Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson Tied or Slightly Up in 8 out of 8 Recent National Polls

That September swoon sure didn't last very long.

|

Eight days ago in this space I reported that, after an impressive summer of fending off the usual third-party fade, Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson was finally starting to recede a bit in national surveys. Well, now I'm back to tell you that the decline—measured nationally, anyway—has stopped.

There have been eight such polls released over the past few days, and Johnson either matched or slightly improved upon his prior showings across all eight. Two of them—CNN/ORC and CBS News/New York Times, both released yesterday—are part of the Commission on Presidential Debates' basket of five polls to determine eligibility for the second and third presidential yak-fests. Since Johnson's support remained the same in each (7 percent and 8 percent, respectively), that leaves his five-poll CPD average unchanged at 7.4 percent, or half of what he needs with less than a week until the next Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump match-up.

So, the Libertarian is not going to crash the two-party party. But you know what else is not happening? Any measurable mass defection based on Aleppo Moment 2.0. As you scan through the boringly stable numbers below, keep in mind three dates: September 28 (the evening when Johnson brain-froze while attempting to tell MSNBC's Chris Matthews who his favorite foreign leader is), September 26 (the first presidential debate), and September 8 (the original "Aleppo"). The following is an apples-to-apples comparison of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein across the two most recent results of eight national polls:

So would be the Dick Allen of politics? ||| PSU Press
PSU Press

10/01-03 Economist/YouGov: HC 43% DT 40% GJ 5% JS 3%

09/22-24 Economist/YouGov: HC 44% DT 41% GJ 5% JS 2%

9/30-10/2 Morning Consult: HC 42% DT 36% GJ 9% JS 2%

09/22-24 Morning Consult: HC 41% DT 38% GJ 8% JS 4%

9/28-10/2 CNN/ORC: HC 47% DT 42% GJ 7% JS 2%

09/01-04 CNN/ORC: HC 43% DT 45% GJ 7% JS 2%

9/28-10/2 CBS News/New York Times: HC 45% DT 41% GJ 8% JS 3%

09/09-13 CBS News/New York Times: HC 42% DT 42% GJ 8% JS 4%

9/29-10/3 Rasmussen Reports: HC 42% DT 41% GJ 9% JS 2%

9/28-10/2 Rasmussen Reports: HC 43% DT 40% GJ 8% JS 2%

09/27-29 Fox News: HC 43% DT 40% GJ 8% JS 4%

09/11-14 Fox News: HC 41% DT 40% GJ 8% JS 3%

09/27-28 PPP: HC 44% DT 40% GJ 6% JS 1%

08/26-28 PPP: HC 42% DT 37% GJ 6% JS 4%

09/22-26 Reuters/Ipsos: HC 42% DT 38% GJ 7% JS 3%

09/15-19 Reuters/Ipsos: HC 37% DT 39% GJ 7% JS 2%

Let's average those out:

NEW: HC 43.5% DT 39.8% GJ 7.4% JS 2.5%

OLD: HC 41.6% DT 40.3% GJ 7.1% JS 2.9%

When you add in the two most recent surveys of 10 additional national polls, and average out all 18, you get a "new" showing of 7.8%/2.6% for Johnson/Stein, and an "old" of 8.2%/3.1%. For the moment, anyway, the Libertarian has halted his slide (at least nationally), while the Green has continued hers. As it was eight days ago, the FiveThirtyEight projection for Gary Johnson's finish is at 6.5 percent of the popular vote.

Since Johnson's polling numbers have been ahistorically steady thus far, and since the mini-September swoon coincided almost perfectly with Donald Trump tightening the race to nearly neck-and-neck, Occam's Razor (as opposed to super-thorough research!) suggests that the biggest factor injecting variability into his support is panic among would-be voters that their lack of major-party vote could tip the election one way or another. If that conjecture is true, Hillary Clinton widening her lead could in theory restore Johnson's numbers to summertime levels. Though the ad spend against him is theoretically a lot higher than the Libertarian ticket's own budget, and this remains a weird election year, etc.

NEXT: The perils of voting for "change"

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. it is buried deep in the ocean

      1. My best friend’s sister makes $97 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $14750 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go this website and Go to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/zp242lj

      2. My best friend’s sister makes $97 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $14750 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go this website and Go to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/zp242lj

    2. decline?

      If what’s his name were the only candidate, he’d be winning!

    3. What were Paddypower bookie odds on Gary 4 years ago?

    4. I try to hide my Johnson’s decline too

  1. The statue of liberty ist kaput!

    1. That’s disconcerting.

    2. “The statue of liberty ist kaput!”

      Hey, four years of Hillary Clinton and one to two HRC picks for SCOTUS will be outstanding for Progressive Democrats! Oh wait, you said Liberty. Hmmm, well you can’t have everything you know. /stalks off

  2. basket of five polls

    *Dr Evil voice* Are they deplorable polls?

  3. Saw some article last week that post-debate, the members of one of those voters “focus groups” turned more toward Johnson. Clinton was seen as the same-o, same-o while Trump was just viewed as unready.

    1. I think that’s a good assessment

    2. And in other news some other guys also said they might think of voting for what’s his name if they could remember it. Up another 0.008% this week, so it’s almost in the bag.

  4. The libertarian wing of the Libertarian party will come around any day now.

    1. He is still looking for someone to be the second wing.

      1. Weld makes a great wing man. “Oh Yeah, Honey. You’re the most qualified.”

        1. I’m pretty sure this is the first time in the history of American presidential campaigns that a guy’s own running mate has essentially endorsed one of his opponents. That’s not too embarrassing or anything (eyeballs rolling up to the ceiling).

          1. I’m pretty sure this is the first time in the history of American presidential campaigns that a guy’s own running mate has essentially endorsed one of his opponents

            Didn’t the first few elections, and a couple of “compromise” elections in the 19th century, feature candidates from opposing parties on the same ticket?

  5. Tied Up Johnson Slightly Up, Not Receding
    Bondage Kink Inconclusive

  6. The Chicago Tribune .
    endorses Johnson No kidding.

    1. They’re right wing newspaper.

      It’s crazy ’cause you think every major city has a left wing newspaper, but Chicago’s isn’t.

      Here’s a chunk of their editorial philosophy:

      The Chicago Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression. These principles, while traditionally conservative, are guidelines and not reflexive dogmas.

      http://tinyurl.com/j4aevxd

      Almost sounds like “Free minds and free markets”, doesn’t it?

      1. And yet not only did they endorse Barack Obama in 2008, they endorsed him AGAIN in 2012, even after his obvious hostility to limited government; maximum individual responsibility; minimum restriction of personal liberty; opportunity and enterprise; free markets; free will; and freedom of expression should have been obvious even to the dumbest person in the world.

        Kind of makes me question their sincerity just a little.

          1. Sorry, but since he’s half black, you are supposed to say he’s so articulate.

      2. Yeah, that’s not conservative. That’s libertarian.

        1. Which is NOT “right wing “.

          1. There are only two voices in media: Socialist progressives and right wing nutjobs.

            I thought everybody knew that.

            Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the Trib isn’t like the LA Times, the New York Times, etc.

            Most major cities newspapers are the propaganda organ of the Democratic Party.

            The Chicago Tribune isn’t.

            That was the point.

            1. I know Ken. It was mine as well.

              Right and left is all there is…never up. Rs accuse us of being radical Ds and the Ds accuse us of being radical Rs.

      3. Sorry, but as a former Chicagoan, if the Tribune is spouting such nonsense, you’re browsing through the Satire section.

    2. “The Chicago Tribune endorses Johnson No kidding.”

      That’s a position I can respect. The various Republican’s endorsing Hillary Clinton’s are the worst of the neo-cons and/or statists. That may well be the best silver lining to Trump’s nomination.

      I don’t see the logic in a conservative endorsing Clinton over Johnson, but it makes perfect sense from the neo-con or statist POV. Oh to be charitable, I’m sure that some of them are like me and believe that a Trump presidency will be bad for Republicans whereas a Clinton presidency will be bad for Democrats.

      If Clinton wins and Obamacare collapses, it’s all on the Democrats. If Trump were to win, the Democrats will ignore the obvious oncoming collapse and claim that it was working fine until Trump repealed it.

      If we have a recession (historically likely), the same logic applies.

      So, it’s safer for Republican’s if Clinton wins. But there’s no excuse for not swinging your endorsement to Johnson or just refusing to endorse anyone.

      1. This would be true if not for the ongoing ability of Democrats and mainstream media to dig up Republican blame, even if none are anywhere in the vicinity and haven’t been for 50 years. Come watch a complete collapse of both Obamacare and the economy midstream of a Hillary presidency, and 11 years into an Obama/Clinton reign, it would still be Bush’s fault. Nothing is ever all the the Democrats.

    3. The Chicago Tribune did more to repeal prohibition than all other US papers combined in the 1930s.

  7. Tied? With whom?

    1. Himself!

  8. I think it’s interesting how Johnson scores two to three times as much of the vote as Stein.

    It’s almost as if libertarianism is scoring higher than the Greens.

    Unless someone thinks the difference is Johnson’s personal charisma?

    1. Stein was Sanders’ heir apparent, but the left still feels burned by the Ralph Nader debacle in 2000.

    2. It’s almost as if progtards have a candidate that’s favored to win, and the only folks supporting Stein are doing so out of disdain for her integrity or are true believers.

      1. That theory would be more impressive if Johnson weren’t drawing as much or more support from Clinton as he is from Trump.

        The fact is that when a lot of Democratic party supporters decide they can’t pinch their noses tight enough to vote for Hillary, they choose Johnson instead of Stein.

    3. I think it’s interesting how Johnson scores two to three times as much of the vote as Stein.
      It’s almost as if libertarianism is scoring higher than the Greens.

      I think the reality is that the “hardest-core progressives” have a wildly inflated sense of their own numbers due to their influence in media.

      in actual population, i’d guess they’re half/ 1/3 the size in number to people who identify as libertarian ; and they’re a tiny fraction of people who “lean” libertarian.

      they just have outsized impressions of themselves because every single one of them work for some internet publication.

      1. Yeah, they think they’re normal.

        And progressives think the everyday average Americans they trash for being racist, homophobic, stupid, Christian, and selfish are all behind them–every step of the way.

        But they’re actually like the Red Guard, and everyone else hates them.

        They got away with a lot more support than they would have because of Barack Obama’s race. They won’t have that crutch anymore. Hillary certainly won’t provide it. Everybody already knows she’s a woman, and she has a 57% unfavorable rating anyway.

        It’s hard to keep up the delusion of your own popularity when everyone hates your leader.

    4. The left in general gravitates more towards groupthink. Hillary is their candidate.

  9. Weld sure doesn’t seem to have delivered what he supposedly was put on the ticket to deliver. Where are the big seed money donors who can leverage the small donations that in combo can actually build a election-oriented (v ideological church) libertarian organization?

    1. It doesn’t help when Weld keeps speaking in glowing terms of Hillary Clinton and makes every effort to alienate conservatives and libertarians. He basically endorsed Clinton in an interview on Fox the other day.

      1. He sucks at pretending to be a libertarian even more than he sucks at pretending to be a republican!

        1. I don’t understand why Weld didn’t become a Democrat. The entire field of “Democrat who is not horribly corrupt and or completely batshit crazy” is largely empty and there for the taking. Weld could likely do pretty well for himself as a moderate Democrat.

          1. Weld could likely do pretty well for himself as a moderate Democrat.

            Yeah, about as well as current Democrat presidential nominee, Jim Webb… Oh wait…

          2. John Kerry represented that field and never got anything other than crap for it.

            1. “John Kerry represented that field and never got anything other than crap for it.”

              No, I retract that statement. Clearly, Obama rewarded him with the State Department. And we would all be better off, if Obama had kept Hillary Clinton out of that position.

          3. Weld could likely do pretty well for himself as a moderate Democrat.

            Not anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line, nor in MD/NoVA. The pool of (semi-)sane Democrats outside of the South is sparse and actively being culled.

            1. That is true and raises an interesting possibility. Everyone is so convinced it is the GOP that is doomed but what if it is the DNC that is doomed? The Democrats seem to be in a death spiral as the crazies kick more and more people out. Meanwhile, the working class populists seem to have taken over the GOP. The GOP has gotten so big thanks to the influx of refugees from the Democratic Party, that it is getting impossible to hold together.

              Maybe the Liberaltarian moment really is going to arrive. The GOP becomes the nationalist and populist party while the LP becomes the globalist socially liberal party and the Democratic Party becomes like the Greens.

              It sounds crazy, but if Hillary loses and the Dems end up totally shut out of power, something may give.

              1. I don’t think that outcome is stable in the 2-party system we have today.

                1. Calidissident,

                  It wouldn’t be if the LP maintained anything close to ideological purity. It might be if the LP really did become the party of open borders, pot and social liberalism.

                  The reason why the current structure can’t last is that ethnic and cultural divides and loyalty have caused people to be in parties that really don’t represent their interests. The GOP by becoming the party of international business, has totally screwed the white working class. But the white working class couldn’t leave the party and instead had to revolt by backing Trump because the Democrats have made them their cultural Goldstein. A lot of blacks are getting equally screwed by the Democrats and are socially conservative such that they should be Republicans but are not because they are convinced the Republicans hate them.

                  Both parties are holding together their coalition largely with class and ethnic resentment of the other party and not by actually representing their supporters’ interests. I don’t think that can last. Eventually people grow tired of that kind of thing and wise up and expect their politicians to represent them. They system is built on there being two parties. So I don’t think we will see a three party system. But I don’t think the current parties as we now know them are going to exist much longer. They might keep the same names but they won’t be the same parties.

                  Given that, why not the LP?

                  1. The LP can stably upset the ‘two-party system’ by focusing local – not by agreeing on national/global ideas. The two-party system does not actually exist in many locations. We have a one-party system with entrenched incumbency and gerrymandered districts in most parts of the country. It only looks like a two-party system because only two parties bother to exist at the local level everywhere.

                    Republicans here in Denver don’t actually run for any office. They fund Republicans in other places where Republicans can win. And keep quiet locally so they can benefit from local cronyist dealing. The LP could become the main opposition party here – and over time win some elections. And I suspect the same is true elsewhere.

                    But that means a big-tent LP and that doesn’t seem to be acceptable to many.

                    1. Jfree,

                      I have always thought that there is an opening for the LP in places like Denver that have become one party Democrat.

                    2. I have always thought that there is an opening for the LP in places like Denver that have become one party Democrat.

                      Yeah there really is. And the county=city=House rep too so organizationally its a great opportunity. But a successful LP in Denver would look very different and advocate different things than even a successful LP in the suburbs or in Colorado Springs. So the big-tent challenge has to happen at the state level and that’s easier said than done.

              2. My standing theory is we’re going to see a reshape of parties in the coming decades. We might end up with 2 with the same names but there’s going to be chaos. We’re seeing the Republican chaos currently, we’re one failed presidential bid from seeing the Democratic chaos in my opinion. Success tends to cause a party to hold together, where as failure causes dangerous introspection.

                1. I agree Mike T. I basically said the same thing you did right after you posted this.

                  1. What makes the US interesting from a party system/electoral law point of view is that though we’re a SMD country, the separation of the legislature from the executive means we might see regionalization of the legislative parties causing schisms and new parties. You would still have your awkward left right tent candidates for president however, but you might be able to support more than just 2 parties from it.

                    We’ve seen versions of this where New England Republican meant something different than just Republican; ditto with Southern Democrat.

                    1. the separation of the legislature from the executive means we might see regionalization of the legislative parties causing schisms and new parties.

                      I think a factor that undermines this propensity is that the House has had a fixed number of representatives for over 100 years even though the population has increased over threefold since then.

                      As each representative speaks for a greater and greater number of people, the power of gerrymandering increases. We are in a position where the representatives get to select the voters, and not the other way around. This allows them to reinforce the existing party structure against factional trends.

                    2. Increasing the size of Congress would be an IDEAL issue for the LP to advocate at the national level. And it is timely too since reapportionment is 2020. LP could drive an issue that would get support from every third party, most independent voters, people who want to reduce the influence of big money in elections, and even the gerrymandered minority/out party of the duopoly.

                      It can actually be a game-changing issue – and can’t be coopted/distorted by the duopoly like other issues (eg drugs, gay marriage, taxes/spending, foreign policy).

                    3. can’t be coopted/distorted by the duopoly like other issues (eg drugs, gay marriage, taxes/spending, foreign policy).

                      Have you no imagination, sir?

                    4. WE don’t get new parties because we have a winner take all system. Getting 10 or even 40 percent just makes you the first loser. In proportional representation system, small parties like the LPs or the Greens have an oversized influence on things. In our system they have no influence.

                    5. WE don’t get new parties because we have a winner take all system.

                      That explains* why the President is always selected from the top 2 parties, it doesn’t quite explain why the top 2 parties have a complete lock on Congress (Bernie Sanders’s “pretend not to be a Democrat” schtick notwithstanding).

                      * = If you consider first-past-the-post part of winner-take-all

                    6. It explains it perfectly well. Since the parties reward their own and mostly vote as a block, a third party congressman is powerless. So the voters rationally refuse to send a third party candidate to Congress. Doing that is just ensuring your district or state won’t get any or much representation in Congress.

                    7. Doing that is just ensuring your district or state won’t get any or much representation in Congress.

                      My “district”, as in the people who live near me and might have common political interests with me, isn’t represented in Congress at all. Some other district 20 miles away, connected to mine by a ridiculously thin and snaky strip of land, gets represented in Congress.

                      The paucity of representatives, relative to the number of people, absolutely reinforces the power of the two parties.

                    8. Just to be clear here, this doesn’t mean the parties don’t represent the majority of the voters, or that there’s some kind of conspiracy to suppress dissent.

                      What you say is correct, but it is beside the point. I don’t ever expect the Libertarians to get a legislative majority or even 10% of the representatives. But with more representatives, the “negative consequences” of electing one who isn’t part of the two major parties are diminished.

                      Right now, one representative speaks for 700,000 people. That means 349,999 people can be told to go fuck themselves with no consequences. The end result is still “representative” of the majority will but hides the views of thousands of people.

                    9. WE don’t get new parties because we have a winner take all system.

                      Lots of countries have first-past-post. NO other long-lived democracy has the two-party lock. The reason we have it is because we have the 2nd least representative legislature in the world (600,000 people per rep). India is the least representative (1 million per rep) but they do have PR. After us there’s a bunch of third-world goombah countries until you get to Japan (176,000 per rep). They have a mix of first-post and PR – but first-post elected 8 parties and PR doesn’t introduce any ‘new’ parties. The next ‘least representative but not goombah’ is Germany (116,000 per rep). Again a mix of first-post and PR – but all five parties that get in through PR also won a first-post seat. Once you go smaller than a 100,000 person district, first-post and PR really doesn’t matter much. If you can’t win a 100,000 person district, you can’t be expected to appeal broadly either.

                      Our two-party system is a function of our unrepresentative legislature with massive districts.

                    10. If that were true JFree, we would have had more than two parties back in the day when districts were small. Yet, we didn’t. We have always had two parties. The reason for that is winner take all combined with true district and local elections. In other countries they have a single election and then dole out the representation based on the proportion of votes. That is how a parliamentary system works. Other countries don’t have giant legislatures. Their systems don’t require legislatures to represent that many fewer people than ours. What those systems do have however is a system whereby you can get people into parliament without getting the most votes in any one place. That is what produces third parties.

                      Notice, England doesn’t really have third parties either. They have labor and Tories just like we have. That is because they have districts where only the winner gets to go to Parliament.

                    11. Most countries have one or two dominant parties at any given time. That’s not the same thing as saying that the same two parties have a complete lock on representation forever.

                      The party system in the U.S. was much more dynamic before the Civil War, and there were meaningful third parties at the state level well into the 20th century.

                    12. If that were true JFree, we would have had more than two parties back in the day when districts were small. Yet, we didn’t. We have always had two parties.

                      Actually we did have third parties back in the day – represented in Congress. They didn’t persist for a long time – or compete for the Presidency.

                      England doesn’t really have third parties either. They have labor and Tories just like we have.

                      No they have the LibDems, UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Ulster Unionists, SDLP, Sinn Fein, Greens, and independents. And as recently as 2015, the UK government was a coalition government between the Conservatives and LibDems.

                    13. They have those parties JFree, but they hold few if any seats in Parliament. They are no different than the Greens or the LP is here. To the extent they are not , it is because they are threatening to overtake Labor and become the new second party not because third parties matter.

                    14. To the extent they are not , it is because they are threatening to overtake Labor and become the new second party not because third parties matter.

                      That kind of undermines the point you’re making, doesn’t it? Countries with smaller districts have more dynamic political systems.

                    15. they hold few if any seats in Parliament. They are no different than the Greens or the LP is here. To the extent they are not, it is because they are threatening to overtake Labor and become the new second party not because third parties matter

                      The UK had a coalition government from 2010-2015. There are other times when they have had to invite a couple of non-party people into their cabinet to get the majority. And the reality is that the third parties matter there precisely because they CAN potentially threaten the position of the main opposition. That forces both the government and the main opposition party into triangulating.

                    16. On edit – India does have first-past-post not PR. They also have 36 political ‘parties’ in their legislature. Most of which consist of the legislator themselves. So either they are a seriously diverse country that can’t be gerrymandered as well as we can – or there is also something in our committee/internal system that eliminates diversity of thought.

              3. “It sounds crazy, but if Hillary loses and the Dems end up totally shut out of power, something may give.”

                If that happens, look for a lot more Bernie/Warren types in the dem party. They will claim that they lost because they were not far left enough.

      2. Absolutely. It doesn’t help when he says things like “Trump is a Nazi” but that “Hillary is a wonderful person”. Third party candidates are supposed to denounce both sides of the duopoly, no?

        1. Third party candidates are supposed to denounce both sides of the duopoly, no?

          Depends on whose voters you’re trying to poach..

    2. Maybe it’s all going to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favors TBD at a later date?

      1. I mean, there are only so many donor dollars to go around!

        Johnson isn’t willing to sell the White House out from under himself for political favors, and let’s face it–Hillary is.

        You can’t really expect Weld to compete with a pitch like that, can you?

        Hillary is selling get out of jail free cards, and that’s just the beginning.

        1. Maybe it says something about the wealthy in the US too. The actual wealthy rather than the ‘conceptions’ of them propounded by the boodle boy wing of libertarians.

          Maybe there’s a whole bunch more cronyism there than there is heroic achievement by liberty-loving individuals.

          1. Maybe there’s a whole bunch more cronyism there than there is heroic achievement by liberty-loving individuals.

            So what? The answer is to remove the opportunities for cronyism, not go after every rich person until none are left.

            1. I agree. But getting a platform to actually discover and then speak out against and then organize for and remove those opportunities for cronyism requires MONEY. Purity of thought is not going to lead there. There is no aha come to Jayzeus moment. And if purity of thought ends up ignoring the actual obstacles here; then it is actually part of the problem not part of the solution.

              1. But getting a platform to actually discover and then speak out against and then organize for and remove those opportunities for cronyism requires MONEY.

                Why? Besides the paltry cost of Internet access, what are these ‘obstacles’ that require money to overcome?

                Moreover, Johnson has gotten quite a lot of money from various fundraising efforts. He’s not hurting for money.

                The election doesn’t require money to win. It requires votes. The libertarians (whether LP or otherwise) don’t have those votes and aren’t getting them any time soon. It’s a shame but they aren’t promising what they voters want to hear.

                1. Besides the paltry cost of Internet access, what are these ‘obstacles’ that require money to overcome?

                  The same obstacles created by 700,000 person districts and the same obstacles that Citizens United was about. Internet access is global. It is mass. It is wholesale. It is pointless for local stuff and for anything that is truly decentralized/grassroots or retail politics. For that stuff you need places to meet, phones, supplies, snacks for people who knock on doors, people to train others who might be a bit unnerved about face-to-face, databases to crunch things and produce walk lists, etc.

                  Anything at the wholesale level is going to have to, in reality, outspend the mass wholesale spending of both the Dems and Reps. A $50 website doesn’t do shit. Mass marketing is about mass marketing. That is why Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders chose to work within and compromise with the duopoly rather than compete with it.

                  Retail bottom-up politics is the only way you can actually undermine the wholesale top-down emotional-manipulation approach. But it still requires some money to seed it.

                  1. But it still requires some money to seed it.

                    There’s a difference, though, between “seed money” and “outspending the two major parties”. I’m not sure which you’re saying is necessary.

                    1. The seed money is what is necessary.

                2. The libertarians (whether LP or otherwise) don’t have those votes and aren’t getting them any time soon. It’s a shame but they aren’t promising what they voters want to hear.

                  Its not the voters fault. Dems are spending ungodly amounts of wholesale attention making sure that libertarians are seen as the Koch’s butt-buddies who want to make sure grandma is fed to rabid dogs roaming the privatized streets. Reps are spending ungodly amounts of attention making sure that libertarians are seen as reefer-crazed Mexicans who want to ensnare 6-year olds into gay porn for terrorists.

                  Libertarians cannot possible ‘compete’ with that messaging on the same wholesale level. What they can do is knock on a neighbor’s door and create cognitive dissonance. Are libertarians the eccentric stereotype/threat or are they the reasonably normal neighbor? THAT is what will get votes for libertarians.

                  1. Its not the voters fault.

                    I’m not sure what you’re saying exactly here. Yes, it is absolutely the voter’s “fault” for how they vote. Regardless of what gets aired in the media, people are independent moral agents and are both capable of, and responsible for, making their decisions.

                    And the LP has both crazies and non-crazies in its ranks. It’s not exactly unfair to point this out. The flip side is that the Republicans and Democrats also have crazies in their ranks, but the media will shove them under the rug when convenient. There are crazy people everywhere.

                    1. Regardless of what gets aired in the media, people are independent moral agents and are both capable of, and responsible for, making their decisions.

                      Well that’s not what Freud discovered about us or what biology/psychology/cognitive science have expanded on. Hyperbolically, we are overgrown lizards. Whether it is the id/ego/superego that drive us – or an amygdala/limbic system that puts instinctual fears/motivations into action – or whatever – we are mostly animal. And animals can be domesticated/controlled without their independent will having much to do with anything. Its just a matter of techniques/implementation/knowledge.

                      It is not a coincidence that the field called ‘public relations’ was created by the guy (Edward Bernays) who translated Freud (his uncle) into English. That Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has been turned into psychographics which is the basis of almost all mass advertising now. Or that libertarians of the right (Hayek) and left (Chomsky) have found themselves drawn into cognitive and neuro science.

                      It’s the biggest challenge for the libertarian thought paradigm IMO. The assumption both you and I want to make about our independence, humanity, self-control, etc vs the reality of where science and its applications are leading.

    3. Weld is an accepted part of the establishment.

      His job was to add establishment credibility to the ticket–and the strategy has worked marvelously.

      Let’s not argue with success.

      If you told me during the convention that the LP ticket would have 7% of the vote come October, I’d have thought you were high on bath salts.

      Johnson/Weld’s campaign is a wild success. Its sets us up beautifully for 2020. If Rand Paul had run for Governor of Kentucky instead of President, I might even favor him to win come 2020–no matter whether he’s running against Hillary or Trump. . . . and that’s in no small part due to Johnson/Weld making libertarianism seem respectable to average people.

      1. We’ll see.

        My guess is that the LP will get less than 1% on all the races it has a candidate running in with the exception of the presidential one.

        And next election cycle there will be a regression to the mean.

        Gary Johnson is a curiosity, nothing more.

        1. He’s pulling more than the margin of victory, and if that isn’t because of the power of magnetic personality, then it must be because of his ideas.

          Meanwhile, the Republicans are still trying to find a new direction. Why not look to libertarians for answers?

          I’ve always insisted that the libertarian politicians we need are already in office. Once it becomes clear to the Republicans we already have in office that their constituencies have embraced libertarian ideas, they will become libertarian to that extent. The way to make that clear to them is to be the difference between winning and losing an election.

          That’s what Johnson’s doing. That’s who Rand Paul is. He’s the difference between winning and losing. If Johnson had done this four years ago, we might have Rand Paul as the nominee today–and he’d be wiping the floor with Hillary Clinton.

          1. Ken,

            I agree with a lot of what you’re saying in this thread. But I’m not sure about this. Rand just went nowhere this year. He couldn’t even come close to matching his dad’s performance, even after he set him up. And Ron had a lot of baggage. I’m not sure how many Johnson voters are Republican primary voters, and to get a major party nomination you need support from people who will vote in primaries.

            1. Rand was in a three or four way split for Republican primary voters between anti-establishment candidates.

              There was Trump, Rubio, Cruz, and Rand all gunning for the same voters, with Rubio, Cruz, and Rand all gunning for the same Tea Party types.

              Part of the reason Rand Paul lost was because of his libertarian stance on issues that won’t matter as much next time–like his association with being anti-Iraq occupation, his objections to NSA surveillance, etc. Trump himself is running on having opposed the Iraq War. I’m not sure that will be as big of an issue next time.

              The other reason I think Rand lost was because he kept getting smeared with the libertarian label. A lot of people think libertarian means a kook and a crank. Because of Johnson and Weld, I don’t think that will be as big of a problem as it was before. Johnson and Weld have made voting Libertarian socially acceptable in polite society. How are they going to smear Rand as a libertarian kook if that doesn’t have the same sting come 2020?

      2. The current polling doesn’t set the LP up for anything in the future. The current polling is entirely about dissatisfaction with Clinton/Trump. The ‘future’ would require something organizational that can transcend a single election.

        1. The polling just measures the market acceptance of “libertarian” as a marketing label and the marketability of libertarian ideas.

          It’s the market penetration of those ideas that really matters.

          It’s the market acceptance of the label that really matters.

          If people are too embarrassed to admit to their friends and family that they’re voting libertarian because every time a Libertarian candidate gets in the spotlight, it’s an embarrassment? Then you can only go so far.

          Johnson has done a lot to help with the topside of our market penetration in terms of the acceptability of our brand. A lot of people still think “libertarian” is some kind of militia movement.

          Johnson/Weld pull the rug out from under that narrative.

          1. A lot of people still think “libertarian” is some kind of militia movement.

            Yes. And the only thing that can change that is a cognitive disconnect between that mass wholesale message (of both D’s and R’s looking to undermine L’s) and reality. But the reality has to be ‘Hmm. There are actually libertarians in my neighborhood? I’m not the only one? Maybe I don’t need to be so ashamed of what I think that I small-l it’. When you see yard signs for Johnson/Weld in your neighborhood; then I will believe the narrative has actually changed. But who the hell knows what J/W are actually spending their contribs on.

            Johnson/Weld pull the rug out from under that narrative.

            In 2016 sure. But even though Johnson is EASILY more supportive of building the LP than Barr or Paul (who both just pissed off to fulfill their personal ambitions and obviously only gave a crap about the already achieved ballot access); I can’t really see what he’s accomplished for it.

        2. Good points. Plus the new argument against Team L next time will be that they didn’t get more than x% in 2016 when the other 2 choices were epically horrible, so no need to pay any attention to them in 2020.
          Not having to squander time/money on ballot access next time would be a small win, but only in a participation trophy sort of way.

  10. my Aunty Maya recently got a stunning yellow Nissan Murano SUV just by working online with a cheap laptop
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  11. as Marilyn answered I am alarmed that a student can get paid $4384 in 4 weeks on the computer
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

    1. But enough about your webcam operation.

  12. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/245469/

    Meanwhile the full nature of the sham investigation the FBI ran is now coming to light. Reason has after initially covering the FBI decision pretty well given this story the back of its hand. You would think the rule of law and the corruption of federal law enforcement would be a big fucking deal from the Libertarian perspective.

    I think part of the reason is the wages of hiring 20 something liberal arts majors for a staff. None of them have any legal or criminal law background and thus don’t fully understand just how appalling the FBI’s behavior was.

    1. Reason‘s investigative side also seems to have atrophied. They follow the mainstream media’s lead more often than not in choosing what to report on, even if they usually take a different perspective on the topics.

      Clinton’s crimes are a non-story in the mainstream media, and so they’re a non-story in Reason.

      1. THIS!!!!!!!

        HOW MANY CORY MAYES ARE LANGUISHING IN JAIL WHILE REASON WASTES HALF ITS MANPOWER COVERING THE FARCE OF AN ELECTION?!?!?!?

        1. AND WHY NO RYDER CUP COVERAGE!?!?

      2. It doesn’t really require much investigation. It just requires paying attention and having some knowledge of how investigations and the FBI actually works. Does reason accept outside submissions? I could write them a nice story explaining how badly this stinks and the striking contrast between how Hillary was treated and everyone else unlucky enough to be investigated by the FBI is treated. It wouldn’t be very hard.

        1. It doesn’t really require much investigation

          Any time a journalist opens his mouth, puts pen to paper, or starts typing, there should be some amount of investigation behind what he does, if for no other reason than credibility’s sake.

          It doesn’t necessarily mean staking out the FBI offices, or trying to get “inside sources”. It can just mean researching different sources to get a sense of the larger picture.

          1. This is true. And that goes back to my point about reason really suffering for only having 20 something liberal arts majors for a staff. To do the investigation requires some knowledge and understanding of the issues involved that the reason staff seems not to have. Their coverage of legal issues is appalling. Even when they are on the right side it is usually for the wrong reasons or poorly explained reasons.

            1. That’s one of my gripes about Reason too. It’s a great magazine and love Hit and Run but I wish they had someone on staff who was more familiar with economic/financial and legal issues.

              Unfortunately since their area of expertise in these areas are limited, they have to follow the MSM’s lead in order to adequately report on these stories.

              1. I understand that they really can’t afford to hire someone with those expertise as full time staff. You get what you pay for. What I don’t understand is why they are not open to letting people with those expertise work for them on a free lance basis. I am sure there are plenty of knowledgeable criminal defense lawyers who would do the occasional piece for Reason on criminal justice issues or finance guys who would do the same on financial issues. You just have to be open minded and look for them.

                Reason doesn’t seem to do that. I am not sure why. My guess is that they really don’t want much diversity of thought and are not interested in letting people they don’t have complete control over contribute.

      3. Subscribers already KNOW the DemoGOP kleptocracy is a pack of lying looters. That much was obvious in 1982!

    2. Who wants to point out that Law, Economics, Political Science etc are all liberal arts?

      1. True, but you really can’t get much legal training as an undergrad. You should but really can’t. You have to have a law degree. So, when I say “liberal arts majors” I mean undergrad degrees but no specialty or professional advanced degrees. I know law is a liberal art. Sorry I wasn’t clear about that.

      2. I think the jury’s out on whether Law is considered a ‘liberal art’. I was, however, surprised to learn that these were:

        Major 75th percentile starting salary 75th percentile salary 7-10 years later
        Economics $56,100 100K
        Physics $59,800 100K
        Applied Math $64,700 100K

        So that’s my liberal arts education for 2016.

        1. A lot of schools call their business programs “economics”. So that explains why economics is up there. Applied math is a pretty in demand field. Insurance companies are always going to need actuaries if nothing else.

          I have no clue what the hell physics majors are doing to make that much money. Do you?

          1. I have to imagine that $60k a year for a physics professor is probably fairly standard, no?

    3. I’m surprised that Reason hasn’t covered the ‘decision’ of the FBI to allow the destruction of the laptops. That would be the equivalent of the FBI destroying Nixon’s tapes after reviewing them and determining that there wasn’t any ‘indictable’ information on them regarding the Watergate break in.

      1. That is the most amazingly corrupt thing I have ever seen. That is something right out of the KGB.

    4. Yeah, Reason is missing its own historic opportunity here. You don’t break out of a niche by following the herd, which is all they’ve done this election.

      You break out of a niche by doing something different than the herd. They could have become “Rule of Law Central”, going after truly epic and unprecedented corruption, maybe even getting into Trump’s business history, rather than passing on reTweets from Dem operatives with bylines.

      Hugely disappointing. Once in a lifetime opportunity missed.

      1. Look at the splash publications like the Daily Caller and the Observer have made with this stuff. Reason could have published every one of those stories and gotten all of that attention if it had wanted to do so. All of those stories have a real Libertarian angle and interest. And reason won’t do it, primarily I think because they are lazy and also I think because they are afraid of being seen as too right wing and thus don’t want to be that hard on Hillary.

      2. God I love the sound of God’s Own Prohibitionists sobbing and whining! Three to one odds against you girl-bullying looters over at Paddypower. Schadenfreude is good.

  13. As it was eight days ago, the FiveThirtyEight projection for Gary Johnson’s finish is at 6.5 percent of the popular vote.

    GJ was polling @ 6% in Sept 2012, and he finished w/ 0.9%

    I get that the low favorability ratings of the current batch of GOP/DNC slimeballs changes things…. but i’m skeptical it changes the conversion ratio from “a fraction”, to “95% of those polled”.

    provided polling stays much the same (the 7% range), i’d wild-guess he ends up w/ 3-4%,; or whatever half of what polling at the time shows.

    1. Unless downticket LP candidates also surge above the 1% mark, then the GJ vote totals are meaningless.

      1. Well there is that Joe Miller guy running on the LP ticket in Alaska who is polling 30% so far. Of course he’s really more of a right winger raging against Murkowksi than anything. Paul Stanton is polling 10% in Florida.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if GJ ends up under 5% despite his polls though. Depends how close the election really is.

        1. There’s the Designated Survivor effect. As Clarence Darrow was fined for saying: “One can always hope, yeronner.”

    2. Me too. The problem for a third party candidate is that everyone knows they are not going to win and thus voting for them is a protest vote. People are very good at saying they will support a protest candidate but not very good at showing up to actually vote for one. The thought that “I must vote for this candidate so they can win” motivates people a lot more than “I must show up to vote for this candidate so I can tell the others to fuck off”. Staying home and not voting tells the major candidates to fuck off as well. And it doesn’t require bothering to vote.

      My guess Is most of that 6% will just fade away. Some will have second thoughts and go back to their major party candidate but most just won’t show up.

      1. The thought that “I must vote for this candidate so they can win”

        I think its more “if I don’t vote for the winner, my vote means nothing”. Its profoundly stupid and irrational, but I think that’s how a lot of people think – their vote is more their prediction of who will win, rather than the preference for who should win.

      2. I live in Illinois where my vote hasn’t mattered in over a decade, but yet when I say that I am either going to write in my candidate or leave my choice for President blank, people get angry at me. Like, Illinois is going to Hillary, so why are you even worried?

        This election has shown me how incredibly stupid a lot my acquaintances are.

        1. *”…a lot of my acquaintances are.”

        2. When I pointed out that I wanted to vote for Michael Badnarik in 2004, I remember a lot of people telling me “you’re just throwing your vote away”. Yet there was no doubt John Kerry would win my state. A vote for Bush was as much “thrown away” as a vote for Badnarik was.

          I just stopped telling people who I was planning to vote for, after that.

          1. That’s the best and most diplomatic thing to do. This year, I’ve been telling people to fuck, I can vote for whomever I want. That usually shut them the fuck up.

            1. I have a Johnson yard sign…it is like Raid for door knockers.

              1. A swinging, burning, body would be less of a deterrent.

                1. Just don’t take it down after Halloween.

      3. Staying home and not voting tells the major candidates to fuck off as well.

        This is not only inaccurate but the exact reason we have the two douchenozzles we have. By NOT voting, when one wins they ASSUME you love them. To the politician, a non opposition vote is a vote of confidence. I understand and sympathize with the don’t vote crowd. But by voting third party or non-retention whenever you can you are sending an actual message. But by voting R in California or D in Utah or not voting at all, then you are sending an explicit “I APPROVE OF YOU” message to the winners. No thanks.

        1. But by voting R in California or D in Utah or not voting at all, then you are sending an explicit “I APPROVE OF YOU” message to the winners.

          I’m pretty sure, based purely on the dictionary definition of the word, that not voting is not an explicit message of approval. It is rather implicit, insofar as it can be taken to mean what you say.

        2. That is the nature of elections. The guy who wins gets the same power whether he won with a million votes or with the votes of his family alone. You are right, voting for them causes them to assume the voters approve of them. The flip side of that is that not voting for them has no effect whatsoever. All they care about is that they won. A win looks the same to them regardless of how many votes they got. So voting for a losing third party or not voting doesn’t change anything. To give an example, Bill DiBlasio won the election for mayor New York with the smallest turnout I think in history or close to that. That didn’t stop him from proclaiming his election as the dawn of a new Progressive age and the start of a national Progressive revival. The fact that most of the public didn’t like him or want to vote for him didn’t bother or restrain him one bit. All that mattered was that he won.

        3. No. Staying home only means you do not understand the huge extra law-changing clout spoiler votes carry. Brazil just forced every voter in the country to participate in elections at gunpoint. The Libertarian Party is illegal, so blank and null votes can safely be counted as libertarian. By that count, Libertarian candidates would have won by a landslide in the three most important cities. Several local races were decided by a single vote.

      4. Some of it also naturally gets wiped away by the big (and growing) fraudulent vote.

      5. What we’re seeing is the total, absolute REJECTION of YOUR anti-gummit libertarian cult. Slogans but NO policies.

        It was first predicted in a Cato survey which found 59% hold libertarian ideas ?. BUT 91% of those “Nolan libertarians” REJECT the libertarian label, i.e. reject YOUR libertarian ideology.

        On the averages, 40,000-50,000 of THOSE libertarians are in elected local office. Do the math. Is that growing acceptance of supposedly “libertarian idea” caused by that 53% of Americans , active in their communities ?. or by YOUR 5.3% ? By lovers of liberty, or by haters of gummint?

        In 1957, Orval Faubus activated the Arkansas militia, using armed force to keep 9 black kids from enrolling in Little Rock’s Central High School. President Eisenhower sent in federal troops, ordered to use force if necessary, to defend the rights of nine kids. It was a major milestone in the battle for equal rights.

        Faubus later justified his action as defending the voters of Arkansas against an intrusive federal government.. More recently, Ron Paul whined that “rogue judges” had stuck down part of DOMA .. after his failure to pass a bill forbidding the Supreme Court from even CONSIDERING a challenge to DOMA.

        Note that Paul was defending federal power to overrule state laws recognizing marriage equality …., while he ALSO claims to be a “constitutional conservative” and defender of federalism!!!!
        But it’s NOT a cult of bigots. Sucker.

          1. Challenge a single fact so I can crush your ass.
            Again. *(snicker)

            1. Ok, you got me good.
              Well played, whoever you really are.

              1. I bow to your graciousness, which is so rare around here,

                You can confirm who I am at the web archive of my published political writing. This is the index page.

                Check healthcare, taxes and federalism, where you’ll see better policies than the entire libertarian establishment (Cato/Reason/Mercatus) … over 20 years ago. I’ve earned the right to question the TOTAL lack of ANY policies from Johnson/Weld, and blame our establishment for it.

                Check the one on middle-class loopholes, which blows the Buffet Rule out of the water, with data yet to be discovered by that same establishment. (The rich NOW subsidize 40% of the entire income tax burden of the core middle class and the lib establishment NEVER challenged Obama’s bullshit that a $50,000 school teacher pays a higher income tax rate — averaging 8.3% — than millionaires and billionaires at 28.1%) THAT is what we get from the anti-gummint mentality.) Call; me biased, but 8.3% vs 28.1% is SHAMEFUL to ignore.

                1. Ooops. Bad link typo. Go here for the proof: http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

  14. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  15. The LP got 3% of the vote in Texas last mid-terms. Gary’s fixing to about double that, so no wonder the GO-Pee infiltrators are all saying Gary is the “wrong” candidate!

  16. Thanks Nick and Matt. “Libertarian ideas” are now PROVEN useless — anti-gubmint slogans with NO credible policies. Successful BIPARTISAN governors have zero traction against two candidates BOTH feared by over half the voters. Why not?

    NOTHING to boom the economy. NOTHING to reform government. NOTHING on healthcare.
    Medicare vouchers are the wrong market ? insurers ? and NO CLUE HOW MARKETS WORK! Seniors need “skin in the game” shopping for PROVIDERS!!! We can’t affect the auto market with more competition between Allstate and GEICO!

    Gary “wants to” cut spending, with a balanced budget. It has ZERO chance of passing. Doesn’t matter. Like the Paulista cult, he WANTS TO cut gubmint. The cult demands buzzwords over liberty.

    This inevitable dead end of anti-gummint libs (vs pro-liberty) was proven by a Cato survey. 59% of voters support “libertarian ideas”, but 91% of THEM reject the libertarian label. Libertarians HATE the ideology.

    Anti-gubmint libs DON’T WANT to a free society ? only a safe haven for their cult. First it was a man-made island. Now, move to a single state … EXACTLY like Moonies to Oregon, Branch Davidians to Waco and Peoples Temple to Jonestown!

    Don’t blame Johnson/Weld. The libertarian establishment (Reason/Cato/Mercatus) has NOTHING but anti-gummint slogans, not one viable policy between them (which would be “statist” to the cult).

    I’ve been Politically Incorrect. Let the hatred begin ?

  17. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ===> http://www.NetNote70.com

  18. 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.4cyberworks.com

  19. You are among the stupidest, most dogmatic people in the political universe. You’re helping to elect Hillary Rodham Clinton, and everything that represents. Libertarians my ass.

  20. I just want to see a headline that says, “Clump can’t win.” Then all bets on who will win are off.

  21. The ad spending and spin against him is helping. The best thing to happen is that — in tiny escalating increments — both the press and the statist candidates have stopped ignoring him. I give myself (and the LP) and Johnson/Weld credit for being harder to ignore than the other alternative candidates, and Clump credit for voter desperation.

    1. What if Gary had a policy platform. Or just ONE policy solution?

  22. I just want peace every where. Everyone leave live calmly and peacefully. No War no anything

    http://www.lovesamrat.com/mohi…..antra.html

  23. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  24. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  25. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  26. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  27. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.