IF the polls in Utah say Trump then McMullin then Hill, should Democrat voters vote for McMullin?

[OnDoutside]

Last edited Wed Oct 26, 2016, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

[Renew Deal]

1. No

Because it doesn't matter of Hillary loses it, but it does matter if she wins it.

[OnDoutside]

5. Not what I'm saying. If the Polls have Trump ahead of McMullin, and Hillary a bit behind them, would

it not make more sense to put McMullin in, thus sticking a dagger into Trump's campaign, no matter what he does elsewhere ?

[Renew Deal]

6. Trump loses the overall race whether he wins or loses Utah

And unless Dems can flip the house delegations, Trump still wins the presidency in the House if McMullin wins. So Hillary winning is the most important thing. Everything else is a loss.

[leftynyc]

11. But the fewer electoral votes

don the con gets the better, right? I understand the argument and keeping donnie from 270 is the goal.

[Renew Deal]

12. No. Getting Hillary to 270 is the goal.

If the election gets thrown to the House, the republicans will pick Trump. Anything other than Hillary hitting 270 is a loss and Trump becomes president.

[Shivaraja]

85. But if it's clear that this goal will be accomplished without Utah

(and that's a pretty easy prediction to make) wouldn't you love to see Trump get vote-groped by a Mormon?

[treestar]

95. that state will either go to Deplorable or McMillan

One state can't put it in the house. Hillary is never getting that state.

Though the only purpose would be to humiliate deplorable, so I would still say vote Hillary to be on the safe side. And it would add to her popular vote numbers.

[Renew Deal]

105. Of course it can

You take a state out and it makes it possible no one reaches a majority.

I think Hillary is going to win, but it is possible. Try it yourself: http://www.270towin.com/

[Shivaraja]

13. Is it the pragmatic vote for Dems in Utah?

Last edited Wed Oct 26, 2016, 01:10 PM - Edit history (2)

This is a chess game. Utah is low on the Dem win list, and sometimes your strategy requires a pawn to be sacrificed.

[Hekate]

47. Oddly enough, it's not a chess game. It's an election of great consequence.

[Shivaraja]

51. You're taking this a bit too literally

[msanthrope]

66. Oh, to be mansplained about the election of the first female President!!

I don't think you want to match Elo ratings with me. You'd come up short.

[Hekate]

71. Nice to see you weigh in

[msanthrope]

79. The msanthrope is kinda fucking done.

With two weeks to go, I'm kind of done these precious vanity OPs.

[Hekate]

88. I must leave this oh so elevated discussion for now ("theoretical" my rosy roseola)

There are at least two alerts on the tag-team in this thread, yet still they are playing ping-pong.

[OnDoutside]

100. You have the option of

moving your pearls of wisdom to another thread, rather than bringing this one down ?

[Hekate]

103. As you and your partner pointed out, it's an open discussion board....

Well, except for the part where we all signed the TOS stating we understand the purpose of the board is to get Democrats elected, and that advocating for third party candidates ia a bannable offense

[OnDoutside]

116. Please desist with the anal conspiracy theories, I brought up a hypothetical situation which is

clearly beyond your thought process. I've already stated on this thread that I want Hillary to win Utah, and if she can't win it, I don't want Trump to win Utah.

[Cakes488]

126. I don't mind your thread concept...I see their are quite a few "elitists" around here and

they are the type that turn folks off to liberals in the first place. I'm not sure what I would do. I sure would like either Hillary or that McMullen to win that state just to spoil it for Trumpass a little more. I think it would take a coordinated effort to be effective.....and how close are they exactly in the polls? If I saw a coordinated effort I might do it.

[Shivaraja]

74. OK, so your a chess wiz. How excellent for you...

You and Hekate are still taking the chess comment too literally, and I've been very clear about supporting a Clinton presidency.

[leftynyc]

57. I don't know

Perhaps. It's an interesting argument. Do we have any DUers in UT? that want to weigh in?

[still_one]

2. NO

[eShirl]

3. best advice: ignore the polls

seriously

[MoonRiver]

4. NO

[PJMcK]

7. Nope (n/t)

[Wounded Bear]

8. Hypothetically, I believe that you are over thinking this...

get real. Vote for who you want to win.

[Shivaraja]

9. You'll hear "NO" - but you need to think HARD on that

Last edited Wed Oct 26, 2016, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Utah hasn't voted Blue since 1964, and if Hillary has any hope of winning there, then chances are great that it's because she's about to landslide her way into office. Regardless, Utah was never on the menu for Dems. We never expected it, and do not need th state in this election.

But the race is tightening. On the 18th of this month, Clinton's national RCP lead peaked at 7.1 points http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_race_changes.html

Today, her RCP average in a 2-way race is 4.4 points.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

That's a 2.7 point reduction in just 8 days, and we haven't even seen what the latest Obamacare rate hike news will do to those numbers.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, can't afford to lose a single Red state. All Utah voters have to ask yourselves whether it's more important to add a Utah notch to the Blue Belt, or to STOP TRUMP.

If I were voting in Utah, I know what I'd do...

[Renew Deal]

14. What would you do?

If the election gets thrown to the House, who will the republican house choose for president?

[Shivaraja]

18. If it gets thrown to the House because of Utah, then we were fucked anyway.

In fact, I'd be surprised if there were even ONE scenario where Utah's 6 ECV will be needed by the Dems to win.

Look, sometimes you have to sacrifice the Pawn in order to checkmate the King. Not all the time, but some of the time. Polls could (will) change between now and the 8th. Utah Dems should watch the race, and vote smart. Decide if you want an extra 6 ECV, or if you want to stop Trump.

[Hekate]

22. So you are recommending that Utah Dems vote for a third party candidate

I Read your previous two posts over again, and am sure that is what you are saying. If I got it wrong, please clarify.

[Shivaraja]

24. I'm not advocating for a third party, especially when it involves theocracy

I'm advocating that the Dems do EVERYTHING in our power to stop Trump and ensure a victory for Hillary.

Happy now?

[Renew Deal]

26. One goes with the other

You're advocating an attempt to rub it in. It has no basis in strategy. If the election gets thrown to the house because McMullin won, they will pick Trump. If Hillary wins Utah, then she almost certainly cannot lose. The "smart" strategy is to try to win Utah, not rub it in on Trump and lose.

[OnDoutside]

37. Because you only normally see Rep v Dem, you're probably not used to a 3rd candidate being

in with a chance of winning a state. Here in Europe, it happens quite often, for example in the UK to stop a Conservative winning, Labour Party voters might switch at the last minute to the Liberal Party candidate, to stop the Tory from winning. It ALL depends on where the polls are at the time.

If they are all within a point or so of each other, then it's all to play for and that's fine, but if there was a gap from Trump/McMullin to Hillary, there could be an opportunity to block Trump, in a State where Hillary hadn't expected to win anyway.

[Hekate]

54. The US does not have a parliamentary system. That is by design. You are very wrong.....

...in how you think it works here if you imagine we can create some coalition of small parties in the House or Senate when this is over. The majority rules, and all committee chairs are appointed by the majority party. Hence the power base is and always will be with the parties that can garner the majority of votes in a given election.

The President is being chosen in this election, and the President cannot get very damned much accomplished if the Congress is being run by the opposition party. That's what went wrong with Obama's presidency. He really tried to work with him and they weren't having any of it.

I am only spending time on this reply because you stated that you live in Europe, and you may not understand how the US is structured under the Constitution.

[OnDoutside]

65. This has nothing to do with a parliamentary system, but all about a particular situation in a

3 horse race, in one particular State, where most unusually the 3rd party candidate is in the shakeup. I want Hillary to win the Presidency, and I want Trump to lose. In a particular situation where say, Trump looked like he was going to win by a few hundred votes in Utah, according to the last poll, wouldn't it be better to deny him the win by either Clinton (or McMullin for that matter) voters switching at the last minute to overtake Trump ? I think it would.

[ieoeja]

97. Since DUers have abandoned all attempts at intelligent discourse this election ...

... they are not going to provide you an answer. In memory of a the DU I joined 15 years ago, I logged in and will try.

The only way your suggestion makes any sense in the US electoral system is if it stops someone from getting 270 electoral votes. So let's look at the possible scenarios. Each scenario has all the non-Utah results in:

Trump and Hillary are each between 269 and 264. The possibilities would be 269-264, 268-265, 267-266 going either way.

A. Hillary wins Utah because you cast the deciding vote for her. Hillary now has 270 to 275 electoral votes and is president.

B. Trump wins Utah because you cast the deciding vote for Hillary. McMullin would have won with your vote, but your vote for Hillary gave the victory to Trump. Trump now has 270 to 275 electoral votes and is president.

C. McMullin wins Utah because you cast the deciding vote for McMullin. Nobody has 270 electoral votes or more. The House of Representatives gets to choose the next president. Since the House is controlled by Republicans, Trump is president.

In theory, your suggestion could hand the presidency to Trump. There is no scenario in which your suggestion could help Hillary.

[Shivaraja]

108. I think there's at least a 4th option

D. Clinton is well ahead in sufficient states to far exceed the 270 ECV threshold, yet is trailing a distant third place in Utah. McMullin and Trump are tied in the state. McMullin wins Utah because you cast the deciding vote for McMullin, but Clinton still goes on to the White House. A message is sent to the GOP that, should they ever nominate another misogynist/sex offender for office, they will face full opposition from the LDS Church. A different message is sent to every Evangelical church - the curtain has been pulled away, the con has been revealed, and those who continued to back Trump as he fell do not meet the minimum qualification to claim the status "Christian." They have lost any claim to a moral high ground, and now the country knows it.

There could be more options, but this one was my focus...

[OnDoutside]

114. Yep, and I would think they'd be a lot of Utah voters who wouldn't want the stain of Trump

carrying the state.

[OnDoutside]

110. Thanks for the great reply.

Firstly, I think Hillary will win the WH with 350+ EV anyway.

Where I'm coming from is a position of wanting to deny Trump as many EVs as possible, and humiliate him. Utah would be the cream for Hillary, as much as Texas would, but if Hillary doesn't win Utah, I don't want Trump to win it either. I'm talking about a situation where the polls show a gap between Trump/McMullin and Hillary. If she is right in there by Election Day, then naturally this doesn't apply. It's so rare that a 3rd party has the potential to win a state, that this a different situation which has zipped past many of those posting on this thread.

[Statistical]

130. Then it won't stop Trump either way.

The only scenario where it would stop Trump is if Trump had 264 to 269 EV without Utah. Of course if he has 264 to 269 then Clinton also has <269 which means it goes to the House. So there is absolutely no reasons for voters to vote third party.

[bushisanidiot]

135. I agree with you completely! I had the same idea.

Hillary cannot win Utah and hasn't even tried. The best she can do is beat McMullin for 2nd place.
It's not a matter of her needing Utah to get to 270. It's a matter of stopping Trump from getting EVs that he is counting on as a given. This helps her with her mandate argument since reducing trumps EVs means she has a bigger landslide.

[greatauntoftriplets]

10. Is this a serious question???

[phleshdef]

15. People should vote for whoever they want as President.

[still_one]

29. If someone wants to participate in DU, then they had better be voting for Hillary

[phleshdef]

39. No shit. People in general, should still vote for whoever they want.

[WhollyHeretic]

16. The only way Utah's electoral votes matter is if Clinton and Trump both have say 266 electoral votes

before Utah. If those electoral votes go to Trump he wins, if they go to McMullin then the election goes to the House of Representatives and Trump wins. If it was close enough for Utah's electoral votes to matter the only way Hillary wins is if she gets those votes.

[JHB]

17. Where is that scenario even a possibility?

[Shivaraja]

19. In Utah

The Mormon candidate has knocked Hillary into 3rd place and is close to knocking Trump into 2nd.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ut/utah_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein_vs_mcmullin-6154.html

[OnDoutside]

32. Thank you.

[FSogol]

20. Your OP suggests that Democrat not vote for Democrats.

Than should be a banning offense.

[OnDoutside]

31. FFS, get a grip. I'm talking tactics in what would a highly unusual situation.

[Hekate]

38. How old were you in 2000? We have heard this "strategy" before. Pardon the skepticism...

...even cynicism, this engenders. It's warranted.

[OnDoutside]

69. Too old, thanks very much. Again this is a very particular situation, as I have said elsewhere.

Dragging up 2000 is overthinking this.

[Hekate]

76. "Dragging up 2000 is overthinking this." Yeah, the Florida recount was a laugh a minute.

[Shivaraja]

83. and completely unrelated to the theoretical isssue outlined in the OP

[Hekate]

86. This. Is. Real. Life.

Mansplain this

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/25/trump-finally-pissed-off-the-wrong-women-all-of-them.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page

[Shivaraja]

90. Great article, requires no commentary from anyone

what was your point?

[ieoeja]

99. Her point was to passively, aggressively call you sexist. n/t

[FSogol]

96. FFS, Vote for Democrats.

Are you afraid McMuffin and Trumpy will split the vote allowing HRC to win?

[OnDoutside]

98. Yes I'm hoping they'll split the Rep vote allowing Hillary in, but that isn't the question I posed.

[Hekate]

21. What is this, The Gong Show?

[OnDoutside]

27. Last time I looked it was a political discussion website. Gasp.

[Shivaraja]

33. Apparently, even if you advocate for a Clinton presidency

you have to be careful about what you say and think around here, or risk getting banned. Group think runs deep...

[Hekate]

40. You both signed the TOS for this site. That runs a lot deeper than any supposed group-think.

The purpose of the site you are in is to elect Democrats.

[Shivaraja]

61. And the theoretical question was simple

Would you (rhetorical "you&quot be willing to sacrifice Utah to win the White House?

I would, in a heartbeat.

I'd understand your concern if anyone here were advocating a 3rd party candidate as a protest, or as an alternative based on the merits of their platform. Those posts would be in clear violation of the TOS, but that's not what's being discussed.

This thread is about using any and all resources to help stop Trump and put Hillary in the White House. If you didn't know that before, then let this be the clarification you seek, and stop looking for a 3rd party boogieman under the bed.

[OnDoutside]

41. True, scary stuff !

[zonkers]

52. Eeks. your age is showing. I loved the Gong Show.

[Hekate]

55. Probably. Except I disliked the whole premise and didn't watch it.

Hence my sarcasm to the OP.

[Shivaraja]

23. Utahns - If the map looks like this on election day, GO VOTE CLINTON DAMN IT!

and may the Election Gods help us if it does...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

63. Well, that presupposes.....

We would have to lose all of the following states:

Florida
North Carolina
Nevada
Iowa
New Hampshire
Rhode Island (!)

And split Maine.

I think we're okay.

[Shivaraja]

68. I'm sure that you're correct

and that's part of my very theoretical point

[geek tragedy]

25. McMullin is better than Trump, but Clinton is the obvious choice between the three

regardless of what the polls say

[OnDoutside]

30. But what if the last poll in Utah, on Nov 7 said

Trump 35%
McMullin 35%
Clinton 29%

How obvious is it then ?

[geek tragedy]

44. why should we care which Republican wins Utah?

The only way Utah matters for EVs is if Clinton is otherwise short of 269 EVs.

[OnDoutside]

50. Why would you want to give Trump ANY advantage ? It would be great if Hillary could win Utah, but if

she doesn't the next best thing would be to deny Trump from winning Utah.

[Loki Liesmith]

28. If polls say "Alien hovercraft photo beer"

then jingle jangle mugga woop.

[Hekate]

42. Ooga booga smooga wooga, eh?

[brooklynite]

35. IF the polls say Emperor Palpatine, then Darth Vader, then Hill...

just as likely.

[vi5]

36. Who is Evan McMullin?

I see the name, and it seems like pretty much he's just in Utah, but......huh? I'm confused.

[OnDoutside]

43. Well done, you didn't come down in the last shower !!! ;)

[Hekate]

45. Third party basically running against Trump in Mormon country

Tag team in this thread is advocating voting for this third party candidate ostensibly to stop Trump, because ...reasons. That'll show 'em.

[OnDoutside]

48. ...reasons, you know like, reducing Trump's EC votes.

[OnDoutside]

46. I've updated the thread title to reflect that this is UTAH we are talking about. Clearly this is not

obvious to some of the posters here.

[MineralMan]

49. Absolutely not.

Democratic voters should vote for Democrats. Always.

And it's always Democratic voters, not Democrat voters. Democrat is not an adjective.

[OnDoutside]

59. There are a limited number of characters in a thread title. You should know this by now.

[MineralMan]

73. in that case, you can ask whether Democrats should vote for him.

If you say Democrat voters, you sound like a right-winger. That poor usage started years ago, and was promoted by Republicans.

Don't use it here, or you'll have people like me calling you on it. Sorry, but there are no excuses for using Right-wing memes on this website.

Democrats vote. Democratic voters vote. Democrat voters don't exist. That construction is simply incorrect in English, and was introduced by Republicans way back in the 1990s. We need to call it out when it occurs on DU.

You can edit your title at any time to correct your error. Or, you can leave it as it is and be incorrect and suspect.

[Hekate]

78. typo alert

"was introduced by Democrats way back in the 1990s" ---> was introduced by Republicans

And, thanks for calling it out. This tag team is all bright eyed and bushy tailed this morning.

[MineralMan]

80. Thank you. I've corrected it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

53. No. Let Republicans and independents decide how they vote in Utah.

[Motley13]

56. Don't overthink it, there are probably

plenty of voters that know the trumpster is not fit to be prez & know that McMullin can't win, so will vote for Hillary.

[Shivaraja]

64. McMullin can't win the White House, but CAN win Utah

Hillary is currently running 3rd in Utah.

[OnDoutside]

70. That's exactly the point I was making.

[Coyotl]

58. FAIL

Delete your Utah account Donald.

[Blue Idaho]

60. Democrats not voting for Democrats is not the answer. nt.

[SeattleVet]

62. No. Just - no.

The only poll that matters is the one on November 8 (or November 28 if voting for tRump).

[Tommy_Carcetti]

67. If the moon were made out of cheese, would you eat it?

Well, would you?

[OnDoutside]

72. Is it Blue cheese ?

[Shivaraja]

77. and what wine will be served?

it matters!

[OnDoutside]

75. Latest Utah poll : McMullin 31 Trump 27 Clinton 24 ... this might be a moot point anyway !

[Polly Hennessey]

81. Correction

Democratic voters

[relayerbob]

82. No

Democratic voters should vote Democratic

[True_Blue]

84. No. I think Hillary can take Utah

If McMullin can take enough votes away from Trump, then Hillary stands a good chance of winning Utah, but she'll need every single vote she can get.

[Shivaraja]

87. I love the optimism!

It's a very admirable quality

[True_Blue]

91. She's certainly not going to win if all the Dems

vote for someone else.

[Shivaraja]

93. Hillary is headed for the White House

regardless of Utah. No one ever expected a Dem to take this most conservative of states.

I'm not the OP, but saw this thread as a thought experiment in how to humiliate Trump. I guess others saw it as a failed purity test.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

89. First off, Utah is already voting.

Perhaps you are not aware of that. And early voters seem to be largely Democratic voters (NOT Democrat voters -- that's insulting), who probably don't give a flying fuck about McMuffin. By election day at least a third of all voters nationwide will have voted. And those percentages will be higher in those states, like Utah, with early in-person voting, since two of our more populous states, New York and Pennsylvania, don't have early voting. And Michigan likewise doesn't have early voting. So subtract them, and I'm guessing that in those states that have it, forty percent or more of voters will cast their ballots before November 8.

In a few years, especially if all states adopt early voting or vote by mail only, probably up to 80% will vote early.

People should vote for the candidate they prefer. That said, McMuffin has zero chance of becoming President, same as Stein, Johnson, or any one of the many other people running for President.

So, at the risk of repeating myself, Democrats should vote for the Democratic candidate.

[book_worm]

92. No.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

94. YES YES YES !! Can't believe all the no's

[saltpoint]

101. I can't tell the people of Utah

how to vote and they wouldn't listen to me if I tried, but if I were in Utah or the other 49 states, I recommend voting for Clinton-Kaine.

No matter who else is on the ballot.

[liberal N proud]

102. Adding a NO!

[TeacherB87]

104. "Democratic" voters should vote for Clinton

So that she wins Utah. I don't know what a Democrat voter is because "Democrat" is a noun, not an adjective.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

109. Noticed that too?

[OnDoutside]

111. Oh no, not another one.

There is a maximum number of characters you can have in a thread title.

[ffr]

128. MineralMan just posted about that too, it's Democratic when used as an adjective

Please do not use "Democrat" as an adjective on DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512545981

[TeacherB87]

132. Thank you

:-D

[qdouble]

106. There's no strategic reason to vote for anyone other than Hillary,

if it's so close that it no one wins 270, the house will likely give it to a republican. Try to win, accept nothing else.

[Grey Lemercier]

107. As stated above the EV's for or taken away from or to Trump DO NOT matter in terms of 270 to Hillary

Hillary could be at 269 or less and Trump could be much LESS than simply lacking Utah (lets say somehow he had 250) and she would still lose when it gets kicked to the House.

The ONLY thing LITERALLY a person helping McMullin get Utah's EV's instead of Trump would be doing is to give the Rethugs a McMullin option for POTUS (as the House votes between the top 3 EV winners), and they will NEVER vote for a single state candidate.

Your entire question is flawed as it's premiss is illogical.

Here 2 true nightmare scenarios (and for shits and giggles I appease you and give Utah to McMullin to show you IT DOESN'T matter)

Both these are highly unlikely even if the polls were dead tied, but I just want to drive my point home

Maine split, trump takes Pennsylvania, Trump loses Utah to McMullin




Hillary wins PA, sweeps Maine 2 districts, Iowa and Missouri go to Trump




In both these, (and all other scenarios) UTAH DOESN'T matter as Hillary will NOT win it, Trump can only lose it, so it is EV neutral to Hillary. The only thing UTAH could EVER do is kick the election to the House.

That is a DISASTROUS outcome, as nothing good can happen there. Trump is either voted (via 26 plus state delegation votes) POTUS or the truly unthinkable happens, and they vote in McMullin (THERE is the ONLY time Utah comes into play) and you would have a murderous civil war on your hands. That sounds like hyperbole, but think long and hard what Trump's Nazi legions of Xian Soldiers would do if THAT happened (or the Repugs voted for Hillary as POTUS)



In fact, in BOTH these, if Hillary had won Nebraska's 2nd district, she would be POTUS

and by not winning it (given all else) she loses it.

THIS is how I see it ACTUALLY happening

[emulatorloo]

112. No. Dems vote for Dems, none of this alleged "strategic" nonsense.

[William769]

113. No. nt

[denbot]

115. Alert

This is www.democraticunderground.com! We never support any candidate over a Democratic Party candidate.

I'm sure this post has already been alerted on, but I did just to be on the safe side.

[OnDoutside]

117. Ah cop on, Jake Soberoff is on MSNBC right now talking to a couple about this exact situation. A

Mormon couple who are McMullin voters as of now, but would vote for Clinton if meant McMullin didn't have enough but their votes would help put Hillary over the top.

[denbot]

118. That's MSNBC, this is DU.

If you lack the ability to discern the difference, it would be a waste of time trying to explain it to you.

[OnDoutside]

119. Yeah, please explain it to me, I'll get the popcorn !

[bravenak]

120. What a stupid ass idea

[LisaL]

122. That would be not smart.

Polls aren't exact. Trump and McCullin are splitting the republican vote. Why shouldn't democrats just vote for Hillary?

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

125. I would still vote democrat

Don't try to vote strategically. It is too hard to know what other people will do. I know people were trying to do that the first time Paul LePage ran in Maine. The independent Eliot Culter started polling better that the democrat Libby Mitchell as we go closer to the election and a bunch of democrats voted for Eliot Culter to try and prevent Paul LePage from getting elected. Well, Paul LePage still managed to just barely win anyhow. I'm so hoping the ranked choice voting question passes so we can have an instant run off in future elections and prevent people that are really unpopular with the majority from getting elected. If it passes, we would also use ranked choice voting to elect our US reps and US senators too.

[kurt_cagle]

133. Little Perturbed on This Discussion

I think the question is legitimate.

A bit of game theory here, though shows that a Democrat should always vote Hillary in this situation.

Scenario 1. The race in Utah is at 28% (C) -28% (T) -28% (M) going into the election. In this case that vote may be one of the ones to put Hillary on top.

Scenario 2. The race in Utah is at 28% (C) -28% (T) -28% (M), third party candidates tend to fade once people actually enter the voting booth, so much of that support will go to either C or T, so this just becomes a two party race at that point.

Scenario 3. McMullen is ahead. Trump in 2nd Hill in 3rd. Voting for C has little effect, but it blocks Trump from getting Utah, though it also reduces the target to 267. So, worst case, you've cost him 3 electoral votes, and if he was that close as to throw it into the house, Hillary has lost anyway.

Trump supporter has only one course of action - vote Trump.

Independent is where things get interesting.

I suspect that Independents will split equally three ways. In other words, the net effect of the independents will cancel out. This again turns the race back into a two person race if McMullin doesn't win outright, and if he fades, this will most likely benefit Clinton as well, as the demographics of those "independents" are essentially straight line Republicans who really cannot abide Trump being the nominee. I see these as Clinton Republicans, rather than undecideds.

[bushisanidiot]

134. Yes, absolutely. I thought the same thing. Hillary far outside the margin of error but McMullen is

almost tied with Trump. I'd rather see Trump lose a state he was counting on. That would give Hillary more room to lose a bigger state that she may need like FL or OH (even though I know there are multiple paths to 270 without them). Denying Trump electoral votes helps Hillary's enforce Hillary's mandate.