I think you would be surprised if the money was relative even how these people would vote. Of course Republicans are going to vote Republican and Democrats Democratic. On average 93% of those who identify with either major party votes for their candidates regardless of whom they are.
Think about Perot’s vote in 1992, back then 33% of the electorate identified with the Democrats, 27% with the Republicans and 40% were independents, according to Pew Research. Clinton received 43% of the vote, Bush the first 38% and Perot 19%. So if as history shows 93% of those who identify with the two major parties voted for them in 1992, that means independents broke around 25% for Clinton, 25% for Bush the first and 50% for Perot. Rough figures since both Clinton and Bush the first received 10% above those who associate with their parties, Perot the rest with 40% of the electorate making up the independent ranks.
Perot’s message resonated enough to convince half of all independents to vote for him. More would have if he hadn’t pulled that stupid stunt of getting out and then back in. There are a lot of independents looking for someone else, anyone else besides the two major party nominees. Perot had some money, Johnson and Stein had none.
But it does seem we will have to agree to disagree. For any third party to be viable, it not only has to win over independents, but has to take away from those who now affiliate with the two major parties.