Gary Johnson polling at 15% (was 13%)

Here's a petition from his website to get him in the debates.
https://www.johnsonweld.com/debate?u...ampaign=debate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He has no chance of winning. Remember Perot? Good ideas, not enough votes. I predict this will be a close election. Any vote not cast for Trump helps hilliary. Be smart...else don't complain when hilliary wins...

FYI:

CNN is set to host a primetime one-hour town hall with the Libertarian Party ticket, former Govs. Gary Johnson and William Weld, on Wednesday in New York City.The candidates will take questions from the audience and from CNN's Anderson Cooper, who will moderate the event, focusing on the current state of the 2016 race and the platform of the Libertarian Party.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politi...-william-weld/

Originally Posted by Singlestack Wonder

He has no chance of winning. Remember Perot? Good ideas, not enough votes. I predict this will be a close election. Any vote not cast for Trump helps hilliary. Be smart...else don't complain when hilliary wins...

Covered at least a dozen times here and you're wrong. Polls suggest it's more a negative for HC, but that could change. There's a variety of reason Perot is a poor example as comparison.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

Covered at least a dozen times here and you're wrong. Polls suggest it's more a negative for HC, but that could change. There's a variety of reason Perot is a poor example as comparison.

If hilliary wins by 700,000 votes and 750,000 votes went to Gary Johnson instead of Trump, then it's crystal clear as to why you are wrong. 3rd party candidates have zero chance in this day and age. Maybe in 20-30 years things will change, but by that point, we will be a monarchy again....

The idea that a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Hillary is grounded in the premise that Johnson and other 3rd party candidates have "no chance." Now, here is the problem - there is alway a chance. Granted the probability is just very, very, low. Why do the critics think that the chance is so low as to approach zero? Simple - polling data.

Well, here is the problem. The probability of winning or losing is not linearly related to polling performance. That is to say, a small change in polling of only 2-3% has a much larger affect on the probability of winning or losing, especially as we approach the election. Once you get past the steep slop of the curve, the probabilities asymptotically approach 100% but never reach certainty.

What this means for Trump is the he too is quickly leaving the realm of reasonable probability of winning. His 6-point convention bounce was more than offset by Hillary's 7-point bounce, and he is back in the gutter trailing by 6 points. If Hillary's 6-point lead is maintained through the debates up to the election, you will see the probabilities gradually swing more and more in her favor. Personally, I think that only 2 things could prevent a Hillary victory: 1) further email releases that provide compelling evidence of criminality, or 2) if she walks on the debate stage and throws a used tampon in the crowd.

What this all means is that come election day, we are likely to find Hillary ahead by 5+ points in the polls and a 4:1 favorite, Trump will have a 15% chance of winning, and Johnson only a 5%. Thus, conservatives will need to make a decision. Do you vote for Trump hoping for a hail marry that the polls are wrong knowing that a Trump loss simply resets the 2-party system to a pre-election model? Or, do you vote for only a marginally less likely candidate with the hope that a 15-20% 3rd party turn-out can "shake-up" the 2-party system? Good question. I don't pretend to have the answer. My guess is that it's a personal choice.

Originally Posted by Singlestack Wonder

If hilliary wins by 700,000 votes and 750,000 votes went to Gary Johnson instead of Trump, then it's crystal clear as to why you are wrong. 3rd party candidates have zero chance in this day and age. Maybe in 20-30 years things will change, but by that point, we will be a monarchy again....

Every claim you're making has been covered in this thread, so no need to repeat if you're not interested in the topic.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

Every claim you're making has been covered in this thread, so no need to repeat if you're not interested in the topic.

As for you too...

The only reason the Republicans and Democrats keep these guys around is to be spoilers.
If you notice, the Dem's had enough control over Bernie to keep this from happening. I have no doubt Johnson may be better than either of these two Mopes, but I'm not sure why Johnson didn't run as a Republican, or for that matter a Democrat and run the table with his brilliance?

I'm pretty sure at this point if he had to drop out because of money, Hillary would be glad to float him a loan to keep running.

Originally Posted by Sensei

The idea that a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Hillary is grounded in the premise that Johnson and other 3rd party candidates have "no chance." Now, here is the problem - there is alway a chance. Granted the probability is just very, very, low. Why do the critics think that the chance is so low as to approach zero? Simple - polling data.

Well, here is the problem. The probability of winning or losing is not linearly related to polling performance. That is to say, a small change in polling of only 2-3% has a much larger affect on the probability of winning or losing, especially as we approach the election. Once you get past the steep slop of the curve, the probabilities asymptotically approach 100% but never reach certainty.

What this means for Trump is the he too is quickly leaving the realm of reasonable probability of winning. His 6-point convention bounce was more than offset by Hillary's 7-point bounce, and he is back in the gutter trailing by 6 points. If Hillary's 6-point lead is maintained through the debates up to the election, you will see the probabilities gradually swing more and more in her favor. Personally, I think that only 2 things could prevent a Hillary victory: 1) further email releases that provide compelling evidence of criminality, or 2) if she walks on the debate stage and throws a used tampon in the crowd.

What this all means is that come election day, we are likely to find Hillary ahead by 5+ points in the polls and a 4:1 favorite, Trump will have a 15% chance of winning, and Johnson only a 5%. Thus, conservatives will need to make a decision. Do you vote for Trump hoping for a hail marry that the polls are wrong knowing that a Trump loss simply resets the 2-party system to a pre-election model? Or, do you vote for only a marginally less likely candidate with the hope that a 15-20% 3rd party turn-out can "shake-up" the 2-party system? Good question. I don't pretend to have the answer. My guess is that it's a personal choice.

You forgot one critical fact, the establishment's finger on the scale, the media. IF Johnson starts polling too high and threatens Hillary's ascension, the media will be called in to undermine him. We've always known this to be the case, but the DNC hack finally proved it. The number one reason Johnson's "chance" is purely theoretical, is because of the media. They will not allow it to happen.