Which three-way race would be more interesting?

[sportydude]

In which scenario has the independent a higher chance of winning a state?

In one match-up the independent runs a campaign because the party candidates are too boring.
In the other scenario the independent is up for election because the party candidates are too extreme.

What would have a more decisive effect on the election?

[eric82oslo]

In which scenario has the independent a higher chance of winning a state?

Trump could win Idaho, Wyoming, West Virginia I think. Perhaps even Alabama on an extremely good day. I can't see any state however where Bloomberg would even be slightly competitive. Oops, against Clinton that is. Against Sanders and Trump, perhaps Bloomberg could become the moderate hero in a handful of states, perhaps especially so in Utah, though still a bit doubtful cause Sanders is extremely popular, even in most conservative-northern states (much less so in the religious south since he's basically 100% non-religious himself).

[Mike Thick]

Trump as an indie. There were polls that showed him tying or actually outperforming Jeb, so I think he would stand a great chance of carrying states.

[The Free North]

Anything with Jeb Bush in it becomes 100% more boring and unwatchable.

[RI]

The first election is just a Clinton rout. The latter could be a legitimate three-way race, potentially.

[This account no longer in use.]

The first one WOULD be, but having Jeb? as the Republican candidate would probably lead to a Clinton landslide.

[Figueira]

Trump would actually be a major force in the election unlike Bloomberg.

Edit: accidentally voted for the wrong option.

[President Johnson]

The latter would be very very interesting. But I'm very sure that TRUMP would win it.

[pho]

If by interesting you mean most likely to be decided by the House, it's the first option.

Bloomberg's ceiling nationwide is single digits.

[MM876]

I like Sanders and I would have a candidate to cheer on in the latter situation. In the former I thoroughly detest all three of those people, so I would be much more interested in a Sanders-Trump-Bloomberg election, although I hope Bloomberg doesn't run against Sanders.

[Mehmentum]

The first election is just a Clinton rout. The latter could be a legitimate three-way race, potentially.

[Asian Nazi]

If by interesting you mean most likely to be decided by the House, it's the first option.

Bloomberg's ceiling nationwide is single digits.

This, and the fact that anyone here disagrees shows how ignorant the average Atlas poster is.

[RI]

If by interesting you mean most likely to be decided by the House, it's the first option.

Bloomberg's ceiling nationwide is single digits.

This, and the fact that anyone here disagrees shows how ignorant the average Atlas poster is.

Neither would go to the House.

[MT Treasurer]

This, and the fact that anyone here disagrees shows how ignorant the average Atlas poster is.

For the record: When I said its outcome would be wide open, I meant between Sanders and Trump. Bloomberg isn't getting more than 2% or 3% of the vote. #AngryNHwomen4Bloomberg or #Trump2liberalvote4Bloomberg is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in awhile.

[This account no longer in use.]

The thing is, Option 1 would lead to a landslide, but Bloomberg is still hopeless. Atlas needs to stop with the Bloomberg worship.

[Bigby]

2, but more to see how many people are willing to vote for extremes. Bloomberg wouldn't be too huge of a factor.

[RR1997]

Both Bloomberg and Trump wouldn't win ANY states and would probably get aroung 2%-10% of the vote at best. You guys are overestimating Trump's support if he were to go third party.

I chose option 2.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

The latter because it would allow for interesting results.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The lattter. The former would be 1912 redux, but with sh**ttier candidates.