Gary Johnson polling at 15% (was 13%)

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Funny how that works, ain't it. Yet you will be responsible if Hillary wins because you didn't tow the party line. Nevermind the fact that Johnson has the most consistent pro-2nd Amendment stance of all the candidates.

Voting for people who are a poor reflection of your values out of fear that the boogie man will win is a guaranteed way to insure that no one who shares your values ever gets elected. Meanwhile, people shake their fist in anger at the incremental creap toward statism as the quality of our elected officials erodes.

Originally Posted by Sensei

Funny how that works, ain't it. Yet you will be responsible if Hillary wins because you didn't tow the party line. Nevermind the fact that Johnson has the most consistent pro-2nd Amendment stance of all the candidates.

Voting for people who are a poor reflection of your values out of fear that the boogie man will win is a guaranteed way to insure that no one who shares your values ever gets elected. Meanwhile, people shake their fist in anger at the incremental creap toward statism as the quality of our elected officials erodes.

If I could find 10 people on the street who know who Gary Johnson is, I'd consider it. But he is less well known than even Perot was, and we all saw how that worked out.

I was ready to vote for Cruz, I was ready to vote for Perry. Hell I'd have probably been willing to vote for Huckabee or Christie if that is who got the nomination. Certainly no worse than Romney or McCain.

But I'm not really all that dissatisfied with Trump where I have zero confidence like I did with Romney or McCain. Wild card that he is, I actually will feel pretty good about voting for Trump, and it won't just be a Hillary block.

Now if pingdork, or anyone else, really feels that Johnson is their guy, they should vote for him. It's their vote. If I write in Christy Canyon, it's my vote. I'm not going to do that though, because I'm doing everything I can to prevent President Clinton from becoming a reality and Gary Johnson and Christy Canyon aren't going to do that. But at least most people know who Christy Canyon is, in a less dire election environment I think she could win.

You had me at christy canyon.

I really don't think Trump is as 2A friendly as we'd like to believe. Imagine for a sec there was an open carry million man march, or a Muslim American chapter of the NRA, or an armed Hispanic demonstration against building a wall. I'll bet Mortimer $1 Trump will flip us over faster than SoCal real estate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by WillBrink

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



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.

He's so close to getting in the debates which is crucial. The conspiracy theorist side of me tells me the establishment will never let that happen though.
Been reading some poll results that show Johnson might gather quite a lot of dissatisfied Sanders supporters, and is also tops among our military members.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't have GJ as POTUS. Everyone on M4C will go out and start doing heroin the day he legalizes it. Heard that right here on M4C when RP was running so it must be true.

Absolutely baffles me that folks will look you straight in the eye and tell you banning guns doesn't work, but in the very next breath discuss the need for strict drug regulation. And of course, anyone who disagrees is a "pot head" or a "druggy". A direct result of LEOs spending too much time looking at the symptom and not the cause.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

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

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.

Gary Johnson will not win in a landslide even if he does all the things you said. Come on...

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.

Ok.

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.

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.

As Will said, this is simply not true. Ralph Nader spoiled the Democrat's run in 2000, and according to this poll:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politi...oll/index.html

Donald Trump comes out of his convention ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. That latter finding represents a 6-point convention bounce for Trump, which are traditionally measured in two-way matchups.

Trump actually does better when the 3rd party candidates are included in polls.

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

If I could find 10 people on the street who know who Gary Johnson is, I'd consider it. But he is less well known than even Perot was, and we all saw how that worked out.

I was ready to vote for Cruz, I was ready to vote for Perry. Hell I'd have probably been willing to vote for Huckabee or Christie if that is who got the nomination. Certainly no worse than Romney or McCain.

But I'm not really all that dissatisfied with Trump where I have zero confidence like I did with Romney or McCain. Wild card that he is, I actually will feel pretty good about voting for Trump, and it won't just be a Hillary block.

Now if pingdork, or anyone else, really feels that Johnson is their guy, they should vote for him. It's their vote. If I write in Christy Canyon, it's my vote. I'm not going to do that though, because I'm doing everything I can to prevent President Clinton from becoming a reality and Gary Johnson and Christy Canyon aren't going to do that. But at least most people know who Christy Canyon is, in a less dire election environment I think she could win.

If is part of the debates, you will. I not, then it will be tough to get enough people who have a clue about him to make the difference.

Originally Posted by pingdork

You had me at christy canyon.

I really don't think Trump is as 2A friendly as we'd like to believe. Imagine for a sec there was an open carry million man march, or a Muslim American chapter of the NRA, or an armed Hispanic demonstration against building a wall. I'll bet Mortimer $1 Trump will flip us over faster than SoCal real estate.

He's not, not even close. On "assault weapons" he said “who needs them except criminals and police?"

From his own book:

“I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record.”

Just one of many topics he's changed positions to pander to an audience, who have taken it hook line and sinker.

However, he's still far better than HC who would ban sling shots if given the chance.

I thought this was interesting. Many assume pissed Bernie followers will just default to HC, but just means they don't really understand the Bernie voters. I think if Trump and or Johnson play it right, they will pick up the majority of Bernie voters:

" A June 14 Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders -- 55 percent -- plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson. “I’m a registered Democrat, but I cannot bring myself to vote for another establishment politician like Hillary,” says Laura Armes, a 43-year-old homemaker from Beeville, Texas, who participated in the Bloomberg poll and plans to vote for Trump. “I don’t agree with a lot of what Trump says. But he won’t owe anybody. What you see is what you get.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...upport-clinton

Originally Posted by Eurodriver

Can't have GJ as POTUS. Everyone on M4C will go out and start doing heroin the day he legalizes it. Heard that right here on M4C when RP was running so it must be true.

Absolutely baffles me that folks will look you straight in the eye and tell you banning guns doesn't work, but in the very next breath discuss the need for strict drug regulation. And of course, anyone who disagrees is a "pot head" or a "druggy". A direct result of LEOs spending too much time looking at the symptom and not the cause.

Euro - You could say that about a lot of things today, couldn't you? People are so busy looking at effect they never get around to cause and consider that if they impact the cause, maybe there won't be so many druggies, welfare recipients, etc. in the next generation.