> what would happen if Trump actually ran 3rd party in the general election
Hillary already knows hence why she has been nice to Trump and encouraged him even
Bump
>>56561166
This
I'm not convinced that Trump couldn't win as a third party candidate.
>>56561166
CRASHING THIS ELECTION
>>56561976
>hillary running for president
this kills the democratic party bid for office
Donald Trump is a Democrat plant to secure the election for the Democrats.
>>56562186
Which is why he's beating them in the polls? He must be really good at this job.
>>56562060
He would need at a minimum a plurality of voters from both Democrats and Republicans to pull this off. Trump would not be able to get enough democrats to vote for him over Hillary since he would need 17%~ of Dem voters to pull that off.
The last non Republican or Democrat to win the presidency in an election was the Whig party in 1848 and it collapsed shortly thereafter.
>>56562160
I agree it does in a straight ticket race but if you had Trump run 3rd party it would split off a portion of the vote in an already tight race.
CANNOT BE STUMPED
You mean what would happen if Webb ran 3rd party in the general election
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/11/general-election-matches-close-in-iowa.html
>>56563207
Webb isn't pulling 9% in a general as an independent. Unlike Trump and Perot, Webb isnt a billionaire who can self-finance his campaign
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tzEhdaRxck ?
>>56562528
>Trump would not be able to get enough democrats to vote for him over Hillary
Why not? Just because you say it?
I think everyone is underestimating just how appealing Trump is to many red state Democrats. I know 5 of them myself who want to vote for him but don't want to switch parties to vote in the GOP primaries.
Besides, I believe in Scott Adams' moist robot hypothesis. Trump is smarter and more persuasive than anybody else running right now, and he can, with enough time, convince enough people to elect him, no matter what party he is running in.
>>56563535
>Why not? Just because you say it?
The amount of Blue Dog Democrats is not sufficient enough to reach a plurality over both parties. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's very highly unlikely. You can disagree with me but if you think the odds are in his favor percentage wise you are wrong.
Then again, Trump has beat conventional political science wisdom every time this election so I can't rule it out as impossible.
>I think everyone is underestimating just how appealing Trump is to many red state Democrats. I know 5 of them myself who want to vote for him but don't want to switch parties to vote in the GOP primaries.
Even if he won over every single Blue Dog Democrat he would need to be running as a republican for that to matter. I agree that in a general he has cross-party appeal but if he was running independent he would need 17% of votes from each party at a bare minimum to secure a victory. Historically that has been much harder than it looks.
Trump's best chance is as a Republican, not as an independent.
> Besides, I believe in Scott Adams' moist robot hypothesis. Trump is smarter and more persuasive than anybody else running right now, and he can, with enough time, convince enough people to elect him, no matter what party he is running in.
Nearly everyone already has an opinion of Trump in some form. His negative appeal across the entire electorate is far above any other candidate in every poll
Trump supporters will support him no matter what party he is a part of, but people who absolutly detest Trump aren't going to vote for him no matter what he does.
