Let’s say the RNC throws their support behind Libertarian Gary Johnson instead of Trump. And let’s say he picks up enough states so neither Clinton nor Trump get 270 EV. Assuming a similar House makeup like we currently have, who would the states elect?
The RNC isn’t going to support Gary Johnson over TRUMP. End of story.
Keep in mind that the House would vote by state, and a state’s votes would be presumably controlled by the party with the most representatives. IIRC 33 states have a Republican majority in the House.
And I’m guessing that unless Gary Johnson won a majority (not just a plurality) of the popular vote in any district, not a single Republican or Democrat would vote for him, much less a majority of a state’s congresscritters.
If the RNC doesn’t want Trump to win, then they can choose someone else at the Convention. If they choose Trump, they’ll support Trump. No third party candidate is going to crack double digit support in any state in November.
Woah, seeing Trump’s name in all capitals totally clued me in to his alpha-dominance and real personal power. Thank you. The scales, off’n my eyes, did falling.
On topic: I agree, no way the GOP votes in Johnson.
The RNC looks like it’ll support Trump, but prominent Republicans, and more importantly, prominent donors like the Kochs, could very well support Gary Johnson. How the House votes depends on a lot of factors, but you forgot a third option: Clinton picks a Republican for VP, such as Lindsey Graham. The House then just deadlocks on purpose and the Senate votes Lindsey Graham, who takes the oath of office.
Sure, and Lindsey Graham - well loved by few - would bring plenty of gravitas to Clinton’s ticket. Heck, how many Republicans despise Graham?
I think Hillary would try to shore up the Dem side by making concessions to the farther left, and Graham wouldn’t do that (but it might be a plus in support of LGBTQ employment issues).
WTF is this about Gary Johnson being viable for any national political office? Gary Coleman has a better chance.
Something else you have to consider: it’s not the current House that votes, but the one elected in November. The House starts its session on January 3 (20th Amendment), and the electoral votes are counted three days later (Title 3, Section 15, United States Code).
Then maybe in the OP I should have written
You don’t think a two-time governor of New Mexico could become president?
The advantage of Graham on the ticket is that it gives disaffected Republicans reason to support Clinton. Sure, she could try to maximize lefty turnout by tapping someone more liberal than she is, but let’s be real now, conservatives vote, liberals don’t. And for the first time, a lot of conservatives are winnable. She’s already hitting up conservative donors:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hilary-clinton-bush-donors-222872
It looks like she actually is starting to go after the moderate Republican vote. And what’s more, as a person who values loyalty and personal relationships, she and Graham are close.
On today’s political landscape, he’s not on the same planet as Clinton or Trump. Or maybe, comparatively speaking, he’s in the Mariana’s Trench while they are up on the slopes of Everest.
He’s not in their class in terms of name recognition, but in terms of qualifications I’d argue he’s more qualified than either. Definitely more than Trump, Clinton is arguable because they have two different kinds of experience. Johnson’s is equivalent to Bill’s when he first ran for President.
The Republicans who will not reconcile themselves to Trump may end up finding a third partier to support, but if they can’t, Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states. I think a lot will depends on the Kochs. If they Kochs come out for Johnson, then he could go pretty far indeed. Lots of money will follow Koch money.
I hope they do-I’d love to see both TRUMP and Clinton hammer the hell out of Gary Johnson as an “Establishment shill”. It would utterly discredit the Libertarians for the next few decades.
I could kind of see a scenario where a sizable chunk of the GOP establishment and money goes ahead and organizes behind Johnson as a counter-candidate to Trump, giving him enough votes to pick up a few Electors.
But I doubt it’ll happen. Firstly because the anti-Trump GOP forces have been a pretty disorganized and dispirited lot lately. Its hard to see them putting more than a half-hearted effort into a Johnson campaign (or really, any strategy) that fizziles off after a few weeks.
Secondly, a second rightwing party might be hard to put back in the bottle, and a better funded and more prominent Libertarian party might split the vote with them for at least a few future cycles before dying off. Of course, that’s a risk to weigh against the permenant damage getting into bed with Trump might do to the GOP’s future fortunes.
So I think Johnson will get a bump relative to past Lib performance, but not enough to win any Electors, and if he does, he won’t have enough support in the House to get in around Hillary or Trump.
Meaning he’ll get 20 votes rather than 15. The Libertarian Party is just as relevant and influential as the Peace & Freedom Party or the Shovel & Pail Party. Any dream of mainstream Republicans suddenly banding together behind Johnson just shows you got ripped off by your dealer.
No, they will hold their noses and vote for Trump, because Hillary scares the pants off them and they think they just might be able to “guide” Trump a bit.
Yup, I agree with this. No matter what nasty things they said about Trump over the past year, now he’s their guy and they will kiss his ass.
I’m guessing this scenario assumes a split of like Hillary 269-Trump 264-Johnson 5 (winning his home state)?
The winner would still have to get a majority of 26 state delegations in the House. For the exercise, we are assuming that a significant number of Republicans will support Johnson instead of Trump. No Dem delegations will support Johnson instead of Hillary.
So, of those 33 with GOP majorities, at least 26 would have to flip and vote for someone outside their party, with ideas that they somewhat support, but largely disagree with, knowing the public outrage because he came in a distant third in the popular vote. Further, they would be voting against the will of their own states.
Plus, once the public digests the full revolutionary ideas of the Libertarian party, they will reject it wholesale. Of the relatively few Libertarians, I would guess a majority of those are in the party because “Legalize it, bro! *cough *cough” When the public learns of the drastic cuts to social services, they would rebel.
Now, we have a system where the Dems want to spend ENORMOUSLY on social programs, and the Republicans only want to spend HUGELY on them. The GOP gets push backs as the Dems have successfully convinced people that they want to cut these programs (true insofar as “cut” is from the proposed enormous levels). Imagine a party that said that they wanted NO social programs? It’s a great theory on paper, but the ship has sailed long ago.
But if the Dems decide Hillary is a lost cause and make a deal with 9 states to vote for not Trump it would work.