What if it was, like, one word, but with a space in it? :eek:
Hubris.
I dismissed things as trendy before it was cool.
VP Nominee Weld may quit race, endorse Hillary. Says we must keep Trump out of the White House. I agree wholeheartedly. If Johnson wasn’t on a colossal ego trip, he’d drop out too.
Linkee would’ve been nice. What my google-fu shows is merely what Carl Bernstein thinks Weld is thinking about.
Do you have more than that? Anything from Weld’s own mouth?
In fact he seems to be denying it.
The usual view I see is that libertarians may have nutty economic policy, but they would be limited in their ability to enact it. But they have good foreign and drug war policy, which they can directly manage. I think this undersells the damage a libertarian executive could do, but it makes a sort of sense. No other real option if non-interventionism is your most important issue.
I suspect these numbers are somewhat off due to it being a subset, though it does show Clinton’s need to appeal more strongly among the Millennial element of the Obama coalition.
If these numbers are even close to accurate I suspect the main thing they mean is that Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States. 
I should have said in the OP that this was just one poll and margin of error goes up dramatically when looking at subsamples.
Here’s a recent Fox poll… (crosstabs of question 3 on page 16)
Among 18-34
Clinton/Kaine 37%
Trump/Pence 28%
Johnson/Weld 18%
Stein/Baraka 8%
No, since Johnson likely wont get a simple Electoral College vote.
If Clinton gets 45% and Trump 45% with Johnson at 11%, it doesnt do anything. Only if Clinton gets 269 EC Votes Trump 268EC votes and Johnson 3 votes.
But Johnson wont get ANY EC votes. He cannot and will not win a single state. There’s my prediction.
Johnson think he could win one state, and then it goes to Congress with neither Clinton or Trump having 270- and then the GOP House will then, of course pick Johnson. NOT!
That’s actually worse. A 9 point lead among young voters for Clinton is not going to get it done.
Why not? Unlike Trump, he’s an actual Republican and he’s served as a Republican.
His cultural liberalism is unacceptable for most Republican voters so I don’t see how he’s an “actual Republican”. Trump, at least, harkens back to Gilded Age and Robert Taft Republicanism.
Trump is actually not a conservative in any particular sense, although yes, he does bear more of a resemblance to 50s Republicanism than anything else.
Johnson may be culturally liberal, but it was good enough to get him elected statewide twice, and he has loads more experience than Trump. I think a case can definitely be made for Johnson, especially as a compromise choice. If Democrats know Clinton can’t win a Congressional vote, why not side with anti-Trump Republicans to nominate the more moderate Johnson? And in teh Senate, they’ll probably get Tim Kaine, so Johnson/Kaine doesn’t seem like a terrible outcome for Democrats.
While it’s fun to speculate about wildly implausible scenarios sometimes, are we thinking that in some alternate reality, Johnson wins enough votes to deprive Clinton and Trump of 270 (say by winning Pennsylvania or something), and somehow there are enough defector Dems and anti-Trump Republicans in the House to put together a winning coalition for Johnson? My Article 2 trivia is a bit rusty, but I believe that in the case of a split decision in the Electoral College, the House votes for representative by state, meaning that there are 50 votes (maybe 51, not sure if DC gets a vote in this case), not 435, and the Johnson ticket would have to win 26 states to win the presidency. I’m not even certain how each state determines their vote. Is it just the current congressional representatives for a state choosing, or some other mechanism? What if a state is tied between Dems and Reps?
And if the House just deadlocks, does the Senate pick the President(by picking the VP?)
Before we discuss having a ‘tie’ based on the projected number of states won, remember that two states, Maine and Nebraska, have a delegate or two that are not necessarily tied to the outcome of the statewide race.
Now if there is a tie, my Constitutional law is a bit rusty, but I think the first thing we’d have to know for sure is exactly how the electoral college is going to vote. If it is a tie on election night, there is still the very real possibility of a faithless elector making the decision to go against the vote. I would suspect this is more likely to hurt Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton, and it’s also the sort of thing that would spark outrage and possibly even political violence, so whoever casts the vote would probably do so under tight security and have a private undisclosed bunker set before doing it.
If after all this there is no winner, then it would go to the House and they would keep voting and deal making until there is a majority vote winner on the floor. The kinds of bargains that can come as a result of a presidential tie are in and of themselves interesting. Reconstruction ended as a result of a presidential tie.
If the election was held that day according to that poll it would be enough to get it done.
But yes those numbers are not as good as how Obama performed or polled, or as good as she had done in that age group before.
Can it be brought up? Will they turnout?
FWIW Sanders and Warren were in Ohio over the weekend trying to make the sale.