#NeverTrump

[shocker3]

An off-ticket candidate from either party would only ensure a win by the opposing party, ala Ross Perot in 92. Now what would be crazy is if both sides have off-ticket candidates. So, Trump & the player to named later for the GOP's civil war and Hillary & Bernie for the Dem's civil war. That would be time to break out the popcorn!

I don't know why people assume all Ross Perot voters would have gone to Bush. All of the Ross Perot voters I know hated Bush. They would have either held their nose and voted for Clinton, would not have voted or voted for some other 3rd party candidate. No way they would vote for Bush.

Using my family for an example, In 1992 we had 12 registered voters (parents, siblings, sibling's spouses), they were 10 D and 2 I at the time. They ended up voting 7 for Perot and 5 for Clinton. They all hated Bush. There is a very good chance they would have been 12-0 Clinton if there had been no viable 3rd party choice. I know plenty of other Democratic leaning people who voted for Perot in 92. If you remember, Perot dropped out of the race in the summer of 92. It was during that time period that Clinton surged way ahead in the polls. After Perot got back in the race, the polls tightened up again. If Perot had not been on the ballot, I believe Clinton would have would have probably won by a bigger margin.

[BOBB]

In my experience, the Bundys notwithstanding, the Mormon influence is more stable and pragmatic in state politics than the other groups rightly or wrongly defined by their religion.

[SB Shock]

So many Republicans are being exposed as "Republicans because they hate Democrats".

92% to 93% of each party will vote the party line. So are u also labeling the democrats as haters also?

[Play Angry]

92% to 93% of each party will vote the party line. So are u also labeling the democrats as haters also?

We'll see how well that 92% to 93% prediction holds for the upcoming election. The ideological alignment of Trump and the "right" that he represents seems far looser than Clinton's alignment with the ideology of the "left."

Predictive models have really struggled this cycle. It will be interesting to see how much crossover and ballot splitting occurs.

[SB Shock]

I don't know why people assume all Ross Perot voters would have gone to Bush. All of the Ross Perot voters I know hated Bush. They would have either held their nose and voted for Clinton, would not have voted or voted for some other 3rd party candidate. No way they would vote for Bush.

Using my family for an example, In 1992 we had 12 registered voters (parents, siblings, sibling's spouses), they were 10 D and 2 I at the time. They ended up voting 7 for Perot and 5 for Clinton. They all hated Bush. There is a very good chance they would have been 12-0 Clinton if there had been no viable 3rd party choice. I know plenty of other Democratic leaning people who voted for Perot in 92. If you remember, Perot dropped out of the race in the summer of 92. It was during that time period that Clinton surged way ahead in the polls. After Perot got back in the race, the polls tightened up again. If Perot had not been on the ballot, I believe Clinton would have would have probably won by a bigger margin.

There was a study done of Perot voter - it does show what was conventional wisdom of where Perot may have voted is potentially wrong. Perot voters didn't like Clinton greatly (41% unfavorable, but Bush unfavorables was in the 60s).

http://pss.iga.ucdavis.edu/perotrpt.html

[SB Shock]

We'll see how well that 92% to 93% prediction holds for the upcoming election. The ideological alignment of Trump and the "right" that he represents seems far looser than Clinton's alignment with the ideology of the "left."

Predictive models have really struggled this cycle. It will be interesting to see how much crossover and ballot splitting occurs.

Yeah I think you are on the money for this election. Those numbers where for the last election. I don't think anybody knows how this election may go down - except the Republican Party has lost. Trump is already moving left very quickly so it looks like a win-win for democrats.

[DUShock]

I don't know why people assume all Ross Perot voters would have gone to Bush. All of the Ross Perot voters I know hated Bush. They would have either held their nose and voted for Clinton, would not have voted or voted for some other 3rd party candidate. No way they would vote for Bush.

Using my family for an example, In 1992 we had 12 registered voters (parents, siblings, sibling's spouses), they were 10 D and 2 I at the time. They ended up voting 7 for Perot and 5 for Clinton. They all hated Bush. There is a very good chance they would have been 12-0 Clinton if there had been no viable 3rd party choice. I know plenty of other Democratic leaning people who voted for Perot in 92. If you remember, Perot dropped out of the race in the summer of 92. It was during that time period that Clinton surged way ahead in the polls. After Perot got back in the race, the polls tightened up again. If Perot had not been on the ballot, I believe Clinton would have would have probably won by a bigger margin.

In the absence of Perot, for whom would your family's Perot voters have cast their ballots?

[shocker3]

In the absence of Perot, for whom would your family's Perot voters have cast their ballots?

I think most of them would have held their noses and voted for Clinton. A couple of them may have voted for another 3rd party candidate or not voted. They all hated Bush too much to vote for him. They obviously weren't too crazy about Clinton either, but the hatred for Bush was much worse.

[RoyalShock]

There was a study done of Perot voter - it does show what was conventional wisdom of where Perot may have voted is potentially wrong. Perot voters didn't like Clinton greatly (41% unfavorable, but Bush unfavorables was in the 60s).

http://pss.iga.ucdavis.edu/perotrpt.html

I wonder how many of those in the 60% number were the ones holding Bush accountable for going back on his "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. That was an excellent example of how compromising and trying to reach across the aisle often backfires. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[DwShock]

I'm pretty sure an independent candidate has to file with about 80,000 signatures by May 9 2016 to be listed on the Texas Ballot. No conservative candidate can win the election if they don't win Texas.

And getting enough people to write in a name will be next to impossible.

[SB Shock]

[BOBB]

Would be interested to know the breakdown of the officer corps to enlisted. There is a reason that the enlisted don't pick their officers.

[SB Shock]

Would be interested to know the breakdown of the officer corps to enlisted. There is a reason that the enlisted don't pick their officers.

It is right there in the graphic - 2 enlisted per every 1 officer

[shox1989]

I will never vote for Trump. I am not sure I could ever bring my self to vote for Hillary but I know I can't vote for Trump. I will probably be voting Libertarian again this year. I find myself doing that more and more.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I will never vote for Trump. I am not sure I could ever bring my self to vote for Hillary but I know I can't vote for Trump. I will probably be voting Libertarian again this year. I find myself doing that more and more.

I've yet to see a Libertarian candidate I like. Better than Trump and Clinton? Sure, but that is a low bar.

I'm writing in Rubio.