• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Candidate Reaches 270

Who Does The Republican House Elect As President?

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 10 41.7%

  • Gary Johnson

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • I actually think they would elect Hillary

    Votes: 11 45.8%
  • Total voters
    24
earthworm said:
I voted for Mrs Clinton .. she is the closest to being a republican of the three .. But, I do not think this can be .. we are smarter than that .... not a landslide for Clinton , but a definite win , this November ..
I think that libertarians are gaining in strength ..maybe 50 years from now ...
Click to expand...

She is indeed and will be even closer to being a republican in the next 100 days.

In the OP scenario I suspect that the Republican House would vote for Trump. No one in either party has the balls to venture beyond the implicit authority of the oligarchy.
 
Paul Ryan :shock:
:2wave:
 
Goshin said:
I begrudge no man to act according to his conscience.


I just hope a year or two from now circumstances do not compel regrets.


President Trump is not a thought that fills me with joy and confidence... but President Hillary may be more than the tattered shreds of our Republic can bear.


I have made my choice as well: namely that keeping Hillary out of the Oval Office is the most important thing that needs to happen this year. She may well be the most corrupt and selfish individual to run in my lifetime, and may make Obama's tenure look like a mere speed-bump in comparison.


If the choice is going to come down to one kind of asshole or another, the buffoon will probably do less damage than the witch.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Mostly because like other Presidents in the past that were not liked by their own party even, and disliked by the majority of congress, they ended up capable of doing much of nothing.

If Trump is disliked by as many republicans as democrats, he really won't be able to do jack **** except talk stupidly.

Hillary on the other hand is adored by the Dem party, and has a snake venom way of getting what she wants even out of Republicans. So I see her as the largest threat of the two.

Trump could end up being a lame duck.
 
joG said:
Also, Clinton is offering huge vote buying programs and tapping hate by taxing persons of higher income. Most voters seem not to understand the economic implications, so the package will pack a lot of punch.
Click to expand...

Yes OMG she might actually return us back to Clinton era tax rates when we had the greatest period of peace and prosperity in American history. Oh the horrors....

Look tax rates right now are at some of their lowest levels in the post war era. They are not bring in enough revenue to sufficiently fund the fiscal obligations we have placed in the federal public sector. Thus they will have to go up at some point. It only makes sense to increase tax rates on those for whom it has the least impact on, and that would be the wealthiest of taxpayers. We have had higher tax rates before on the top 1% and it had no ill effects at all on the economy.

The notion that progressive taxation is "hating the rich" is just moronic.
 
Moderate Right said:
Hillary has high negatives. Trump has high negatives. Assuming that this is the year of the third party and the most viable third party candidate is Gary Johnson, let's also assume that Johnson gets enough electoral votes that no candidate reaches 270. In this event the House of Representatives votes to determine who will be president out of the top three candidates getting electoral votes. Realistically, since the House is Republican controlled by a large margin, Hillary is automatically out of the running so the contest is between Trump and Johnson. Who does the House elect president?
Click to expand...

You haven't given enough information. In order to answer you question, I would need to know how it came about that the Libertarians won enough Electoral Votes to stop anyone from getting to 270.

The one way I can think of would be if enough information comes to show that both Clinton and Trump are compromised with respect to Russia. Clinton, because they've cleaned out her server and Trump, because he owes hundreds of millions to the oligarchs. It's a long shot but not out of the question. Under that scenario, the House might well elect Johnson.

Hard to imagine other scenarios where Johnson / Weld could get electoral votes. Perhaps a southwest strategy where they try to win New Mexico and maybe Colorado, Nevada or Arizona. In that instance, Trump would certainly win in the House. However, if those states actually get close, the voters will know that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump and they will act accordingly.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Don't get your hopes up, its not going to happen. If a Republican wants to win the presidency, they have to win 40% or more of the Hispanic vote. Trump does not stand a chance in hell of doing that. He won't just lose, electorally he will lose by a good margin.

This notion that Trump will make up the difference with white men is ridiculous. Romney got a bigger percentage of the white vote than even Reagan did yet he still lost. There is no more white vote to get for Trump than what Romney or McCain got.
Click to expand...

This is assuming they vote for Hillary. Big assumption.
 
WCH said:
This is assuming they vote for Hillary. Big assumption.
Click to expand...

I guarantee you they will. In fact, given the things Trump has said in the last year, I guarantee you she get a bigger percentage of the Hispanic vote than even Obama. He is like George Wallace to Hispanics and the polling bears this out.
 
I consider this scenario very unlikely. Johnson's chances of winning any state's electoral votes are incredibly small.

But if it does come to pass, the house will elect Trump. They don't like him all that much, but they like him more than Hillary, and enough of their constituents support Trump that many of them would be voted out in the next election if they didn't choose trump.
 
earthworm said:
Why be mean and nasty ?
Or is this the way conservatives are ?? .. one lousy electrical vote for a libertarian .. big deal ..this means NOTHING ..
Click to expand...

What exactly is an "electrical vote"?
 
Goshin said:
Telling the truth and facing reality are not childish acts.



Insulting those who do so, however.... hmm. ;)
Click to expand...

Except you told a lie.

Keep doubling down on lies Trump style.

If you had left it at the Libertarians have no chance to influence the election...

However you decided to make a false claim and do it in the largest font possible.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Don't get your hopes up, its not going to happen. If a Republican wants to win the presidency, they have to win 40% or more of the Hispanic vote. Trump does not stand a chance in hell of doing that. He won't just lose, electorally he will lose by a good margin.

This notion that Trump will make up the difference with white men is ridiculous. Romney got a bigger percentage of the white vote than even Reagan did yet he still lost. There is no more white vote to get for Trump than what Romney or McCain got.
Click to expand...

no they don't. The hispanic vote is not a deciding bloc in the majority of electoral swing states. That is a gross oversimplification of demographic analysis, and it really isn't true. following those numbers if Romney won 70% of the Hispanic vote he would still not be president.
 
Harshaw said:
There's also never been a year where large portions of both parties are sickened by their respective nominees, both of whom are deeply unpopular in general.
Click to expand...

Actually that was the whole thrust of Ross Perots popularity was the unpopularity of Bush versus disagreements with Clinton.
 
Crovax said:
Except you told a lie.

Keep doubling down on lies Trump style.

If you had left it at the Libertarians have no chance to influence the election...

However you decided to make a false claim and do it in the largest font possible.
Click to expand...



You remind me of my ex-wife. She pretended to be unable to comprehend the difference between a honest but mistaken statement, and a lie also.

When it suited her purposes she'd also ignore the fact that I corrected my information as soon as I became aware of my mistake.


One of the many reasons she's my "ex". :lamo




But at any rate, my original statement was actually correct... no Libertarian candidate has ever WON a single electoral vote, in the usual and correct manner (by winning enough of the popular vote in a given state), but only been given one such vote by a "faithless elector", an act most people consider unethical or at least questionable.


That you say I lied over a technical exception I corrected for minutes later reveals more about your character than it does about mine.



(hint- not in a good way. :roll: )
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I guarantee you they will. In fact, given the things Trump has said in the last year, I guarantee you she get a bigger percentage of the Hispanic vote than even Obama. He is like George Wallace to Hispanics and the polling bears this out.
Click to expand...
Speak of the devil .. George Wallace earned 23% of the Democratic vote during the '72 primaries !
I was a conservative back then ..
Our world, our nation is ever changing ...
 
EMNofSeattle said:
no they don't. The hispanic vote is not a deciding bloc in the majority of electoral swing states. That is a gross oversimplification of demographic analysis, and it really isn't true. following those numbers if Romney won 70% of the Hispanic vote he would still not be president.
Click to expand...

Karl Rove himself breaks it down here: Karl Rove: More White Votes Alone Won't Save the GOP - WSJ

The reason why Bush is the only president in the popular vote since 1988 is that he won 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.
 
I find it hard to believe that six people so far actually think that the Republican controlled House would vote for Clinton under this scenario.
 
Not going to happen, Period.
 
ajn678 said:
If it was decided by popular vote, you might be right. However, its not. The election will not come down to the Hispanic vote.
Click to expand...

Even in the swing states, it makes a big difference. Trump can't win Florida without doing well with Hispanics. The same is true with Colorado and New Mexico. If you throw in non-whites, which Trump has trouble with all non-whites, then he has demographic issues in virtually all the swing states with the exception of Iowa. Of course non-whites are not his only problem, he also has problems with women in general, particularly younger women and unmarried women. Which if you read the article you would see that was Karl Rove's point. The only way for a Republican to win is to increase their percentages with Hispanics, non-Whites, and Women. That is what Bush did in 2004, that is what Romney and McCain failed to do in 2008 and 2012. In that regard Trump is even worse than either of them. There simply isn't enough of the white male vote for a Republican to win on that alone. Romney won a bigger percentage of whites than even Reagan won, yet he still lost because of changing demographics in this country. This notion that Trump is bringing all these whites over to the Republican Party is ridiculous considering the Republicans have had them voting for them consistently for 2 decades already anyway.

I have been on this forum since 2005 and have been pointing this out since then, yet the right wingers on here never buy it. A guy like Kasich or Rubio would have been very hard for Hillary to beat in a general election but the demographics in this country make guys like Trump or Cruz practically unelectable. Until the Republican base gets it through their thick heads that most people in this country don't think the way they do, thus to win in a presidential election they have to nominate someone that is not a bigot and more moderate, then they will continue to lose. They talk like Romney was a moderate, but in 2012 he ran as a typical hardcore Republican, with typical hardcore Republican positions on every single issue and he lost.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Even in the swing states, it makes a big difference. Trump can't win Florida without doing well with Hispanics. The same is true with Colorado and New Mexico. If you throw in non-whites, which Trump has trouble with all non-whites, then he has demographic issues in virtually all the swing states with the exception of Iowa. Of course non-whites are not his only problem, he also has problems with women in general, particularly younger women and unmarried women. Which if you read the article you would see that was Karl Rove's point. The only way for a Republican to win is to increase their percentages with Hispanics, non-Whites, and Women. That is what Bush did in 2004, that is what Romney and McCain failed to do in 2008 and 2012. In that regard Trump is even worse than either of them. There simply isn't enough of the white male vote for a Republican to win on that alone. Romney won a bigger percentage of whites than even Reagan won, yet he still lost because of changing demographics in this country.

I have been on this forum since 2005 and have been pointing this out since then, yet the right wingers on here never buy it. A guy like Kasich or Rubio would have been very hard for Hillary to beat in a general election but the demographics in this country make guys like Trump or Cruz practically unelectable.
Click to expand...

Obama had extremely high turnouts in groups that are not common. This most likely will not continue, and in fact is clearly obvious that it was a fluke.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Don't get your hopes up, its not going to happen. If a Republican wants to win the presidency, they have to win 40% or more of the Hispanic vote. Trump does not stand a chance in hell of doing that. He won't just lose, electorally he will lose by a good margin.

This notion that Trump will make up the difference with white men is ridiculous. Romney got a bigger percentage of the white vote than even Reagan did yet he still lost. There is no more white vote to get for Trump than what Romney or McCain got.
Click to expand...

BUT BUT BUT... we now have 100% proof of a totally rigged system.. that will change the whole ballgame

The BIG thing in Trumps Corner... is we NOW have 100% PROOF that the main america thing its ELECTION of the govt.... we have 100% proof of a totally RIGGED SYSTEM.. what did we see when CRUZ insane greed got him RAT TRAPPED ? we saw america waking up quickly when suddenly trump started soaring and cruz falling like a rock... a system rigged so that ones with money could buy off delegates to STOP THE VOTERS

Next we saw sanders screaming rigged system and saw how it is so RIGGED that he then tells his voters to work for the RIGGERS
Then we have emails showing that INDEED that democrat race WAS RIGGED for hillary

all trump has to do is work these 2 issues and then maybe show people how the MEDIA is also rigging the system
 
ajn678 said:
Obama had extremely high turnouts in groups that are not common. This most likely will not continue, and in fact is clearly obvious that it was a fluke.
Click to expand...

Well all I can say is don't get your hopes up because Trump has already made more the enough bigoted statements to ensure those groups turn out big in 2016 as well. Moreover, the Clinton campaign is using the same targeted turnout metrics that the Obama campaign used for the general. Just because primary turnout was not as high this time around is irrelevant to that. You have to remember that Hillary got more votes in the primaries than Obama did in 2008 yet he still turned all those Hillary voters out for the general. Trump will easily lose by more electoral votes than Romney did. He has already given the Clinton campaign more than enough material to run at least the most effective negative ad campaign since LBJ / Goldwater. They will paint him as an ignorant bigot and bully and literally shame people into not voting for him. Now you might say, well why did his primary opponents not do that? Well because they were trying to appeal to the same bigoted base that Trump appealed to. The Clinton campaign could care less about that, they will just make sure that is all he has voting for him come November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom