This is looking at it backwards, or at the wrong point, and makes it seem much more centrally organized than it is.

IMHO, people left the “politics” to others, and it is those others who involved themselves that have shaped who we get to “choose” at election time.

Within the bounds that our Founders set up, the political system has been relatively self-organizing (though hardly perfectly spontaneously so, given incumbent advantages, gerrymandering, etc.).

The world where elites uphold their own class, etc., is more reflected in today’s Russia than it is of the USA. The elite there are markedly different in their path to the top from the Mark Cubans, Howard Schultzes and hundreds (thousands?) of their peers in the USA.

Not that we don’t need change in DC, but thinking in the terms you describe leave people externalizing the problem and giving up on something that is essentially in their hands to change.

Furthermore, it feeds back into a victimization mode, and a “we vs they” attitude that divides us all against each other – something that gets used against us.

They were responsible for upholding their political and ruling class credentials, the claim that their elite status was the result of virtue, accomplishment, and earnings.

They failed to uphold that when they allowed Leftist intellectuals and rulers in. So now all of them get the mud effect.

One of the first things an elite were told and taught was that they were the rare and the elite only because of standards, high standards, which kept the riff raff out.

You may be right and there is no need to seek a third party.

Wish I were that confident in that result.

Still, I’d rather work to ensure an outcome than to expect one. Since “the polling for a true outsider independent was better than most people know”, as Trump and Clinton are each distasteful enough to enough voters (even now Clinton is only +2 over Sanders in California, in the final days of the Dem race), there is an opportunity to beat normal expectations.

Johnson actually won TWO terms in NM. So, between those and his 2012 run, I’d hope that he has learned enough that he’d mount a reasonable campaign towards winning votes from BOTH Dem and GOP camps – (something I doubt a conservative third party can do to ).

In an election year like this, don’t know what the topside could be in electoral votes Johnson / Libertarians could gather.

Regardless, personally won’t have a hand in directly bringing Trump nor Clinton to power. If it is Clinton, as you predict, well, I can “live with that”, as Trump is a grave gamble, and most (who are on the fence or leaning Trump anyway for fear of Clinton) are wishfully, and grossly under-rating the downside tail risk with him.
.

To the rest of us here…

The challenge is the classic chicken/egg, and we saw this play out in the GOP candidacy race. Voters and contributors were divided on what to do and were “waiting” for a “viable” alternative to appear.

To appear “viable” the Libertarians need media attention. If they continue to only hover around 10%, no go. If they meet the 15% threshold for the debates we will see much more attention and put them on a momentum track.

But they won’t get there if people are “waiting” to see if the Libertarians are “viable”. The stars don’t align themselves.

Eric makes some great points about activism. That activism has to start with decisions. People have to start making choices now, well BEFORE they will see any media attention come to the Libertarians (or any other “third party”), and their “viability” is obvious.

I get your take on Gary Johnson. I am a lower case libertarian. I find much to agree upon and much to disagree with the Libertarian Party. That said I can see the possibility that this cycle might gain the party some electoral votes, but not enough to trigger Article 12. Why? Because I can not see djt gaining electoral votes above the threshhold of 100. Thus 50 to 75 electoral votes for the Libertarians, while ground breaking, is not enough.

If they’re powerless, that’s a collective choice. Activism is just as available to them as any other competitor in the arena. Activism is, and has always been for the American nation since the Founding Fathers/activists, the power of the people available to anyone for any cause. But to work, activism does need to be a collective commitment.
(RTWT)
***
Excellent commentary.
As long as we’re gaming scenarios:
1. Both Trump and Clinton select VP candidates with higher favorables than themselves (that includes just about any known politician in each party).
2. ???? (health, indictments, assassination by some fanatic – Sirhan Sirhan ring a bell?)
3a. Election becomes a contest between the two VPs with NO ONE on the ballot for President.
Does the Constitution even cover that eventuality?
3b. The Prez names stay on the ballot but obviously will “abdicate” before or just after the “coronation”.
Even dead people have won elections IIRC.

But the stars have to align nearly perfectly for it to happen. For every manner that the article pointed out to achieve a House-determined outcome, there are a hundred scenarios that render all this moot.

But what the heck: just to further stir things up, suppose the stars do align. There is then an interesting potential conflict between the 12th Amendment and the 20th Amendment; the first allowing the process to drag on until March 04, and the other seating a President on January 20. Might as well start gaming that one, too – that no one pulls 26 States in the House.

What hath God wrought!! Thanks for an interesting blog.

As I said, this is a completely unique situation. I cannot think of a parallel, so I don’t think comparisons to previous races matter.

There is one state in which a third party conservative candidate has an excellent chance of winning. It’s Utah. Of course, that’s only one state. But there may be others, depending on the third party candidate and who he/she is. Take a look at this article.

One of the many unique things about this race—besides the remarkably high unfavorables of both candidates—is the fact that, although we keep using the term “third-party” for a Trump alternative candidate, it’s not really correct. It was Trump who was the actual third-party candidate, running within the GOP. The people looking for the “third-party” candidate are mostly conservative Republicans and mainstream Republicans, not a third party at all. They are looking to offer what they consider the real Republican candidate, even though that person won’t have been nominated through the usual primary/caucus process.

Fact: no third party has taken even a single electoral vote in 100 years: not since Teddy Roosevelt made his run.

No, my friends, the time to discuss third party formation and candidacies for 2016 was in 2012. Today, we have what we have.

I see your point about being a spoiler, but I also think Rubin has a good point when she says if he “fears an independent run would simply hand the election to Trump” that’s contradicted by the fact that “he was willing to support such a run” by someone else.