Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson Now Needs 42% in Final Poll to Qualify for Debates

New CBS/New York Times poll puts the Libertarian at 8%, making his 5-poll average 8.6% on the eve of the Debate Commission's decision

|

Better than 80% of all subsequent Oscar winners. ||| WeKno w/ Memes
WeKno w/ Memes

After six weeks of inactivity, the CBS News/New York Times national presidential poll, one of five selected by the Commission on Presidential Debates to create an average from which qualifying candidates will be determined in "mid-September," has finally come out with some numbers: 42 percent each for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, 8 percent for Gary Johnson, and 4 percent for Jill Stein. Johnson's figure in the Sept. 9-13 poll was down from 10 percent from July 29-31, but that prior result did not include Stein as an option, and there has been a previously observed Stein effect of the Libertarian losing two percentage points when the Green is first included.

Johnson's five-poll average on the eve of the Debate Commission's decision now stands at 8.6 percent, far short of the arbitrarily high 15 percent threshold for inclusion. There is one last poll that hasn't updated in six weeks, NBC News/Wall Street Journal, in which Johnson has averaged 10.3 percent across three surveys. He now needs to score 42 percent in the next NBC/WSJ poll to get into the debate front door. His previous national high—matched as recently as yesterday—is 13 percent.

The Debate Commission, a controversial "nonpartisan" organization created, staffed, and controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties, is keeping mum about when it will announce its decision, and about how such factors as margin of error will be taken into consideration. Johnson and his running mate William Weld ran a full-page ad in The New York Times yesterday beseeching the commission to relax its standards for just the first debate, and the campaign has reaching for every available crowbar to pry open the process, including lawsuits, questioning the methodology of polls, and promising to whip up outrage at the major parties' self-dealing. Given the centrality of this issue to the L.P. ticket's strategy—just yesterday in Detroit, Johnson reiterated that "To win we have to be in the presidential debates"—the looming non-invite will mark a major turning point in what has so far been the most successful third-party presidential campaign since Ross Perot in 1992.

NEXT: Thomas Friedman, Admirer of Dictators, Slams Trump for Admiring Dictators

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I was told there would be no math.

    1. Apparently Johnson was thinking the same.

      1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,.,.,.,

        ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

  2. Johnson should show up at the debate and sit tight in the green room. There’s probably a 50/50 chance Hillary won’t make it through the whole thing without having to be restarted. And from what I’ve gathered, the reboot sequence of the Hilbot 2.0 takes no less than two hours and a trip to her daughter’s home. I’m sure Trump wouldn’t mind Johnson filling in as long as the topic is foreign policy.

    1. Makes me wonder if Trump is going to try to goad her into a seizure. Can Hillary even stand at a podium for more than 20 minutes? Or will her campaign demand chairs?

      1. Perhaps he will. Or maybe the strobe light he plans on bringing is for the dance party he’s attending afterward.

    1. Not-classy commenter SIV rejoices at the triumph of banality and status quo. Sad!

      1. I’m not jumping in here as a Trump supporter, but please explain to me how him winning would be the status quo?

        1. Duopoly maintains its hold, homie.

          1. Just by affiliation, though. Trump has never held office and never served in the military. When was the last time someone with that lack of “credentials” was elected President?

            1. Obama. Look how well that went.

              1. ROFL. Obama was and still is deified by the establishment. He was groomed for public office for years and years.

                1. Also, senator.

                  1. Even a state Senator!

              2. Obama was a senator. And before that a state senator. And before that he was plugged completely into the political machine in Chicago. Comparing his CV to Trump’s is pretty much insane.

                1. No, but it does demonstrate that someone with all of that on his CV can still suck ass as a leader. Being groomed to be the first of anything usually has a shitty outcome.

                  However, Trump is a multinational business leader who has an incredible talent for assembling highly capable teams and chartering them with marching orders. Most of those teams are massively functional and incredibly successful. That talent is something that is sorely needed in government and the military as they both lack it right now.

                  People seem to forget the qualities of successful leadership. Obama has none of them. Trump crushes Obama in this regard, so it is worth calling that out and comparing both of them.

                  Even with that said, I am not voting for Trump the fucktard.

                2. Well Trump is a developer. Developers are the biggest crony-capitalist in the country. So he has been plugged into the machine for all his career, hence photo opts with the Clintons.

    2. Thank God. So Bob Barr, then Gary Johnson. Can we try going with an actual Libertarian next time? This election gave us our best shot to date, to get our message across and we completely wasted it. And by we, I mean people not me, who nominated Gary Johnson.

      1. I’m still hoping the terrible candidates and their shenanigans will make people lose faith in government and find their way to Libertarianism anyway. It’s a faint hope, but it’s something.

  3. So…you’re telling me there’s a chance?

  4. … 42 percent each for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump …
    He now needs to score 42 percent …

    So, this election is now the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything?

    1. If so, i’d like to rephrase the question.

      1. What do you get if you multiply six and nine?

        1. An orgy?

        2. That’s silly you can’t multiply two completely different numbers.

  5. Who needs that many percentage points when some of us don’t have any?

    1. And at this point, what difference does it make?

  6. We just need to roll up our sleeves and make this happen.

  7. GJ should streak the debate in a thong shouting A-leppo! Seriously though, the “respected” media is ignoring him because he is not some billionaire asshole with a grand vision to “get things done!”-that seems to be a prerequisite to be taken seriously as a third party candidate, or Trump.

    I am curious why I haven’t been contacted by any pollsters, I live in Virginia and the phone usually rings off the hook in an election year.

  8. Libertarian moment is just about to take off isn’t it.

    1. With a 4 trillion dollar federal budget and a national debt pushing 20 trillion, it’s all libertarian moment now, pay later.

  9. Gary Johnson is going to be on the ballot in all 50 states. Every American voter is going to see his name with Trump and Clinton. Therefore the Debate Commission has no right in denying the American People a chance to decide for themselves who’s better to serve us. All I keep hearing is polls polls and more polls, polls can be manipulated. If I wanted to prove which magazine was better Teen People or Good Housekeeping and I had a preference for Good Housekeeping. I’d go to the old folks home to take my poll. That’s the same with all this landline polling it does not get the diversity and they know this. Maybe after the debates the commission can celebrate not allowing Gary in with a good old fashion book burning!

    1. ” That’s the same with all this landline polling it does not get the diversity and they know this.”

      It would be nice if GJ actually gets north of 25% of the vote and wins enough states to deprive Trillary of 270 electoral votes and it would be fun to see the collective apeshit the pundits and partisans would take over it all because GJ was not in the debates and they had “no idea” that he had this level of support from the smartphone generation-yes, it would be nice, but I’m not gonna hold my breath.

      1. Just give them a reason to get pissed enough to send libertarians to labor camps.

    2. Pollsters narrow the choices down more via the structure of the poll rather than the sampling. I’ve been part of one polls sample all this year and gotten a call every few weeks. I finally got pissed off enough at the first question ‘If there are only two choices this Nov then who will you ….’ that I told them to eff off and take me off their call list. But they’ll find someone to replace me – and the published results will reflect that the participants accept the pollsters narrowing of the choices down to two.

      1. ^^^this. i got called by a poll awhile back, and it was madness when he got to the question “do you lean more towards republicans or democrats?” over five minutes…. “neither,” and, “I’m a registered libertarian,” were not answers he had check boxes for.

        1. The two major parties pay for most of the polls, so this automatically biases them.

    3. “The Debate Commission, a controversial “nonpartisan” organization created, staffed, and controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties…”

      I think it’s possible that the commission is less interested in giving us a chance to decide who’s better to serve us than it is in protecting the interests of the democratic and republican parties and keeping others out.

    4. Even when they call cell phones, most folks under the age of 40 will see a phone number they don’t recognize or from an unfamiliar area code and ignore it.

      1. This is what I do. My mom actually does the surveys. I never understood why.

      2. I accept the polls as fairly accurate. Young people don’t vote.
        But a 15 percent threshold is crazy. Third party candidates get less than 1 percent of the media coverage. They will never poll at 15 percent. The debates should let in all the ballot qualified candidates so voters can judge them all. No votes have been cast yet. Have a 1 percent threshold if you get too many wackos getting on the ballot. Right now you have 4 candidates, that’s easy for a debate. Primary debates had 10 candidates, with a 1 percent threshold for the big kids table.

    5. Yup. Like someone else said in the previous “Let Gary Debate” topic, if he’s going to be on the ballet in enough states that he could, in theory, be elected, he should be in the debates. Both Johnson and Stein are on enough ballets that they are in fact, viable choices. It’s not for these clowns to decide who is worth listening to. There’s no legitimate reason to not include the two of them on the stage with Hillary and Trump.

  10. The unholy duopoly of socialist/Marxist left and big government, interventionist right are doing their damnedest to maintain the status quo that is obliterating the Constitution of our Republic. They mouth the oath of office with no intention of showing fealty to that oath. They lie about what they will act on and the gullible public thinks that either party will actually do what they promise. The duopoly does not want a party to adhere to the constitution and unbind their two-party chains that will lead to a world government with American autonomy discarded. The few constitutionalists that we send to government are marginalized and kept from committees where they could effect change. The affect of the duopoly is to keep their stranglehold on government, make themselves un-godly rich. and ease the multi-billionaire rich into control over all of mankind. Third parties are marginalized as unrealistic, inane entities incapable of governance (for wanting to govern as the founding fathers intended). Well, you can throw away your vote by continuing the downfall of America by voting the duopoly or vote your conscience for a free America – free from coercion of the controllers who are ruining the best country to presently live in, in the world. Debates? The duopoly will do every dirty trick in the book to prevent those “nut job” third parties from explaining their point of view that might upset the apple cart of status quo.

  11. The Libertarian ticket IS qualified by virtue of the fact that they are on all ballots .

    It is the overt corruption of the Duopoly no even abiding by their own mission statement to “provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners” which is the barrier .

    Don’t legitimize their self-serving corrupt criterion .

  12. The CPD is run by crooked Republicans and Democrats with a vested interest in keeping the duopoly in power. It’s no coincidence that they came up with this 15% threshold in 2000 to stop Ralph Nader from getting more attention than he already had. THEY EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO BAN NADER FROM THE AUDITORIUM BY POLICE ESCORT!!!!

    If they’re so “non-partisan”, why is their donor list treated like a national secret?

  13. Fuck the debate commission anyway. By begging to be let in you’re just giving them power.

  14. Well… fuck. Guess that’s it then.

    There are other things he could do to get his message out there regardless, it’s just a matter of how not irrelevant they’d be in the eyes of the usual voter. Even then, it would be hard for them or the failure of a media apparatus we have in this country right now to make Johnson look anything other than desperate for attention; overall, not a good place to be in.

    I mean, he could give his answers to actual policy questions asked at the debates in a YouTube video, but that would look a bit… weird, for lack of a better term.

    1. He did this on YouTube in 2012 with the exact questions from the debate being asked by someone getting the actual Presidential debates “live feed” in an earpiece Gary would respond “live” limited to the same time that was allotted to the candidate asked that actual question. So, while “live”, unrehearsed & a neat idea (as Gary answered every question∴ he had more time to speak&a better chance to introduce the Libertarian Party to the masses, but outside of Libertarian circles, the YouTube attempt wasn’t mentioned by many/any press/news outlets, nor greatly publicized&basically; failed to garner any attention outside of Libertarians already committed to Johnson relatives, close friends or other political junkies that we were able to round up.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.