Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Popular Culture, Social Commentary

Trump 42, Clinton 37

17 Comments

Those are the latest numbers from Rasmussen. I’ve never been one to say that Trump can’t beat Hillary; I just think that would be almost as terrible an outcome as him not beating Hillary.

But what I find interesting is not who gets a higher plurality, but how many people share my desire for another candidate (at one in five, by that poll). And that doesn’t count the number who would switch from Trump or Hillary if someone else were in the race. There has never been a more promising year for a good independent candidate than this one.

[Update a while later]

Get ready for a Bernie third-party run.

It would be interesting to see a four-way race, if there were an actual conservative running. I think he or she would have a good chance.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Pop the corn, “liberal” pundits eating their own.

17 thoughts on “Trump 42, Clinton 37”

  1. Yeah! It could be the Bull Moose Party all over again! Or the Reform Party! They were both amazing successful, giving us Wilson and Pornstar. Can’t wait………

    1. Yes, be careful what you wish for.

      Trump seems to be largely rudderless, ideologically. Given some of his past zigging and zagging it may well be the case that he is one of those bombastic and obstreperous people who are nonetheless inclined to be unduly influenced by whomever was the last person they talked to. The job of the Republicans – “establishment,” Tea Party and otherwise – is to see to it that one of theirs is always around to talk to Trump and be that person. Perhaps the various Republican factions can put together a rotating crew of “minders” to work in shifts at keeping Trump on the straight and narrow.

      Said posse certainly doesn’t have to be all male. Given Trump’s proclivities, it might work better if said posse was all or largely female.

  2. “There has never been a more promising year for a good independent candidate to throw the election to the opposing side.”

    FIFY

  3. Here’s to hoping the LP picks wisely. They’re one of the few (if not the only) third parties likely to make it on the ballots in all 50 states.

    ~Jon

    1. Exactly right, not that I endorse a Libertarian candidate but that the Libertarian Party has done the groundwork. A third party that just sprung forth from the ether, could actually be pretty bad if people don’t like a Trump or Sanders populist.

      Going through the effort to build the party county by county across the country is a better route. No easy task and not one prone to flash in the pan candidates or movements. But that is only if people want lasting change rather than just to win a single election cycle.

      I guess a charismatic two term President could build a national party after they were elected that would go on to rival the big two for centuries but it seems unlikely. Most politicians don’t care much for the hard work when there are no more offices they can hold.

    2. That seems unlikely. The LP has had 50-state ballot status before, but it’s been 20 years since the last time that was true. According to Wikipedia’s Libertarian Party page, they were on 48 state ballots in 2012, but that number is down 1/3 to 32 this year, though it may rise quite a bit by November as there are 15 states with petition signature requirements ranging from a few hundred up to 25,000 in Illinois. Even if the LP gets back to 48 states, Ohio will apparently not be among them.

      You seem to be correct that no other established third party in the U.S. is going to get anywhere near the LP in overall ballot access. The Wikipedia entries for the Green Party and the American Independent Party, for example, barely mention ballot access except as a “problem.”

      A separate Wikipedia entry covering U.S. third parties shows the Greens being on 21 state ballots plus DC for 2016 thus far. As with the LP, that number may rise before November. The Greens, as of now, are the only other third party in the U.S. on enough state ballots to potentially get 270 or more electoral votes. The Greens have a shot at 296 as of now. This same Wikipedia page shows the LP on the ballot in 33 states with 335 electoral votes.

      Third place is occupied by the Constitution Party with ballot access in 17 states with 136 electoral votes.

      No other third party has ballot access in more than three states. Among the third parties that were notable in my younger days but now have fallen on hard times are the American Independent Party, which has ballot access only in California, the Peace and Freedom Party, which has ballot access only in California and Florida, and Ross Perot’s Reform Party which retains ballot access only in Florida and New York. The Prohibition Party is on the ballot in three states, but none of them have large populations so their electoral vote possibilities are limited to 21 or fewer.

      I was struck by the fact that there only seems to be one party with the word “Socialism” in its name that has ballot access anywhere in the U.S. When I was a boy, in Michigan, our state ballots always had at least a half-dozen or more such parties on it, most featuring Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates with very Eastern European names. There was the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Labor Party and the Communist Party – which always ran Gus Hall for President – and some others I can no longer recall. Some of these are still around, but with no statewide ballot access anywhere. The Red Banner, at least electorally, seems now to have fallen exclusively into the hands of something called the Party for Socialism and Liberation which has ballot status only in Florida and – appropriately, it would seem – Vermont.

      If Bernie Sanders decides to go the third-party route, it looks like it’s going to be the Green Party or punt.

  4. And that doesn’t count the number who would switch from Trump or Hillary if someone else were in the race.

    Assuming this savior candidate would appeal to both of these groups? I am going to guess, that one of these groups would prefer a baggage free version of Hillary and the other, a more charismatic form of Cruz. Neither of those have crossover appeal.

    We already have a guy running who appeals to some Democrats and Republicans and is able to draw LIVs into the contest.

    There has never been a more promising year for a good independent candidate than this one.

    I don’t know if this is the year but the popularity of Trump, Sanders, and the appeal of a mythological savior candidate, does show that people are deeply unhappy with both parties. Perhaps this sentiment will continue to grow, but it takes time and effort to build a political party, or maybe one or both of the two parties will reform themselves. A competent, successful, and true to platform President would take a lot of steam out of a collective desire for 3rd party.

  5. Eh, I remember the Gallup polls that showed Romney ahead and various points and thought that actually meant something. But we see how that turned out…..

    1. You can say the same about the majority of the polls that show Hillary in the lead. For the past how many months now have we heard that Trump can’t win because he wasn’t polling as high as Hillary?

      Once the Hillary/Sanders revolt is decided, then the polls will start to tell us something.

    2. You read Althouse? Is see still pretending to be “cruelly neutural” on her choice of candidate despite her cheerleading of the progressive agenda?

Comments are closed.