Gary Johnson

[PeteHulbert37]

Just 15% and we'll have the big Johnson at the debate.

 

[toubab]

Just 15% and we'll have the big Johnson at the debate.

I think he and Jill Stein should both be in the debates, but the rules are set up to keep them, or any other third party candidate, out. It's not an accident.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Just 15% and we'll have the big Johnson at the debate.

So he can be on stage and get ignored!!!

Only thing he might do is hand Hillary the WH.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think he and Jill Stein should both be in the debates, but the rules are set up to keep them, or any other third party candidate, out. It's not an accident.

No it's not a mistake but at the same time I'd love to know a method that would both allow them to be in the debates but prevent me from demanding equal time.

 

[toubab]

No it's not a mistake but at the same time I'd love to know a method that would both allow them to be in the debates but prevent me from demanding equal time.

I would suggest lowering the polling threshold from 15% to 10%, as a start.

 

[Que]

I think he and Jill Stein should both be in the debates, but the rules are set up to keep them, or any other third party candidate, out. It's not an accident.

I have often wondered what keeps the two-party cartel in collusion on this. You would think at any given time the party that stands to gain by the third party splitting the vote would be pushing to have the third party on the debate stage.

 

[toubab]

I have often wondered what keeps the two-party cartel in collusion on this. You would think at any given time the party that stands to gain by the third party splitting the vote would be pushing to have the third party on the debate stage.

I think the answer to that is obvious. The two major parties have a good thing going. They don't want to share the spoils with any newcomers, just for a temporary gain for their party. Long term, they need to keep the outsiders out.

 

[Que]

I think the answer to that is obvious. The two major parties have a good thing going. They don't want to share the spoils with any newcomers, just for a temporary gain for their party. Long term, they need to keep the outsiders out.

Probably right. Kind of like GM, Ford, and Chrysler coluding with the federal government about standards in a mostly successful effort to squelch start-ups and a vain attempt to keep the imports, which easily met standards out.

 

[sr71plt]

No it's not a mistake but at the same time I'd love to know a method that would both allow them to be in the debates but prevent me from demanding equal time.

There's no reason they can't have their counter debate themselves. I'm sure the networks would carry it. They have to get on state ballots, though. I don't know how they are doing on that front.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Probably right. Kind of like GM, Ford, and Chrysler coluding with the federal government about standards in a mostly successful effort to squelch start-ups and a vain attempt to keep the imports, which easily met standards out.

Can't have one of these because emissions!!!
http://jm-imports.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/138.jpg


0% financing!!!
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f8/7c/82/f87c824c77d3b649f88b2506112cf1a0.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Just 15% and we'll have the big Johnson at the debate.

RCP has him at under 10% and I read somewhere that third party candidate drops off as the elections near.

I good news, he tends to take more from Hillary than from The Donald...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think he and Jill Stein should both be in the debates, but the rules are set up to keep them, or any other third party candidate, out. It's not an accident.

Waste of time. The Donald would just dismiss them with a quip or two about how the losers couldn't win...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I would suggest lowering the polling threshold from 15% to 10%, as a start.

He's not even meeting that.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I have often wondered what keeps the two-party cartel in collusion on this. You would think at any given time the party that stands to gain by the third party splitting the vote would be pushing to have the third party on the debate stage.

Because we do not have a parliamentary system. If we included a third party, more likely than not, all future presidential elections would be settled by the House if the third party were actually strong enough to pick off some states.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There's no reason they can't have their counter debate themselves. I'm sure the networks would carry it. They have to get on state ballots, though. I don't know how they are doing on that front.

Doubt it. It would not draw in enough viewers to produce rating and draw advertisers.

Maybe on CSPAN or something...

 

[PeteHulbert37]

There's no reason they can't have their counter debate themselves. I'm sure the networks would carry it. They have to get on state ballots, though. I don't know how they are doing on that front.

On every state ballot already.

I would hope Trump would continue to spout off ridiculous quips that are hollow and meaningless. Then, he can remind Americans of all Hilary legal transgressions. Johnson can smile and look and act like an adult and gain support.

If this gets turned into a three horse race anything can happen.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Because we do not have a parliamentary system. If we included a third party, more likely than not, all future presidential elections would be settled by the House if the third party were actually strong enough to pick off some states.

Dayum, something intelligent escaped from 4est_4est_Trump's pie holster.

Is there a solar flare or something somewhere?

 

[Sean Renaud]

I would suggest lowering the polling threshold from 15% to 10%, as a start.

I'm fine with that. Honestly you could probably lower it to a solid 1% and be fine until people started trying to manipulate the system.

I have often wondered what keeps the two-party cartel in collusion on this. You would think at any given time the party that stands to gain by the third party splitting the vote would be pushing to have the third party on the debate stage.

I think this ultimately falls down to the unpredictable nature of humans. You cannot with any certainty predict which party the third would draw from or hypothetically a 4th. Or of a third party might at some point get sufficiently desperate and pull the Cruz/Kasich alliance.

In the end I'd rather lose a fair fight between you and me and not be concerned about what some third guy might do. Not to mention the oddities in a debate.

 

[toubab]

I'm fine with that. Honestly you could probably lower it to a solid 1% and be fine until people started trying to manipulate the system.



I think this ultimately falls down to the unpredictable nature of humans. You cannot with any certainty predict which party the third would draw from or hypothetically a 4th. Or of a third party might at some point get sufficiently desperate and pull the Cruz/Kasich alliance.

In the end I'd rather lose a fair fight between you and me and not be concerned about what some third guy might do. Not to mention the oddities in a debate.

I think 1% would be unworkable. It has to be a lot higher than that.

 

[Wrong Element]

I'm fine with that. Honestly you could probably lower it to a solid 1% and be fine until people started trying to manipulate the system.

A "solid 1%" is inherently not very solid when you're talking about polls with a margin of error in the 4-5% range. Take this year's GOP primaries. Guys like Jindal and Santorum were getting 1%, and their supporters were harder to find than D.B. Cooper.

The one thing you can say about the Libertarians are 1) they're on every state ballot; 2) they have a track record at this point; and 3) they're coherent on some level. OK, that's three things, not one...a lot of the third partiers are fly-by-night or obvious cranks or otherwise unserious. Roseanne Barr got votes in 2012 (I have no idea where she was on the ballot; I didn't bother voting in 2012). You don't think she would have gotten over 1% in the polls if she had been a poll option?

RCP has him at under 10% and I read somewhere that third party candidate drops off as the elections near.

Usually. The one big exception was Perot in '92. He ended up with 19 percent, and that's higher than he was polling in the days before the election. But I think Perot fell off towards the end in '96.

There's not a lot of data on this as regards the presidency, though, because third-party candidates typically don't wind up being polled. As I suggested earlier in this thread, there might have been other years where the Libertarian could have gotten noticeable support in the polls if anyone had asked, but pollsters haven't done that till now.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I think 1% would be unworkable. It has to be a lot higher than that.

I'm not sure it does in the real world. To use WE's point below look at the Republicans this year. They had what? 16 Candidates at one point? But a lot of them weren't polling at a full 1%.

If you raise it to five you could potentially end up with 20 candidates but that would really require the public fucking with the system intentionally and expertly. If you raise to ten you potentially get 10 but realistically wouldn't.

A "solid 1%" is inherently not very solid when you're talking about polls with a margin of error in the 4-5% range. Take this year's GOP primaries. Guys like Jindal and Santorum were getting 1%, and their supporters were harder to find than D.B. Cooper.

The one thing you can say about the Libertarians are 1) they're on every state ballot; 2) they have a track record at this point; and 3) they're coherent on some level. OK, that's three things, not one...a lot of the third partiers are fly-by-night or obvious cranks or otherwise unserious. Roseanne Barr got votes in 2012 (I have no idea where she was on the ballot; I didn't bother voting in 2012). You don't think she would have gotten over 1% in the polls if she had been a poll option?






Usually. The one big exception was Perot in '92. He ended up with 19 percent, and that's higher than he was polling in the days before the election. But I think Perot fell off towards the end in '96.

There's not a lot of data on this as regards the presidency, though, because third-party candidates typically don't wind up being polled. As I suggested earlier in this thread, there might have been other years where the Libertarian could have gotten noticeable support in the polls if anyone had asked, but pollsters haven't done that till now.

You could do a running average with a solid stop point. I know people were bitching this year about I believe Rand Paul and Carly just barely missing/making the bar but I personally believe some of that bitching had to do with nobody truly understanding the rules. (And the GOP being a clusterfuck but that's beside the point.) If you knew in January that so and so needs to poll at 10% consistently for x weeks that fewer people would whine. I could be wrong there.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

"Every time you pass a law, it is a little bite out of freedom." Gary Johnson

I'm terrified that someone who holds a political office would say something like that.

 

[BotanyBoy]

"Every time you pass a law, it is a little bite out of freedom." Gary Johnson

I'm terrified that someone who holds a political office would say something like that.

You would be.

I'm actually shocked so many people who absolutely fucking HATE freedom of practically every sort still live here, why they would rather try to turn the USA into a micromanaging nanny state instead of just moving to a place that already does that??

Why don't you just move??

 

[Sean Renaud]

Because there is no place to move to, immigration doesn't work that way and this is my home. I won't abandon it to scum.

Gary isn't wrong. Every new law does take a bit out of freedom. Freedom and security are by necessity in opposition of each other. You simply have to weigh each one in each situation and make your choice.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You would be.

I'm actually shocked so many people who absolutely fucking HATE freedom of practically every sort still live here, why they would rather try to turn the USA into a micromanaging nanny state instead of just moving to a place that already does that??

Why don't you just move??

Are you seriously saying that Johnson saying that doesn't bother you?