Cruz to run 3rd Party?

a reply to: UKTruth

He should just accept he'll never be president. If he runs 3rd party he just lose again. He's a loser.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: UKTruth

He should just accept he'll never be president. If he runs 3rd party he just lose again. He's a loser.

but...but....he was anointed by GOD to be our next president.

www.nowtheendbegins.com...


His failure to win the nomination must be because of that Antichrist Obama's influence...

He won't for the same reason that Sanders or Trump couldn't - laws preventing it unless it's done strictly write in. About 30 states have laws that prevent it for candidates that lost a party nomination.

originally posted by: ketsuko
He won't for the same reason that Sanders or Trump couldn't - laws preventing it unless it's done strictly write in. About 30 states have laws that prevent it for candidates that lost a party nomination.

I didn't know about the state laws prohibiting a candidate that lost a party race... interesting... can you post a link?

a reply to: UKTruth

Sore Loswer Laws they either outright prohibit a person from running third party if they lost a party primary, or they effect the same thing by having simultaneous registration date for both the primary and the general election meaning you would have to apply for both at the same time and as what party you would be running as. Embarrassing to register for one as a Republican and the other as Independent or Libertarian and then end up winning the nom.

That wouldn't exactly bar Cruz from trying to run, but he would have to do so as a strictly write-in candidate in almost every state.

I heard he may run for Prime Minister of Canada.

He says he would keep out the influx of Americans fleeing to Canada
If Trump is elected.

Possibly even build a wall.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: UKTruth

Sore Loswer Laws they either outright prohibit a person from running third party if they lost a party primary, or they effect the same thing by having simultaneous registration date for both the primary and the general election meaning you would have to apply for both at the same time and as what party you would be running as. Embarrassing to register for one as a Republican and the other as Independent or Libertarian and then end up winning the nom.

That wouldn't exactly bar Cruz from trying to run, but he would have to do so as a strictly write-in candidate in almost every state.

Thanks - certainly does make it harder...

I think Cruz is far more likely to just let Trump lose big and then rush in after to save the Republican Party. Although Romney, the Bush's, Paul Ryan, Dole, and many other GOP leaders are saying they will not support Trump so may be thinking the same thing as Cruz.

Romney has solid GOP support and had more support among independents and still lost against Obama. Trump is doing much worse among Republicans and Independents. With out full GOP backing he likely to lose some traditional Red States where he is not polling well. And when he is already polling behind in all but, one battle ground state he can not afford to fighting for Red States that should be sure thing.

originally posted by: MrSpad
I think Cruz is far more likely to just let Trump lose big and then rush in after to save the Republican Party. Although Romney, the Bush's, Paul Ryan, Dole, and many other GOP leaders are saying they will not support Trump so may be thinking the same thing as Cruz.

Romney has solid GOP support and had more support among independents and still lost against Obama. Trump is doing much worse among Republicans and Independents. With out full GOP backing he likely to lose some traditional Red States where he is not polling well. And when he is already polling behind in all but, one battle ground state he can not afford to fighting for Red States that should be sure thing.

There might be a positive effect for Trump though if the perceived establishment fail to back him. I really think that the election will be decided by the independents and more moderate democrats/republicans.

In current polls there are a few inconsistencies - for example in the last CNN poll Clinton was up 54-41... but the percentages are for those that said they will vote for a candidate PLUS those who lean to a candidate (the question structure was such that if someone said they would vote for neither, a follow up question was asked for 'who do you lean towards'). The detail of who actually said Clinton or Trump was not given. It's why it is so different in result than the Rasmussen poll which kept those that said 'neither' as a separate count.

This, in theory could happen.

But the problem is that he would more than likely just hold down Trump’s votes in states Trump will win.


And in the Democratic states only hurt Trump.


This would assure Hillary victory


Cruz wont do that because he would know for the rest of his career he wouldn’t be able to get a pork chop at any GOP event because he’d be known as the one who helped Hillary win


No republican would do this, I don’t think

a reply to: UKTruth

Have you been watching the neocons gathering together to kick Trump to the curb?

Should I roll out " the I told you so" flag?

I'll wait for your ok!

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: UKTruth

Have you been watching the neocons gathering together to kick Trump to the curb?

Should I roll out " the I told you so" flag?

I'll wait for your ok!

ok!
Yes the usual suspects are not ever going to support him, but the majority of the party will. The thing to remember about politicians is that they have no principals whatsoever. As long as they have an opportunity to make some money, they will fall in line.

The dissenters can't kick him to the curb though. It's now his party as the representative of the people. Only voters can kick him to the curb. Some don't like their new boss.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: UKTruth

Sore Loswer Laws they either outright prohibit a person from running third party if they lost a party primary, or they effect the same thing by having simultaneous registration date for both the primary and the general election meaning you would have to apply for both at the same time and as what party you would be running as. Embarrassing to register for one as a Republican and the other as Independent or Libertarian and then end up winning the nom.

That wouldn't exactly bar Cruz from trying to run, but he would have to do so as a strictly write-in candidate in almost every state.

Reading further, it seems that 45 states have sore-loser laws but only two states have laws that apply to presidential candidates. (Link) And they only apply if a candidate lost in the primary. I don't think they apply if a candidate voluntarily drops out. It also sounds like the sore-loser laws only come into play if a candidate tries to run as an independent after a convention loss.

Still, really great info about laws that I was unaware of before now!!!

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MrSpad
I think Cruz is far more likely to just let Trump lose big and then rush in after to save the Republican Party. Although Romney, the Bush's, Paul Ryan, Dole, and many other GOP leaders are saying they will not support Trump so may be thinking the same thing as Cruz.

Romney has solid GOP support and had more support among independents and still lost against Obama. Trump is doing much worse among Republicans and Independents. With out full GOP backing he likely to lose some traditional Red States where he is not polling well. And when he is already polling behind in all but, one battle ground state he can not afford to fighting for Red States that should be sure thing.

There might be a positive effect for Trump though if the perceived establishment fail to back him. I really think that the election will be decided by the independents and more moderate democrats/republicans.

In current polls there are a few inconsistencies - for example in the last CNN poll Clinton was up 54-41... but the percentages are for those that said they will vote for a candidate PLUS those who lean to a candidate (the question structure was such that if someone said they would vote for neither, a follow up question was asked for 'who do you lean towards'). The detail of who actually said Clinton or Trump was not given. It's why it is so different in result than the Rasmussen poll which kept those that said 'neither' as a separate count.

Polling has consistently been correct this entire election cycle. So their is no reason to think that has changed. Trump can not leave it up to independents because as poorly as Clinton scores with them he does even worse. To win a Republican (because of the numbers in each party) needs full GOP support, the majority of indies and to steal a decent number of Democrats. Trump has none of that going for him. And when you start doing that electoral math, it becomes real hard to find a path to victory. In fact it becomes hard to find a path where it is not a disaster.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MrSpad
I think Cruz is far more likely to just let Trump lose big and then rush in after to save the Republican Party. Although Romney, the Bush's, Paul Ryan, Dole, and many other GOP leaders are saying they will not support Trump so may be thinking the same thing as Cruz.

Romney has solid GOP support and had more support among independents and still lost against Obama. Trump is doing much worse among Republicans and Independents. With out full GOP backing he likely to lose some traditional Red States where he is not polling well. And when he is already polling behind in all but, one battle ground state he can not afford to fighting for Red States that should be sure thing.

There might be a positive effect for Trump though if the perceived establishment fail to back him. I really think that the election will be decided by the independents and more moderate democrats/republicans.

In current polls there are a few inconsistencies - for example in the last CNN poll Clinton was up 54-41... but the percentages are for those that said they will vote for a candidate PLUS those who lean to a candidate (the question structure was such that if someone said they would vote for neither, a follow up question was asked for 'who do you lean towards'). The detail of who actually said Clinton or Trump was not given. It's why it is so different in result than the Rasmussen poll which kept those that said 'neither' as a separate count.

Polling has consistently been correct this entire election cycle. So their is no reason to think that has changed. Trump can not leave it up to independents because as poorly as Clinton scores with them he does even worse. To win a Republican (because of the numbers in each party) needs full GOP support, the majority of indies and to steal a decent number of Democrats. Trump has none of that going for him. And when you start doing that electoral math, it becomes real hard to find a path to victory. In fact it becomes hard to find a path where it is not a disaster.

6 months out the polling was not very accurate for the primaries. 2-4 weeks out the numbers firm up. For the GOP, I think Carson was leading nationally 6 months ago, then dropped away and eventually left the race.
That said, it's not that that Rasmussen OR CNN polls are wrong, it's just they are using different methods. One lumping together voting intent + leaning, the other only counting voting intent.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

But it says that those same states get around not having that law by putting the general and primary registration dates on the same day. So a candidate running in the general election has to register on the same day as the primary.

If you register for the general, you still have to list your party. So any candidate running for the primary as a Republican (or Democrat because this has been talked about for Sanders too) will obviously register as running for the general as the same. That will keep them off the ballot if they lose the nomination, and prevent them from appearing on it in any other capacity.

Do you think Cruz registered as Republican in the primary but had the foresight to register as an Independent for the general in all those states? Because if he didn't, then he can't get on the ballot and has to run as a write-in.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MotherMayEye

But it says that those same states get around not having that law by putting the general and primary registration dates on the same day. So a candidate running in the general election has to register on the same day as the primary.

If you register for the general, you still have to list your party. So any candidate running for the primary as a Republican (or Democrat because this has been talked about for Sanders too) will obviously register as running for the general as the same. That will keep them off the ballot if they lose the nomination, and prevent them from appearing on it in any other capacity.

Do you think Cruz registered as Republican in the primary but had the foresight to register as an Independent for the general in all those states? Because if he didn't, then he can't get on the ballot and has to run as a write-in.

Interesting. I wonder why there has been any speculation then about independent/third party runs if it's not even an option.

hmm...

a reply to: MotherMayEye

For the same reason that people were so outraged over the delegate situation, generally people don't understand election laws like these because they don't come into play.

But the last time we had an independent run was Ross Perot, and he never ran in a primary. He was an independent from day one and never ran in either primary.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MotherMayEye

For the same reason that people were so outraged over the delegate situation, generally people don't understand election laws like these because they don't come into play.

But the last time we had an independent run was Ross Perot, and he never ran in a primary. He was an independent from day one and never ran in either primary.

I would like to think *ahem* professional journalists and political analysts would have their sh*t together. Geez, even the GOP party leaders seem to have been worried about Trump breaking from the party.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised though.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

With Trump who knows? It may simply have been a game to try to make him unappealing from the start.

As for journalists, please! When have they ever done their homework about anything? And if they do, they play angles to skew stuff. Look at what Trump said about minimum wage to Wolf Blitzer. He said he'd have to look at it just before saying he would much prefer that people be able to get jobs that pay much much more than minimum wage (i.e. booming economy where the jobs are better than minimum wage for people who are clamoring for minimum wage now). But it's being spun as a complete walk back of what he said about minimum wage in the debate.