#NeverTrump conservatives hoping to recruit an independent candidate to challenge Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have had little luck so far. Many potential candidates, both high-profile and low-profile, have turned down the chance to run. But no matter who ultimately takes office, the fresh party will be operating on a set of wishful thinking, with victory dependent on one improbable event after another.
One such scenario is the hope of winning the election. Organizers say a third-party candidate would not be a reckless exercise, and the goal of the race would be to win. But the fact is, a third-party candidate has no chance of winning the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.
It is common for states that voted Democratic in the last six presidential elections to have a combined 242 electoral votes — just 28 shy of a Democratic victory. Republicans have more than 100 electoral votes in states that voted GOP in the last six elections. At this point in the race, it is simply not possible for 2012 candidate Mitt Romney, who won 206 electoral votes, or Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, who has never run for national office, or any lesser-known candidate to win 270. It simply will not happen.
Indeed, independent defenders admit there was never a chance. “The way it was going to happen was never going to be by winning 270,” one such defender said in a recent conversation. “That was never a likely scenario.”
Knowing they would never reach the winning number, independent planners hoped to create a situation in which neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate would receive 270 votes, which would tie the election in the House of Representatives.
It would be an understatement to call such an outcome improbable. To keep Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump below 270, a third-party candidate would have to win at least a few electoral votes, which means he would have to win one state. That’s tough. Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 and zero electoral votes, having not won a single state.
One bullish scenario is for an independent candidate to win in Utah, where Trump suffered a crushing defeat in the Republican Party primary.
Let’s start with the 2012 electoral map, supporters say, in which Obama won 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206. Assume Trump wins every state Romney won. Then suppose Trump wins Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. That would give him 273 votes—a victory—and Clinton 265. But then take away Utah, with its six electoral votes, and give them to a third-party candidate. That leaves Trump with 267 votes and Clinton with 265—both brief of the magic 270—and a third party with 6 votes. The election would then go to the House of Representatives.
That’s unlikely, to put it mildly—no Republican has won Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania since George H. W. Bush drafted him to popular vote Ronald Reagan in 1988. But even if Trump does, and wins every other state Romney won in 2012, what are the odds that a relatively unknown candidate will accomplish what Perot failed to do—win a state? Not very good.
And even if all that happened and the election were held in the House, there are even more insurmountable problems. The Constitution specifies that voting is by state, with each state getting one vote for president. So a state with a Democratic majority in the House delegation would cast one vote for Clinton. And a state with a Republican majority would cast one vote for… who?
The Constitution says the House has to vote for one of the three candidates with the most electoral votes. That means no Paul Ryan or some other outsider scenario. So the president would be Clinton, Trump, or a third-party candidate. Assuming the House is still in Republican hands—remember, that will be next January, when the House elected in November takes office—does anyone believe that Republican politicians, acting collectively in their state delegations, would choose the candidate with six electoral votes over the candidate with 267?
Some independents are considering other scenarios. In one, an independent candidate would win just one or two points over Trump in a handful of close states—enough for Trump to lose. But that, of course, would not lead to a third-party victory, but to a Hillary Clinton victory, something some longtime #NeverTrumpers can’t publicly support.
Other scenarios are based on the hope that something crazy will happen. Maybe Trump will implode or a third-party candidate will emerge from the left. After all, it has been an unpredictable year.
Finally, some independents acknowledge they have little chance of winning but simply want a candidate for whom conservatives who cannot accept either Clinton or Trump can vote in good conscience.
It’s still unclear whether the third party will actually take place. Organizers have promised a mighty organization and plenty of money. But with only pipe dreams and no candidate so far, hope — and enthusiasm — are dwindling.
