That shows a heck of a lot of room for growth, actually. Sure does give a valid choice to those of us who can’t stand Trump. He’s also a candidate that big money donors and Republican politicians can get behind if Trump wins the nomination.
god no. Hillary doesn’t need her mandate ruined like what happened to Bill in the '90s.
The left-wing kiddies of the Dem party need to let the centrist adults run the show already, stop whining, and get in line and vote for the Clintons.
I can not see him getting more votes from Democrats than the ones that he would get from the Republicans.
I do think that a lot of very disgruntled moderate and establishment Republicans will more likely look at him if Trump is the Republican candidate, besides views that match a lot of conservative ones, the Republicans that are in favor of immigration would be the ones that I think will look at him as an option in this election.
Of course Johnson will win more votes from Republicans. Which is why it’s awesome that Johnson+ Trump beats Clinton pretty easily. If we have to live with Hillary Clinton as President, I’m all for giving her a weaker mandate than even her husband had. Let’s see if we can make Clinton win with 39% of the vote.
The Democrats already tried that by winning more votes for Congress, though they won less seats. It doesn’t change anything.
Whenever somebody comes up with the most outlandish, highly improbable scenarios, why does it seem that the majority of the time that somebody is you?
not necessarily. A lot of those far-left Berners (like the Birchers but left-wing) will do anything to oppose “neo-liberal AND neo-con” Hillary, and Johnson could bring the siphoning close to even, or near parity.
“Forget it, Johnny - it’s Adahertown.”
His name always makes me think of Presidential candidates (and identical clones) John Jackson and Jack Johnson from the Futurama episode “A Head In the Polls”.
The poll doesn’t mean anything. The voters were presented with three and only three choices and had to choose one. Almost nobody knows who the third guy is and among those who may have remembered once having heard his name, even fewer know what his positions on the issues are. His name might as well have been “none of the above.”
If voters ever find out who he is and what his positions are, those numbers might shrink or might grow. But right now, they don’t mean anything.
True, but wouldn’t you think that what amounts to a moderate Republican, one who is actually qualified to be President, would have a unique opening given the likely major party nominees?
The answer is probably “Because they’re a TV station only pretending that what they do is actually journalism, so they don’t know any better,” but I’m going to ask anyway.
Why the FUCK doesn’t the story have any way for the reader to look at the actual poll results?
Yeah, how significant that 11% for Johnson is depends on what the numbers are for the other two candidates. If it just means that Clinton beats Trump by 20 points instead of by 10 points, there’s no story here. If it tightens up the race, though, well that means something (though probably only the same something as votes for “none of the above” would).
There are other sources for the poll:
The hypothetical Clinton-Trump-Johnson matchup was buried in a much larger survey.
“Gary Johnson” is just a neutral-sounding WASPish American name. I bet the results of the poll wouldn’t have been much different if they inserted a similar made-up name, maybe something like Bob Collins.
But I bet there would have been a big difference if they used a name like Laquisha Washington.
Yeah, and I remember when Anderson went independent in 1980, he was polling in the 20s in the spring.
I bet Johnson gets <5% of the vote nationally, mostly from Republicans who couldn’t stand voting for Trump, and has approximately zero effect on the Presidential outcome.
I doubt such a poll result this early means anything, but I’m totally okay with the possibility of Johnson’s support growing. He probably helps the Democrats, helps destroy the Republican party, and might add a non-crank voice to the conversation.
Here I thought the only three way was Cruz’s marriage. \rimshot
I don’t see the LP as getting anywhere near the support that Nader did in 2000. Sure, there are people that like weed and guns and hate taxes- but they’re already voting Republican. The LP offers them nothing that the Republicans don’t already offer more of. If you hate the Democrats but don’t want to burden yourself with feeling personal responsibility for voting for someone that’s actually running the government, then maybe the libertarian party is for you.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume I’m wrong and Hillary wins with 40% of the vote. I don’t think she would have any less of a mandate than Bush did after getting the Nader assist in 2000.