic party saying things to the effect of 'you have to play for one team or the other to even have a chance' and 'you have to be a billionaire to run as an independent and I am not billionaire'. Despite both he and his wife's denial of a potential run for the election in 2016 as an Independent these things do not show anything other than his detest for the Democratic Party. He already has well in excess of 15% of the popular vote.
I predict that first, Clinton and Trump will get their respective parties' nominations. Shortly thereafter Bernard Sanders will announce he will continue seeking the presidency in 2016 on an Independent. He will have no problem reaching and exceeding the 15% hurdle and neither with Gov Gary Johnson. Both will get entrance into the debates despite the Republican and Democratic Parties' (and their nominees') very vocal objections to such as uprooting of American democratic tradition. Jill Stein will not make it to the debate stage but remain a growing voice as the two party system continues to be challenged.
When it comes time for the election Sanders and Johnson will easily be able to block either of the two big parties from reaching the 270 Electors needed for the White House. a couple of states expected to vote Democrat this year would likely vote for Sanders at least partially. States predicted to vote Democrat that overwhelmingly voted for Sanders in their primaries could reasonably expected to vote for Sanders due to his energized campaign and zealous young supporters. Likewise, several traditionally conservative states, ones in which Trump preformed poorly in during the primary race, could be expected to vote for Gary Johnson as a strong supporter of military and conservative spending.
When Johnson and Sanders do block the Democratic and Republican nominees, the decision for the next President will be left up to the House of Representatives as per the Constitution. This is where things get even harder to predict because both Johnson and Sanders should both receive between 15 and 20% of the popular vote leaving at most only 70% of the population to split between Trump and Clinton. I would expect in this scenario probably a near even split of 35-35% because although Clinton has the advantage over Trump, Sanders will claim more of the liberal vote than Johnson will of the conservative. That would leave a near balance between the Republicans and Democrats. Still, in the House no one is the definitive winner of the election. The House will be mostly Republicans but as the US has seen over the past four years, the only thing a large majority in the House accomplishes is fractures within the party structure. There are just too many differences between Northern Rep, Southern Rep, Mid-West Rep, and then there's Dr. Rand Paul.
Once the vote comes to the House I would expect that a large number would be split between Trump --party loyalty-- and Johnson --sacrificing the conservative social for the sake of blocking Clinton or Sanders-- which would be a fierce debate in which Trump may or may not get more votes. On the smaller, Democratic side of the House, I would predict that almost all of the representatives would vote against Sanders and his radical socialist agenda and instead settle for Clinton as the establishment candidate, despite the baggage she brings too the Democrats with a few outliers casting votes for Johnson's socially inclusive platform.. If Sanders secures a solid number of votes in the House then I might be possible, with the smallest majority, for Johnson to become President as a compromise between the social agenda of the Democrats, Sanders Independent, and the military heavy and fiscally conservative Republicans, but it would be an extremely close race between Johnson and Clinton. It is far more likely that the House will stick with the candidate they know better despite and inadequacies.
By the end of November 35% of the United States will likely be celebrating as Hillary Clinton is announced as the next president of the United States. The remaining population will be understandably upset and fractured behind their failed candidates. Soon after election Johnson supporters and then much later Sanders supporters will relax and support Clinton as president. Trump supporters however will remain heated for quite some time and the Republican party will try to distance themselves from him as he does the same to them, both blaming each other for a broken campaign leading to failure.
Below, I have generated a 2016 Electoral College map depicting the idea scenario for Johnson (pink) and Sanders (light blue) to definitively block Trump (red) and Clinton (dark blue). This would show Johnson holding about 14% of the Electors from states that Trump got less than a 50% popular support in. Some subjective calls had to be made in states from early in the race because so many candidates were in the primaries. One such state was Texas, although Trump lost to Cruz I would still expect Texas to back the Republican candidate and not a third party. Any traditional/expected blue states in which Clinton polled less than 45-50% in the primaries/caucuses I awarded to Sanders. This method ended with Sanders possessing approximately 19% of the Electors including Florida which was a special case somewhat like Texas. Florida really depends on which district and region of Florida voters have a better turnout this year but I gave the state to Sanders.
I will reiterate, the idea behind this map is not accuracy but rather the ideal scenario for Johnson and Sanders as third party candidates. As the election approaches and people are realizing there are more than two candidates, many of them superior to Trump or Clinton, I think that Electors will be encouraged to break the mold of the typical two-party vote casting. I believe it is entirely possible and likely that this election year will see a third party take at least one state's Electors and not in the way Governor Wallace did in 1968 securing 8% of the Electorate, this likely will not be a movement isolated to a small geographical area. In fact, even if Sanders does not run as a third party it is possible for Johnson to take a state or two and block either party from reaching the magic 270. Even though he will not likely win his home state he may secure enough to shake the two-party system's foundation enough to pave the way for future third-party candidates to dismantle the two-party control and achieve the presidency.
However, unlike many elections in the recent past, 2016 is not a two-party election. There are at least one very viable third-party candidate, possibly three. Those I wish to point out would be the Libertarian ticket of Gov. Gary Johnson and Gov. Bill Weld, Green candidate Jill Stein, and Independent Bernard Sanders. The requirements in place currently to reach the presidential debate stage is 15% of the popular vote (as an average of five accredited polling institutions in the US) which as a major building block for a successful campaign. At least two of the possible third party candidates should be able to reach this minimum by the deadline.
The Libertarian Party has made great strides this election cycle by getting on the ballot in all 50 states as well as so far having approximately 10-11% of the popular support in the nation. Between the Presidential candidate former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld have a stronger political history than either presumptive nominee from the two "big" parties. Bill Weld was also a Prosecutor and is a charismatic fund-raiser. They are running on a campaign of "fiscally conservative and socially 'I don't give a damn!'" (according to Johnson) which they argue would please most Americans.
Green Party candidate Jill Stein has also grown greatly in the polls this election cycle. Last I saw they were polling around 4-6% of the popular vote. From what I understand, the Greens run on a social justice, equality, feminism and decentralization. They are a liberal third party. Stein has been a strong candidate for Massachusetts governor twice but has fallen short both times.
And Bernard Sanders, still a part of the Democratic Party scene, is a possible third party candidate. Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist wishing to follow much in the footsteps of successful European nations already taking on his radical progressive ideas. He has expressed little loyalty to the Democratic party saying things to the effect of 'you have to play for one team or the other to even have a chance' and 'you have to be a billionaire to run as an independent and I am not billionaire'. Despite both he and his wife's denial of a potential run for the election in 2016 as an Independent these things do not show anything other than his detest for the Democratic Party. He already has well in excess of 15% of the popular vote.
I predict that first, Clinton and Trump will get their respective parties' nominations. Shortly thereafter Bernard Sanders will announce he will continue seeking the presidency in 2016 on an Independent. He will have no problem reaching and exceeding the 15% hurdle and neither with Gov Gary Johnson. Both will get entrance into the debates despite the Republican and Democratic Parties' (and their nominees') very vocal objections to such as uprooting of American democratic tradition. Jill Stein will not make it to the debate stage but remain a growing voice as the two party system continues to be challenged.
When it comes time for the election Sanders and Johnson will easily be able to block either of the two big parties from reaching the 270 Electors needed for the White House. a couple of states expected to vote Democrat this year would likely vote for Sanders at least partially. States predicted to vote Democrat that overwhelmingly voted for Sanders in their primaries could reasonably expected to vote for Sanders due to his energized campaign and zealous young supporters. Likewise, several traditionally conservative states, ones in which Trump preformed poorly in during the primary race, could be expected to vote for Gary Johnson as a strong supporter of military and conservative spending.
When Johnson and Sanders do block the Democratic and Republican nominees, the decision for the next President will be left up to the House of Representatives as per the Constitution. This is where things get even harder to predict because both Johnson and Sanders should both receive between 15 and 20% of the popular vote leaving at most only 70% of the population to split between Trump and Clinton. I would expect in this scenario probably a near even split of 35-35% because although Clinton has the advantage over Trump, Sanders will claim more of the liberal vote than Johnson will of the conservative. That would leave a near balance between the Republicans and Democrats. Still, in the House no one is the definitive winner of the election. The House will be mostly Republicans but as the US has seen over the past four years, the only thing a large majority in the House accomplishes is fractures within the party structure. There are just too many differences between Northern Rep, Southern Rep, Mid-West Rep, and then there's Dr. Rand Paul.
Once the vote comes to the House I would expect that a large number would be split between Trump --party loyalty-- and Johnson --sacrificing the conservative social for the sake of blocking Clinton or Sanders-- which would be a fierce debate in which Trump may or may not get more votes. On the smaller, Democratic side of the House, I would predict that almost all of the representatives would vote against Sanders and his radical socialist agenda and instead settle for Clinton as the establishment candidate, despite the baggage she brings too the Democrats with a few outliers casting votes for Johnson's socially inclusive platform.. If Sanders secures a solid number of votes in the House then I might be possible, with the smallest majority, for Johnson to become President as a compromise between the social agenda of the Democrats, Sanders Independent, and the military heavy and fiscally conservative Republicans, but it would be an extremely close race between Johnson and Clinton. It is far more likely that the House will stick with the candidate they know better despite and inadequacies.
By the end of November 35% of the United States will likely be celebrating as Hillary Clinton is announced as the next president of the United States. The remaining population will be understandably upset and fractured behind their failed candidates. Soon after election Johnson supporters and then much later Sanders supporters will relax and support Clinton as president. Trump supporters however will remain heated for quite some time and the Republican party will try to distance themselves from him as he does the same to them, both blaming each other for a broken campaign leading to failure.
Below, I have generated a 2016 Electoral College map depicting the idea scenario for Johnson (pink) and Sanders (light blue) to definitively block Trump (red) and Clinton (dark blue). This would show Johnson holding about 14% of the Electors from states that Trump got less than a 50% popular support in. Some subjective calls had to be made in states from early in the race because so many candidates were in the primaries. One such state was Texas, although Trump lost to Cruz I would still expect Texas to back the Republican candidate and not a third party. Any traditional/expected blue states in which Clinton polled less than 45-50% in the primaries/caucuses I awarded to Sanders. This method ended with Sanders possessing approximately 19% of the Electors including Florida which was a special case somewhat like Texas. Florida really depends on which district and region of Florida voters have a better turnout this year but I gave the state to Sanders.
I will reiterate, the idea behind this map is not accuracy but rather the ideal scenario for Johnson and Sanders as third party candidates. As the election approaches and people are realizing there are more than two candidates, many of them superior to Trump or Clinton, I think that Electors will be encouraged to break the mold of the typical two-party vote casting. I believe it is entirely possible and likely that this election year will see a third party take at least one state's Electors and not in the way Governor Wallace did in 1968 securing 8% of the Electorate, this likely will not be a movement isolated to a small geographical area. In fact, even if Sanders does not run as a third party it is possible for Johnson to take a state or two and block either party from reaching the magic 270. Even though he will not likely win his home state he may secure enough to shake the two-party system's foundation enough to pave the way for future third-party candidates to dismantle the two-party control and achieve the presidency.
Last edited by a moderator:
