"all this assumes that the debates have any real impact."Well, yes... but not in the same way one would assume it would work for the "major" party candidates. I suspect the opportunity offered to a third party candidate (for good or ill) by being on the debate stage is much more than for the candidates who already have neigh-ubiquitous media saturation."what if a third-party candidate can win at least one state?"As an odd quirk of the system, they don't necessarily even have to win a state. Though it is extremely rare, some states do not bind their electoral college delegates, and it is thus possible for some delegates to cast votes for anyone they choose. In 1972, a year after it was founded, the Libertarian Party received a vote from one of the Virginia delegates (making their VP candidate, Tonie Nathan, the first woman and the first Jew to ever receive an electoral vote). My understanding is that such an action would qualify the recipient for consideration. Well at least, the top three electoral vote getters would qualify for consideration by the House of Representatives, even if the top three vote getters had not all run public campaigns up to that point.On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:15 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:On 10/03/2016 05:18 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
If they are not in those debates, it is argued that it is near-impossible for them to win much in the Electoral College.
Of course, all this assumes that the debates have any real impact. I think most of the evidence shows the 1st debate mattered in the poll results (even if only 1-2 % points). But the map between polls and votes is complex, too. It's reasonable to think that only people who pay attention to politics at all care about the debates. And those are also the people who respond to polls. So, there's a leap of faith that the debates matter at all.
Barring any serious gaffes, my guess is the effect from advertisements swamps that from the debates.
Now, under this "possible" scenario, any other third-party candidate would have to be considered if they win any state; that is if I understand the rules for this heretofore unprecedented event. So, if this is so, what if a third-party candidate can win at least one state?
I suppose because Trump is so despised by so many Republicans, it's reasonable to think Johnson would have a chance in the House election. But the populist backlash would be yuuuge. Such a scenario would lend more credence to the worries about riots and domestic terrorism after the election. So, my guess would be that if the House has to vote, they'll vote for Trump or Clinton. Since Clinton is basically a neocon right along the lines of Bush'43, respectable House Republicans will be able to justify a vote for her over Johnson.
According to /Merriam-Webster/, plausible means "appearing worthy of belief ." Maybe this year many things that didn't seem credible in the past could be worthy of our belief this cycle. I mean, how credible is it that Donald Trump would have become the GOP's champion candidate for POTUS? Everything seems upside-down this time. Yes?
Heh, well some of us believe in things like virgin births, chiropracty, transubstantiation, telekinesis, chemtrails, and acupuncture ... So, it's plausible that the word "plausible" is a completely useless word. 8^)
--
☣ glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |