Mark Cuban for president

Hello my, 

Nahhh. I don’t think he’s a Democrat or a Republican. He could run as an independent  He could run as a write in. There’s lots of ways he could still run. I don’t think the old rule book applies anymore. 

excon

He can run as a write-in or independent candidate, but nobody can actually be elected unless he/she runs as a Democrat or Republican and is on state primary ballots to secure a major party nomination.

Perot's polling numbers were higher than both Bush and Clinton ... until he dropped out.
If he hadn't won, he would at least have upset the status quo enough to panic the "Big Two" leadership.
But by his stunt, he pretty much ruined it for any other independent party for a few generations.

The party primary and Electoral College systems militate against any independent candidate winning. Perot couldn't have won and neither can any other independent candidate. He didn't ruin anything.

The party primary has nothing to do with the election, as far as who can win.
It is a private election of who the party will run as candidate.
The political parties don't even have to allow non-party members to vote in the primaries.  
It is the equivalent of the election of officers in an Elk's Lodge.

Nor does the Electoral College disallow independent candidates.
Other than Nebraska and Maine, whomever wins the popular votes for a state gets all the EC votes for that state.

Prior to dropping out, Perot's poll support was 39% - compared to Bush (31%) and Clinton (29%).

Don't fall for the brainwashing that "a 3rd Party vote is a wasted vote".
Roughly 43% of eligible voters didn't bother casting ballots in 2016.
That is a potential tidal change, if a 3rd Party put in the grass roots effort to get even half of those.

"Nor does the Electoral College disallow independent candidates." The issue is not that anything disallows independent candidates. It is perfectly within the rules for them to run. The real issue is that a candidate must win a majority of the electoral votes that are decided in the elections of 50 states and DC. It is virtually impossible for any independent candidate to accomplish that without the backing of one of the two major parties. That's why it has never happened. Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't pull it off in 1912.

It's getting easier, though ... thanks to social media reducing the need to rely on "old school" media and spending millions on advertising.

I disagree. The crux of the matter is that with one or two exceptions, each state awards all of its electors and their votes to the winner on election day. It is virtually impossible for an independent candidate to outpoll both the Democratic and Republican candidate in any one state, let alone in enough states to garner the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

With 43% of the electoral still up for grabs (2016) ... choosing not to vote for either the Democrats or Republicans ... it's not as impossible as it sounds.  The biggest hurdle is for a 3rd Party to stop dinking around, and take a national campaign seriously.  (Above local candidates, you'll seldom find serious 3rd Party candidates.  Very rarely above state offices.)

I find it funny that we tend to favor unaligned candidates for local office - but above that, we think they should belong to a party.  (at least, that's how it looks to me)

I don't think he could win as an independent. I do think he would draw votes away from Biden.