Who of these would be strongest as an independent?

[dudeabides]

Discuss, maps welcomed

[Lyin' Steve]

Obviously Bloomberg, he has broad appeal and was very successful.

[I support Sanders]

Manchin definitely has my vote. That said, I think Manchin has a good shot at being the Democratic VP next year, so.......

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Manchin definitely has my vote. That said, I think Manchin has a good shot at being the Democratic VP next year, so.......

What? He's awful VP material

[Eraserhead]

Paul or Bloomberg I guess.

I know of at least two people who would do a hell of a lot better than any of them though: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

[I support Sanders]

The VP is the head of the Senate, and Manchin has plenty of experience as a Senator, and at breaking gridlock in the Senate and forming bipartisan coalitions. He is a moderate who also has executive experience, and may help the Democrats win back some Appalachian or southern states (at least West Virginia and Kentucky)

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

Definitely Bloomberg. Because I have nothing better to do, here is a map.

I think that any moderate independent ticket's success depends greatly on who the Dems and Reps pick. Clinton and Rubio? Not that great. Sanders and Cruz? You might be looking at the first independent president since Washington.

Sanders/Klobuchar 235 EV 38.7%
Bloomberg/Huntsman 157 EV 31.6%
Cruz/Haley 146 EV 29%
Other 0 EV 0.7%

Bloomberg/Huntsman don't make the ballot in OK because their ballot laws are crazy. Sanders is able to hold on in some areas (Midwest/Rust Belt) due to unions and a Midwestern running mate. Bloomberg is more popular among more educated areas on the East Coast. Cruz is seen as too far right in some Southeastern states (ie Georgia), leading to Bloomberg victories there. The center/right split along with a growing Hispanic population allows Bernie to sneak in a victory in Arizona.

Likely result of hung electoral college: Bloomberg/Klobuchar with a moderate (if slightly left-leaning) cabinet. Includes Jim Webb in Veterans Affairs, Martin O'Malley in HUD, John Kerry staying with State. Brian Schweitzer in Energy, Kelly Ayotte in Homeland Security, Lindsey Graham in Defense, among others.

[eric82oslo]

Either Huntsman or Bloomberg, though Rand should do well as well. I guess it's a Three way tie at this point. Huntsman could be criticized for being arrogant, Bloomberg will almost definitely be hated by most Republicans because of his anti guns and anti big soda campaigns, while Rand could be critized by being a bit bland, not passionate enough and too stiff, just like his father. They all might have fatal flaws in a general election, do I believe Huntsman has the least flaws in order to do good among the three of them.

[Lyin' Steve]

Definitely Bloomberg. Because I have nothing better to do, here is a map.

I think that any moderate independent ticket's success depends greatly on who the Dems and Reps pick. Clinton and Rubio? Not that great. Sanders and Cruz? You might be looking at the first independent president since Washington.

Sanders/Klobuchar 235 EV 38.7%
Bloomberg/Huntsman 157 EV 31.6%
Cruz/Haley 146 EV 29%
Other 0 EV 0.7%

Bloomberg/Huntsman don't make the ballot in OK because their ballot laws are crazy. Sanders is able to hold on in some areas (Midwest/Rust Belt) due to unions and a Midwestern running mate. Bloomberg is more popular among more educated areas on the East Coast. Cruz is seen as too far right in some Southeastern states (ie Georgia), leading to Bloomberg victories there. The center/right split along with a growing Hispanic population allows Bernie to sneak in a victory in Arizona.

Likely result of hung electoral college: Bloomberg/Klobuchar with a moderate (if slightly left-leaning) cabinet. Includes Jim Webb in Veterans Affairs, Martin O'Malley in HUD, John Kerry staying with State. Brian Schweitzer in Energy, Kelly Ayotte in Homeland Security, Lindsey Graham in Defense, among others.

Wouldn't Cruz win here?  Those of us old enough to remember the 1824 presidential election know that if nobody wins a majority in the electoral college, the election is thrown to the house of representatives.

[Blair]

Bloomberg has invested himself too heavily with gun control to be viable independent

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

Definitely Bloomberg. Because I have nothing better to do, here is a map.

I think that any moderate independent ticket's success depends greatly on who the Dems and Reps pick. Clinton and Rubio? Not that great. Sanders and Cruz? You might be looking at the first independent president since Washington.

Sanders/Klobuchar 235 EV 38.7%
Bloomberg/Huntsman 157 EV 31.6%
Cruz/Haley 146 EV 29%
Other 0 EV 0.7%

Bloomberg/Huntsman don't make the ballot in OK because their ballot laws are crazy. Sanders is able to hold on in some areas (Midwest/Rust Belt) due to unions and a Midwestern running mate. Bloomberg is more popular among more educated areas on the East Coast. Cruz is seen as too far right in some Southeastern states (ie Georgia), leading to Bloomberg victories there. The center/right split along with a growing Hispanic population allows Bernie to sneak in a victory in Arizona.

Likely result of hung electoral college: Bloomberg/Klobuchar with a moderate (if slightly left-leaning) cabinet. Includes Jim Webb in Veterans Affairs, Martin O'Malley in HUD, John Kerry staying with State. Brian Schweitzer in Energy, Kelly Ayotte in Homeland Security, Lindsey Graham in Defense, among others.

Wouldn't Cruz win here?  Those of us old enough to remember the 1824 presidential election know that if nobody wins a majority in the electoral college, the election is thrown to the house of representatives.

I see Bloomberg as a compromise candidate. But, it would depend on the House, you are right. In this scenario, I have not thought about Congress at all. Perhaps there's a lot of independents that do well on Bloomberg's coattails? There's probably some Republicans who think that Cruz is far too radical and would favor Bloomberg as a more centrist alternative.

[Higgs]

Easily Paul.

[Lyin' Steve]

Definitely Bloomberg. Because I have nothing better to do, here is a map.

I think that any moderate independent ticket's success depends greatly on who the Dems and Reps pick. Clinton and Rubio? Not that great. Sanders and Cruz? You might be looking at the first independent president since Washington.

Sanders/Klobuchar 235 EV 38.7%
Bloomberg/Huntsman 157 EV 31.6%
Cruz/Haley 146 EV 29%
Other 0 EV 0.7%

Bloomberg/Huntsman don't make the ballot in OK because their ballot laws are crazy. Sanders is able to hold on in some areas (Midwest/Rust Belt) due to unions and a Midwestern running mate. Bloomberg is more popular among more educated areas on the East Coast. Cruz is seen as too far right in some Southeastern states (ie Georgia), leading to Bloomberg victories there. The center/right split along with a growing Hispanic population allows Bernie to sneak in a victory in Arizona.

Likely result of hung electoral college: Bloomberg/Klobuchar with a moderate (if slightly left-leaning) cabinet. Includes Jim Webb in Veterans Affairs, Martin O'Malley in HUD, John Kerry staying with State. Brian Schweitzer in Energy, Kelly Ayotte in Homeland Security, Lindsey Graham in Defense, among others.

Wouldn't Cruz win here?  Those of us old enough to remember the 1824 presidential election know that if nobody wins a majority in the electoral college, the election is thrown to the house of representatives.

I see Bloomberg as a compromise candidate. But, it would depend on the House, you are right. In this scenario, I have not thought about Congress at all. Perhaps there's a lot of independents that do well on Bloomberg's coattails? There's probably some Republicans who think that Cruz is far too radical and would favor Bloomberg as a more centrist alternative.

No, all the Republicans vote for a Republican president and Ted Cruz cakewalks to the oval office.
Any three-way race where the independent candidate could credibly win states will likely have this outcome.

[bobloblaw]

Either Huntsman or Bloomberg.

Huntsman....the most over-rated politician EVER.

[eric82oslo]

Either Huntsman or Bloomberg.

Huntsman....the most over-rated politician EVER.

Not. Only in a Republican primary competing against five severely conservative candidates. Just because you're almost completely at the middle of the electorate doesn't mean that you're unviable, inelectable and overrated in a general election.

[bagelman]

✓ Bloomburg 272 EV

Cruz 154 EV

Sanders 112 EV

This might happen if moderate democrats refuse to endorse Sanders, with some openly endorsing Bloomburg.

This map is very very very bad!!!

[Brewer]

Either Huntsman or Bloomberg.

Huntsman....the most over-rated politician EVER.

Not. Only in a Republican primary competing against five severely conservative candidates. Just because you're almost completely at the middle of the electorate doesn't mean that you're unviable, inelectable and overrated in a general election.

He's nowhere near the middle of the electorate.

[eric82oslo]

Either Huntsman or Bloomberg.

Huntsman....the most over-rated politician EVER.

Not. Only in a Republican primary competing against five severely conservative candidates. Just because you're almost completely at the middle of the electorate doesn't mean that you're unviable, inelectable and overrated in a general election.

He's nowhere near the middle of the electorate.

He's a little bit to the right, but not too much. He's to the left of Christie I think. Anyways, I'm pretty sure that if anything, he's probably moved to the center since 2012, no?

Btw, what makes you think that he's so "far" right?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

✓ Bloomburg 272 EV

Cruz 154 EV

Sanders 112 EV

This might happen if moderate democrats refuse to endorse Sanders, with some openly endorsing Bloomburg.

Bloomberg isn't winning a rural state, hon.

I would strongly advise people to actually think before posting.

[Mehmentum]

Bloomberg, if only because of $$$.

[Rob Bloom]

Definitely Bloomberg. Because I have nothing better to do, here is a map.

I think that any moderate independent ticket's success depends greatly on who the Dems and Reps pick. Clinton and Rubio? Not that great. Sanders and Cruz? You might be looking at the first independent president since Washington.

Sanders/Klobuchar 235 EV 38.7%
Bloomberg/Huntsman 157 EV 31.6%
Cruz/Haley 146 EV 29%
Other 0 EV 0.7%

Bloomberg/Huntsman don't make the ballot in OK because their ballot laws are crazy. Sanders is able to hold on in some areas (Midwest/Rust Belt) due to unions and a Midwestern running mate. Bloomberg is more popular among more educated areas on the East Coast. Cruz is seen as too far right in some Southeastern states (ie Georgia), leading to Bloomberg victories there. The center/right split along with a growing Hispanic population allows Bernie to sneak in a victory in Arizona.

Likely result of hung electoral college: Bloomberg/Klobuchar with a moderate (if slightly left-leaning) cabinet. Includes Jim Webb in Veterans Affairs, Martin O'Malley in HUD, John Kerry staying with State. Brian Schweitzer in Energy, Kelly Ayotte in Homeland Security, Lindsey Graham in Defense, among others.

A fairly reasonable map. But you need to explain why Bloomberg would win Utah.

[Gog]

I voted Bloom but TBH i think the Donald would be the strongest, certainly winning multiples of states (Alabama, Arkansas, Wyoming, Montana ect) against someone like Bush or Kaisch.

[Brewer]

Either Huntsman or Bloomberg.

Huntsman....the most over-rated politician EVER.

Not. Only in a Republican primary competing against five severely conservative candidates. Just because you're almost completely at the middle of the electorate doesn't mean that you're unviable, inelectable and overrated in a general election.

He's nowhere near the middle of the electorate.

He's a little bit to the right, but not too much. He's to the left of Christie I think. Anyways, I'm pretty sure that if anything, he's probably moved to the center since 2012, no?

Btw, what makes you think that he's so "far" right?

He still wanted to repeal the ACA and Dodd-Frank, supports privatizing Medicare, wants a flat tax, eliminated concealed-carry restrictions as Governor, and is ardently pro-life (opposes stem-cell research), among other issues. In the 2012 primary, his economic policy certainly put him far to the right of the spectrum.

Jon Huntsman is a moderate in style, not substance. However, in 2012, he was dense enough to run a campaign that essentially consisted of him patronizing Republican voters and assuming that they'd fall in line with an Obama nominee simply because he "put country first". He's never proven himself to be anything more than a naive also-ran in the 2012 Republican Primary, so yes, he is absolutely overrated.