Politics Trump and third party candidates, 2024

[barfo]

So in 2016, Trump won (in case you hadn't heard). A third party candidate, Jill Stein, drew some critical votes from the Democratic candidate (She-who-must-not-be-named).

In 2020, Trump lost. Although I thought for sure that Trump would gin up a 3rd party candidate to help himself win, he did not, and there was no significant 3rd party vote. Maybe Trump was too sure of his victory to bother, or perhaps there were other reasons. If there had been an 'interesting' anti-Trump 3rd party candidate (either on the left or the right) it would have drawn votes away from Biden in swing states and possibly Trump could have won it.

In 2016, Trump thought he would lose and he won. In 2020, he thought he'd win, and he lost. In 2024, presumably he won't take winning for granted. The best and probably only way for him to win is to split the anti-Trump vote. He knows he can count on his base no matter what, and he should be at least dimly aware that it's not a majority of the population.

In 2024, I think there will be a 3rd party candidate, and I think it will be Trump, if he's smart (he isn't, but maybe he'll find this acorn anyway).

So why run as the "Trump Party" candidate rather than the Republican? Because that guarantees a three-way race. Even if the R candidate is very right-wing, he or she will siphon off some anti-Trump votes that would go to the Democrat in a 2-way race.

Trump doesn't need the fund-raising or organizing arms of the R party. He's got plenty of name recognition and campaign money. What he desperately needs is a 3- (or more-) way race. And it would be a bonus for him to make the Republican party squirm and finish in 3rd place.

Assuming he's not in prison or dead by 2024.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Republicans are screwed if Trump runs as a 3rd party candidate. Dems win in a walk.

 

[crandc]

Disagree. Republican party with few exceptions total Trump cult.

 

[barfo]

No doubt R's would be screwed in that scenario - I imagine anyone who seriously thought they had a shot at being Pres would wait for the next round, so the R candidate, in addition to having no base to start from, would not be top-tier quality.

But I don't think the D's would automatically win. I think Biden got some votes that would have gone to a 'normal' republican, if one had been running in 2020. Maybe just enough that Trump's 40+% would be the largest slice of the pie.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

No doubt R's would be screwed in that scenario - I imagine anyone who seriously thought they had a shot at being Pres would wait for the next round, so the R candidate, in addition to having no base to start from, would not be top-tier quality.

But I don't think the D's would automatically win. I think Biden got some votes that would have gone to a 'normal' republican, if one had been running in 2020. Maybe just enough that Trump's 40+% would be the largest slice of the pie.

barfo

Terrifying to think about...

 

[Minstrel]

No doubt R's would be screwed in that scenario - I imagine anyone who seriously thought they had a shot at being Pres would wait for the next round, so the R candidate, in addition to having no base to start from, would not be top-tier quality.

But I don't think the D's would automatically win. I think Biden got some votes that would have gone to a 'normal' republican, if one had been running in 2020. Maybe just enough that Trump's 40+% would be the largest slice of the pie.

But in your scenario, a "normal Republican" would be running. And Trump. Republicans who dislike Trump have their normal party candidate to vote for and Trump's base gets their god-king to vote for. To me, it sounds like that splits the conservative bloc, so even if Biden nets fewer total votes, he still gets the full Democratic/liberal bloc.

I can't see how two conservative parties don't mean automatic victory for the Democrats.

 

[bigbailes]

But in your scenario, a "normal Republican" would be running. And Trump. Republicans who dislike Trump have their normal party candidate to vote for and Trump's base gets their god-king to vote for. To me, it sounds like that splits the conservative bloc, so even if Biden nets fewer total votes, he still gets the full Democratic/liberal bloc.

I can't see how two conservative parties don't mean automatic victory for the Democrats.

I agree with Minstrel here, the entire premise of the original post was that Jill Stein took votes away from the Democrat running that year. Just don't see the cult of Trump being enough to win him the election with those R voters that will take a big gulp and see him (some how) as the lesser of two evils. Trump needs his fans plus all the Rs that vote straight ticket, plus a 3rd party candidate that will take some of the Ds voters with them to come out with a victory.

 

[barfo]

But in your scenario, a "normal Republican" would be running. And Trump. Republicans who dislike Trump have their normal party candidate to vote for and Trump's base gets their god-king to vote for. To me, it sounds like that splits the conservative bloc, so even if Biden nets fewer total votes, he still gets the full Democratic/liberal bloc.

I can't see how two conservative parties don't mean automatic victory for the Democrats.

It depends on how you think about the 81M people who voted for Biden. Are they all inclined to vote for a generic Democrat? Or are some of them conservative but not Trumpists?

In short, I'm arguing there was not a 'conservative bloc' that voted for Trump in 2020. Rather, there was an anti-Trump bloc that voted for Biden.
Trump gets his same votes in 2024 - his fans are still his fans, those that aren't still aren't. The Biden voters are split.

Now, it is much better for Trump to have a liberal 3rd party candidate, for sure - but he can't arrange that without breaking campaign laws, and we know he'd never do anything illegal.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

It depends on how you think about the 81M people who voted for Biden. Are they all inclined to vote for a generic Democrat? Or are some of them conservative but not Trumpists?

In short, I'm arguing there was not a 'conservative bloc' that voted for Trump in 2020. Rather, there was an anti-Trump bloc that voted for Biden.
Trump gets his same votes in 2024 - his fans are still his fans, those that aren't still aren't. The Biden voters are split.

Now, it is much better for Trump to have a liberal 3rd party candidate, for sure - but he can't arrange that without breaking campaign laws, and we know he'd never do anything illegal.

barfo

I understand what you mean and it's a reasonable theory. I think I'd agree with it if this had happened in, say, the 1970s or 1980s. But I think the nation is far too polarized today for a notable segment of Biden's votes to have come from normally reliable Republican voters who in this case hated Trump. I'm sure there were a few (in a relative sense), but I can't see a large segment of today's conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) saying, "The candidate for my own party is so repugnant that I'm going to hold my nose and vote for the other party." More likely, they said "Yeah, Trump's an asshole, but Biden and Harris (or Hillary or Obama in the past) are actually evil."

So my view is that Biden ran up so many votes because Trump mobilized many unlikely-to-vote liberals, Democrats and left-of-center independents to actually vote for Biden (so much mail-in balloting also helped with that) rather than just ignoring the election. A few Republicans may have cast a protest vote for Biden, and a few more may have sat it out in protest, but I think the vast majority of anti-Trump conservatives employed the rationale I mentioned above.

I can see where you'd end up with two "conservative" candidates hurting Biden, under your theory of how the election broke. Under mine, I still believe that Biden had very little conservative support to lose, so two candidates for conservatives to choose between would simply split their voting power. There's probably data that could tell us something about which theory is right, but I don't know where to find it plus I'm lazy.

 

[julius]

So if the options are Trump, Desantis or Biden, I'm fairly certain the majority of the people who voted for Biden would still vote for Biden (or Harris if she ran instead).

 

[barfo]

I understand what you mean and it's a reasonable theory. I think I'd agree with it if this had happened in, say, the 1970s or 1980s. But I think the nation is far too polarized today for a notable segment of Biden's votes to have come from normally reliable Republican voters who in this case hated Trump. I'm sure there were a few (in a relative sense), but I can't see a large segment of today's conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) saying, "The candidate for my own party is so repugnant that I'm going to hold my nose and vote for the other party." More likely, they said "Yeah, Trump's an asshole, but Biden and Harris (or Hillary or Obama in the past) are actually evil."

So my view is that Biden ran up so many votes because Trump mobilized many unlikely-to-vote liberals, Democrats and left-of-center independents to actually vote for Biden (so much mail-in balloting also helped with that) rather than just ignoring the election. A few Republicans may have cast a protest vote for Biden, and a few more may have sat it out in protest, but I think the vast majority of anti-Trump conservatives employed the rationale I mentioned above.

I can see where you'd end up with two "conservative" candidates hurting Biden, under your theory of how the election broke. Under mine, I still believe that Biden had very little conservative support to lose, so two candidates for conservatives to choose between would simply split their voting power. There's probably data that could tell us something about which theory is right, but I don't know where to find it plus I'm lazy.

I guess I'd point to the Virginia suburban soccer moms who voted for Biden in 2020 and Youngkin in 2021 as a potential example of the voters I'm suggesting might exist. Although there are other alternative explanations for their votes.

barfo

 

[calvin natt]

Best case scenario a new Covid strain hits Trump hard, causing a slow painful near death.

 

[stampedehero]

So in 2016, Trump won (in case you hadn't heard). A third party candidate, Jill Stein, drew some critical votes from the Democratic candidate (She-who-must-not-be-named).

In 2020, Trump lost. Although I thought for sure that Trump would gin up a 3rd party candidate to help himself win, he did not, and there was no significant 3rd party vote. Maybe Trump was too sure of his victory to bother, or perhaps there were other reasons. If there had been an 'interesting' anti-Trump 3rd party candidate (either on the left or the right) it would have drawn votes away from Biden in swing states and possibly Trump could have won it.

In 2016, Trump thought he would lose and he won. In 2020, he thought he'd win, and he lost. In 2024, presumably he won't take winning for granted. The best and probably only way for him to win is to split the anti-Trump vote. He knows he can count on his base no matter what, and he should be at least dimly aware that it's not a majority of the population.

In 2024, I think there will be a 3rd party candidate, and I think it will be Trump, if he's smart (he isn't, but maybe he'll find this acorn anyway).

So why run as the "Trump Party" candidate rather than the Republican? Because that guarantees a three-way race. Even if the R candidate is very right-wing, he or she will siphon off some anti-Trump votes that would go to the Democrat in a 2-way race.

Trump doesn't need the fund-raising or organizing arms of the R party. He's got plenty of name recognition and campaign money. What he desperately needs is a 3- (or more-) way race. And it would be a bonus for him to make the Republican party squirm and finish in 3rd place.

Assuming he's not in prison or dead by 2024.

barfo

He plays the fake game like a pro.~

 

[stampedehero]

Can you all imagine if a credible, well-funded third party existing for years and true voting democracy would have existed. Two party systems contribute to public polarization.

 

[bigbailes]

I guess I'd point to the Virginia suburban soccer moms who voted for Biden in 2020 and Youngkin in 2021 as a potential example of the voters I'm suggesting might exist. Although there are other alternative explanations for their votes.

barfo

In the 2020 Presidential election Virginia had 4.46 million voters cast a ballot, in the 2021 Governor race it was 3.29 million. I think that goes more to the point Minstrel was making, in that Trump brought out more 'non-voters' to vote against him. Now we can agree that more people typically come out in a Presidential election than on off years. Trump in 2020 got 1.96 million votes, Youngkin got 1.66 million in 2021, not a massive drop off. Biden got 2.41 million in 2020 while McAuliffe got 1.60, where did the 800k people go?

 

[barfo]

In the 2020 Presidential election Virginia had 4.46 million voters cast a ballot, in the 2021 Governor race it was 3.29 million. I think that goes more to the point Minstrel was making, in that Trump brought out more 'non-voters' to vote against him. Now we can agree that more people typically come out in a Presidential election than on off years. Trump in 2020 got 1.96 million votes, Youngkin got 1.66 million in 2021, not a massive drop off. Biden got 2.41 million in 2020 while McAuliffe got 1.60, where did the 800k people go?

That is certainly a reasonable point. And there's no doubt that depressing the Democratic turnout will be a key goal in 2024, remains to be seen whether it works for Trump, as it did in 2016, or not as in 2020.

barfo

 

[tlongII]

What will matter in 2024 is the economy. That will take precedence over everything else.....well as long as there isn't another pandemic.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I understand what you mean and it's a reasonable theory. I think I'd agree with it if this had happened in, say, the 1970s or 1980s. But I think the nation is far too polarized today for a notable segment of Biden's votes to have come from normally reliable Republican voters who in this case hated Trump. I'm sure there were a few (in a relative sense), but I can't see a large segment of today's conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) saying, "The candidate for my own party is so repugnant that I'm going to hold my nose and vote for the other party." More likely, they said "Yeah, Trump's an asshole, but Biden and Harris (or Hillary or Obama in the past) are actually evil."

So my view is that Biden ran up so many votes because Trump mobilized many unlikely-to-vote liberals, Democrats and left-of-center independents to actually vote for Biden (so much mail-in balloting also helped with that) rather than just ignoring the election. A few Republicans may have cast a protest vote for Biden, and a few more may have sat it out in protest, but I think the vast majority of anti-Trump conservatives employed the rationale I mentioned above.

I can see where you'd end up with two "conservative" candidates hurting Biden, under your theory of how the election broke. Under mine, I still believe that Biden had very little conservative support to lose, so two candidates for conservatives to choose between would simply split their voting power. There's probably data that could tell us something about which theory is right, but I don't know where to find it plus I'm lazy.

raises hand. Voted third party last time because i didnt want to vote for trump again but didnt want to vote for a party i dont agree with regarding many political issues.
If its only trump, i likely vote Biden. But if a second conservative was up and as legit as a politician can be these days, id likely vote for him. Means a no vote for trump but also a no vote for Biden.
So i think im a perfect example of what Barfo is pointing out.
Not sure how many of me there are to actually make a difference though.

 

[Stevenson]

Except that his unfavorables are historically high, save for his cult following. That's not enough to win a general election, and being seen as a "loser" is his kryptonite. He'll tease it forever to stay in the public eye, but I don't see him running.

The only guy to lose the popular vote three times? Not gonna happen.

 

[Chris Craig]

The funny thing is behind the curtains, I bet Trump talks about how mindless the maga crowd is and that he can't believe they are falling for his shit.

 

[barfo]

Except that his unfavorables are historically high, save for his cult following. That's not enough to win a general election, and being seen as a "loser" is his kryptonite. He'll tease it forever to stay in the public eye, but I don't see him running.

The only guy to lose the popular vote three times? Not gonna happen.

I dunno. If he thinks he can win the presidency but lose the popular vote again, I think he'd be all over that.

barfo

 

[barfo]

The funny thing is behind the curtains, I bet Trump talks about how mindless the maga crowd is and that he can't believe they are falling for his shit.

He's spent his entire life taking the rubes. I'd guess he's ceased to be surprised by how stupid his marks are.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

He's spent his entire life taking the rubes. I'd guess he's ceased to be surprised by how stupid his marks are.

barfo

I doubt he's surprised. But he revels in knowing and bragging that he's taking advantage of stupid people.

 

[Chris Craig]

I doubt he's surprised. But he revels in knowing and bragging that he's taking advantage of stupid people.

He has said publicly that he loves the uneducated. The uneducated don't understand that's not a compliment.

 

[Minstrel]

He's spent his entire life taking the rubes. I'd guess he's ceased to be surprised by how stupid his marks are.

barfo

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't intend to run again, he just wants to signal that he's interested so his rubes will continue to donate money to him. I think his ideal end game was always monetizing his collection of devoted wallets by way of a media network, not the Presidency.

 

[julius]

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't intend to run again, he just wants to signal that he's interested so his rubes will continue to donate money to him. I think his ideal end game was always monetizing his collection of devoted wallets by way of a media network, not the Presidency.

Hold on, are you implying that he's been conning them out of their money?

 

[Lanny]

The funny thing is behind the curtains, I bet Trump talks about how mindless the maga crowd is and that he can't believe they are falling for his shit.

He should be thinking that but I'm kinda convinced that he doesn't do a lot of thinking.

 

[Lanny]

Hold on, are you implying that he's been conning them out of their money?

Beautifully put.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Trump held a contest for small donors to have dinner with him, but no one won the prize, report says

Former President Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a rally at the Iowa State Fairgrounds on October 09, 2021.Scott Olson/Getty Images

• Trump's PAC offered small donors the chance to win a dinner with him in New Orleans last week.
  
• No one won the prize, and Trump met with influential donors instead, The Washington Post reported.
  
• A Trump spokesperson said no winner was chosen due to an "administrative" error.
  

Former President Donald Trump's political action committee offered supporters the chance to win an intimate dinner with him if they donated money, but no one received the prize, according to The Washington Post.

Small donors were teased in e-mails from the Save America PAC with the promise of a plane ticket, a "very nice hotel," and a meal with the former president in New Orleans if they donated "any amount," the newspaper reported. The total retail value of the prize, according to the PAC, is about $3,000.

But four people familiar with the matter told The Post that no flight or hotel was booked, and Trump did not partake in a one-on-one dinner with a prizewinner.

Instead of taking part in the New Orleans dinner, The Post reported that the former president met with a handful of influential donors who had given tens of thousands of dollars each.

The Office of Donald J. Trump did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment on Saturday morning.

In a comment provided to The Post, Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich said Friday that no winner was chosen due to an administrative error.

"President Trump has awarded more than 100 prizes to contest winners across America, but due to an administrative error in this individual circumstance, the contest winner was not properly notified for last weekend's event in New Orleans," Budowich told The Post. "Consistent with the rules of the sweepstakes, a substitute prize will be awarded to the winner."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-held-contest-small-donors-123827685.html

 

[SlyPokerDog]

"Consistent with the rules of the sweepstakes, a substitute prize will be awarded to the winner."

Oh god, that means the winners will probably get to have dinner with Eric and Don Jr.