Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson Poll Collapse: Just 3% of Likely Voters in CNN/ORC Survey

Libertarian nominee hurtling southward toward the 5% threshold nationwide

|

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld with a supporter on the night of the first presidential debate. ||| Matt Welch
Matt Welch

CNN/ORC, one of the five gold-star polls selected by the Commission on Presidential Debates to determine eligibility for the now-finished debate season, came out with a new survey this afternoon, and it's the worst single poll this season for Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson: just 3 percent among 779 likely voters canvassed from Oct. 20-23 (Hillary Clinton pulled 49 percent, Donald Trump 44, and Jill Stein 2). The result marks a collapse even from less than a month ago, when Johnson pulled 7 percent of likely voters. (Among registered voters, the Libertarian received 5 percent support down from the previous 9 percent, which had been his level since July 22-24. Pollsters generally shift from registered voters to likely voters in the fall of election years.)

This is the grisliest national poll result for Gary Johnson since he won the Libertarian Party nomination in May. Only a handful of times—most recently in a Gravis/Breitbart survey two months ago—has he finished under the key threshold of 5 percent, the level at which Libertarians would be classified by the Federal Elections Commission as an official "minor" party, thereby clearing some ballot-access hurdles and qualifying for controversial-within-the-L.P. government matching funds.

Johnson told Brian Doherty last week that party activists "would be crazy not to" accept any available federal monies triggered by a 5 percent finish. "Now, if Libertarians, if they want to disregard that, well, then the Libertarian Party is not ever going to be able to compete," he said. "This is what I think I'm going to be able to deliver to the Libertarian Party."

But is even that 5 percent finish—which is far below many Libertarians' hopes of getting to 15 percent before the debates—in jeopardy now? Over at FiveThirtyEight this morning, Harry Enten traced Johnson's precipitous recent decline:

His numbers are dropping — from about 9 percent in national polls in August to 6 percent now — and he's been overshadowed by another (and previously even more obscure) third-party candidate.

Johnson's decline isn't shocking. Third-party candidates usually lose steam the closer we get to the election. But Johnson is faltering even against that standard. Based on his polling in late August, FiveThirtyEight's polls-plus model, which accounts for the drop-off third-party candidates usually experience, projected Johnson to get around 7 percent of the vote. The same model has him down to just 5.6 percent now.

Enten's prediction? Five percent "still looks like it's probably going to happen. And while that might not be the most glorious ending, it's still a better ending nationally than any other third-party candidate for president since 1996."

So what's gone wrong? Besides the aforementioned rise of Evan McMullin in Utah (and potentially in some of the other 10 states he's competing in, though we can't know because he isn't being polled in any of those except Virginia), Johnson has seen an exodus of Democrats from his support base. The CNN/ORC poll has Johnson pulling 8 percent of independents, 2 percent of Republicans, and a big ol' asterisk among Democrats. This is a recent trend, and in sharp contrast to his taking about equally from indies, Republicans, and Dems. (Deeper dives had previously concluded that Johnson on balance was hurting Trump more; now that result seems all but guaranteed.)

In an Oct. 20-22 ABC News Tracking poll (which produced an overall number of 5 percent support), Johnson's I/R/D splits were 8%-6%-2%. In an Oct. 17-18 Quinnipiac survey (overall support 7 percent), his splits ran 11-6-3. Whether it was environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer's expensive campaign to scare Millennials away from Libertarians, or a temporary panic back when the race was still close, or simply the natural order of third-party campaigns, the Democratic and liberal component of the Johnson coalition have been fleeing to safety.

Making today's results even more bitter? CNN/ORC is the same outfit that gave Johnson his all-time high national-poll showing of 13 percent (among likely voters) back in July.

I watched Johnson being interviewed this morning at the Washington Post in front of a couple hundred enthusiastic supporters, in advance of a busy media day in the nation's capital, and he was in uncommonly good spirits even while injecting some fatalism in the discussion about his prospects of winning it all this point. (He did mumble, when asked which state he might win, about how, well, if he wins one it would be a cascade thing and maybe he'd win eight!) Certainly, with 15 days left in the campaign, the race to clear 5 percent is going to be the central drama of the Libertarian Party's remaining campaign.

NEXT: It's Not Just About Marijuana: Other Initiatives on the Ballot This November

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. ..Johnson has seen an exodus of Democrats from his support base.

    Ka-boom. I told you fuckers. I told you that when it came down to the wire no otherwise Democrat voter was going to pull the trigger for a libertarian anything. You all laughed at me but who’s laughing now?

    Now, you all know that I’m not one to gloat, but I totally called it.

    1. So what you are saying is that the rise of Johnson predicated by Democrats is temporary, and the inevitable deflation had to happen once they were done?

      1. Don’t tell the Welsh that I found this funny.

        1. A certain Welsh Someone might be offended.

          1. I wouldn’t be too terribly surprised if super furry animals were more libertarian than your average bear.

        2. I don’t have a goat you rat fucking meanie! *runs sobbing from room*.

          1. Now see what you’ve done! I hope you are all proud of yourselves…

    2. A toe to sow. A fucking a tow to sow.

      1. Ah, shit. Somebody already posted this below. My bad.

    3. Bull. This poll once again ignores the demographic 18-34 (listed as N/A on page 29) and only asks about Johnson in Question 1. So, once again, this poll is biased. Johnson supporters, when polled, are forced to respond about only Trump or Clinton for the remaining 19 questions. Most get disgusted with the poll before all questions are answered and just quit, thereby not getting counted.

      So, once again, the mainstream media polls are biased.

  2. I’ve been telling you cosmos for months now. Your establishment-planted spoiler Republican ex-governor is going to struggle to break his 0.99% from 2012

    1. Funny how a series of anemic interviews where the candidate screws up basic foreign policy questions undermines that candidate’s credibility.

      Fuck you, Gary Johnson…The Onion sums you up perfectly.

      http://www.theonion.com/blogpo…..also-54498

      1. It doesn’t help that our corrupt media decided to destroy Johnson with their bullshit gotcha questions the moment he started pulling support away from her majesty Hillary Clinton.

        Seriously why aren’t all of you voting Trump this November? Fuck the media, make them pay for their corruption. Voting Trump is the best “fuck you” we could ever give the media right now.

        1. I’ve been back on the Trump bandwagon since I realized that Gloria Allred was responsible for most of those accusations against Trump in the last couple of weeks. I’m in full “fuck you” mode.

        2. Because Trump would make an awful president? Because he would be the civil service’s bitch? Because his ideas about economics are almost as backward as those of Bernie Sanders and he will fuck things up?

          If you panic and give Trump power because you fear Hillary, it’s like welcoming Hitler because you hate Stalin.

          Don’t play their game.

          1. And not play does what exactly? Send a message? If less then 1% of voters come in November, then winner will still declare that he has a mandate of the people.

            Besides theres bigger issues then which on these two will fuck up more.

            What happens to “nation of laws” when a woman who openly violates the law, and isn’t punished solely because who she is gets elected president?

            What happens to a Republic when Hillary is allowed to collaborate with the DNC and the news media, to basically rig the election, and destroy her opponents political chances, and she goes completely unpunished?

            We are setting a very dangerous precedent if Hillary is elected president. We will be a Republic in name only if this sort of open corruption and lawlessness is not only allowed, but rewarded by the people.

            1. We are setting a very dangerous precedent if Hillary is elected president. We will be a Republic in name only if this sort of open corruption and lawlessness is not only allowed, but rewarded by the people.

              At this point, if that’s going to happen, it’s going to happen. We’re already too far down that path.

              And we aren’t doing shit. The people voting for Hillary are. If it makes you feel any better, a vote for Johnson (or no one) is still half a vote for Trump if you think of voting as a binary choice.

            2. And not play does what exactly? Send a message?

              Th… that’s what you just exhorted us to do…

          2. I’m under no illusions that Trump will be great or even good. But Clinton committed crimes which border on treason, she rigged elections, and Trump didn’t. He’s merely awful while she should be in prison.

            1. That’s genius. I’ve never heard anything like it, and there has never been an election wherein a majority of voters thought along those lines. Such an innovative approach to voting will surely change our system for the better.

          3. Trump is unsuited to be president. Clinton should be in jail awaiting trial.
            Johnson is a two-term governor who takes government spending seriously and wants to cut it by 20 percent. It’s an easy call to make.

        3. Because of some of us are still Quixotically hoping that the LP will reach the 5% mark?

          Also because Trump is authoritarian piece of shit.

          1. 5% this time = $10 million next time … which is about what Gary will raise this time.
            A $10 million honey pot will attract more (viable?) candidates next time.

            1. Don’t count on it. Perot’s 8% qualified the Reform Party and they attracted such heavyweights as Jesse Ventura and Pat Buchanan to chase that easy money.

        4. Because that’s close to the worst possible reason to vote for someone, that’s why. Voting out of spite is what progressives do. Voting Trump won’t make them pay for shit. Especially since he looks unlikely to win, so the media will feel vindicated in their idiocy.

          If I vote, I’ll vote for someone who I think would be a reasonably tolerable president, and that’s Johnson.

          1. Here! Here!

        5. Seriously why aren’t all of you voting Trump this November? Fuck the media, make them pay for their corruption. Voting Trump is the best “fuck you” we could ever give the media right now.

          Voting TRUMP is a “fuck you” to a lot more assholes than just the media

        6. Said the frog about the scorpion.

      2. As if Johnson’s lack of foreign policy expertise has anything at all to do with his poll numbers. A lot of people didn’t even hear of him till he whiffed on Aleppo. Johnson is falling because the media is scaring everyone about how bad Trump could be, and because the Democrats enacted a concerted effort to smear Johnson in the media.

        When every channel on TV tells people for a year that it’s a 2-person race, people start to believe them.

        Johnson will still get more votes than any LP candidate ever. I’m hoping for 6 percent still.

    2. So basically we voted for a guy who ran as a liberal and walked away from libertarian positions to attempt to win liberal voters over (while he clearly cared nothing for attracting libertarian and conservative votes), and we ended up not making a damn bit of difference in this election except to deprive ourselves of a principled protest vote.

      If there’s one thing this election has taught me, it’s that they should disband the Libertarian Party and quit pretending it’s anything other than a refuge for inept politicians who couldn’t hack it with the Democrats or Republicans.

      1. On the upside, at least this election season smug progging about failures of libertarianism was centered on Johnson, not poorly understood policy!

        1. Considering that Rand Paul usually got booed whenever he brought up libertarian positions on policy, I think it’s safe to say that poorly understood policy was rife in this election too. And it’s not like Gary Johnson actually demonstrated a good grasp of policy when he talked. If anything, he painted libertarians as clueless idealists incapable of holding their own in a serious discussion.

          1. Rand Paul is an encyclopedia of policy. Trump crushed him in the primaries because primary voters are idiots.

      2. Somebody tell us again how John McAfee would have been worse.

        1. Well, there’s a good argument to be made that he is literally insane.

          1. He is one of the few candidates who seems more insane than the major-party candidates. Sad.

        2. By looking completely insane and perpetually pushing people away from even the future potential of thinking about voting Libertarian?

        3. You mean “suspected murderer John McAfee”? /MSM

          1. He would have been more entertaining but definitely treated more like yet another kooky fringe candidate.

      3. If there’s one thing this election has taught me, it’s that they should disband the Libertarian Party and quit pretending it’s anything other than a refuge for inept politicians who couldn’t hack it with the Democrats or Republicans.

        I think you need to stop getting hung up on the word Libertarian in the name.

        It’s a political party. Like the Republican and Democratic party, its name has little to do with its actions. Like those other parties, its founders had an ideal in mind while considering what to name their new political party. Like those other parties, as soon as it started pursuing actual power, the founding principles were bit by bit discarded as inconvenient.

        It’s just another political party. The title should inspire no loyalty. It’s merely a word intended to inspire but only tenuously connected to the party’s actions.

        1. I think you need to stop getting hung up on the word Libertarian in the name.

          I get what you’re saying, tarran, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that by hanging out in the LP (which, I agree, isn’t really about libertarian ideology) we’re just minimizing our own presence in the Republican or Democrat parties and taking our voice out of the discussion. We can rail about the corruptness of the two party system, but the reality is that we’re unlikely to change that any time soon. So by not engaging with the two party system, we’re just increasing the odds that it never changes…and that we continue to be a 1% curiousity.

          1. How does reifying the two-party system by voting for one of the two parties make it less likely to remain a two-party system in the future?

            I’ll stop voting for the LP if you can demonstrate to me in clear terms how endorsing Republicans or Democrats will somehow open up a way for a third party to enter national politics in a meaningful way.

            1. The LP does not stand a chance of winning national elections. The only viable plan is to infiltrate the GOP with libertarian candidates, like Paul, Massie, and Amash. The left successfully took over the democratic party like this. Old Ron is right about this and that should be the plan. When I vote, I first look for a good libertarian leaning Republican. If that is not a choice, I look at the LP candidate if there is one. Besides that, I don’t vote. I will NEVER vote for a Democrat again, ever.

              1. No, you have to stand on your principles and never compromise them, which is why it’s OK that Johnson is being pragmatic about wedding cakes and licensing and… er, I’ll get my coat.

              2. ^^^What Hyperion said.

              3. @Hyperion:

                The goal isn’t to go for a moon shot. The goal is to get Libertarians (and Greens, and Constitution(s?)) in at the local level. The national campaign at this point is for media exposure, which, admittedly, Gary has sucked at. But we live in a system of parties, like it or not. To make that more conducive to liberty, you’ve got to add more choices. When people see that there are other parties with other perspectives and ideas at the national level, they remember that when they’re voting at the local level. You get a Libertarian House Rep, and now you’re starting to break down the two-party system. From there, you work towards having a president who presents an alternative to what we’re seeing now.

            2. I’ll stop voting for the LP if you can demonstrate to me in clear terms how endorsing Republicans or Democrats will somehow open up a way for a third party to enter national politics in a meaningful way.

              [sputter, choke, gasp] Why does it have to open up a way for a 3rd party??! Why can’t it be about getting more liberty into the world by conventional means?

              http://users.bestweb.net/~robg…..t-you.html

              You have the most influence in a body that’s at equipoise, where you can be the deciding weight. It makes no sense to join those who already agree with you, and it’s futile to join those who completely disagree with you. Shoot for questions where they’re about 50-50.

              1. So, for instance, the CCP existing as functionally the only political party in China will result in greater liberty for the Chinese because it will be infiltrated by people open to greater freedom by gradually driving out all the party members who aren’t, so that eventually you’ll have a dictatorship of liberty? I’m not seeing that.

                In this country, we’ve had two parties dominating politics for as long as anyone posting to these forums can remember. Politics has become first a contest between two competing teams and only a distant second about ideologies, the interests of constituents, and principles. Adding an additional party (or two, or three) to the mix adds different perspectives with actual political power.

        2. They’re the anti-team team which is totally not a team so it’s OK to be on the team.

        3. Johnson’s attempt to split the Dem-Rep duopoly with a smaller government centrist approach is probably the best we can do. Start with a better candidate and raise enough cash early on for national TV ads, get in the debates and make a race of it.

          I was sort of hoping for Mark Cuban next time, until he endorsed the crook.

      4. ” So basically we voted for a guy who ran as a liberal and walked away from libertarian positions to attempt to win liberal voters over (while he clearly cared nothing for attracting libertarian and conservative votes), and we ended up not making a damn bit of difference in this election except to deprive ourselves of a principled protest vote.”

        Yes. Exactly.

        ” If there’s one thing this election has taught me, it’s that they should disband the Libertarian Party”

        Well, at least they have a chance to pick some one better next time. One of my worst fears of this election( other than Hillary finding a Chinese girl with green eyes) was that Johnson really would have a great turnout. Because then the LP would nominate nothing but milquetoast moderates for the next two decades.

        1. My guess is that the United States will collapse in financial insolvency long before the LP becomes a significant force in American politics.

          1. This. But on the bright side, we’ll get to smugly tell everyone “I told you so” while fighting off the Humongous over the last few gallons of gasoline…

          2. I think you’re right about that.

        2. One of my worst fears of this election( other than Hillary finding a Chinese girl with green eyes) was that Johnson really would have a great turnout.

          So, to cover our bases, Kurt Russel for Libertarians in 2020?

          1. That’s… actually not a bad suggestion.

          2. Oh please let it be so.

  3. Same thing hit Henry Wallace in 1948. He looked pretty good right up to the election, when he disappeared.

  4. Just as I had predicted in these very comments.

    1. I also predicted this, so no need to look at my past posts.

  5. Look like a chorus of WE TOLD YOU DOPE SMOKING LOSER MORONS YOUR DOPE SMOKING LOSER CANDIDATE WAS A TOTAL FUCKING LOSER WHO SMOKES DOPE

    1. DOPE SMOKING AIN’T THE FUCKING PROBLEM!

      LINOS LIKE GARY JOHSON ARE THE FUCKING PROBLEM!

      1. LINOS LIKE GARY JOHSON ARE THE FUCKING PROBLEM!

        Agreed

    2. Why exactly do you hang out in the comment section of a libertarian magazine? Is your life that lacking in joy?

      1. I assume that was sarcasm. I mean by SIV.

  6. He did mumble, when asked which state he might win, about how, well, if he wins one it would be a cascade thing and maybe he’d win eight!

    He’ll be lucky to place third in Utah.

    1. 4th…at best. Unless there is a total McMuffin collapse

  7. Which is why the idea that Trump is gonna lose Utah because of McMullin is moronic.

    This always happens. People don’t like the two choices, so they say they’re gonna vote differently. But when it comes down to it, they vote for one of the two or not at all.

  8. I honestly thought people, when presented with a two terrible choices, would come around this year and break the tribalistic mold. We are doomed, people nominated two of the worst candidates in my lifetime and they still can’t help but vote for a shit sandwich. Fuck it it’s over.

    1. Fuck it it’s over.

      My sentiments exactly. I’m never going to even bother voting ever again. Time to just start hording firearms, ammunition, gasoline, non-perishable food, and water and wait for the inevitable collapse.

      If people are really this hopelessly inured to the 2 party system that they can’t break free even when confronted with a choice between the douchiest of douches and the shittiest of shit sandwiches, then they are all a lost cause.

      1. If Gary only gets 3% my takeaway from this election will be that it really has become totally impossible for a 3rd party to make any waves. But the mainstream parties can hold their glee. It only makes me dislike them more and makes me less likely to be politically active in any form.
        Two 2-term Governor’s in a contest with the 1st and 2nd most hated nominees in the history of favourability ratings should get 5% at least. That much should happen even if they didn’t know what Paris was or couldn’t name a foreign country they would like to vacation in.

    2. More evidence that the quality of life we enjoy is just a fluke in a vast expanse of suffering.

      1. A rarely-seen harmony between handle and post. I salute you, sir!

  9. So he is the real Clinton plant. But they would never stoop so low. Or maybe the Republican plant, wait they aren’t that smart.

    So Garry decided by himself to destroy the Libertarian Party? There has to be a better explanation.

    1. If Gary is a Clinton plant they sure screwed the pooch on that one. If Gary could get to 12%, that would ensure a Trump win.

    2. Christ. Literacy, how does that work?

      1. Dude, speaking English well is a micro-aggression. Get with the program, brah. You enabler of the patriarchy.

  10. My absentee ballot was mailed last week, but I’ve never been polled, nor will I since I haven’t had a landline in years.

    In any case, our best hope now is some kind of October surprise discreding the main clowns. You know, like pussy-grabbing or major corruption in office.

    1. In any case, our best hope now is some kind of October surprise discreding the main clowns. You know, like pussy-grabbing or major corruption in office.

      Good one.

    2. The “ABC” poll which had Clinton up by 12 points conducts 65% of their polling through cellphones.

      1. And polls 85% democrats I would assume. According to every other poll, Clinton isn’t even up half that much. One poll has Trump ahead now and another a tie. Clinton is on a downhill slide again.

  11. Before anyone starts shitting their pants, it is unclear what the partisan breakdown of this poll was. I looked through the entire link and I can’t find a single place where they say what percentage of the sample is Republican, Democrat or independent. Maybe it is there and I can’t find it. Until someone finds it, the poll is of uncertain value. Many of these polls are way oversampling Democrats and minority voters in comparison to any realistic projection about what the actual electorate will look like.

    Yes, Johnson has been pulling more Democrats than Republicans, but he has not been pulling hardly any minority support. So if this poll over sampled minority Democrats, it doesn’t reflect reality. I am not saying it did. But from the data given, you can’t tell.

    If reason is going to write an article about a poll, it might want to consider the validity of the sample of that poll instead of appealing to the authority of “it is a gold star poll”, like that means anything without hard data.

    1. Clinton News Network oversampling their viewers.

      1. They might be. Without seeing the partisan and ethnic breakdown of the sample, this poll is worthless. The fact that they don’t include those things makes me very suspicious that it way over sampled minorities and Democrats.

        1. Some of the pollsters are oversampling Democrats, that word is already out. What they think that is going to accomplish, I have no idea. Trump’s voters are far more motivated than Clinton’s, that’s a well known fact. And I just do not see the enthusiasm from minorities and young voters that Obama had. Let’s put is this way, some people, a lot of people actually see Obama as a likable person. No one sees Hillary in that light, she is generally despised or just not trusted. After the last debate there was a very large amount of comments on Twitter and social media calling her creepy. That doesn’t really equate in my opinion, with this landslide some people are talking about. Nothing has really changed. I see this election as being very close. Clinton will probably still win, but it’s going to be close. And then the media will declare it a mandate for every loon policy the left has ever dreamed up.

          1. Of course, Hillary is one of the most unlikeable public figures in my lifetime; nevertheless, how can you think that a lot of people actually regard Obama as likeable?

            1. “nevertheless, how can you think that a lot of people actually regard Obama as likeable?”

              Public opinion polls? The last two elections? I don’t like Obama, but just because you or me don’t like him doesn’t mean we have to be blind to the fact that a lot of people do. He (and Bill Clinton too for that matter) is definitely a more likeable person than Hillary is.

          2. As old uncle Joe is purported to have said, “The people who cast the votes don’t make the decisions. The people who count the votes make the decisions”.

      2. Or they’re already accounting for ballot stuffing etc.

    2. Holy shit, Reason, when John is more level-headed than your writers…

      (I kid, because I love)

      1. Suddenly the evil partisan who has been questioning the validity of many of these polls for months makes sense.

        1. Evil Partisan is one of my favorite death metal bands. Although their second album, Divided Govt., was a disappointment.

          1. That is a lame name for a metal band.

          2. Seriously, it sounds more like a character in a WW2 war drama set somewhere in East Europe.

    3. Scroll down to page 28. The entire sample was 31 D, 26R and among likely voters it was 37D 30R.

      http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2…..n.poll.pdf

    4. Too late. The pants shitting has commenced. Sitting on about 1/2 a bag of groceries.

  12. Johnson has seen an exodus of Democrats from his support base.

    Going forward, I think it would be a good idea for Libertarians to give on trying to pull voters away from the Democraps. They’re a lost cause.

    1. In my experience, Libertarians have historically primarily, if not exclusively, targeted Republicans, not Democrats, so I’d be hesitant to completely write off the strategy based on one electoral cycle.

      1. Maybe, but common sense says if the strategy were ever going to work, this would be the perfect electoral cycle for it to do so.

        You have the Sanders insurgency, and a breathtakingly corrupt Dem nominee who is hated (rightly) by the Sanders crowd.

        Johnson’s strategy of trying to pick off Dem voters is logically extremely sound. The fact that it’s not working tells me that it’s unlikely to ever work.

        Dems are likely too addicted to government to ever break free as long as the spigot keeps running (either through free shit, or extremely overpaid government employment, or cronyism, or beltway lobbying)

        1. Johnson’s strategy of trying to pick off Dem voters is logically extremely sound.

          It’s funny, Johnson relied on angst against the (Dem) system to override ideology. On the other hand, Trump was nominated because angst against the (GOP) system overrode ideology.

          It was fairly clear going into this election cycle that the GOP had a massive schism between an infuriated base and a tone-deaf establishment, whereas the Democrats had the traditional dichotomy of a center-left cronyist (Clinton) v. the authoritarian-left purist (Sanders). It was quite predictable that the disaffected Dems would eventually get back on the plantation.

        2. “Johnson’s strategy of trying to pick off Dem voters is logically extremely sound. The fact that it’s not working tells me that it’s unlikely to ever work.”

          Except you needed a competent candidate who could pull it off. Johnson is not a competent candidate. Whether he ran as a “liberaltarian”, conservatarian, etc. it wouldn’t have mattered. He’s a bad candidate who looks good on paper until he needs to do an interview, in which he needs to present a commanding media presence, he falls apart. Johnson isn’t losing because he ran under the wrong ideological banner, he’s losing because he’s a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign. Which is a terrible thing to do as a third party candidate with the media against you.

      2. Exactly. If we get one percent targeting conservatives and four percent targeting liberals, what is the lesson? Go back to targeting conservatives?

  13. Would it be overdoing it if I took all the talk about “pragmatism” and the mockery of “purity tests” and taunted you all with it for the next four years?

      1. Don’t ruin it for me, SIV.

        1. You see, I’m open to persuasion – if I see Johnson pick up lefty (which he had been showing signs of doing), then I’ll concede that his strategy had something to it, from the purely pragmatic perspective.

          But if it turns out that he’s “given up his soul for Wales” (see above), I’ll laugh and laugh.

          1. pick up lefty *votes* – in case you were wondering where I was going with that.

          2. I think it would have been a decent idea if somebody like Sanders had won the nomination. There would have been a bunch of moderate Dems out there that wouldn’t want to go full socialist, but still wouldn’t want to vote for a Teathuglican.

            As it is, most of what the Bernie bros want is completely antithetical to libertarian philosophy.

          3. I think Johnson’s sin in this run was his failure to really nail the media. And yes, I’m talking about the Aleppos and the other gaffes. Most people who vote know what they know about the candidates based on what they heard on Morning Joe, or what they saw on ABC World News Tonight, or what their friends on Facebook posted most recently. I said this several times before and caught some heat for it, but Johnson didn’t have the media shilling for him; he couldn’t afford to make the gaffes Hillary has and expect to get away with it. He had to play a perfect game, and he played a C+ game. Granted, maybe Johnson with a sterling public reputation gets 20% of the popular max, but still.

  14. If this poll is true, and as I say above I have my doubts about it, it means that the Libertarian Party managed to sell out and get nothing in return. That is embarrassing.

    1. I don’t know if the poll is true(I expected total collapse to occur the week before the election with GayJay then significantly underperforming his final result)

      It’s been obvious since their convention that the Libertarian Party sold out for nothing. I hope they’re happy.

      1. ^This. I had hopes for Johnson until he decided to sell out any libertarian beliefs in order to pander to Sanders socialists. We elected the “experienced” candidate only to find that didn’t actually make him a good candidate and that he didn’t really represent our views…so, as you said, for nothing.

    2. Because it is neither hot nor cold but lukewarm, they have spewed this Johnson out of their mouths.

  15. I blame the loss of our FU vote on the rise of that other third-party candidate, Donald Trump. Say what you will about the tiny-handed troll, he’s had a bigger impact on the GOP than the libertarians ever have.

    1. yep, Donald was smart to run his 3rd-party candidate within the shell of a party that stakes him with a 40% ante just for wearing the jersey. The 250,000 member LP doesn’t move the needle off 0%.

  16. Look, if this was an ordinary election, I could see voting for one of those L-guys. Whatever. But this is THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIMES, so you all have to take this shit seriously for once.

  17. And maybe polls are 83% bullshit.

  18. How is Reason still not covering the wikileaks dumps or the project veritas videos where various Democratic operatives admit to voter fraud and inciting violence at Trump rallies?

    They really want to live up to the Cosmotarian stereotype don’t they?

    1. Yokeltarian! I kid, you are right John. This whole election is making me sick. Past Sugarfree story sick stage at this point.

      1. Notice how they have completely dropped covering the European migrant story now that things have not turned out well. Reason spends months cheer leading the admission of migrants only to suddenly lose interest in the story when the migrants turn out to be every bit as problematic as those objecting to taking them said they would be. Don’t they understand how much they hurt their credibility by doing that? If they want to push for open borders, fine. But they owe it to themselves and their readers to have the integrity to admit there are down sides to open borders. It doesn’t mean they have to change their position, but it does make them look ridiculous for only reporting the positives and calling anyone who points out a negative a racist.

        1. I would say that any credibility they have is already gone.

          I only come here to engage with the commenters and get a good discussion anymore. I just pick a thread based on the subject of the articles, but in a lot of cases I don’t bother with reading or discussing the articles because the quality of analysis is so poor on the part of the Reason writers. Their refusal to cover the PVA videos (although they’ve mentioned them a couple of times now) was the final straw for me…I don’t care what Reason’s staff thinks about any of the issues, they’re acting like Democrat partisan hacks.

          1. I have come here for the comment boards for a long time. The typical Hit and Run commenter is smarter, has more integrity and more interesting things to say than any of the staff.

            1. Agreed. Although to their credit they don’t ban commenters for expressing their opinions and criticisms, unlike almost every other board run by a liberal publication. I do sincerely respect that.

          2. I don’t care what Reason’s staff thinks about any of the issues, they’re acting like Democrat partisan hacks.

            They’re definitely establishmentarianist hacks

          3. I only come here to engage with the commenters and get a good discussion anymore.

            Yup. There are a few writers whose articles I will read because I respect their opinions. There are two or three that I read because I know it’ll be a shit-show. The rest aren’t worth the 2 minutes when I know that the commenters are going to have better analysis.

            I keep thinking that I could probably do a better job writing an article and then posting it in the PM links. However, the 2 or 3 hours I would spend on it are better spent on other things.

    2. Cocktail parties, John, you just don’t understand.

  19. “People too bored/tired/dumb to hang up on them tell pollsters….”

    1. Yesterday my fianc?e got a text from someone with the Democratic Party of Arizona encouraging her to vote. She’s registered independent and has never been a member of any party in this state.

      She text back asking how they got her number and the person responds that they know she’s previously expressed interest in Democratic Party and that she should vote so they can win for Hillary in November.

      She texts back a picture of the Johnson 2016 shirt that she was wearing and demands they never contact her again.

      1. You made the right move.

  20. Sure, 15% and a primetime slot in the debates was probably always a pipe dream but there was a period in the summer where it wasn’t all that crazy .

    In any case, I don’t know why anyone is upset that Johnson is still poised to lead the LP to it’s highest showing ever and giving it a major boost in funding and ballot access.

    You’re absolutely insane to think a smug douche like Peterson or a nut like McAfee would have done so well.

    Johnson has plenty of deficiencies as a candidate and on ideological grounds but that doesn’t change the fact that most Johnson bashing on these boards is just a poor attempt at justifying voting for a national socialist like Trump, a man who is antithetical to liberty in almost every important way.

    1. You are right, none of those guys would have done any better and would have probably done worse. What those other candidates could have done, however, is not sell out their integrity on issues like gay wedding cakes and guns. Johnson and Weld have set the precedent that religious liberty and gun rights really are not that important to Libertarians. Anyone who thinks those issues are important, now know they do not have a home in the LP. And what did the LP get in return for that?

      If you are going to lose anyway, you might as well lose while standing for something.

      1. “And they didn’t even get the votes”

        /Ghost of Murray Rothbard.

      2. I don’t think Johnson’s position on issue X, Y, or Z is really going to have much impact on the LP or libertarianism in general beyond this election. Bob Barr was far a libertarian purist, and who these days gives a shit what he had to say about anything? And on the 2nd amendment, even with the Weld pick Johnson has been easily the best candidate on the issue this election, and better than any recent GOP candidate as wel..

        1. I think Johnson and Weld’s position on religious liberty and gun rights have a lot of impact going forward. Why should people who vote on those issues trust the LP on them? Reason said that they don’t matter when compared to overall size of government, whatever that means. Every Libertarian I know is going to vote for Johnson. How is that anything other than Libertarians showing their revealed preference that religious liberty and gun rights are not very important or worth defending?

          Sorry, when you nominate a guy like Weld for VP, you lose a lot of credibility on gun rights. And when you nominate a guy like Johnson for President, you lose a lot of credibility on religious liberty. Sure, that doesn’t’ bother you, but that is because those issues are not that important to you. Think of it this way, if the LP had nominated someone who was against a really important issue to Libertarians like pot or gay marriage, how many self described Libertarians would have refused to vote for them? A ton and a hell of a lot more than will refuse to vote for Johnson.

          1. “Reason said that they don’t matter when compared to overall size of government, whatever that means”

            What? Source please?

            People are barely aware of the existence of third parties. Future candidates will be judged based on their own positions (and other, probably more important things from an electoral standpoint, like personality, charisma, etc.), not what the nominee or VP 4 or 8 years thought. Again, does anyone care what Bob Barr’s positions were when it comes to evaluating Johnson?

            My point is that the number of people we are talking about is trivially small compared to the electorate as a whole. The GOP has consistently nominated people who compromise on gun rights far more than Johnson does and won the votes of gun owners nonetheless. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Republicans are ok taking away gun rights for “suspected terrorists” without due process. I don’t think the number of “no compromise on gun rights” people is actually as high as you think. And I’m not saying this to suggest that therefore there’s no reason not to compromise on gun rights – I’m just talking about what Johnson’s imperfections on the issue, which are minor compared to any recent major party nominee, means to the electoral chances of him or any future LP candidate.

          2. People can nitpick the positions of Johnson, or the Pauls, etc. and blame their imperfections and areas of disagreement for lack of success, or harming the libertarian movement, etc. but I think it’s confirmation bias all around. At the end of the day, no LP candidate since Ed Clark (and if people think Johnson is too liberal, this is a guy who described libertarianism as “low tax liberalism”) in 1980 had gotten more than 0.5% of the vote until Johnson, and Clark’s 1.06% is still the all-time record for now. Johnson is also the first LP candidate since Ron Paul in 1988 to finish third in an election. And even in GOP primaries, Ron Paul maxed out around 10%, and Rand Paul barely registered at all. Elements of the ideology may have broad appeal, but not very many people will buy the complete package. There’s really no way around that. Some people want to change that by continuing to support libertarianish candidates and hoping that they can achieve more success and “pave the way” while others think educating the populace about libertarian philosophy is the way to go. For the foreseeable future, I don’t think either approach will have much impact.

            1. Careful, mentioning the Paul’s will draw Hihn from his slumbers.

            2. Some people want to change that by continuing to support libertarianish candidates and hoping that they can achieve more success and “pave the way” while others think educating the populace about libertarian philosophy is the way to go. For the foreseeable future, I don’t think either approach will have much impact.

              I agree. However, in choosing the former path of libertarianish (read:liberaltarian) candidates over the latter, it puts the more conservative libertarians in quite a bind. Either they can hold their nose a little bit and cast a protest vote for the LP candidate, or they can hold their nose a bit more and cast a pragmatic vote for the GOP candidate. I think that most conservatarians would probably lean to the pragmatic vote.

              1. I don’t think “libertarianish” = liberaltarian. Rand Paul is an example of a libertarianish candidate IMO. There are several issues where he strays from orthodox libertarian thought (he has never even come out in support of states legalizing marijuana, for example). He’s certainly not quite as openly dogmatic as his father, for example. The LP’s nominee before Johnson, Bob Barr, would be another example, and his congressional record was much less libertarian than Johnson’s term as governor.

              2. I agree. However, in choosing the former path of libertarianish (read:liberaltarian) candidates over the latter, it puts the more conservative libertarians in quite a bind. Either they can hold their nose a little bit and cast a protest vote for the LP candidate, or they can hold their nose a bit more and cast a pragmatic vote for the GOP candidate. I think that most conservatarians would probably lean to the pragmatic vote

                Then they don’t get to complain when libertarianism makes no gains in the Republican party. Rand Paul was as close to a libertarian Republican as I think you’d be able to find running for president, and the party faithful nominated Donald Trump. Presumably they’ve been following a similar tactic in previous elections. How has that turned out?

                The “fifth column” strategy doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked since the 60’s.

          3. I think you can go further and say if the LP candidate was for religious liberty and made an issue of it they would get fewer votes.

    2. I still think GJ was the best possible candidate for the LP from a vote-getting standpoint, and I can’t argue your characterizations of Peterson and McAfee. However, McAfee (at least to me) had a very interesting effect on the room when he was talking. I’m not sure how that would have played out in the end, but I wish I could peek over into the alternate universe where he did get the nomination, because I’m really curious.

      1. None of them were going to win. So the question is who would have created the most momentum going forward. What momentum does Johnson create? That the LP is a place for out of work socially liberal Republicans who think gun rights is not that big of a deal?

        1. Peterson’s almost SoCon roots would have had as many negatives, IMHO, as Johnson’s cake issues. McAfee would’ve been crucified over the Belize stuff, even though his story makes as much sense as the “official” one (or more, if you’re less trusting of gov’t and police). Johnson has gotten a lot more press now than he did 4 years ago, so I’d say he’s creating some momentum. Would McAfee have created more? Maybe – especially with his full-throated, unapologetic live and let live attitude. Would Peterson? I doubt it. Way too much melodramatic theater major for me.

          1. You’re probably right about GJ and for that reason the most germane complaint isn’t that one of the other guys would do better, but that there is sadly no one else around who could do better.

            This election demonstrates that despite libertarians’ belief in their own exceptional nature is ill founded: just like with Dems and Reps, those who go into politics tend to among the densest and most lacking in integrity.

            The smart libertarians are economics professors who have no interest in higher office. Because really what smart conscienscious person does have interest in higher office?

        2. Johnson creates the momentum that a 5 percent showing in multiple states and easier ballot access provides. Petersen or McAfee wouldn’t touch those numbers. Was Johnson a perfect LP candidate? Far from it, but Barr was worse.

  21. Johnson has seen an exodus of Democrats from his support base.

    “Those are Hillary’s votes, you fools!”

  22. STFU and VOTE TRUMP

    STICK IT TO THE MAN !!!

    #BTFSTTG

    1. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think for a second that you’re going to persuade anybody with that line of argument?

      1. I already have, in these heah comments

  23. Would just like to point out at this time that 5%, in the context of the 1% that was the Libertarian Party’s previous all-time high, is considerable progress forward. Since nobody seriously thought he could win outright, progress forward is all that anyone should have been hoping for in the first place.

    1. 5% ? Put down the bong, man. GayJay is at 3% and dropping. History shows the candidate will likely seriously underperform his final poll #s too.

      The Libertarian Party may well get less votes, and a lower percentage of the vote, than they did in 2012.

      They deserve to too

      1. “The Libertarian Party may well get less votes, and a lower percentage of the vote, than they did in 2012.”

        Wanna put some money on this chief?

      2. He’ll top 5 percent in many states. There are 50 ballots to get on, not one.

  24. Relax, the RCP still has Gary at 6%. It’s not a complete collapse. One poll on it’s own is typically not a good indicator. Especially with some of the pollsters admitting to oversampling Democrats. Hillary has lost about 5 points of her lead over Trump in the last couple of weeks. The media don’t seem to be having much effect. At just a 5 point lead if the current trend continues, this thing will be all tied up again by election day. Which probably means that Trump will be up by about 10 points in reality. They’d better bring out the dead soon and in big numbers.

    Are there really all of these undecided people out there? What the fuck is wrong with them? They’ve had a fucking year to do their homework on the candidates. Are they like the people who just sit at a 4 way stop and stare into space?

    1. CNN is the worst too. They weight too heavily toward “likely voters” based on turnout for Romney-Obama. Young people don’t vote. Libertarians don’t vote.

  25. This would have happened too if Johnson had tacked toward pulling conservatives away from Trump.
    One can make the argument that the LP candidate should appeal to those who already agree with libertarian principles. And one can then make the argument that

    1. It’s very obvious if you’ve been watching the polls for the last several months, that the better Gary does, the worse Hillary does and the better for Trump. I wonder if it’s disaffected Berniebots and millennials who can’t make up their frail minds to try and suppress the gag reflex and vote for Hillary or to swallow their pride and vote for an evil libertarian because he’s not as creepy as the old hag?

      1. But Jill Steyn is right over there, chaining herself to the goddamn pipeline!

        That her numbers are lower than Johnson’s baffles me, and almost makes me feel hope.

        1. I think it equates to the fact that here you have a one issue candidate, and polls have been showing that global warming is a bottom of the shit can issue for the vast majority of Americans. Green party is a loser right out of the gate. The libertarian party is still the largest, by far, alternative party, and still the fastest growing. For obvious reasons, most libertarians still vote for Republicans or stay home. It’s rare to get a solid libertarian candidate above dog catcher.

          1. But if you’re Bernie bro, and you look at the Greens, aren’t they a better vehicle to send your protest vote? I mean, what does Johnson really have for them? Pot? Gays? Stein has free university, cancellation of student loan debt, New New Deal, guaranteed housing…

            Fuck it, must be all that Bernie Bro misogyny.

            1. From my brief reads of the Bernie Sanders reddit, most of them flip the hell out over her vaccine stuff. Of course, that’s Reddit.

  26. But… but…. the Libertarian moment!!!

    More seriously, I’m pretty sure this was expected as the race comes to its’ conclusion.

    1. It seems that not many people recall that Gary was actually polling at around 10% right up to election day in 2012. That resulted in 1% of the vote. I expect the same this time around, if even that. The level of fear mongering and pants shitting surrounding this election is unprecedented in my lifetime. Team Purple has the sheeples right where they want them.

  27. Johnson had no money (to fund ground games, ads), no personality, and lacked the cultish following that would give Donald Trump 35-40% of the popular vote. He wasn’t made to last.

    The bubble you hear bursting is this silly notion that there’s some silent “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” majority willing to vote for a third party candidate. The country has been trending libertarian on some issues. But at the of the day, not enough people will cast a vote on a guy who not only can’t win, but has no growth potential.

    America is not a fiscally conservative nation. Social liberals are almost all turn hard left on the economy. The rising demographic belongs solidly to the democrats and will continue to bolster big government.

    Do Reason writers realize that limited government is at peril now more than ever? Even if Trump loses, both parties have to mind the populist rage that gave rise to the two outsiders. Trump says he’ll block the Time Warner merger and half the GOP voters say “yes”. Every effort will be made to stifle trade, corporate inversions, outsourcing, and promote higher min wage and “free” college.

    1. Libertarian Moment, bitchez! You don’t understand, we’re freer than ever. Just look at how many more megawhatzits you can buy today for the same (or lower!) price as as yesterday. That’s the definition of freedom, right?

  28. “Whether it was environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer’s expensive campaign to scare Millennials away from Libertarians…”

    Not expensive! It’s just speech!

    1. I knew you couldn’t understand higher math (multiplication) before, but now you fail even basic logic. The cost of speech is not guaranteed to be zero.

  29. I’m hoping Johnson can at least maintain 5% of the vote, but I’m not sure if he will. While 10 or 15% were nice fantasies, 5% is still about 5x as good as any LP performance ever and the top 3rd party showing since Perot by a good margin. Ross Perot and George Wallace are the only 3rd party candidates to break 10% in the last 90 years. Wallace had race & segregation as an easy single issue to run on and win support of a large chunk of the country. Perot’s billionaire status and non-ideological mix of views helped him get a strong showing. But history has shown that’s a pretty unique exception rather than the rule.

      1. There is no way around the fact that race and segregation was the issue that got Wallace the bulk of his support. Was it a coincidence that the only states he won were in the Deep South? Or that his strongest showings in states he didn’t win were also in the South? And trying to pass of his appeal (which was still much less than it was in the South) to disaffected northern whites has having nothing to do with race is revisionist. He appealed to people who were angry about the Democratic focus in the 60s on the civil rights movement and outreach to black people.

        1. When asked what he considered the “biggest domestic issue for 1968,” Wallace replied:

          It’s people?our fine American people, living their own lives, buying their own homes, educating their children, running their own farms, working the way they like to work, and not having the bureaucrats and intellectual morons trying to manage everything for them. It’s a matter of trusting the people to make their own decisions.

          On the campaign trail, Wallace often repeated this theme, saying:

          What are the Real issues that exist today in these United States? It is the trend of the pseudo-intellectual government, where a select, elite group have written guidelines in bureaus and court decisions, have spoken from some pulpits, some college campuses, some newspaper offices, looking down their noses at the average man on the street.

          Must have some sort of dog whistle soundtrack that only racists like and Calidissident can hear

          1. Lmao yes a couple of Wikipedia blurbs totally refute the fact that Wallace ran as a segregationist and that he just so happened to get his highest levels of support in the states where segregation had just been (legally) ended by the federal government to the dismay of most of their white residents. Are you seriously going to pretend that to Wallace and his ilk, the feds ending Jim Crow laws in the South were an example of them sticking their nose in other people’s business, managing things, etc. (unlike the Jim Crow laws, which of course didn’t attempt to control how people live /s)

            While we are on the subject of Wallace quotes from Wikipedia, how about these ones?

            “Seymore, you know why I lost that governor’s race? … I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I’ll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again.”

            “You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor.”

            1. Those quotes aren’t from Wallace’s ’68 campaign. They’re from 1958, back when most Democrat politicians talked that way.

              1. I don’t think the latter quote is from 58, but regardless, Wallace was still a segregationist in 68, and it was a major reason why he attracted the support he did, especially in the South. Why should those quotes not count if he was still espousing the same views? Again, is it a coincidence that Southern states were the only states he won? Or that he almost all his votes in those states and nationally were from whites? Also, most Democratic politicians outside the South did not talk like that in 58. Ten years earlier, the Southern Democrats revolted under Thurmond because Truman integrated the military. Interestingly, Thurmond won a very similar set of states compared to Wallace. You are seriously far gone if you’re actually attempting to argue that Wallace’s campaign and appeal in 1968 had nothing to do with racism or opposition to civil rights.

                1. There’s no point in arguing with SIV. Next thing you know he is going to tell you Trump never called Mexicans rapist just the ones Mexico is sending. Or Trump loves Mexicans he just wants them in their own country. And those distinctions make all the difference.
                  One is good practical policy. The other is ugly and mean spirited.

  30. I think 3rd parties have a pretty low ceiling in today’s highly polarized environment, even more so than in the past. Even with unpopular candidates like Clinton and Trump, most people (around 75% according to the polls) have a favorable opinion of at least one of them. And so many others will vote against their most hated candidate or simply for their party’s nominee. And if you look at the remaining people, it’s hardly a cohesive bloc that’s easily captured. You have Bernie supporters, disaffected centrists, establishment Republicans, libertarians, and anti-Trump conservatives. Johnson’s tried to appeal to all those groups to some extent, and he certainly could have done a better job in some ways. But I’m not convinced that if only he had focused on (for example, as this seems to be the most commonly desired approach here by Johnson’s harshest critics) libertarians and anti-Trump conservatives that he would be doing better. Most conservatives like Trump, a lot of the ones who don’t are establishment types that Johnson’s been accused of being too friendly towards, many others will vote for him because he isn’t Clinton and he can win, and others still would be dissuaded by some libertarian position at some point (foreign policy, drugs, prostitution, military spending, etc). I don’t think there’s some easy magic bullet, especially for a group as ideological as libertarians, to Perot-esque third party success that no one realizes they should embrace election after election

    1. Interesting that the dissident ^ has it the most right.

  31. Also, the IBD/TIPP poll, which has been the most accurate in the country over the last three Presidential election cycles, has Johnson at 7.7%.

    It also has Trump and Clinton within .1% of each other.

    (Stein at 3.7%.)

    So, there’s that.

    http://www.tipponline.com/news…..-tipp-poll

    1. I think it will be very close. This landslide non-sense both sides are predicting is just that, non-sense.

      1. Just under 2% if the broken glass LINOtarians aren’t too baked to remember they’re supposed to crawl to the polls on election day. I’m sticking with my prediction of GayJay roughly matching his 2012 performance. Ed Clark’s record may fall or it may hold.

  32. RE: Gary Johnson Poll Collapse: Just 3% of Likely Voters in CNN/ORC Survey
    Libertarian nominee hurtling southward toward the 5% threshold nationwide

    Whew!
    That was a close one!
    Some people were actually embracing financial freedom, independence from The State and getting off Uncle Sam’s plantation by voting for the LP-.
    Fortunately, saner minds took over. Now the masses will be able to pick between the fascist Trump the Grump and the socialist slaver Heil Hitlary.
    Back to normalcy at last.

    1. Free at last!

  33. CNN = Clinton News Network ( our mission is for Hillary! )

  34. Checking the crosstabs between the two CNN/OCR polling dates this is an interesting tidbit, wonder if it skews the results at all?

    IE, let’s not include those pesky millennials who might throw off our narrative

    – September 28 to October 2, 2016

    …….. 18- 35- 50- Under 45 and
    Total 34 49 64 65+ 45 Older
    —– —– —– —– —– —– ——
    9% 17% 9% 5% 3% 13% 6% Johnson and Weld, Libertarians
    +/-2.5 +/-7.0 +/-6.0 +/-5.0 +/-4.5 +/-5.5 +/-3.0 Sampling Error

    – October 20 to 23, 2016
    …….. 18- 35- 50- Under 45 and
    Total 34 49 64 65+ 45 Older
    —– —– —– —– —– —– ——
    3% N/A 4% 2% 2% 6% 2% Johnson and Weld, Libertarians
    +/-3.5 +/-8.5 +/-6.0 +/-6.0 +/-7.0 +/-4.0 Sampling Error

    1. Too bad you couldn’t post in a fixed-width font.

  35. The goal of the CPD is to supress any competition from third parties, and they did. So did the media, as they went after two gaffes, while the others get away with lies and deflections.

    If Johnson was in all 3 debates, things could have been very different. Even Johnson said getting into the debates was key. Next election cycle, the Libertarian party should hold their primaries early, and work to, as I’ve said, create a program like Milton Friedman’s Free to choose.

    They also need to openly challenge rep and dem parties to real debates. Also call them out on it when they don’t bother to attend. They need to take out advertisements early, and not sit there calling their opponents “nice kid, great public servant” and so on.

    1. Free to choose was great, and is a reason I’m here now. I

      1. I’m mostly Heinlein’s fault.

      2. Milton Friedman is a great opener to economics. Though the Chicago school’s monetary theory sucks. Friedman became more Libertarian as he got older. But his mistakes indeed need to be learned from.

        From Friedman, I moved onto Bastiat, Bohm-Bowark, Mises, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Murphy, and Gerard Casey, who wrote an excellent book called Libertarian Anarchy.

        Casey would be an exellent addition to a free to choose type show, along with Bob Murphy, salerno, Tom Woods, and so on.

  36. And another thing, a 2.3 MB jpeg? Scaling down doesn’t mean we don’t have to download that whole file. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills right now.

  37. All this because of one poll? (And a CNN one at that!)

  38. Johnson is one of the worst candidates the Libertarian party has had (which is saying a lot) and worse, he’s a terrible messenger for libertarian philosophy.

    1. I doubt if those men are headed for Hillary.

      1. Their wives are dragging them to Hillary, where they will be ritualistically castrated.

          1. Hmm; scratch that; they’re being dragged to ritual castration by the women who friendzoned them and they think they can get out of the friendzone by bending over for Hillary.

  39. Duh, this is what always happens, predictable as the sunset. He might top 2%, though.

    1. And he might not top 1%

    1. Seriously tho this Philip Bump guy is kind of a dick. Not because of this thing so much, but just the coverage i’ve read from him in general. He’s sort of the archetype of the insider-hack. I suppose its no coincidence that his blog is called “The Fix”

      1. lol so i checked his twitter = his “pinned tweet” at the top is this


        Philip Bump ?@pbump Mar 24

        PARTISAN: You are bad/a hack/should die
        ME: literally who cares
        PARTISAN: Wow you’re rude

        I’m pretty sure he worked on that for a week, and debated how to intentionally misuse ‘literally’ for teh yoot twitter-cred… but still, you have to give him credit for knowing how to play the game

        1. Also = he has a picture of himself kissing a dog. Its like the lingua franca of Social-Media. “you can’t hate anyone who loves pets”

      2. Well, I guess it’s time to clear my cache again so I can see another WaPo story. I bet no one else has figured that out yet, genius level stuff there, Bezos.

        1. You do realize that private browsing let’s you get around that X number of stories? Plus you don’t have to be embarrassed about the WaPo showing up in your history.

          1. Meh, I don’t much care about private browsing, the government is seeing what they want to see regardless. I mean it’s not like Google and MS haven’t given them the back door they’ve demanded. Fuck them anyways, I want them to know that I despise them. I’m probably going to the camps anyway. Maybe we’ll be in the same camp so that we can continue this conversation after the internet is killed and dear leader Hillary has suspended the elections.

  40. The IBD poll (apparently one of the more accurate polls) show Johnson winning 8% and Jill Stein at 3%.

    If he wins 5% of the vote, he can really rain on Clinton’s parade. That’s what I’m rooting for at this point.

    1. If Johnson gets 5% of the vote, that is a huge victory for the LP. But honestly, I doubt it. I expect he’ll get less than 1%.

  41. I spend my time trying to influence Republican. Conservatives at that.

    Here is one of my pieces: The Trillion Dollar A Year Scam

  42. Well, color me shocked. A bumbling stoner fuckwit manages to squander the opportunity of a lifetime? That’s impossible!

    In fairness to the Libertarian party there wasn’t exactly a whole lot in the way of quality to choose from in the primary (what a clown show that was), but in fairness to all of the rest of us the Libertarian party sure managed to fuck shit up royally despite ending up with what initially seemed like a fairly competent ticket. Forget Aleppo and forget My Favorite Foreign Dictator. That shit’s meaningless. Let’s focus on why everyone is so outrageously, impossibly animated during an election where revulsion toward both major party candidates is at absolute record highs. People ABSOLUTELY FUCKING HATE Hilary and The Donald. So what does the Johnson campaign give us? They give us a hokey aw-shucks nice guy routine and milquetoast ads that barely inspire one to shop for end tables at Ikea let alone vote in a presidential election. Despite the prattling from idiot wonks about “third parties” and “alternatives” and whatnot, this election gives us nothing more than a binary choice. It’s a choice between the Clinton/Trump ticket and the Sense/Sanity ticket. For fuck’s sake, the campaign slogans practically write themselves. Johnson should be polling at ~20% and climbing nationwide right now. I don’t know who his campaign manager is, but they really need to be taken out back and have the living shit kicked out of them.

    1. Each team’s members hate the other side so much they can’t abandon their shit sandwich because the other shit sandwich probably tastes yuckier. As for Independents, many tend to be wishy washy centrists like Smerconish who might hate both Hilliary and Trump but aren’t going to cast a vote for Libertarians or Greens if their life depends on it.
      Why does it feel like Second Reich Germany where a small classical liberal party just can’t compete against the National Socialists and International Socialists?

  43. Aleppo? Aleppo. A-L-E-P-P-O. Aleppo.

    If only he had one Aleppo moment. He’s had a few. Embarrassing. But funny while he lasted.

    1. Is Aleppo one of the 57 States?

    2. Clinton does not know where Mosul is but wants to bomb it. She also does not know what C stands for on a classified document. Trump wants his supporters to vote on November 28th, does not know how many articles are in the Constitution or what the 13 stripes on the flag signify. They are all human. They will all have their moments. If you take an actual look at the infamous Aleppo interview, you will see that GJ went right on to discuss his intended foreign policy as to Syria.

  44. As Scott Adams says, many people “park” their vote with a third-party candidate before election day.

    He also (in a tweet today): “Remind me how you do a scientific poll when 10% of Trump voters are literally hiding. (Big surprise coming, bullies.)”

    1. Are you still convinced Trump will win? And if so, do you expect it to be a landslide? I’m willing to wager $50 on the outcome straight up if you’re interested (I’ll let you choose whether to go by popular or electoral vote).

  45. Johnson’s slide in the CNN “poll” — and I use that term loosely, considering the structural deficiencies — began when CNN virtually stopped sampling ages 18-34. In the future you might want to…you know…read the methodology of the poll before drawing conclusions from it.

  46. This is one poll, we are still two weeks out, and a lot can still happen in this craziest of campaign seasons. I’ve been voting LP and studying libertarianism since 1980. I have heard all the ultimately unfulfilled promises made by LP POTUS campaigns since then, and have to say that this ticket, warts and all, had the most potential to do good things for the party and the nation, of any I have seen yet; the race is not yet over. Let’s wait to count whichever chickens hatch and assign any blame that anyone feels must be assigned. An implosion of morale and resolve is EXACTLY what the opponents want. Do you really want to go there? Two quick comments (in reply post, below):

    1. (concluded from above)

      1. Working within the two-party scam is the recipe for ultimate neutralization and burnout. Look at where that path led Ron Paul. The GOP’s treatment of him was shameful and his influence on actual policy was tiny in comparison with the time he spent in Congress. The third party strategy may not work (or soon enough to suit is), but it seems to me to be the only thing that ever will.
      2. Johnson is more than libertarian enough to be our standard bearer in a race we are running to win or severely wound the opponents. He is not libertarian enough if we want to run the usual educational campaign. So this crazy year we tried as serious a “run to win” effort as we could mount. Let’s see how far above zero we get and learn the lessons we can to do better next time. It strikes me as mere petulant whining to blame Johnson, who, as a total package of “features,” outshone others vying for the nomination this year, though he, like them, also has serious flaws.

      1. I dunno, in the past few years Rand Paul, Massie, et al., the libertarianish wing of the GOP has made unprecedented accomplishments. If it weren’t for Trump and his cadre of retards upending the primary this election might have produced a better candidate than any in recent memory.

        I think a dual strategy is best. It’s going to have to be from a major party, unfortunately, but a potent libertarian threat is necessary to push the major parties in the right direction.

      2. Ron Paul was on the right track. Trump won the Rep nomination with 10 million votes. Aren’t there 10 million libertarian voters? That’s only 5 percent of the adult population.

  47. I feel so special now. And not short bus special assholes!

  48. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    —————– http://YoutubeJobs.Nypost55.com

  49. The polls have been a propaganda tool all through this election cycle.What makes anyone think they are suddenly accurate? They are attempting to suppress Johnson voters by discouraging us. These liars will be proven wrong when the votes are counted. And when they are please remember next eletion cycle what they have made of themselves.

  50. I am stored of seeing media polls quoted like they have any scientific relevance or actually mean anything. CNN polls are bunk. A sample of less than 800 is not large enough to render an accurate analysis. Unless you are going to publish the polling methodology (biased), the demographic spread of the sample sample (intentionally weighted toward Democratic voters and nearly completely excluding independents and ANYONE under the age of 35), phrasing of polling questions (heavily biased Clinton’s favor) as well as any number manipulation, I insist that these “polls” be called what they are: pro-Clinton propaganda. CNN and the CPD in general should be held accountable for false advertising, voter manipulation, libel, and general fraud. I can’t wait until the “third part” political organizations band together to sue them all.

  51. Johnson’s I/R/D splits were 8%-6%-2%. In an Oct. 17-18 Quinnipiac survey (overall support 7 percent), his splits ran 11-6-3.

    Right – that’s why you don’t pander to Democrats. They’ll take absolutely the smallest excuse to bail on you and go back to big government. I suspected from the start that the “go get Bernie voters” focus was a huge mistake, as did most here.

    That’s not to say that he should have just become Rand Paul, but at least try to keep the campaign from seeming openly disdainful of all types of conservatives.

  52. I have zero faith in the polls. Keep calm and Gary on. Johnson/Weld will have my vote.

  53. *cough*bullllshit*cough, cough, cough* sorry, bad allergies

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.