Independent Candidates Will Significantly Affect Election

First, a quick word about the New York City bombing on Saturday evening, in which nobody died. The New York Post reports:

Mayor de Blasio called the explosion an “intentional act,’’ but not believed to be connected to terrorism. But tensions only rose when, three hours after the blast, a second device was found four blocks away — a pressure cooker that an early investigation found was likely also a bomb…. The cooker was inside a plastic grocery bag placed in a garbage can. The Bomb Squad took the suspicious device to the NYPD gun range in The Bronx to be safely tested. It was unclear Sunday morning whether it was a bomb or a prank.

OK, first of all notice that the far-left mayor said immediately that the bomb was ‘not believed to be connected to terrorism’.

How would he know? Answer: He does not know. No way. This is yet another classic left-wing coverup statement for terrorism. Any rational person would have said at least that “we do not know the cause of the blast but it remains under investigation”.

Then look at how the pressure cooker bomb is described by the newspaper “It was unclear Sunday morning whether it was a bomb or a prank.”

Again, any rational person would have said that “the second device is under investigation.” To even suggest that it may have been ‘a prank’ is another way to soften the impact of finding the second device, which may have been part of a bigger plot.

This, friends, is how the Democrats and socialists are relentless in their quest to lessen the impact of terrorism. They even called the Fort Hood attack “workplace violence” as a way to make us lower our guard about radical Muslims who are determined to kill us. Now here is today’s main editorial:

Independent Candidates Will Significantly Affect Election

Third-party presidential candidates don’t typically do all that well in US presidential elections but occasionally they make a big difference. predicts they will have a significant impact on 2016.

In the 1990s third-party candidate Ross Perot helped to elect and re-elect Democrat Bill Clinton president by draining away votes from Republican incumbent president George HW Bush in 1992 and Republican candidate Bob Dole in 1996.

In 1992 Texas billionaire Perot got 19% of the national vote or almost 20 million votes, mostly from Republicans. That is more votes than any other independent candidate has received in modern American history. Perot was long known to be a Bush-hater and his candidacy was acknowledged as a direct attempt to defeat Bush.

In neither 1992 nor 1996 did Bill Clinton get more than 50% of the popular vote (he got, respectively, 43% and 49%) which is interesting to consider since Clinton always acts like he was so popular and successful as president. He never was.

In the most controversial third-party case of all so-called consumer activist Ralph Nader got 2.8 million votes nationwide (2.7% of the vote) as a candidate in 2000, virtually all from Democrats. Nader siphoned off 97,488 Florida votes from Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore to throw the Florida vote count into the George W. Bush column by only 538 votes. This threw the whole election to Bush by giving Bush all of Florida’s electoral votes.

Democrats had called repeatedly for Nader to quit the race. If Nader were not in the race Gore would have won Florida easily, and the presidency.

In another case in a New York state special congressional election in 2011 the race was close in a solidly Republican district. So a rich Democrat put up his own money to run as a fake Tea Party conservative as a third-party candidate. He siphoned off enough votes from the Republican candidate to give the seat to the Democrat.

Now we have two major third-party candidates running for president in 2016. They are:

*Gary Johnson, former Republican governor of New Mexico, who is running on the Libertarian ticket.

*Jill Stein is a medical doctor and a hard-leftist running on the Green Party ticket. She also is a militant ‘climate change’ alarmist.

In one recent poll Johnson and Stein combined were getting 12% of the vote including 8% for Johnson and 4% for Stein. But polls for these two, like all polls, vary widely so let’s consider hypothetically what could happen if 12% is true and holds up on election day:

Gary Johnson could potentially attract the same number of Republican voters as Democrats since libertarians appeal to people in both parties. And so Johnson could be a wash for Hillary and Trump. But Johnson is now reported to be polling much more strongly among Democrats, which is really bad news for Hillary.

Liberals could be strongly favoring Johnson in 2016 for one big reason – he supports marijuana legalization. This is why drug addicts and marijuana addicts traditionally embrace libertarians who favor decriminalizing and legalizing all drugs. This could be a major issue for up to 20 million marijuana smokers across America. So if Johnson takes a large proportion of the druggie vote, which is usually Democrat, it is going to be a major blow to Hillary Clinton.

It gets worse. Jill Stein also presents big problems for Hillary. We can assume that all Stein votes will come directly out of Clinton’s column, that Bernie Sanders supporters and other left-wingers will go for Stein out of contempt for Hillary. So the question is: Will Jill Stein help to elect Donald Trump?

With 4% of the vote she sure could since 4% is a lot of votes, as many as 5+ million votes nationwide in 2016. In contrast Stein got only .36% of the vote when she ran for president in 2012 (about 470,000 votes) and so her surge this year largely represents disenchanment with Hillary. This is very bad news for Hillary. Stein’s votes, like Johnson’s, easily could swing important states this time around, and thus the whole election, Trump’s way.

For instance Mitt Romney lost Florida to Obama by only 74,000 votes in 2012. Stein’s vote, if applied proportionately and retroactively at today’s 4%, would have meant at least 300,000 Stein votes subtracted from Obama and would easily have tipped Florida away from Obama and to Romney. Stein’s vote could have tipped other crucial electoral states too, possibly giving the election to Romney. It can do that again this year with Hillary and Trump.

This is why the mainstream media are seeking to ignore the Stein candidacy and are saying bad things about Stein even though they agree completely with everything she says.
Watch the vote returns for Stein on election night to see how this works out. If Stein gets even 2% then it is trouble for Hillary since Hillary could lose key electoral states by small margins, including ‘swing states’ like Ohio and Wisconsin, and even traditionally Democrat states like Michigan.

Even 2% means roughly 170,000 votes for Stein in Florida while 4% means more than 300,000 votes. Those are big numbers in a close election.

Then multiply every US state by the same margins and you could see Hillary losing just on the issue of Stein alone never mind Gary Johnson, her health, the e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, her untrustworthiness, her lack of appeal, lack of Democrat voter enthusiasm, etc.

On the other hand many conservatives are refusing to support Trump and thus are helping Hillary Clinton. This is the third time that this is happening. It is said that conservatives who “stayed home” in the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012 and who refused to vote for John McCain and Mitt Romney allowed Obama to win two elections.
And it seems to be happening again. So-called conservative radio hosts like Glenn Beck and Michael Berry are loudly anti-Trump. Other so-called conservatives are too, like internet commentators Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg.

There is now a war of words going on among conservatives. Radio king Sean Hannity strongly supports Trump and is charging that so-called conservatives like Beck and Kristol may throw the election to Hillary by discouraging their listeners and readers from voting for Trump. And Hannity is correct. This could very well happen.
This comes out of the angry primary campaign between Trump and Constitutional conservative Ted Cruz, capped by Cruz’s refusal to endorse Trump at the Republican convention. is a ‘pragmatic conservative’. In the general election I always vote for the Republican candidate even if he/she is moderate or downright unlikeable like McCain is. This is because even a bad Republican is better than any Democrat any day. At least a bad Republican supports Republican/conservative ideals some of the time, while Democrat do so none of the time.

Trump is also attracting millions of traditionally Democrat voters like union members angry over the loss of coal-mining jobs and pipeline jobs; white, blue-collar workers who usually vote Democrat; blacks whom Trump is appealing to over the terrible conditions that they face under Obama; some gays are supporting Trump after the Democrats have supported radical, anti-gay Islam; while other traditional Democrats are going to support Trump like unionized cops and firefighters.

Some Bernie Sanders supporters will even support Trump, like those who are disgusted with the big Wall Street money flowing to Hillary. In Massachusetts alone 20,000 Democrats switched their voter registration to Republican to support Trump in the primaries.

Some famous Establishment Republicans like Ohio governor John Kasich say that they are not going to vote for Trump. Also Republican Meg Whitman said that she is going to vote for, and even campaign for Hillary. This probably comes out of pragmatism for Whitman. She is a career businesswoman – she built a $1+ billion fortune as CEO of eBay and ran unsuccessfully for governor of California in 2010. She probably believes that Hillary is going to win and so she wants to be on the winner’s side. She also may be a Clinton-type feminist.

In the end most Republicans will fall into line and vote for Trump. Despite all of the alleged bad news about Trump he is surging in the polls against Hillary because she is more unpopular among Americans in general and with some on the far-left as Trump is unpopular among some conservatives and Establishment Republicans. believes that Trump will win on three factors – the economy, ths issue of ‘change’, and now his reported good health. Trump is seen as much more capable on the economy, which is the most important issue, while voters seem strongly to want change this time around, and this favors the outsider Trump. Hillary’s 9/11 health collapse now is another significant wild card that had been thrown into the mix.

(Please bookmark this website. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,500 previous editorials!) and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.