2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: IF the polls in Utah say Trump then McMullin then Hill, should Democrat voters vote for McMullin? [View all]Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)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