Background: I am an independent voter. I don't particularly like any of the Presidential candidates and I have felt that way for every election I've been eligible to vote in.
I had months ago predicted (very tongue-in-cheek) in a text I sent someone that Trump would get screwed out of the nomination and run as an independent. With the Republican vote split, Bloomberg would also run as an independent and would then win in a 4-way race. With Trump on path to win the Republican nomination and Bloomberg announcing he would not run, that prediction now looks unlikely to say the least. But Bloomberg's reason, stuck with me. He said that even if he could manage to win here or there, the best case was nobody getting 270 delegates and the House would then likely pick a Republican. Fast forward to last week.
Marco Rubio seems to be being set up by the Republican "establishment" for a convention win. If he can win Florida, that is the likely scenario. He shifts gears to attack Trump but the polls (in Florida) show little to no benefit. Politically, he should get out before Florida but doesn't. To block a Trump nomination he should either get out before Florida (to "focus" the anti-Trump vote on Cruz or Kasich) or stay in until the end running a Gilmore-type campaign to just siphon off delegates from Trump. He did neither making it much more likely Trump will win the nomination without a convention fight.
Meanwhile, there is pundit after pundit on TV describing the rules of the nomination process. "It's not about the voters;" they say, "it's the delegates that choose." "Everyone got into the race knowing the rules and the rules are the same for everyone." The idea being, if you didn't know the rules, well, sucks to be you. This resonates with the anti-Trump crowd because the rules can save them from Trump! The idea that is being drilled into their heads is "we have to follow the rules!"
The other backburner story brewing is the possibility of the Republicans running someone as an Independent (or Libertarian). The pundits' reason for doing this is that Trump would hurt Republicans down-ballot, possibly losing them the Senate and even the House. It would be better to lose the Presidency (the pundits' reason against this idea) to keep control of the House and Senate. Oh, woe unto the Republicans, right? Nothing they do can get them control!
But what if this other candidate actually won a state or two.
Now read the 12th Amendment. (Here's part of it.)
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.If this third candidate could pull off a state win somewhere (let's say it's Kasich in Ohio or Perry in Texas) then you could have nobody with an Electoral majority. The House then votes (1 vote per state) for the President. The Republicans currently control 32 states, the Democrats 16. With Trump and another Republican on the ballot, the Republicans likely keep their House majority and choose this "other" Republican as President.
The people will accept it because they have already been conditioned to "those are the rules." Additionally Clinton (or Sanders) will concede the election (just like Gore did) to preserve our fine democracy. What Trump supporters do likely depends on Trump. Without the possibility to be President I think he Ross Perot's it back to his old life. Maybe he gets a new show on TV or starts the Trump Channel (the best channel, believe me, it'll be HUGE).
