Will a third party candidate finally have a chance at the presidency this time around?

Nope. Best a 3rd party candidate can hope for this time around is over 5% of the popular and that would be a stretch. I'm voting green though.

in need of another option wrote:

Have both major parties provided us with such terrible candidates that a third party candidate might actually have a decent shot of grabbing the presidency? I don't know much about any of the other candidates, but most people I know would welcome an alternative at this point.

With the ongoing implosion of the GOP, it seems like the Libertarians should be licking their chops to replace the Rs as the party of small government.

The most I see the 3rd parties winning is 10-15% MAX combined between the two major 3rd parties, and they won't win any electoral votes. Too many republicans that would prefer an establishment candidate hate Hillary enough to where they would rather have trump in office than risk voting for a 3rd party, which would lower trumps total and thus elect Hillary. The same way with democrats that don't support Hillary, they would rather have her in office than even risk voting for a 3rd party, which lowers her total, thus giving trump a better shot at election.

I lean left on most issues but I also believe in some conservative ideas. If it were Hillary vs someone like Kasich or maybe Rubio, there is a good chance I would have voted republican (I abhor Hillary). The biggest issue I want resolved is getting money out of politics, Hillary has danced around with that idea (forced into it by Bernie), and trump can say he financed his own campaign but he will do nothing with Citizens United as to please the establishment republicans and democrats. Trump is also a lunatic, not smart, ethical, or a good businessman (he got the equivalent of a 6-7 million dollar loan out of college and has bankrupted on multiple ventures). This is why I am voting for Hillary (out of necessity)

No. But, a third party candidate might get enough votes so that people start voting for their local third party candidates. It is possible for local 3rd party candidates to get elected.

Bruh wrote:

This is why I am voting for Hillary (out of necessity)

No chance for 3rd party and the above is why (of course don't bet on that in this crazy year). Many people despise the candidate of their usual party this year, but the other side's candidate is just so abhorrent to them that they're actually voting against someone this time around. I'm not advocating against voting for a third party (and I may do it myself since my state will certainly go one way), but many who hate one candidate more than the other will rightfully be too scared to vote outside of the two major parties.

They need to be allowed in the debates with the democrats and republicans. Right now Johnson is polling around 10% and Stein is at about 5%. It is possible but it would be very tough

in need of another option wrote:With the ongoing implosion of the GOP, it seems like the Libertarians should be licking their chops to replace the Rs as the party of small government.

It's a big stretch to say the Republican Party has "imploded" when Trump just set records for getting voters to turn out in the GOP's own primaries.

I agree though - it's weird how few people seem to realize that there's already a ticket for the 2016 Presidential race consisting of two 'red' governors each from a 'blue' state. You'd think Johnson/Weld would get a lot more attention given the number of disaffected GOPers out there.

Does this generation not learn from the Simpsons?

Go ahead, throw your vote away! Hahahahaha!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70

That episode is 20 years old....I feel ancient....

For many it comes down to which party do you want to appoint supreme court justices. With this in mind it would be foolish for any Bernie supporter to back Stein and for a teapartier to pick a libertarian.

I'm voting for Stein and will be happy to see any 3rd party get all the votes they can. Even if it's not the Greens. There are larger battles to fight than Hillary vs Trump. They're the same product in different packaging. Don't care who wins, just want to see all third parties do well.

Frankly, HRC's choice of Kaine may do a little bit to slow the move to third parties. He seems to be the only one of the four major Prez/VP candidates that I'm okay with having in the Oval Office, or only a heartbeat away).

With two P candidates so old (have the Dems/GOP ever fielded candidates with such an old total age?), the VP picks really matter. I don't wish bad things for anyone (and I don't intend to vote D or R), but we have to be realistic: neither Hill nor Don strikes me as being in robust health.

If Trump and his ten million plus voters had been screwed by the GOP, he could very well have run as a third party candidate with a real chance.

Ditto on Bernie -- he could have and should have -- but he is a phony

Kaine? You mean the Muslim Brotherhood's man in America?

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/23/clinton-vp-pick-tim-kaines-islamist-ties/

Bruh wrote:

Trump is also a lunatic, not smart, ethical, or a good businessman (he got the equivalent of a 6-7 million dollar loan out of college and has bankrupted on multiple ventures). This is why I am voting for Hillary (out of necessity)

You have just shown us that you have little or no idea what you're talking about. Trump has turned an alleged 6-7 million dollar loan into a billion dollars and you say he is not a good businessman.

Everyone criticizing Trump for bankruptcy is ignorant. Bankruptcy is not necessarily a bad thing and all of the commonly revered businessman have filed bankruptcy or failed several times. More times than Trump if I had to guess.

There are things to criticize Trump for, but his business skill and calling him not smart just shows how ignorant you are. He just won the Republican nomination against people with more money and experience than him.

He certainly is not any more unethical than any of the other major candidates. He is certainly more ethical than either Hilary or Sanders.

LJTR wrote:

There are larger battles to fight than Hillary vs Trump. They're the same product in different packaging.

Is this a joke? Hilary and Trump are nowhere close to being the same product. Both Trump and Sanders are standout candidates. Hilary is an establishment candidate. She is a career politician. She has large money donors. Trump is none of those things and his views and policies are significantly different from hers.

The two party system sucks, big time.

A second party doesn't even have a chance, Trump will for all intents and purposes be running solo once the debates happen. I'll be voting for the ultrarunner though.

Well, in my lifetime, independents have won statewide office in Minnesota, Connecticut, and Maine (often). A Conservative Party candidate became a senator from New York and a Liberal Party one became Mayor of NYC. So with the right candidate, it can happen. Nationally, it would be more difficult.

1. The media controls the process. Remember when there were 17 Rep candidates and they all had a debate? Only the ones center stage and the loudest got the most interest, even though some of the others were viable candidates. The media will never allow a third party candidate into the debate unless the individual is polling strong double digits like Perot was back in the day.

2. This could have been the year for a third party candidate since Hillary and Trump are so unlikable even within their own parties. If a strong third candidate had run, this could've been the year. But now it's virtually too late to get air time on the major media. See #1 above.

If Johnson can poll 15% he gets in the debates. New-ish rule to prevent another Ross Perot.

If he does that and somehow wins his state and somehow the electorate is close and prevents HRC or Trump from getting 270 it then goes to the senate.

Alan