Gary Johnson polling at 15% (was 13%)

Originally Posted by SHIVAN

Oh, for sure, if Johnson suddenly starts polling at 49% via Quinnipiac or RealClearPolitics or Nate Silver, (and Trump drops to Johnson-type numbers) then I am voting for Johnson. I will also be writing a sternly worded letter to his campaign, if it starts trending that direction, that says he needs to float out folks like Andrew Napalitano as SCOTUS picks -- like he flirted with in February.

If Hillary appoints Scalia's, Kennedy's, Breyer's and Ginsburg's replacements. We're cooked.

If he gets into the debates, and his poll numbers get into "real" numbers and he has a chance at not allowing HC or Trump the majority of EC votes they need (which could happen if he just wins own state if the EC is closely divided) than some very interesting things could happen.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

But Trump is a die hard Repub who has not done a total 180 on every major issue... Yes, voters are easy to fool, and apparently too lazy to actually research. If a " a democrat in libertarian clothing" is as pro 2A as GJ has been his entire career (as a GOP Gov no less), I'll take a " a democrat in libertarian clothing" any day vs a flip flopper like HC, Romney, or Trump thanx.

Trump has never supported the Clinton's, ever. Or given $100k to the Clinton foundation in the past. If anyone is pretending to be something they are not, it's The Donald.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...clinton-119071

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-in...eat-president/

#anyonebuthitlery2016.

That's all that really matters

William Weld, Johnson running mate, CFR Member and listed on CFR Membership roster; http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/....html?letter=W being funded by the Infamous, Hillary Supporting Koch Brothers. Nuff Said.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

If he gets into the debates, and his poll numbers get into "real" numbers and he has a chance at not allowing HC or Trump the majority of EC votes they need (which could happen if he just wins own state if the EC is closely divided) than some very interesting things could happen.

Nate Silver gives Johnson less than 0.1% chance of winning the election. To the best of my knowledge, he has not score Johnson's ability to keep Trump or Hillary from getting to 270 in the EC. I'm very interested in that analysis.

Originally Posted by SteveS

Johnson sucks big time he is a democrat in libertarian clothing. But then the voters are easy to fool.

Is he as big a democrat as Hillary? The answer is no. So it really doesn't matter. We aren't getting Ronald Reagan 2.0 no matter what. When the elections come if Trump has the highest numbers vote for Trump. If it happens that Johnson has the highest numbers vote for Johnson.

I can probably think of a dozen actual Democrats I'd prefer to Hillary, and if I could vote for them and they had the best chance of stopping Hillary I would.

Again, can't believe we can't even get a consensus on stopping Hillary on this forum.

Originally Posted by Sensei

Nate Silver gives Johnson less than 0.1% chance of winning the election. To the best of my knowledge, he has not score Johnson's ability to keep Trump or Hillary from getting to 270 in the EC. I'm very interested in that analysis.

I'd bet a whole bunch of analysts types would have given Trump about that chance of becoming the GOP nominee when this all started.

I picked the sources I did because they have been "Ok" in regards to showing the path. Maybe not getting a real close approximation, but the relative outcome was close. If Quinnipiac starts showing Johnson at 49%, he'll win the damn election because they source a lot of content from Dem areas, with no apologies for taking 2500 person samples, that include 90% self-identified Dems of the 2,500.

Silver has Johnson getting 8.4% of the popular vote, and no electoral college votes. That's less than half of Perot. Perot's candidacy sent no message to the GOP, it did send a message to the Dems though. Fund a counter culture campaign with a magnetic personality, to siphon votes.

It's how McAuliffe won Virginia, if you ask me. Sarvis, the guy who ran against McAuliffe and Cuccinelli, felt like a liberal to me. He took 6.6% of the vote. The margin of victory for McAuliffe was 3%. 48 to 45.

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

Again, can't believe we can't even get a consensus on stopping Hillary on this forum.

Which is exactly why she'll end up "winning". The race was Trump's to lose, and he's done a pretty good job of it so far. He had a chance to completely crush her in the polls, but he can't check his ego enough to get out of his own way.

He's had three really good speeches the last few days, and none have gotten media coveratge, outside conservative sites, or the occasional sick "politics" forums. Why? He sounds like a leader. He sounds like a man with actual plans. He sounds presidential.

That doesn't play on MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC....