Gary Johnson

Johnson Polling Solidifies at 9%, Taking 3 Points Each from Clinton, Trump, Other

Libertarian is competitive among independents and Millennials in two new polls, while doing his best to date against a rising Jill Stein


Ain't gonna be no rematch. Oh wait! ||| YouTube

Last week I wrote about how Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson is consistently polling at around 9 percent in national surveys, drawing about evenly from Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump/other-not voting, while also finding his strongest support among independents and Millennials. Yesterday and today have seen the release of two new polls that show the same thing.

CNN this morning, in advance of its townhall with Johnson tomorrow night, released a new poll taken June 16-19. Here are the results with and without Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein; "OT" indicates "other," and "NV" stands for "not voting":

HC 47% DT 42% OT 4% NV 6%

HC 42% DT 38% OT 1% NV 3% GJ 9% JS 7%

Here is the same exercise for a Monmouth poll released yesterday, taken June 15-19:

HC 47% DT 40% OT 5% NV 2%

HC 44% DT 37% OT 2% NV 1% GJ 9% JS 4% 

Among self-described independents—the largest bloc in both polls—Johnson continues to score in the high teens (and Clinton continues to lose by a nose):

DT 34% HC 32% GJ 16% JS 11% CNN/ORC (Dem/Rep/Indy 30%/23%/47%)

DT 32% HC 31% GJ 18% JS 8% Monmouth (D/R/I 34%/28%/38%)

And Johnson's best age demographic continues to be Millennials, with 14 percent in the Monmouth poll (CNN/ORC doesn't have those numbers).

Two of the biggest takeaways from this week's polls both have to do with Jill Stein: 1) Today's 7 percent result is by far Stein's best showing yet; her progression since early May has been 2-3-4-4-4-7, perhaps indicating some pickup among disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporters. And 2) Johnson's back-to-back 9 percent showings in polls including Stein are his best such results yet; previously he had gone (in chronological order matching the first four digits in the progression above) 4-5-6-6.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Senate Rejects Gun Control Bill, Clinton vs. Trump vs. Johnson, Sanders vs. Superdelegates

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nine percent is monumental for the LP. But if they draw equally from each side, they haven’t had any effect on the election. It seems like a third party should want to draw more voters from one side or the other so that the losing side as a reason to pay attention to them.

    1. Perhaps, perhaps not. *If* we are experiencing a genuine Realignment (and it’s always best to bet against, but still), then a party that draws roughly equally from both camps would be in a position to benefit, no?

      1. *If* we are experiencing a genuine Realignment


        Or, this the new nomenclature for that always elusive ancient astronaut evidence Libertarian Moment? Where the Boy That Cried Wolf said, “Really, guys? And what’s with that silly .GIF?”

    2. Another way to look at it is, did the Green Party/super-prog left become more or less influential as a result of Ralph Nader’s 2000 run? (I don’t think there’s an easy answer to that, BTW.)

      1. I think they definitely did. That is an example of the benefits of drawing entirely from one party and tipping and election. The story after 2000 was that Gore lost because he was far enough left.

        The problem for a third party is that at some point, if they don’t kill one of the major parties, something that is very difficult to do, they become a victim of their own success. If a third party draws enough votes, one or both of the major parties move towards their positions and steal voters. That is really the end game of tipping an election.

        That is success from an ideological standpoint. But, it doesn’t do much for the people committed to the third party.

        1. So fuck the people committed to the 3rd party, or to any party. Career pols are parasites.

      2. I think there is an easy answer, Matt. They got much more influential. Just look at the leftward lurch of Team Blue since then. They’ve abandoned much of their traditional base and have essentially become the party of wealth- and class-envy, whereas before that election they were pretty moderate in a lot of those ways.

        You need look no further than the Democrat candidate from that very election and his rapid transition from moderate liberal to rabid progressive.

        Now, having said that, I don’t think the Libertarian Party fits into the same mold as the Green Party. The Green Party shared virtually no founding principles with the political right, whereas the LP shares some principles with the political left and the political right.

        1. They became the party of wealthy and class envy because of Obama, not Nader.
          Nader was ancient history by 2008.

          1. And you don’t run on class envy when John Kerry is your candidate. At least, not if you want to win.

            FWIW, I did like Kerry’s plan to alleviate poverty by having poor guys marrying rich chicks.

    3. As long as college electors are chosen winner-take-all, you’re right. But if enough states chose electors by proportion of the popular vote instead, then it would be a different story. Take enough from both parties, and you give the election to the candidate whose party controls the House.

      1. I think that is a terrible idea akin to when they made Senators elected by popular vote. All getting rid of winner take all electors would do is make the President elected by popular vote. Every time we have moved away from the system the founders created to a system more dependent on the popular vote, it has turned out badly.

        1. I didn’t say it was a good idea. But winner-take-all was not the original system. Like the 12th Amendment, it developed in the early history of the country in response to various “undesirable” political developments. However, it is not mandated in the Constitution and there’s little reason to believe the original founders saw it as an essential element.

        2. I think the NE/ME system would be an improvement.

          Winner take all by congressional district, plus 2 winner take all EC votes for state winner.

          It makes CA/FL/TX/NY less important as they split their votes.

          Interestingly, Romney would have won in 2012 with that system.

          1. Democrats will never go that route in California. They want the whole shebang.

          2. I think that system doesn’t make any sense and wouldn’t improve anything. All it would do is provide even more incentive to gerrymander congressional districts.

            There’s no reason Romney should have won based on results in 2012. He lost by 4% and 5 million votes nationally, lost a majority of states, and lost by 126 votes in the electoral college.

    4. A third party wants to draw equally from both parties if it ever hopes to win.
      Democrats and Republicans may think of Libertarians as fringe Republicans, but Gary Johnson is pretty much a liberty-leaning centrist.

    5. That might be, but the losing “side” (to the extent such a stable thing persists) could just as easily think, why compete for the same voters, rather than going the other way to get the voters the competitor isn’t drawing from?

      1. When it comes to selling a product, when a me-too starts to compete, you want to distinguish your product more from theirs.

  2. Rising Jill Stein is no match for rising Johnson.

  3. Remember that time that Governor Johnson wanted to use America’s military to track down and kill Joseph Kony2012 and his Lord’s Resistance Army? I would be cool with it if Governor Goofy ditched his peace-sign t-shirt and limited himself to merely scaling back the footprint of US armed forces.

    I consider myself firmly if imperfectly libertarian but I consider Gary Johnson a– what do you call it again? — “huge cuntbag.”

    1. Sorry, forgot link: Hzere (fourth paragraph)

  4. As long as Stein’s there, she’s bleeding off a third to a half of all the new people who are considering voting independent for the first time. Neither Johnson nor Stein is going to achieve their polling goals if they’re both in the polls.

    I am starting to think the only way Johnson gets to 15% is by shooting Stein in the knee for the zombies to feast on and carrying both backpacks of votes back to Hershel’s farm by himself.

    Ironic that the group that’s been clamoring for a third option to be considered for years is now kinda screwed unless they successfully suppress public consideration of the fourth option.

    1. Stein and Johnson are at least supposed to be polar opposites. I find it hard to believe very many people who are willing to vote for one would vote for the other. If you are thinking about voting for Stien and she is not on the ballot, why wouldn’t you either not vote or vote for Hillary before you voted for Johnson? I can’t see it.

      1. Agreed. Greens by definition need extreme control over everyone to protect gaia from genital warts.

        1. If you are voting Green and your second choice is the LP, you are seriously confused.

          1. And yet, that is a common thing.

            The former Ron Paul supporters now supporting Sanders? How does that happen?

            1. I believe that’s the “I’m not mainstream” voting bloc

            2. RP attracted a fair number of anti-war lefties when he first ran back in 2008. Bernie’s their man now…

              1. And he’s not even anti war.

          2. Back in the early 00s, I was at a bar in Baltimore where I was living at the time and this guy came up to me to ask me to register as a Green Party member so that they could get on the ballot. I told him I considered myself Libertarian and he went on to tell me how much Greens and Libertarians had in common. I forget what his selling points were perhaps because I had already had a few, but I went along with him and registered as a Green. I think I voted for the Green candidate for city council that year because they were the only choice other than dems.

            1. Alcohol is the best lubricant for political machines.

          3. That’s only if you think it’s about ideology. If it’s about fuck-the-elites, then it’s about equally a choice between Trump, Johnson, & Stein.

      2. I agree about the massive difference between them.

        However, I submit that people are just goddamn stupid, and the polls seem to back that up. Johnson’s numbers have consistently been several points lower when Stein is an option.

      3. “Stein and Johnson are at least supposed to be polar opposites.”

        Not really. Johnson himself has said on several occasions that the candidate he aligns with the most after himself is Bernie Sanders on “” And John Stossel had Jill Stein on his show a couple weeks ago and she made the case that she and the libertarians agreed on a number of issues.

        This isn’t to say that they shouldn’t be polar opposites. But unfortunately in a world where the political paradigm is that the Left is defined as anti-war, civil libertarian, and anti-crony capitalist we end up with this “Strange bedfellows” situation. People who liked Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich or now Rand Paul and Bernie Sander etc.

    2. He’ll also have to suppress public consideration of the Constitution Party candidate.

    3. Stein appeals only to leftists and won’t be on 50 ballots.
      Johnson appeals to both left and right and will be the only 3rd option in many states.

  5. Well, I have to admit that my principles might be falling by the wayside in favor of principals here.

    On these polls, the principled position is that, yes, Jill Stein should be included. Every third party should have a voice. The two establishment parties should be challenged from every angle.

    However, when I see Stein’s name in the poll, I get irritated. I think, get her out of there, she’s making Johnson’s numbers less than they would otherwise be.

    1. No one needs 23 parties when there are fringe candidates starving for delegates in this country.

    2. No one needs 23 parties when there are fringe candidates starving for delegates in this country.

      1. Perhaps they can eat sqvirrels to satiate their hunger for delegation.

      2. The squirrelz are fringe candidates?

    3. I don’t know. I would think that most Greenies would realize quickly that GJ is not a member of the Carbon Cult, although he does not deny Climate Change. The only potential Johnson voters who might prefer Stein are the pothead types and/or clueless millennials.

      1. “clueless millennials” Ding ding!! We have a winner!

    4. I think having your name on the ballot on enough states to theoretically win should get you in national polls.

  6. The good news is that we’re pretty sure that Stalin quote about counting votes has been de-bunked. Whew! It’s just such a fucking relief that we got that out of the way. Election on!

    1. Remember, the dead rise every election season….

      1. Yep, my dad voted straight ticket Republican until the day he died. After that he started voting for Democrats.

    2. Uncle Joe didn’t say that, he just murdered all his political opponents! Just like Hillary should be allowed to do.

    3. Is that the one that goes “One vote is a tragedy, a million votes is democracy”?

  7. …while doing his best to date against a rising Jill Stein


    1. Stein is doing her best to combat a rising Johnson.

      1. Should be a cake walk for her, being a physician and all. Not to mention his poll flaccidity…

        1. This is why she is depending on the lesbian vote; they know how to resist a rising Johnson.

    1. Excellent.

    2. That’s awesome.

      *bookmarks for future reference*

    3. I can’t get it out of my head now.

  8. Trump consistently leads among independents and has for a while. Now about that libertarian moment…

    1. Meh. Do those polls count self-identified libertarians (as opposed to LP members) as Independent or Libertarian?

      1. They’re statistical noise, and land in “other”

      2. And yet we’re told that the rise of the independents is ushering in libertopia. Someone failed sesame street.

  9. “Among self-described independents?the largest bloc in both polls?Johnson continues to score in the high teens (and Clinton continues to lose by a nose):

    DT 34% HC 32% GJ 16% JS 11% CNN/ORC (Dem/Rep/Indy 30%/23%/47%)”

    I don’t get this? if it is among independents, why is the party affiliation breakdown after it? If they are independent, wouldn’t it be like, idk, 100% Indy?

    1. Because they are “self-identified”. Kinda like the Hawaii voters who tell the haole poll taker that they are “undecided”, then go vote straight Democratic like they have done in every election since they were eligible to do so.

  10. Starbucks: Judge Rules Lawsuit Claiming Coffee Company Underfills Drinks May Continue

    A federal judge in San Francisco ruled Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles may seek damages in their proposed class-action against the company for fraud and false advertising, Reuters reported.

    Of course they brought suit in a San Francisco court; only a California judge would find this case to present a triable factual issue.

    1. They’re really milking that room for cream.

      1. That’s a really bizarre euphemism.

    2. Meh – Starbucks advertises their drinks as being of a certain size – 10oz, 16oz etc. It seems pretty class actionable to me if the class can prove systemic under filling. Seems like it’d be pretty hard to prove in court though. And even if they win the law firm is the only one Getting any money out of it

      1. Meh – Starbucks advertises their drinks as being of a certain size – 10oz, 16oz etc.

        But they don’t and have never advertised that that’s exactly how much coffee you get. It rationally includes the ice that comes with the drink.* This should be especially obvious to the type of patron – middle/upper-middle class – that Starbucks typically serves.

        I just think it’s unreasonable for a jury to find “too much ice” to be the basis for fraud and/or deceptive advertising.

        *Besides, you can ask for less ice, and they’ve always given me more “drink” as a result.

        1. It rationally includes the ice that comes with the drink.* This should be especially obvious to the type of patron – middle/upper-middle class – that Starbucks typically serves.

          That assumes that they’re intelligent enough to understand the concept of displacement. I wouldn’t assume they’re that smart not matter how much they claim to “fucking love science.”

        2. I agree it would be unreasonable for the jury to find that – but summary judgement isn’t supposed to decide on the facts of the case one way or the other, it says “if these facts we present were true, would there be a case to be made for damages

    3. Why would anybody want more Starbucks?

  11. (Dem/Rep/Indy 30%/23%/47%)

    Umm… the party registration breakdown in this country is 27%/26%/47% Dem/Rep/Other both parties in that poll are off by something seriously approaching the average poll margin of error in terms of representation.

    (D/R/I 34%/28%/38%)

    Monmoth’s is even worse at reflecting the population.

    1. Gallup has: (Dem/Rep/Indy 30%/27%/41%)

      But with leaners : (Dem/Rep 48%/41%) and presumably (Indy 11%)

    2. What’s your source for the registration data?

      Also, registration doesn’t necessarily match self-identification of likely voters.

  12. I prefer Trump to Hillary, but my money is on Hillary to win.

    One reason? Normally, each of the two big party candidates gets a bounce in approval after their respective conventions. I’d expect Hillary to get a bounce after putting her best face forward at the convention, but Trump might do better if the MSM completely ignored the Republican convention.

    There isn’t anything about focusing on GOP delegates or Trump making a speech that’s likely to make people who are undecided about Trump like him. If Trump comes out the other side of the convention without losing support, it’ll be a huge victory for him.

    The best Trump can hope for from the convention is the chance to look “presidential”, and let’s face it, looking presidential hasn’t really been his forte.

    1. I would like to note that Hillary has taken a hit whenever the electorate gets reminded of who she is. So the convention exposure might very well backfire on her.

      1. It’s interesting that the media isn’t talking about her at all right now. Headline on Google News is “Is Trump the Manchurian Candidate” which is fucking hilarious because it’s Clinton that is bought and paid for by foreign countries.

    2. “The best Trump can hope for from the convention is the chance to look “presidential”, and let’s face it, looking presidential hasn’t really been his forte.”

      That would ruin everything. “I would like to apologize to Pocahontas because it’s an insult to Pocahontas” Trump is too entertaining.

    3. Hillary has a best face?????

      1. It’s the one where she wears giant shades to hide those puckering, soul-sucking orifices.

        1. Indeed. You’d think when she was wearing those thick glasses after her cerebral accident, her true form would be easier to see.

  13. Even if Gary pulls votes evenly that doesn’t mean that they’re distributed evenly. If the 9% materializes come the election (I doubt it) it’s possible he could be a spoiler. That would be pretty interesting.

  14. The American people should demand that 3rd party candidates be allowed in the debates since the Democrats/Republicans have done such a fine job of screwing over the Constitution for the last 200 years. They might not win but why are the party bosses of Democrats and Republicans so afraid for you to hear another point of view during the debates.

    1. I don’t think fear has anything to do with it. The debates don’t swing the vote. They’re rituals, like the State of the Union. Putting third parties into the mix just multiplies the waste of time.

      1. The contents of the debates don’t usually have much effect. However, appearing in a debate says, “These are important persons you should take seriously.” In addition, sometimes appearing in looks or delivery a particular way helps.

        1. And if you slipped up, then what? You’d like the fool next to the “serious” major party candidates. Being overly worried about appearances is a sucker’s game for the third parties.

          1. Most people don’t notice something’s a slip-up. They just have the debate on for 5 min., see you’re one of the candidates, don’t even notice if your mouth’s moving. The candidate’s merely being there is the anointment of serious status. Almost as much as the candidate’s name’s being given as a choice in a poll. It’s a heuristic: Experts have looked at the candidates & filtered the list for you, saves you some research. Practically no effect on Trump voters, though, because they’re revolting vs. the experts.

  15. My favorite thing this morning was checking my news feed and seeing WaPo and all the other usual suspects claiming Trumpnis epically imploding and then waaaaay off to the side I see HRC 42 DT 38.

    If a 4 point spread is an epic implosion, I’m looking forward to drinking Suderman’s tears come November.

    1. Here is the thing, Hillary’s legal problems are only going to get worse. Meanwhile, Trump is who he is and is likely to appear more reasonable as time goes on. Hillary likely needs a bigger lead than 4 points right now.

      1. Don’t be too hopeful. People care more about Trump insulting women than the Clinton foundation taking money from foreign countries while she was SecState. Now, that was the weird Bloomberg outlier poll, but still. Unless she’s indicted, most people really don’t give a shit because Trump is a big meanie.

      2. Pretty much this. Hillary has got to be close to her cap for voters. She’s a known quantity, a terrible campaigner, and has all kinds of bad news looming.

        This election will be typical in this one way: it will turn on events between now and November. The bizarre pair of major party candidates will add some variation to the usual theme, but that’s all it will be.

        1. Trump is close to his cap for voters. They are both close to their caps for voters and are both hated. But where as Hillary is hated by non-Democrats, Trump is hated by BOTH Democrats AND Republicans.
          Hillary can count on a solid core of Democratic voters to turn out and vote for her. trump cannot count on the Republican base to turn out and vote for him.

          1. This isn’t the HazelMeade wish fulfillment hour. Read what people are writing and address the points, please. Their point was that Trump actually has a lot more space to maneuver and capture voters, and they said why. You said, “nuh uh”

            1. Sorry, but I can’t understand the words coming out of your mouth with Trump’s cock in the way.

            2. It’s not like the people saying that provided any more proof for their arguments that Hazel did.

              1. The fact that Hillary’s support is baked and done is, well, a fact. Regardless, we see that this is actually Hazel’s wish fulfillment moment rather than bothering not to be a shitheel.

                1. Nothing horrifies me more than the reality that either trump or Hillary will be the next president. I am desperately hoping for a viable third party run.

                  Or perhaps that one of them will be assassinated soon.

                2. “The fact that Hillary’s support is baked and done is, well, a fact.”

                  You stating that doesn’t make it a fact. One could just as easily say the same about Trump. Both are well-known quantities at this point.

        2. I think it rests on who Putin wants. It appears he wants Trump.

      3. Here is the thing, Hillary’s legal problems are only going to get worse.

        Orlando changed the calculus, I suspect. Democrats are circling the wagons around the FBI for the usual reasons, but the left could be persuaded otherwise if the FBI starts putting the screws to Hillary. And the GOP has no hand to play: they have to go after the FBI, because they’re obviously culpable and because otherwise gun control is the only debate left. So the FBI either quashes the investigation and bends the knee for the Bitch Queen, or they risk getting it from both sides.

        1. The FBI can’t go after Hillary because they have their own emails on her server. They knew about it all along and both sides know it. It’s all smoke and mirrors so they can say, “We investigated thoroughly with hundreds of agents on it for over 2 years and found nothing. But don’t do it again. Case closed.” Dems have too much dirt on FBI to risk a prosecution. Plus, they can always say, “We couldn’t dedicate necessary resources to fight terrorism because we had to focus on Hillary’s server investigation to be fair to the Republicans. We did it for you, Republicans.”

        2. The FBI isn’t the only source of legal problems for Hillary.

          There are also private lawsuits that are getting discovery. They will be easier for the DemOp media to ignore, unless and until Trump starts using his bully pulpit to publicize what they are finding.

          1. And Hillary probably has some October Surprise up her sleeve about Trump. Almost certainly given his history. The Clintons are masters of opposition research. They always have some bomb ready to drop in mid-October.

            1. Trump has actually been under greater media scrutiny longer than the Clintons.

            2. LOL… the skeletons that the Clintons have propped up right in plain view are worse than anything Trump is likely to have hidden.

              1. 10 to one that the Clinton’s have court records of Ivana Trump’s rape allegations.
                Mid-october, Ivana’s going to be on TV talking about how the Donald brutally raped her.

            3. I’m curious what kind of October surprise the Clintons could use on Trump that’s not already out there. If there’s one thing Trump is good at, it’s making accusations slide off him like Slick Willy.

            4. The problem with the “October surprise” dream is that the entire GOPe is looking for an excuse to change the rules and keep Trump from getting the nomination at the convention. If there were some golden piece of dirt out there on Trump waiting to be discovered, I would think they would have found it by now or will have found it by the convention. So if he gets the nomination without anything like that appearing, it is almost certain that no such dirt exists.

              1. You could say the same thing about every October Surprise ever. How come everything isn’t found out by the end of primary season? How could the other party have any info that the other primary candidate’s didn’t discover? That’s NEVER HAPPENED!

                1. Man, Hazel, your TDS is especially virulent. Have you thought to seek counseling? Maybe join a support group? Maybe the WaPo will hire you for a fresh hot take of original Trump hate.

                2. No Hazel, I couldn’t. In every other case the candidate’s own party had no reason to look and his opponents had every reason to keep it a secret. Here, Trump’s own party has a reason to look and presumably will find it before the convention or it doesn’t exist.

          2. Staying on-topic isn’t Trump’s strong suit. He throws wild haymakers and ends up hitting random women or himself in the balls.

    2. Trump has slid about 5 or 6 points in the polling averages in the past month, which is a very significant drop in a presidential race.

      1. In June? At this point in 2012 we were sure to have president Romney.

        1. It’s not as important in June as in October obviously, I was more making the point that a drop of even 4-6 points is huge in a presidential race.

          Also, polling averages begin to have significant predictive power in April of an election year, so it’s not as meaningless as you might think.

          Thirdly, we were also sure to have President Romney at this point in 2012, in right-wing echo chambers. Obama had a 2.3 lead in RCP’s polling average on June 21st, 2012.


          1. *In the last paragraph, “also” should be “only.” My apologies.

  16. Not to get all conspiracy theory, but does anyone else think it is weird they are all of a sudden including JS in the polls. it took forever to get GJ in the polls and then they just start adding JS who is only on the ballot in 13 states?? I kinda feel like once it was obvious GJ was to be pulled they automatically added a 4th to make sure nobody but the R&D get 15% polling an included in the debate..

    1. I think that’s it, exactly.

      1. Poor Jill, she doesn’t realise that TPTB really aren’t into her…

    2. I never heard of her before yesterday. It does seem odd.

  17. Trump never performed well in the debates yet his poll numbers rose regardless. However Hillary will destroy him because people will want to see someone act presidential. In fact Trump’s team is now trying to figure out how to avoid the debates entirely – he has much more to lose. Unfavorables too high and they will only be confirmed. He can’t back off his immigrant and muslim fear-mongering and people are starting to see right through it. As for Stein, her socialism will be easily discredited. Of course, I’m voting Johnson/Weld.

    1. “In fact Trump’s team is now trying to figure out how to avoid the debates entirely – he has much more to lose.”

      Source please?

      1. “Source please?”

        Sorry – we value loyalty on the Trump team.

        1. Oh, you made it up. My apologies.

        2. So you pulled it out of your ass and are wasting everyone’s time.

    2. “In fact Trump’s team is now trying to figure out how to avoid the debates entirely – he has much more to lose. ”

      Trump wasn’t anything until the debates. Despite what the pundits said directly after most of the debates, Trump won them. His polls kept rising even when he stupidly (IMO) skipped one of the debates. He’s a natural show man. He’ll win the debates against Hillary. And then probably throw away the gain by saying something monumentally stupid.

      All hail to her highness Hillary, long may she reign. /sigh

      1. Trump was leading the polls before the debates. Also, he lost the Iowa caucus (despite leading the polls) right after the debate he skipped, so I’m not so sure that didn’t hurt him.

        1. He skilled the debate in Iowa and Iowans like to have their asses kissed. And caucuses are not really elections. So I am not sure that example says much of anything.

          That being said, the debates are vital to Trump. His best chance is to kill Hillary in the debates and look reasonable when the nation is paying attention. The thing is everyone hates Hillary. Sure, people hate Trump too but Trump has the advantage of not being the establishment candidate. People desperately want to reject the establishment and that is what Hillary represents. So, bar for Trump isn’t very high. He just has to convince the country he is a reasonable choice and not crazy or anything close to what his critics claim he is and the undecideds likely all break for him. People don’t want to vote for Hillary and all he has to do is convince them he is a viable choice. His best chance to do that is in the debates. He doesn’t want a bunch of debates. He should probably agree to two or at most three. Then all he has to do is put on a good performance and “look Presidential” as they say and the undecideds will break his way and Hillary is likely toast.

          Can he look reasonable and do that? Time will tell but that is really all he has to do to win. Look at it this way, half the country thinks he is nuts and he still is within 5 points of Hillary.

          1. I was just pointing out that the other person’s narrative (that Trump was nothing before the debates and that he kept rising after skipping one) was factually incorrect. That’s all.

            I think that will be make or break for him. The fact that he’s within 5 points of Hillary says a lot about Hillary, but the fact that he’s losing to Hillary by 5 points says a lot about him. Clinton would be the most unpopular non-incumbent nominee ever by a major party if not for Trump. Kasich (who was pretty much a good substitute for “generic Republican”) was beating her by nearly 10 points in the polls when he was still in the race, and that was when Clinton had a larger lead on Trump than she currently does.

            1. I wonder if kaisich could have gotten the turn out to make those poll numbers stick had he won. Who other than hard core Republicans would have been motivated to vote for Kaisich?

              1. I don’t think a whole lot of people would have been thrilled to do it, but I think most people would prefer him to Hillary. How many people are excited about Hillary’s candidacy? Against someone like Obama, Kasich probably couldn’t generate the enthusiasm to win (barring an extremely unfavorable environment for Obama, such as a recession), but Hillary is not Obama and I don’t think it would be as big of a factor.

            2. Kasich & Sanders were doing the best in the Rep-v-Dem polls, but what are we to conclude from that?

              1. That Trump and Clinton were really unpopular (as was Cruz).

                I think Sanders would have fallen in a general after getting attacked for being a socialist ideologue, but I don’t think Kasich has comparable baggage and is more moderate and competent.

    3. Trump ruled the debates. If debates were won on policy detail mastery, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio would be the nominee right now.

  18. Why would someone interested in limited government even consider for a moment casting a vote for Donald Trump? He’s a big government autocrat who opposes abortion, advocates a ridiculous immigration policy, is a belligerent interventionist on foreign policy, etc. I’m a left libertarian and the rational side of me doesn’t give DT two seconds of thought when it comes to my vote. True, there’s an irrational side that says, ah fuck it, just vote for the guy that’s going to send idiots in the armed forces off to fight in a bullshit war, but that side of me also wants me to become a large-scale methamphetamine producer. It’s impervious to logic or discussion. Is that what’s driving you guys? Meth and an inchoate dislike of HRC?

    1. True and anyone who votes for Trump for his Supreme Court pick is delusional. Trump has no intention of using the “Heritage Foundation approved” list of justices and even said so. He just wants someone to do his bidding on every issue regardless of the principles. He shows nothing but contempt for people who rule against him, e.g. Curiel. He will more likely pick his limo driver or Corey Lewandowski assuming they make up by then. And if yesterday’s ruling proves anything, Sotomayor is a stronger defender of the Constitution than any of the so-called conservatives. I would definitely vote for Hillary over Trump for this reason (though I’m voting Johnson, of course). Trumpkins are completely delusional.

      1. if yesterday’s ruling proves anything, Sotomayor is a stronger defender of the Constitution

        Except on any issue not related to law enforcement. You know, most of the issues.

        1. And if you think Trump’s pick will be better you are completely delusional.

          1. You’re not one to talk about delusions. Why don’t you tell us who Hillary’s going to pick, since you seem to have such a lock on what’s going to happen in the future?

            1. I will tell you that I’m bearish on oil, defense, and private security. You’re welcome.

              1. Oh hi dajj. Can you pick one delusional handle and stick to it?

            2. Hillary’s going to pick an establishment crony who will continue the status quo. Trump will pick a statist motherfucker who will stay in the same place on economic liberties and move the needle considerably in a more authoritarian direction on everything else. net minus for libertarians.

        2. Trump is pro-eminent domain and anti-free-trade, what in God’s name makes you think he’s going to pick anyone better on the commerce clause or any other economic freedom issue?

          1. Where did I say he would? I was refuting AddictionMyth’s relative assessment of the sitting Justices.

    2. inchoate dislike of HRC

      … as opposed to your fully formed hatred of HRC? Or did you decide to join Camp Hillary after all?

      1. AmericanSocialist probably won’t publicly support HRC. He’ll just talk the opposition down and then quietly go pull the lever for HRC.

        1. pull the lever for HRC.

          Dude, I could use a little more abstraction in my euphemisms.

      2. I honestly can’t decide who I hate more. Clinton supporters who think Leftists like me should just shut up and vote Democratic or Trump supporters. I’ll enthusiastically vote for JS, but will think about GJ and HRC going forward. I’m honestly one of those annoying undecided voters.

        1. You wouldn’t know honesty if it walked up and smacked you in the face.

        2. It’s possible to be undecided and also #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary.

          1. I’m not saying that I would never vote for HRC. She’s obviously the most qualified. The trouble begins when you start to dig into her record and what she has advocated. However, if you want someone who is reliably pro-choice, won’t get the government involved in gay marriage, won’t appoint theocrats or assholes to the SC, and won’t build a Game of Thrones inspired wall on the Mexican border there is at least something– perhaps not nearly enough– to consider there.

            1. She’s obviously the most qualified.

              Based on her zero years as a governor?

              Yeah, as much as I dislike Weld, both ends of the LP ticket are way more qualified.

            2. Umm your team wants the government involved in gay marriage. That was kinda the whole point.

            3. Based on accepting millions of dollars from foreign governments and defense contractors?

              Have you read this article in Mother Jones?


              1. “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

                —-Mother Jones


            4. Yeah I question the ‘most qualified’ as well.

    3. I couldn’t agree more.
      There is a certain cohort of commenters around here who are really just partisan shills masquerading as libertarians.

      Just to add to the list, Trump is virulently anti-free-trade. If there is any one fucking issue you can’t hold and still claim to be a libertarian it is being against freer trade. And yes that includes TPP. Everyone knows you fuckers are only against it because Obama negotiated it and you can’t handle giving him credit for anything.

      As far as I’m concerned, every last Trump supporter can go choke on gas and die in a fire. The world will be better off without them.

      1. oooh we see what gets kitty’s claws out: failing to pay homage to Obama.

        Yes, a fast tracked secret thousands of pages agreement is the definition of free trade. You need 1000s of pages to get free trade, right? It is known!


          Yes, we know it’s just an excuse for you domestic labor voters to keep out the darkies and the darkies products. You hate immigration. You hate competition for jobs. You hate competition. It’s pretty obvious that you’re just using that “1000 page agreement” nonsense as cover for your protectionist agenda.

          Fuck you, and go die in a fire.

          1. Yes, in fact we should be against any legislation that is kept secret until its passed. No exceptions.

            This is known as “principles”. You should try them.

            1. The TPP is not secret.
              The full text is available online.


              1. It was only released after it was passed hazel.

                1. The TPP hasn’t passed, you dumb shit.
                  The only thing that passed was fast-track negotiation authority.

          2. Just keep screaming and wildly accusing people of “racism” where you have no evidence of it. It’s the tactic of choice for the intellectually bankrupt.

            You’re not doing your gender much credit sweetie

            1. You’re not doing your gender much credit sweetie[.]

              Wow, just…wow.

            2. Does that pass for reasonable discourse where you usually hang?

      2. Plus, Hillary has lady parts.

      3. “Just to add to the list, Trump is virulently anti-free-trade. If there is any one fucking issue you can’t hold and still claim to be a libertarian it is being against freer trade.”

        I think this is right.

        I keep falling back to the same formulation.

        Trump > Hillary

        Trump < Piece of Shit Therefore Hillary < Trump < Piece of Shit

        1. Trump > Hillary is wrong. Trump is just as bad as Hillary on economic issues, and WAY WORSE on civil liberties. He’s also at least as corrupt. His only saving grace is that his blustering incompetence might keep him from accomplishing anything. On the other hand, it might lead to disasterous foreign policy blunders.

          1. Trump is just as bad as Hillary on economic issues, and WAY WORSE on civil liberties.

            What makes Hillary way better on civil liberties?

            She’s against free speech and gun rights, and she favors public accommodation laws. She’s also a neocon, which automatically makes her amenable to a police state.

            Honestly, why are we even fighting about which piece of shit tastes worse? Vote GJ!

            1. Trump wants to cut corporate taxes and kill off a huge chunk of the environmental regulations on business. His commitment to fracking and ending Obama’s idiotic war on coal alone make him better than Hillary on economic issues.

              Hazel has lost her mind.

              1. His commitment to fracking and ending Obama’s idiotic war on coal alone

                Please. What does Trump know about fracking and coal? Nothing. He’s a new York real-estate developer.
                Anything he says about coal is purely a ploy to buy votes from dumb hicks in Appalachia.

                1. So Trump is lying about all of the good things he says but somehow he is certain to follow through with everything you don’t like? When he says he is going to end the war on coal he is just pandering for votes in Apalachia and won’t every really do it. When he says he is going to make it harder for companies to relocate overseas, he is totally committed.

                  No to be judgmental or anything, but that is the kind of thing lunatics say Hazel.

                  1. There isn’t even any war on coal. Coal is going out of business because fracking has brought us a never-ending supply of cheap gas.
                    That right there is evidence that Trump is pandering.

            2. She’s not planning on banning Muslims from entering the country, even US citizens. She hasn’t proposed setting up a national registry of all Muslims.
              She hasn’t proposed ordering the military to commit war crimes.

              just for starters.

              1. She’s not planning on banning Muslims from entering the country, even US citizens

                That is true. She is in fact planning to let more of them in and have the taxpayers pay to relocate them. I am not sure that helps your case here Hazel.

                And as far as the US Citizens part, Trump has never proposed that. In fact, Hillary and Obama have actually done that via the no fly list. There have been several US citizens effectively stranded overseas thanks to being on the no fly list.

                1. My case is that Clinton is better on civil liberties than Trump. Helping to relocate refugees does nothing to impugn her reputation on civil liberties.

          2. Trump > Hillary is wrong.

            You keep ignoring the fact that Hillary has taken money from foreign governments and continues to take it even as she’s running for President.

            That’s a disqualification.

            There’s this thing called propriety.

            noun: propriety

            the state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.
            “he always behaved with the utmost propriety”

            synonyms: decorum, respectability, decency, correctness, protocol, appropriateness, suitability, good manners, courtesy, politeness, rectitude, morality, civility, modesty, demureness; More
            sobriety, refinement, discretion

          3. Trump may be awful and wrong.

            Hillary turns any sense of propriety on its head.

            She accepts money from foreign governments–while running for President, while being Secretary of State.

            You keep talking about how, you know, President Andrew “Dice” Clay is an insensitive dolt and wrong about economics.

            I keep pointing out that Vito Corleone is a fucking mafia don.

            Do you understand the difference?

            It isn’t just a distinction.

            We put Vito Corleone in the White House, and we might as well give up fighting crime. Yeah, give up on fighting crime?!

            There’s a difference between an insensitive dolt who’s wrong about econ–and abandoning the idea that crime matters.

            Voting Hillary is telling all future politicians for ever more that it’s okay to take money from foreign governments while you’re the Secretary of State. In fact, you should! There’s no downside! In fact, that’s a great way to become President! Just get on the payroll of a foreign government or governments!

            That Donald Trump is an insensitive dolt or wrong about free trade is nothing compared to that.

            1. The notion that Donald Trump somehow has more propriety than Clinton is idiotic on it’s face.

              1. You’re missing something important.

                There’s a difference between being wrong on on the issues and being an obnoxious jackass, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, deciding that we’re no longer going to hold politicians accountable for their disgraceful behavior at the polls.

                Think of it this way: What’s worse? A politician who’s wrong on policy and insensitive to the feelings of minorities? Or the American people getting together and deciding that enslaving black people is okay?

                One of them is rude, obnoxious, and wrong.

                The other one is a complete abandonment of propriety.

                There are certain principles that should be completely unacceptable to everyone.

                Whether so and so got a fair trial is something we might disagree on, and reasonable people of integrity might disagree about what constitutes a free trial. However, no one should disagree that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Giving people a free trial is propriety.

                Some honest people might disagree about how ballots should be counted, but no one should disagree that elections should be free and fair.

                1. Hillary Clinton accepted donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. She continues to accept donations from foreign governments even as she runs for President. These facts aren’t disputable. They’re admitted by Hillary herself. Whether Presidents and Secretaries of State should accept money from foreign governments isn’t an issue on which reasonable people of integrity can disagree. What she did goes beyond the bounds of propriety.

                  Being a child molester is wrong. Whether self-admitted child molesters should be thrown in prison without being convicted is something reasonable people of integrity might oppose. But we’re not talking about doing that. We’re talking about taking a self-admitted child molester and willfully putting her in charge of an orphanage. Child molesting is wrong, but knowingly putting a child molester in charge of an orphanage goes beyond the bounds of propriety.

                  Even if the alternative is someone who is less than a piece of shit like Donald Trump.

      4. I’d have to read the details more closely to determine whether TPP is a net benefit to free trade principles. It is, like all other supposed “free trade” agreements, really just managed trade (though I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, hence why the details matter).

      5. “And yes that includes TPP. Everyone knows you fuckers are only against it because Obama negotiated it and you can’t handle giving him credit for anything.”

        There’s more to it than that.

        I do see opposition to free trade agreements because of their warts as sort of like opposing recreational marijuana legalization in Colorado because it includes unlibertarian zoning restrictions and licensing requirements. The benefits are usually far too good to hold them up over smaller problems.

        The problem is that Obama’s strategy with trade agreements has been all encompassing. His goal is not to encourage free trade but to stymie competition against American unions by writing protections for them into trade agreements–trade agreements that will last forever more.

        And when I say Obama’s strategy has been all encompassing, he’s already done it before. He made the South Koreans renegotiate our trade agreement with them after their legislature had already passed it–in order to write in protections for the UAW. He only signed it once the UAW said it was okay with them. Obama did the same thing Colombia free trade agreement–he renegotiated it so that it included protections that American unions wanted and only accepted the agreements once they said it was okay.

        1. I have little doubt but that there will be another free trade agreement around the Pacific with or without Obama’s support, and I’m not sure we wouldn’t get something even better without Obama’s attempts to use the agreement to push climate change and union interests. That’s different from opposing free trade because it’s Obama’s accomplishment.

          Convince me that the future is better with the agreement than without it, and I might still support it.

          1. The problem is that Trump has NOT said he’s against TPP because of UAW protections or anything to that effect. He’s against TPP because it means competition for US products. He’s actually if anything MORE in the UAWs pocket because he’s openly saying that it’s the whole concept of building stuff in other countries and importing it that he’s against. He’s threatened to slap tarriffs on Ford for moving auto plants to Mexico, for example. He’s not just against free trade agreements because of their specific clauses. He’s against trade *in principle*.

          2. So if you’re asking who is more likely to produce a more liberal trade agreement than Obama, the answer is definitely NOT Donald Trump.
            Seriously speaking, given Hillary Clinton’s track record, while her trade agreement would no doubt be loaded with various cronyist handouts, it is infact rather likely that it would adhere in principle to the mainstream liberal consensus. This is actually one reason why Bernie Sanders’ supports are against her.
            Clinton is a “neoliberal”, albeit a cronyist one.

            1. “Seriously speaking, given Hillary Clinton’s track record, while her trade agreement would no doubt be loaded with various cronyist handouts, it is infact rather likely that it would adhere in principle to the mainstream liberal consensus.”

              Then isn’t opposition to the treaty on the basis of Obama’s rent seeking on behalf of the unions entirely warranted?

              Why is it incumbent on the Republican Congress to concede?

        2. “Obama made clear to Lee that he would not put the deal before Congress without substantial new concessions from Korea for the U.S. auto industry. Such moves were needed, he believed, to help boost U.S. carmakers and correct the impression that previous free trade deals “traded off manufacturing for other parts of the economy,” the official said.

          . . . .

          A pivotal session came Wednesday, when Ford Motor Co. chief executive Alan Mulally met with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Lawrence H. Summers, outgoing head of the National Economic Council, and concurred on a revised tariff schedule that the Korean side later accepted.

          . . . .

          The United Autoworkers union and key auto-state legislators in both parties also have endorsed the final agreement.

          “It has been a long time since a union supported a trade agreement,” the administration official said, adding that the White House is expecting a “big, broad bipartisan vote” for the Korea agreement when it is put before Congress next year.

          —-Washington Post

          Holding free trade hostage over permanently instituting protections for the UAW is something I will only support reluctantly.

          Obama has done it with every. single. trade. agreement.

          1. And Donald Trump ain’t going to change that. He’s actually gone further and threatened to retaliate against companies that “outsource” and more manufacturing plants overseas.
            He’s just as bad as Bernie Sanders on trade.

            1. The point isn’t just what Donald Trump will or won’t do.

              The question is whether we can get something better than Obama’s international permanent union rent seeking initiative.

              I’m open to listening to both sides on that.

              Maybe waiting for a better deal when someone else is in the Oval Office is reasonable.

              Even if Hillary wins, she’s wildly unpopular. Even if she didn’t compromise with a Republican Congress to get the treaty ratified, maybe she’ll be replaced in four years.

              Is it worth it to wait four years for a better deal than Obama’s?

              The correct answer is maybe.

    4. A belligerent interventionist? Based on evidence that bears a striking resemblance to the rest of your BS?

    5. For similarly stupid reasons that you use to justify voting for bernie and hillary.

  19. Is that what’s driving you guys?

    You know what drives me? A combination of despair and apathy, doused with alcohol.

    It takes a truly mentally impaired person to believe that there are many Trump supporters here.

    1. They are mostly Trumpkins-in-denial.

    2. The number should be zero– not a significant minority.

      1. You know what the number of posters claiming to be left-libertarian while espousing socialist nonsense should be? Zero.

    3. Just to pull one line out of that word salad:

      just vote for the guy that’s going to send idiots in the armed forces off to fight in a bullshit war

      So, any of them?

      1. Hillary “Sniper Fire in Bosnia” Clinton is anti-war! If you squint just the right way and wish upon a star, it’s true!

        1. Did I claim that HRC was the peace candidate? For that, you should look at JS and GJ.

          1. So what, she’s the “less war” candidate, now? Like LBJ was?

    4. What american socialist said, plus the fact that there shouldn’t even be anyone apologizing for Trump, or his supporters.

      1. Some things are true vis a vis Hillary that aren’t true otherwise.

        If Hillary Clinton can be the President of the United States–despite the fact that she not only took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State but also she continues to do so while running for President?

        Then what’s at stake isn’t just bad policy like it is with Trump.

        What’s at stake is any semblance of decorum or the rule of law.

        1. So much this. We shouldn’t even be treating Hillary as a serious candidate in any way, given the multiple felonies and massive breaches of national security she is directly responsible for.

          Forget SCOTUS picks, free trade, whose warboner is bigger, etc. You don’t even get to that unless and until you have a candidate who isn’t disqualified right out of the box. And, in my book, anyone with Hillary’s record of recklessness, venality, and outright criminality is disqualified. I don’t care who else is running.

          1. We shouldn’t even be treating Trump as a serious candidate in any way, given that he’s a raging mysogynist, incompetent buffoon and a racist to boot.

            C’est la vie.

            1. So being a “raging misogynist”, whatever that means, means you can’t be a candidate? I am pretty sure that didn’t stop Bill Clinton from being President for 8 years. And Trump is only a racist to the extent that he told the truth. Yeah, Mexico and Central America don’t send us their best and a lot of criminals come across with the ones who aren’t. That is just reality. Maybe reality is racist.

              And “buffoon” is a relative term, but he is no more or less of one than anyone else in Washington. What exactly is he going to do? Think bombing Libya and getting rid of Kadafi is a great idea? Think risking armed conflict with the Russians in Syria is the way to go? Base our entire energy policy on the imaginary effects of CO2 on the climate?

              You really have lost your mind Hazel. It is funny how you are always on here accusing me of being a troll and then you go bat shit insane like this. Project much?

              1. Yeah, Mexico and Central America don’t send us their best and a lot of criminals come across with the ones who aren’t.

                I don’t even understand how this is controversial, apart from some linguistic qualms about the use of the verb “send”.

                It’s a land route (mostly). Every other migrant route into the U.S. save from Canada has to go across one massive ocean or another. There’s going to be some vetting/self-selection going on.

                For an instructive example of sorts, see Australia. They’re dealing with a lot of migrants from countries we don’t see as problematic because the only way to get from there to here is by commercial airplane. But Australia is in a different boat, no pun intended; you can get there from much of Southeast Asia by raft.

        2. like Trump wouldn’t take money from foreign governments if he was SOS. The only difference between Trump and Hillary on that count is that Trump currently holds less power. Trump has bribed his fair share of government officials while being a real estate developer in New York. That goes without saying.

          1. like Trump wouldn’t take money from foreign governments if he was SOS.

            Yeah, like he wouldn’t. Last i looked people were shitting their pants over Trump because he was a nationalist. Why do you think he is now some paid foreign agent?

            Hazel, you are just coming across as bat shit insane. Maybe you missed the memo but Ken Shultiz isn’t a Trump supporter. Yet, you are so deranged on this topic, you are making him sound like one.

            1. Ken’s not a Trump supporter, but he is an apologist for Trump supporters.

              1. Only if you consider not being a raging lunatic on the subject to be an “apologist”, sure.

              2. That’s hilarious.

              3. “Ken’s not a Trump supporter, but he is an apologist for Trump supporters.”

                You saw the post where I said he was less than a piece of shit, right?

        3. And whatever you think of Trump’s stance on trade, he is likely bluffing and would use his proposals as a negotiating ploy and he isn’t going to do much of anything without Congress. Further, not every form of protectionism is Smoote Hawley. The idea that Trump would start some trade war and destroy the world economy is absurd. Moreover, as others have pointed out, these “free trade” agreements are anything but free trade. They are mostly corporatist payoffs and restrictions on sovereignty and freedom. We could do worse than stepping back from them and telling the cronies to fuck off.

          Hillary in contrast is a felon who took bribes to sell out the country as secretary of state. That is a much bigger deal than Trump being pissed at Carrier for moving to Mexico.

          1. Any idea that Hitler would start some world war are try to execute all of the Jews is absurd. that would never happen. Just because he says it in his book doesn’t mean he’s crazy enough to actually do it.

            1. No Hazel. It is the fact that he doesn’t have the constitutional power that means he won’t do it.

              And thanks for Godwyining the thread and further confirming you are nothing but a troll on this issue.

              1. It’s spelled Godwin, and that’s fucking hilarious coming from you.

        4. And Trump doesn’t have ties to foreign governments?

          He has many advisers who are shills for Putin.

          And Trump’s anti-Nato policy is just coincidentally what Putin wants as well

          Clinton might be a crook, but she’s not going to sell out Eastern Europe to Russia

    5. It’s honestly been mostly alcohol lately, for me.

  20. If I get trashed by John for not supporting Trump and bashed by Hazel for being an apologist for Trump supporters–in the same thread–shouldn’t I get like some kind of prize or recognition for that?

    If that happened, it would mean I must be doing something right, yeah?

  21. Pretty damn pathetic in the current context, considering that’s the same number Deez Nuts gets when included.

  22. Gary Johnson can only hurt Trump, even if he takes slightly more votes away from Clinton.

    Trump will need an unprecedented white turnout to beat Clinton. He cannot afford to lose any white votes. But even without looking at the numbers, I can guess that most people voting GJ and Stein are white. Clinton was already dominating Bernie Sanders with low millennial support (and less than total support from women) because of her share of the black vote. Latinos kinda preferred Sanders over Clinton, but they’ll come back to her.

    Jill Stein is also bad news for GJ. If he got the 3% that’s voting for her, he’s one step closer to the debate stage.

  23. It’s too bad we couldn’t have a couple of well spoken real Libertarians, instead of recycled Republicans with malleable principles. Johnson and Weld will blow a great chance. The recent headline plucked from Johnson’s mouth is an example; “we are fringe candidates”.

  24. Wow! Nine Percent!
    That should translate to Absolutely ZERO Electoral Votes.

  25. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ?

  26. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below

  27. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.