Protest Vote

[_Some Schmo]

If the general election match-up is Hillary vs Donald, how many protest votes will there be this year? Neither party will be able to consolidate support around their nominee in that scenario. I have a feeling we may see a record number of third party/write-in votes.

I can't help thinking a vote for Hillary in the primaries and caucuses is a vote for Trump in the general. Between voter apathy, especially among the youth, and the number of independents that will switch parties if they don't have Bernie to support, I don't see a convincing path to victory for Hillary. This is the year of anti-establishment. Like it or not, Trump wins the anti-establishment vote.

[_Brackite]

I don't really like Trump, but the good thing about having Trump as the 2016 GOP Nominee is that there will likely be more battleground States during this Presidential election. During the 2012 Presidential election, there were only about ten battleground States. Link
With Trump as the 2016 GOP Nominee, States such as Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan will likely become battleground states during this Presidential election.

As for me, I will very likely be voting for Gary Johnson during the general election as a protest vote.

[_EAllusion]

There have been major 3rd party runs in US history. There's no indication a major 3rd party run is on the horizon. Do you think we're going to see more 3rd party votes than what Ross Perot received in 1992?

[_The CCC]

Primaries, and caucuses, are for falling in love. Elections are for falling in line. Protest votes particularly in battle ground states just means that Trump(If he is the nominee) wins.

[_Dr. Shades]

Protest votes particularly in battle ground states just means that Trump(If he is the nominee) wins.

What makes you so sure? Why not say that a protest vote, particularly in battleground states, just means that Clinton (if she is the nominee) wins?

[_The CCC]

Protest votes particularly in battle ground states just means that Trump(If he is the nominee) wins.

What makes you so sure? Why not say that a protest vote, particularly in battleground states, just means that Clinton (if she is the nominee) wins?

Historically Republicans tend to fall in line once their candidate is selected. While Democrats tend to splinter, or don't vote at all. Will both stay true form this election? I don't know, but that is their histories.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

[_EAllusion]

Historically Republicans tend to fall in line once their candidate is selected. While Democrats tend to splinter, or don't vote at all. Will both stay true form this election? I don't know, but that is their histories.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

Ross Perot hurt Republicans more than he did Democrats. Intuitively, if people are protest voting, it seems more likely that it would be in protest of Trump than Clinton. You can pick that up from the favorability numbers within their own parties.

[_The CCC]

Historically Republicans tend to fall in line once their candidate is selected. While Democrats tend to splinter, or don't vote at all. Will both stay true form this election? I don't know, but that is their histories.
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

Ross Perot hurt Republicans more than he did Democrats. Intuitively, if people are protest voting, it seems more likely that it would be in protest of Trump than Clinton. You can pick that up from the favorability numbers within their own parties.

1968 Democratic Convention split the Democratic Party 5 ways from Sunday
!972 Presidential election. Nixon and Watergate
1976 Presidential election Carter barely won in three way race
1980 Presidential election Reagan used treason to win.
1992 Perot acted as spoiler for Republicans
2000 Presidential election close enough for Republicans to steal through Florida
2004 Presidential election close enough for Republicans to steal through Ohio
2010 Republicans retake House through low voter turn out
2012 Republican retake Senate through low voter turn out

If Democrats want to win they need to show up at the polls.

[_Brackite]

“1980 Presidential election Reagan used treason to win.″

I Don't agree with that.


“2000 Presidential election close enough for Republicans to steal through Florida“

I do basically agree with that. Al Gore won the popular vote by at least 540,000 votes, and he very likely really did win Florida.

“On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide.“

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-fl ... t-of-2000/

http://rense.com/general16/count.htm


“2004 Presidential election close enough for Republicans to steal through Ohio“

I don't really agree with that. Bush 43 won the popular vote by about 2.9 million votes, and he won Ohio by about 118,000 votes. I think that there were a few thousand people in Ohio who weren't able to vote that wanted to, but a few more thousand votes for Kerry would not have helped him win Ohio over Bush 43.


“2010 Republicans retake House through low voter turn out“

I Don't agree with that.


“2012 [2014] Republican retake Senate through low voter turn out“

I Don't agree with that. The State of Colorado had a high turnout for a midterm election in 2014 when Republican Cory Gardner ended up defeating Incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Udall there.

"Yet in Colorado, Mr. Udall lost despite a better Democratic turnout than in 2010. So far, the state has tabulated 2.06 million ballots, or nearly 80 percent of the 2.57 million votes in the 2012 presidential election, according to an Upshot analysis of ballot tabulation data from the Colorado secretary of state. The turnout was nearly 300,000 votes higher than in 2010, when a strong Democratic turnout effort propelled Senator Michael Bennet to a come-from-behind victory."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/us/turnout-a-scapegoat-wasnt-always-the-difference-this-time.html?abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0



Here are the 2014 Colorado's Senate election results:

Cory Gardner - 983,891 - 48.21%
Mark Udall --- 944,203 -- 46.26%
Others ------ 112,964

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... rado,_2014

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/electio ... index.html



The State of Virginia had a very low voter turnout during the 2014 November midterm elections, but Incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Warner was able to still win reelection over his GOP Opponent there by 0.8%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... inia,_2014

[_EAllusion]

If Democrats want to win they need to show up at the polls.

That's like saying if a team wants to win, it needs to score more points.

The whole point of a protest vote, en masse anyways, is that people don't care if the Democrat loses. Not everyone is so hyper-partisan that they'll vote for anyone with a "D" after their name because they need to see a Democrat in charge.