How embarrassing would it be if?

[Jaecp]

If this guy manages to win electoral votes and it does nothing for US third parties because he's only got a shot in hell of winning his home state and won't hit anywhere relevant to the numbers needed nationally?

Oh, and check out this crazy stuff about Trumps odds of winning. You know whats funny though? Ever since the middle of last month where trump started taking hits in the polls those metrics I linked started tracking really interestingly in one small fashion.

map.jpg

So for Trump to win he needs to cross that dotted black line so that means Arizona, where he's down 10 points; Iowa, down 16; Ohio, down 29; North Carolina. down, down 45; Florida, down 51; Nevada, down 50; and finally Minnesota as Trumps hardest state and the one he needs as of that picture to win for him to become President. Now Minnesota is going to Hillary 87.3% of the time, a 74 point spread, and 538 has the Democrats taking the Presidency at, 87.4% chance.

Haha. Trump could beat the odds in Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida AND Nevada and he'd still need to somehow beat a 74 point spread.

Now, I'm not gambling man, but so neither is Trump so what's it matter, haha

[Spartacus]

If this guy manages to win electoral votes and it does nothing for US third parties because he's only got a shot in hell of winning his home state and won't hit anywhere relevant to the numbers needed nationally?

I don't think his candidacy has much to do with starting a 3rd party. He's the protest vote of choice for the members of the religious right who don't see themselves as obliged to vote for Trump.

[demi-conservative]

Oh, and check out this crazy stuff about Trumps odds of winning.

How I know Trump has good chance of winning: lib mainstream media constant onslaught against him

[Jaecp]

How I know Trump has good chance of winning: lib mainstream media constant onslaught against him

Shoo

[Jaecp]

I don't think his candidacy has much to do with starting a 3rd party. He's the protest vote of choice for the members of the religious right who don't see themselves as obliged to vote for Trump.

Oh, I know, I'm saying that it'll be ironic because he'll be the first to do so in how long and it won't help anyone else :D

[Mountain Man]

Depends on which polls you're looking at. Some show Hillary up. Others show Trump up. The interesting thing is that so many pollsters are oversampling Democrats and under-sampling independents with the assumption that voters have as much enthusiasm for Hillary as they did for Obama and will turn out in similar numbers when this is obviously not the case. Anybody paying attention to Trump's massive crowds versus Hillary's anemic rallies can see that for themselves. There are also significant numbers of Democrat voters breaking for Trump which is something you never saw with Romney. Then there's WikiLeaks showing clear collusion between the media and the Hillary campaign which puts further doubt on the veracity of the polls.

You say, "But the polls were right in 2012!". We're they? Or did the Democrat party simply hand the media made-to-order results that aligned with Nate Silver's predictions as some insiders claim? And can they get away with it again with a candidate as toxic and unpopular as Hillary?

Going to be interesting to see what November reveals.

[Cow Poke]

If this guy manages to win electoral votes and it does nothing for US third parties because he's only got a shot in hell of winning his home state and won't hit anywhere relevant to the numbers needed nationally?

Clicking on your first link reveals this...

nothing found.png

[seer]

What if neither Trump or Clinton got enough electoral votes? Or there was a tie? Who would Paul Ryan put in?

[robrecht]

What if neither Trump or Clinton got enough electoral votes? Or there was a tie? Who would Paul Ryan put in?

If there is a tie in the electoral college, the full House of Representatives votes for president, of which the speaker is typically a member ('though this is not required by the constitution) and he gets one vote. The speaker does not simply decide.

[Mountain Man]

What if neither Trump or Clinton got enough electoral votes? Or there was a tie? Who would Paul Ryan put in?

I could honestly see Ryan backing Hillary, or maybe a "compromise" candidate like Jeb or Kasich who probably wouldn't be much better.

[Mountain Man]

If there is a tie in the electoral college, the full House of Representatives votes for president, of which the speaker is typically a member ('though this is not required by the constitution) and he gets one vote. The speaker does not simply decide.

While this is technically true, the reality is that the Speaker has a lot of clout. It's usually the reason they became Speaker in the first place.

[seer]

I could honestly see Ryan backing Hillary, or maybe a "compromise" candidate like Jeb or Kasich who probably wouldn't be much better.

Yes, from what I understand they wouldn't have to choose either Trump or Hillary. I vote for Scott Walker!

[Mountain Man]

Yes, from what I understand they wouldn't have to choose either Trump or Hillary. I vote for Scott Walker!

We can be sure that if comes down a House vote, they'll elect whoever is best for Washington and to hell with what's good for the citizens.

[Jaecp]

Clicking on your first link reveals this...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19185[/ATTACH]

http://heatst.com/world/exclusive-ev...ve-ties-trump/

Can you edit my OP? somehow [url got tacked onto the end

[Jaecp]

Guys, this isn't about a tie. The link, which you can now use, is about that guy in Utah.