Let’s not pretend the Democrats will ever give up in their pursuit of removing Donald Trump from Office. If any Presidential candidate fails to get an absolute majority of votes in the Electoral College (currently 270), the election is then determined via a contingency procedure. Initially established by the 12th Amendment, thanks to the 20th Amendment being ratified now a “newly-elected” House of Representatives (not the lame-duck Congress) will conduct a contingent election. The fresh impeachment stench of the “jackasses” might already be a clever ploy to get us off their scent. The Iowa primary debacle could be a mere smoke screen to further conceal. Assume Mike Bloomberg’s money punches his ticket into the donkey barn at Milwaukee. Nothing really stops Bernie Sanders seemingly scorned (again) from also running as an Independent. In 1968 election, George Wallace carried 5 Southern states as a 3rd party candidate. Imagine how California’s 55 electoral votes already being cast in a cement mold for Bern. Although rare, like impeachment, contingent elections have occurred 3 times in American History. By voting this November for both Trump and for all Republican to have majority of BOTH the House and the Senate, this kind of cunning maneuver is dead on arrival. Surely I am missing something. Please add input/suggestions accordingly.
I don’t see how two of the leftists in the general election would do anything but split the states that would have gone to a single Dem candidate.
Would addition of a second one any of them have the appeal to anti-Trumpers that only a single one of them would not have had?
“We” need both libs Mike Bloomberg and who ever else the Dems choose. Surely with two choices…one of em is bound to beat Trump? 
The only election that ever went to the House was in 1825 (well 1800 as well but that was do to a peculiarity in the Electoral College rule which was fixed after that election). 1876 was decided by compromise, not a House vote.
There’s a reason for that…the two party system is much more powerful today than it used to be.
The only way this would work is if you thought one Dem candidate could take most of the states Dems usually take but couldn’t take the former “Blue Wall States” back from Trump, but the other could.
I don’t see this happening because people simply will not vote for an independent. Even the well funded Ross Perot received 18% of the vote yet failed to win a single state.
I would see the Dem vote split in “Blue Wall states”, thus assuring Trump wins them.
Nope, doesn’t make sense, the only way it would is if the second candidate drew more Trump voters than democratic ones and none of the people you mention have that potential.
Could make sense to the Dims though
