Posted on 10/06/2015 11:51:43 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
Listening to people talk about Sanders and how well he is doing. Since Sanders is big anti Wall Street Socialist, and given how tight the Democrat party Leadership is currently with Wall Street and "Big Money", is it possible he might end up being a Leftist Perot?
The Money men and Unions who own the Democrat Party are NOT going to allow the Democrats to run Sanders. He is far too dangerous to their crony capitalist looting of the Federal Treasury. When they cut Sanders off at the knees, might he decide to run as an Independent?
What happens if the GOPe does the same thing to Trump?
Could we see a situation in 2016 where Populist candidates from the parties bases run insurgent campaigns against the Establishment Party candidates?
Could 2016 be a 3 way or 4 way race?
Either a pick-your-RINO v. Trump v. Clinton v. Sanders race or a Cruz v. Trump v. Clinton v. Sanders race ends with the House of Representatives picking the President from among the top 3 in electoral vote, and the Senate picking the President from among the top 2.
Could be fun, could end up with President and Vice-President hostile to each other like back in the pre-12th Amendment days.
The mind boggles at the possibilities.
Imagine a RINO-Democrat alliance in the House gives the election to Hillary despite her being the lowest scoring candidate in popular votes because she is part of the Political/Media/Wall Street machine. They give it to Hillary, an insider, because Cruz-Trump-Sanders are seen as "dangerous outsiders".
I agree this current election cycle, in terms of the number of candidates, is much like that Pre-Civil War time. In addition, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the various factions are unable to compromise with each other.
The explosion that would follow that would make 9/11 look like a cherry bomb.
It would be especially ironic if Hillary was elected by the very Electoral College that she wanted to get rid of after Gore V Bush in 2000.
“The Money men and Unions who own the Democrat Party are NOT going to allow the Democrats to run Sanders. He is far too dangerous to their crony capitalist looting of the Federal Treasury.”
Nonsense. Bernie talks a good game. But he will keep the crony game going. He’s a socialist. That’s at the core of their philosophy.
“There were no Republican candidates in 1864.”
Lincoln (R) vs McClellan (D)
Wanted to win war (R) vs Wanted to fight to a draw (D)
Some things never change.
Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson ran on the National Union Party platform in 1864.
Keep in mind that if a presidential election goes to the House of Representatives, each state gets one vote. The congressmen do not vote as individuals, they vote in their state’s delegation. Off hand, I don’t know how many state’s have GOP majorities in their House delegation, vs. Democrat. Of course remember too, the House members voting would be those elected in Nov. 2016, so while the GOP is still expected to control the House after Nov. 2016 the state by state breakdown could be different than today.
The senators do vote as individuals for the vice-president in such a scenario.
The temporary name was used to attract War Democrats and Border State Unionists who would not vote for the Republican Party. The party nominated incumbent President Abraham Lincoln and Democrat Andrew Johnson, who were elected in a landslide.
Little did he know then that (1)the election wasn't even going to be close and (2)the affable but incompetent Andrew Johnson would ascend to the presidency a mere six weeks into his second term.
I sure hope they DO nominate him. When electors see that the Democrats are no longer even pretending to be the center they will abandon their votes.
Trivia question: Wallace did better than all but one other 3rd party candidate in the last century. Name that candidate and the only other two candidates to win electoral votes through popular balloting. (I'm not counting the unpledged electors or the occasional single faithless elector).
People who really hate a candidate in the primaries might find the nominee looking quite good in comparison to an opponent of the other party, so they find their way home.
An independent moderate candidate isn't ruled out, but if one party makes an unconventional choice or goes out on a limb the other one is likely to play it safe.
Cases in point: with the Republicans split between Roosevelt and Taft the Democrats unite behind Wilson (1912). With the Democrats split between Truman, Wallace, and Thurmond, there wasn't much chance of the Republicans breaking up over the Dewey-Taft split (1948). Republicans weren't crazy about Nixon but they united behind him because the Democrats were too divided to win (1968). Professional politicians and consultants don't get in the way when the other side is destroying itself.
FWIW In 2000, Nader polled better than any 3rd party candidate since Perot. If Buchanan had mounted a serious campaign you could have had a four candidate race. Not in a big way where any candidate had a chance to win, but stronger than usual 3rd and 4rth party challengers could have made the election even more chaotic than it was.
Screwing conservatives is what the GOPe does best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.