Can an "Independent" win a Presidency?

Out already? John Kasich doesn't think he can beat Trump in 2020.


Published December 19, 2018

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/out-already-john-kasich-doesnt-think-he-can-beat-trump-in-2020/ar-BBRc7hO?ocid=UE13DHP

Wanna know why that is? More voter suppression.

South Carolina GOP could forgo 2020 presidential primary in support of Trump
CNN Digital Expansion 2018 Rebecca Berg
By Rebecca Buck, CNN

(CNN)South Carolina Republicans could forgo their 2020 presidential primary in a show of support for President Donald Trump, the party chairman told CNN, a move that could frustrate efforts of possible GOP challengers.

The potential move was first reported by the Washington Examiner.

State Republican Party Chairman Drew McKissick said a final decision won't be made until this summer, when the party's executive committee meets. But he suggested that such a move would be on the table and likely to receive the party's stamp of approval.

"Why have taxpayers pay for a primary? Our party totally supports the President," McKissick said.

This would not be the first time that Republicans nixed the "first-in-the-South primary" and endorsed the incumbent president. They did so for President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and again in 2004 for President George W. Bush.

Luke Byars, who served as the South Carolina GOP chairman in 2004, explained that the party — not the state — footed the bill for the primary election at that time. "And the party didn't really want to undertake any of that, because the party supported the president," Byars told CNN.

But there were political considerations, too.

"The President's re-election campaign was not unhappy with our move," Byars said, "let's put it that way."

South Carolina Republicans have been influential in the Trump administration, with the President tapping former Gov. Nikki Haley and former Rep. Mick Mulvaney to serve in his administration. Trump also counts Sen. Lindsey Graham and current Gov. Henry McMaster among his close allies, and he has visited the state on multiple occasions as president.

McKissick said he has not spoken with Trump's re-election team or national Republican Party officials about forgoing the presidential primary in 2020. But there's little question that a move to effectively quash the state's presidential primary could help protect Trump in the face of possible threats from within his own party.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush was forced to endure a bruising South Carolina primary contest against Pat Buchanan. Although Bush prevailed in the Palmetto State, he limped into the general election.

As one of the most unpopular presidents in modern history, Trump could face a challenge from Ohio Gov. John Kasich, among others. But no one has officially jumped into the race, and the President is still overwhelmingly popular with Republican voters.

"Right now, I'm not even aware of a need for a primary," McKissick said. "I'm not aware of any challengers."

However, the state is already teeming with activity among would-be Democratic presidential candidates — another reason to possibly forgo a GOP primary, McKissick said: "Why would we want to distract any attention from the absolute circus the Democratic primaries are going to be?"

OK, stricter work requirements for food stamps which Trump is working his hardest to do right now as we speak.

Trump administration moves to tighten restrictions on food stamps

Ok, would this Third Party Imaginary Candidate support or oppose the Trump position?
Or would they have another position regarding food stamps that would reach consensus?

It would depend on whether the third party was an independent who leans left or right or is a libertarian who (I think) are distrustful of any government in our lives, foreign or domestic.

I get that Rev.

My post you started with was stating that there isn’t an “independent” politician who hold views that would bring together democrats and republicans.

I think it was living lava who I was talking to but there have been others on this site who looooong for some magical imaginary independent politician who would take pieces/policies out of both parties and find some way to merge them and make everyone happy.

My contention is that this person does not (in fact, cannot) exist, and I was asking to find even a single policy position where we could get agreement on this small site.

This Independent premise is a fallacy. An Independent doesn’t have to ‘make everybody happy’, he/she just needs to get more votes in our current electoral system.

Distrust and outright disgust for our status quo—the Sanders insurrection and the obvious dramatic about-turns in rhetoric from our politicians — proves the majority of voters will come together under policies that benefit the average Americans.

It is happening.

Trump got elected because he didn't represent the status quo and/or establishment and look where it has gotten us. Take today and the budget bill for instance. Trump heard from his base and has flipped flopped on the stop gap measure. We may end up with funding for that stupid wall we don't need or can afford.

We don’t need and can’t afford a lot of things that our Congress takes our money for.

If our democrats were repping for their people, we wouldn’t have to worry about paying for that wall.

You are supporting Republicans who have convinced you that they’re democrats.

Vote Progressive. Make them earn your vote.

🤨

This cover has worked well for you. No one but Trump's base wants funding to build that stupid wall, progressive or democrat. Most republicans won't admit it, but they don't either.

Your political instincts seem pretty spot on here Rev.

But we can afford spending billions every year on the illegals here? Then let that number and amount increase every year? The wall will pay for itself. Anyone with any sense has to see that.

Watching this saccharine grooming feels dirty. I think I should call 911.

https://www.nbcnews.com/card/vulnerable-senate-democrats-embrace-trump-s-wall-n900186

You’re making **** up now.
—————————
Vulnerable Senate Democrats embrace Trump's wall
Several vulnerable 2018 Democrats are signalling an openness to more funding for President Donald Trump's long-promised border wall, a way to both avoid a possible government shutdown and to show voters in their states that they can cross party lines on even the most hot button of issues.

The president has tweeted that he's willing to shut down the government over the issue in the next round of government spending negotiations this September.

Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly is up with a new ad bragging that he has voted three times to fund "Trump's border wall" and he told Politico last week that he's "fine with $3[billion], $3.5, $4 or $5" billion for the project in spending negotiations coming up next month.

And Donnelly isn't the only senator battling for his seat in a pro-Trump state who's bucking their party on the issue.

West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin would support $5 billion in border wall funding, a spokesman for his office told NBC News last week. And while fellow "Trump Country" Democrat Heidi Heitkamp allowed that the "devil is always in the details" of these spending fights, she said in a statement that she's "always supported increased and enhanced border security along" the Mexico border — "yes, wall funding as well."

"Shutting down the government is never the way to go," Heitkamp's statement continued, urging bipartisanship on the immigration issue.

Finally, a spokeswoman for Montana Senator Jon Tester told Politico that he "is willing to make responsible investments in manpower, technology, fencing and, in places, a wall. However, he has concerns about the cost of the wall to American taxpayers."

The emphasis this week comes as these red-state Democrats look to burnish their reputation among conservative votes. Both Manchin and Heitkamp gave pro-border security statements to the conservative Breitbart News last week.

These statements buck the position of Democratic Party overall and will likely frustrate party faithful who see the wall as a symbol of the immigration policies they oppose. But it may be a worthwhile price to pay if it means retaining crucial Democratic seats in the Senate.

But the push is opening the candidates up to criticism from Republican rivals who see the rhetoric as disingenuous. In Heitkamp's case, both the North Dakota Republican Party and the National Republican Senatorial Committee pushed back her by pointing to comments from 2017 when she said during a hearing that she wished "we could get beyond" a fully concrete wall across the border because no one brought in front of her Senate committee made such a recommendation.

"No matter how hard she tries, Heidi Heitkamp can't shake her liberal voting record," NRSC spokesman Michael McAdams said in a statement last week. "After continuously failing to support President Trump's efforts to crack down on illegal immigration and tough border security measures, North Dakotans aren't falling for Heitkamp's desperate campaign stunts."

Can an independent candidate win the presidency?

experiment:

take a candidate who is a clear front-runner and then have their party reject them in favor of someone else.

Then have the party reject continue to campaign as an independent.

Can he or she win after being rejected by the party?

No.

1) too many people would just vote for R or D because that's what they've always done
2) inevitably this candidate would be more right or more left and it would only serve to siphon off votes from that candidate and not the other

I’d love to see someone take a quick stab at what policy positions that an independent politician would have to take to win a majority of the electorate.

Abortion -
Guns -
Healthcare -
Minimum Wage -
Taxes -
Foreign Wars -
Trade -
Illegal Immigration -
Legal Immigration -
Foreign Alliances -
Crime -
Drugs -
Social Security -
Medicare -
Medicaid -
Welfare -
LGBTQ -
Gay Marriage -
Religious Freedom (ie, wedding cakes) -
Death Penalty -
Confederate Flag -
Religious Displays -
Border Wall -
Muslim Immigration -
Immigration healthcare -
Free College -
Student loan forgiveness -
Net neutrality -
Patriot Act -


I could probably list 100 more items.


I wonder if ANYONE thinks there is a position a single person would take on each of these issues, that would be some conglomeration of the right/left positions that would be a viable majority candidate.

But if Sanders himself has processed this, it’s not obvious. What’s both maddening and endearing about him as a politician is that he never changes. There are slight stylistic compromises he could probably make to sell himself a little better by traditional metrics, but he doesn’t do it. Which, frankly, is funny.
It’s also what makes him interesting, and a virtual lock to lead, as perhaps the last major act of his unusual career, a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party in 2020. The only question is, will he do it as a presidential candidate, or in some other capacity?
The Democratic political establishment has made its views on this subject very clear. The Washington Post last year basically ran an article calling Sanders the Kremlin candidate. Other op-eds in major outlets keep warning that a repeat Sanders run would somehow drive the Democratic Party into an unelectability ditch at the exact moment it needs to be unified to oust Donald Trump.
Even someone I know and like, Hamilton Nolan at Splinter, recently ran a BERNIE DON’T RUN article. Nolan noted Sanders was “old as hell” and could shave off enough progressive votes to push the Democrats toward a “nightmare candidate” like Mike Bloomberg or Mark Cuban if he ran.
I disagree. We’ve been so trained to think about how other people might vote down the line that we forget: Our long-term thinking about elections is often wrong. Even Sanders himself didn’t see the last election coming.

IN BURLINGTON, where Sanders has become a larger than life figure – both revered and much groused about, like a State Dad – almost everyone seems to know him. A shockingly high percentage of people you meet can do expert Sanders impersonations. I met a kid who did a whole routine imagining Bernie gesticulating his way through a complex order at an Arby’s drive-thru.
Many Vermonters are personally familiar with the Bern Stare, that disapproving look you get when you ask Bernie a question he considers frivolous. In off years, the presidential question summons the Stare faster than any other. He’s spent the past two years going full Belichick on any reporter who even hinted about 2020.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/yes-bernie-should-run-771260/

Independents outnumber Ds and Rs.

They lean intelligent, done with DC bullshit, and change-oriented. And they came out big for Bernie.

Indies.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

So by that logic, if Trump would have been ousted shortly before the election and one of the other GOP primary candidates endorsed by the GOP, then the GOP candidate would have won instead of Trump?

Another example: if Obama would have been rejected by the DEM party for a second term, then Obama voters would have supported Biden or Clinton or some other DEM candidate?

Are you saying the party's votes would get split and the other party would gain a majority? What if both parties split off independents and party-supported candidates? What then?