The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[BlueK]

If Trump were nominated and Romney ran as an independent, would he get Utah's 6 electoral votes? I say yes. Then what if he also were to pull it off in a few other states and none of the three candidates gets the majority of electoral votes. Doesn't the House of Reps get to choose among the top 3? That could be really interesting with a republican House majority who would mostly be more ideologically in line with someone like Romney than Trump. That would be crazy.

[All-American]

Little theory: Romney's speech was part of testing the waters for a possible nomination via brokered convention, and gets enough pushback that he'll drop the idea quickly.

[BlueK]

Little theory: Romney's speech was part of testing the waters for a possible nomination via brokered convention, and gets enough pushback that he'll drop the idea quickly.

probably. I did read something recently that there is talk among several GOP establishment types about possibly running someone as an independent this one time if Trump gets the nomination. Romney being that candidate just seemed interesting because normally indy candidates have little to no chance of carrying a state. With Romney the idea he could at least carry Utah is pretty realistic if the other two choices are Hillary and Trump. And if he could do it in Utah maybe even a couple others in the west like Idaho, Nevada, Arizona maybe. Taking the electoral votes in just those states could very well keep one of the other two from getting a majority.

[Applejack]

If Trump were nominated and Romney ran as an independent, would he get Utah's 6 electoral votes? I say yes. Then what if he also were to pull it off in a few other states and none of the three candidates gets the majority of electoral votes. Doesn't the House of Reps get to choose among the top 3? That could be really interesting with a republican House majority who would mostly be more ideologically in line with someone like Romney than Trump. That would be crazy.

Are you asking if Romney would win Utah?

[BlueK]

Are you asking if Romney would win Utah?

only rhetorically. I'm 99% sure he would win it easily with Trump and Hillary being the other choices.

[myboynoah]

I must lol that Mexico keeps saying that it is not going to pay for the wall.

[byu71]

I am shocked at how many people here have him in the middle of the pack. He is an outlier far beyond any other candidate in our lifetimes.

Of course he is in the middle of the pack. Did you forget the group has Sanders, Hillary and Cruz in it. Aren't you following this thing?

[BlueK]

Of course he is in the middle of the pack. Did you forget the group has Sanders, Hillary and Cruz in it. Aren't you following this thing?

Trump is the most likely to cause the most damage to the country. Sanders can't get nominated, so that's moot. Hillary won't change anything from the status quo and is actually a little more moderate than Obama. Nothing would happen because there's a congress to block whatever she wants.

Trump could actually get the most done with help from the dems in congress along with a few stupid republicans. The problem is that what he would want to get done would be disastrous. It's tragic that his fanbase is too stupid to understand what his macho bombastic insults of other countries and threats of trade wars actully means. "If elected I will pass a 35% tax on the products you buy every day at Walmart." If he talked trade policy in his speeches in terms his fans would actually understand, he would have no support. Unfortunately most of his fans were skipping high school history and/or economics class to smoke behind the school on the day they talked about what "tariffs" are.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Of course he is in the middle of the pack. Did you forget the group has Sanders, Hillary and Cruz in it. Aren't you following this thing?

Yeah, I fully expected you to be unable to discern the stark differences between Trump and these candidates, none of which are that much different from typical election-cycle candidates. Still kind of shocked about some of the other folks, though.

[snowcat]

Trump is the most likely to cause the most damage to the country. Sanders can't get nominated, so that's moot. Hillary won't change anything from the status quo and is actually a little more moderate than Obama. Nothing would happen because there's a congress to block whatever she wants.

Trump could actually get the most done with help from the dems in congress along with a few stupid republicans. The problem is that what he would want to get done would be disastrous. It's tragic that his fanbase is too stupid to understand what his macho bombastic insults of other countries and threats of trade wars actully means. "If elected I will pass a 35% tax on the products you buy every day at Walmart." If he talked trade policy in his speeches in terms his fans would actually understand, he would have no support. Unfortunately most of his fans were skipping high school history and/or economics class to smoke behind the school on the day they talked about what "tariffs" are.

I have a hard time believing a President Trump would actually try to do any of the blow hard crap he is spewing. He would spend most of his time eating up the celebrity of being the POTUS and giving the press lots of soundbites.

[BlueK]

I have a hard time believing a President Trump would actually try to do any blow hard crap he is spewing. He would spend most of his time eating up the celebrity of being the POTUS and giving the press lots of soundbites.

well, we can hope.

[imanihonjin]

Yeah, I fully expected you to be unable to discern the stark differences between Trump and these candidates, none of which are that much different from typical election-cycle candidates. Still kind of shocked about some of the other folks, though.

Ha...you continue to parade this out there....go ahead and let me know when the last time a self avowed socialist was a serious player in a presidential election. Also, while politicians are not the most moral of individuals, when was the last time there was a major party candidate that is likely to win their party's nomination that is under Federal investigation and who, perhaps, may be indicted (add this to the fact that the issue over which she is under investigation deals with serious national security questions which were at best a terrible error in judgement and it is incredible that any sane person could even vote for her)? After Trump you have a super creepy individual who is pretty extreme and divisive. Those are the 4 leading candidates for the presidential nomination. Sure you have some normal folks in the wings, but Jim Webb was never a serious candidate and Rubio, Kasich, and Jeb never gained traction.

None of the front 4 are typical in terms of front runners and even at that to have 4 of 4 be horrible candidates and not have one sane option is incredible.

[Omaha 680]

Yeah, I fully expected you to be unable to discern the stark differences between Trump and these candidates, none of which are that much different from typical election-cycle candidates. Still kind of shocked about some of the other folks, though.

I guess I'm dumb because I don't see Bernie as much better than Trump. I despise Hillary Clinton but would take her for three terms over one term of Bernie Sanders.

[Uncle Ted]

I must lol that Mexico keeps saying that it is not going to pay for the wall.

[Walter Sobchak]

I don't agree with much of anything Sanders sees as solutions to the problems he addresses. But he is at least a nice guy from all I can tell.

I read this somewhere and I think it fits... Bernie Sanders is the bizarro Ron Paul.