Gary Johnson polling at 15% (was 13%)

Originally Posted by docsherm

That is what I meant, Perot screwed us....... And those that voted for him.

Yep, when you look state by state at the 84, 88, 92, 96, 00, 04 you can see that popular vote percents are not that illuminating. Looking at states and their Electoral vote trends. TN is a great example and went Bush in 88 then for Bill twice with Gore as VP, but in 2000 with Gore at the head of ticket he loses TN.....

Originally Posted by docsherm

Either way, the third part just mostly pulls votes from the Rep side.

That is how we got a second term with Bill. The Clinton's KNOW this and will work it. If he gains any ground it is a sure win for HRC.

It is truly said Americans are not smart enough to see this.

HRC can't beat Trump. But she can win based on the ignorance of the American people.

I have supplied numerous sources suggesting that's simply not true, and to date, most polls show the addition of a third party candidate a negative to HC at this point.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

I have supplied numerous sources suggesting that's simply not true, and to date, most polls show the addition of a third party candidate a negative to HC at this point.

Know what's a better negative for HRC? Voting for Trump.

Sorry Will, couldn't resist.

I am still hopeful with that much stupid, liberal, corruption and political correctness gathered in one place, that it will all implode on itself

Originally Posted by WillBrink

I have supplied numerous sources suggesting that's simply not true, and to date, most polls show the addition of a third party candidate a negative to HC at this point.

I will not argue the point but I do not believe that "research". Statics can be manipulated to tell what ever story you want. It is in the interest of the left to publish as much "research" as possible to show the conservatives on the high ground to vote third party.

Those that have been paying attention know that a great deal of the "research" is BS and is to there to fuel their agenda. Do we need to talk about Gore's Global warming or Andrew Wakefield's MMR research?

Originally Posted by docsherm

I will not argue the point but I do not believe that "research". Statics can be manipulated to tell what ever story you want. It is in the interest of the left to publish as much "research" as possible to show the conservatives on the high ground to vote third party.

Those that have been paying attention know that a great deal of the "research" is BS and is to there to fuel their agenda. Do we need to talk about Gore's Global warming or Andrew Wakefield's MMR research?

OK, then we will go with "cuz I say so" as the indicator for whether Johnson it a negative to HC or Trump. Rgr rgr. Regardless, TP can be spoilers for either party as was the Green Party for Gore. We have history to show that it's not automatically a magic negative for GOP, cuz it aint. Two, there's far more people in the "Anyone but Trump or HC"camp than is fully realized at this time, and I suspect that will show itself in spades come this election. It may in fact help Trump in this election. Obviously, those who genuinely want Trump win should just vote for him no doubt.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

OK, then we will go with "cuz I say so" as the indicator for whether Johnson it a negative to HC or Trump. Rgr rgr. Regardless, TP can be spoilers for either party as was the Green Party for Gore. We have history to show that it's not automatically a magic negative for GOP, cuz it aint. Two, there's far more people in the "Anyone but Trump or HC"camp than is fully realized at this time, and I suspect that will show itself in spades come this election. It may in fact help Trump in this election. Obviously, those who genuinely want Trump win should just vote for him no doubt.

I understand what you are saying and I do agree to a point.

But overall inTHIS election I think it will hurt Trump more than HRC. And unfortunately neither of us can be right until after the election.

I'm voting for Johnson. If everybody dissatisfied with the 2 choices voted for Johnson, he'd win by a landslide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by docsherm

I understand what you are saying and I do agree to a point.

But overall inTHIS election I think it will hurt Trump more than HRC. And unfortunately neither of us can be right until after the election.

You may be right, but indicators don't seem to support it. But all the old rules don't apply this election in my view

Originally Posted by pingdork

I'm voting for Johnson. If everybody dissatisfied with the 2 choices voted for Johnson, he'd win by a landslide.

If he can get into the debates, holds his own in those debates, and convince people's he's a viable candidate and they are not just wasting a vote and or giving it to the greater of two evils, he'd win by a landslide. If he can't get into the debates to be exposed to a large number of people and get compared to Trump and HC, then it's very unlikely even though TP votes will hit a record high if I was a betting man.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

But all the old rules don't apply this election in my view.

That statement I can wholeheartedly agree with.

Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand

Yep, when you look state by state at the 84, 88, 92, 96, 00, 04 you can see that popular vote percents are not that illuminating. Looking at states and their Electoral vote trends. TN is a great example and went Bush in 88 then for Bill twice with Gore as VP, but in 2000 with Gore at the head of ticket he loses TN.....

Hello, here is your proof.

When I looked at it last time we talked about this, there were a couple of other states that like Colorado and Missouri that follow a similar trend.

You can click thru the map at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...oric.html#1996 to see the states change. You need a swing of about 50 EC votes to change either election.

Actually, just look at Ohio, it goes for Clinton/Gore when big ears is in the election.

You can look at vote totals and try to parse breakdowns, but the reality is that the GOP lost a lot of states that they had and would once again win that went to Clinton/Gore.

That is the reality.