What do you think would happen if Trump and Sanders run as independents?

Close to nothing.
I say this easily and I'm easily wrong

I'd love to see it happen, not because of the impact on this election (I think it would be Clinton) but for the future of the American political scene. Might get both major parties to tighten up/clarify what they stand for. Might get a significant third or third and fourth party to develop.

I happen to be a huge fan of minority governments (they get a lot done in parliamentary systems) but I'm not sure how well they'd work in the US.

I'd love to see it too, and for the same reasons. If both did it then I suspect the kingmaker aspect would be close to a wash.

My derided opinion is still the same - Trump will get votes but not win, as a Republican or independent, and much as I like Bernie Sanders as of yesterday, Hillary will still win, whether he runs as independent of not.

This is similar to what will happen given they stay in the chosen parties.

That's an interesting question. Assuming the candidates would be Sanders, Clinton, Trump and Rubio, Clinton would probably be the most centrist candidate but she has so much baggage that people might not look at her voting record or positions. IMO, the left is more receptive to outside candidates (Nadar got more than 5% of the vote in 11 states in 2000), but Trump has a lot of appeal to the nationalist wing of the Republican party.

In the end, I think it would help Rubio because I think Trump will continue to implode. As he plays to the radical right, I see those in the mainstream right I know are getting really upset. Around here, he has lost a lot of support. Rubio can be a kinder, gentler Trump and get his votes, but I think the Sanders crowd will stick with him.

It would help the GOP. That party's voters are more steadfast, as evidenced by how well they do in midterms. Democrats would suffer more defections.

The public would get what might be a sobering lesson in the workings of the electoral college.

I agree with you on the electoral college. Even if the people rebelled and elected someone other than what the 1% wanted they could buy the necessary electoral votes to change the election results. Illegal you say? How about the Generals and other military people who get million dollar jobs in the military industrial complex when they retire, and of course the congressmen who also get high paying jobs after they have done their duty for the 1%. With enough money one can get around laws, any laws as the Supreme court has already shown with their corporations are people ruling.

I'm not sure what you are envisioning here, could you elaborate?

The public votes, not for the candidate, but for electors who have pledged themselves to a particular candidate. When the electoral college meets, a candidate must recieve 270 votes to be declared president. Failing that, a convoluted set of rules involving both representatives and senators comes into play.

It seems likely that the current majorities in these 2 bodies might favor a republican candidate; but who knows? This could be a situation where one might need to look up in order to see down.

I'm familiar with how the electoral college works, I was just wondering what scenario you see playing out there.

Given the winner takes all states I'm not sure that they'd fail to reach a majority vote in this scenario.

The more candidates having electors, the liklihood of one having the requisite number decreases.

In the winner-take-all states it wouldn't make a difference.

Sorry.
Did not see your full post.
The winner of what takes all states?

Popular vote is not the determinant.

The possibility of a less than 270 scenario is considerable.

Some states are winner-take-all, so whoever wins that state gets all the electoral college votes. So in those cases more candidates will not split the electoral votes any more than before.

I'm not sure that it is, I think all but something like 2 states are winner-take-all.

I'm not saying it is a certainty. But it certainly is a possibility.

I'm not arguing that it is not a certainty, nor am I arguing that it is not a possibility. I'm arguing that the probability is just not significantly influenced by this scenario at all.