Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Third-Parties and GOP Senate control

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 10:07:33 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
http://www.politico.com...

I said a few times a while back that GOP base displeasure could cost the Senate if they don't lose it regardless, and now some seem to be thinking the same.

Most ominously for the two major parties, a handful of disenchanted voters in just one state could determine Senate control and which party will oversee the confirmation process and priorities of the Senate under a new president, particularly in places like Nevada and New Hampshire. In Nevada, there"s the infamous "none of the above" option that could drain support from Rep. Joe Heck (R) or former Democratic Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, and in New Hampshire a third-party conservative is openly running as a spoiler that could hurt the chances of Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R).

Libertarian Senate candidates are aiming to be on the ballot in more than 20 states

Johnson's neutrality is clearly a worry for the GOP, given that Libertarians often try to make appeals to GOP voters and several Senate races are currently dead heats.

Over at the National Republican Congressional Committee HQ, staffers are testing how Johnson could rock the boat in pockets of the country like Colorado and Nevada. The threat of libertarians costing the GOP"s seats, at least in principle, is real, but has yet to be tested in a full-on election with presidential candidates this unpopular.

On the left, the Green Party is less resistant to supporting the Democratic Party over the GOP, even as the party faithful remain disappointed by congressional Democrats" centrist tendencies. Currently, the party is only fielding candidates in two states with competitive Senate races, and in places where there"s no Green Party Senate contender on the ballot, officials expect that Green voters will be pragmatic and gravitate toward the more liberal politician on the ballot.

Thoughts on that?

I saw this coming. Many people are saying they'll vote in the Presidential race for SCOTUS nominations, but the truth is that the Senate is just as important - if not more so for that thinking.

As it stands, there is a legitimate possibility of Trump losing the popular vote and still winning the election, and a party gaining 5 seats to take control of the Senate while losing the Presidency (Democrats). That would be a little bit of a mindfuck, but that's exactly where the consolidation of power in swing states and third parties have landed us.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 12:24:26 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 10:07:33 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://www.politico.com...

I said a few times a while back that GOP base displeasure could cost the Senate if they don't lose it regardless, and now some seem to be thinking the same.

Most ominously for the two major parties, a handful of disenchanted voters in just one state could determine Senate control and which party will oversee the confirmation process and priorities of the Senate under a new president, particularly in places like Nevada and New Hampshire. In Nevada, there"s the infamous "none of the above" option that could drain support from Rep. Joe Heck (R) or former Democratic Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, and in New Hampshire a third-party conservative is openly running as a spoiler that could hurt the chances of Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R).

Libertarian Senate candidates are aiming to be on the ballot in more than 20 states

Johnson's neutrality is clearly a worry for the GOP, given that Libertarians often try to make appeals to GOP voters and several Senate races are currently dead heats.

Over at the National Republican Congressional Committee HQ, staffers are testing how Johnson could rock the boat in pockets of the country like Colorado and Nevada. The threat of libertarians costing the GOP"s seats, at least in principle, is real, but has yet to be tested in a full-on election with presidential candidates this unpopular.

On the left, the Green Party is less resistant to supporting the Democratic Party over the GOP, even as the party faithful remain disappointed by congressional Democrats" centrist tendencies. Currently, the party is only fielding candidates in two states with competitive Senate races, and in places where there"s no Green Party Senate contender on the ballot, officials expect that Green voters will be pragmatic and gravitate toward the more liberal politician on the ballot.

Thoughts on that?

I saw this coming. Many people are saying they'll vote in the Presidential race for SCOTUS nominations, but the truth is that the Senate is just as important - if not more so for that thinking.

As it stands, there is a legitimate possibility of Drumpf losing the popular vote and still winning the election, and a party gaining 5 seats to take control of the Senate while losing the Presidency (Democrats). That would be a little bit of a mindfuck, but that's exactly where the consolidation of power in swing states and third parties have landed us.

As a Green, I can tell you that since there are no Greens running for house or Senate, I will be voting for the Democrat