I know. That's why I tacked on the "even worse primary pool." I glanced at a Green primary debate that was on RT awhile ago and Samantha Bee covered the Libertarian final debate which was during their National convention. I was not that impressed by either.
I mean, they could've had John McAfee, which would have been entertaining!
Actually, everyone outside the major two parties is doing better than 2012. All 3rd Party Candidates made less than 2% of the vote in 2012. This time, that may be Jill Stein alone, and there's an abnormally large group of undecided voters compared to the previous cycle. And on top of that, Gary Johnson is still on track to get the Libertarian Party federal funding for the 2020 election, although that's not a comfortable certainty anymore.
We should be careful comparing Johnson's 2016 poll numbers with his 2012 results. Instead, compare his 2012 polling to his current polling. Johnson wasn't in nearly as many polls in 2012 as he is now, but the few he had saw him with 4-6% in September 2012 (this is the latest poll I can find: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/01/rel11a.pdf - I haven't found any from October or November that had him). In that same poll, Stein was at 3%. Both were pretty close to where they are now. But on election day, Johnson only managed a hair under 1%, and Stein about 0.36%.
Given that it's now late October and Johnson still has ~5%, I think it's fair to say he's doing better than last time. But I don't think we can reasonably expect that to translate to 5% on election day, unless this year is a break from past experience.
Johnson's poll numbers have been sliding lately. RCP has at 5.9%, down from a high of 9.2% back in September. 538 has him at 5.7%, from a September high of 9.0%. Given that third party candidates tend to significantly underperform on election day as compared to their polls, is the dream of 5% dead?
And that's generously assuming they can actually put together a real campaign in 2020. If the post-Perot reform party is any indication, they'll have a bit of trouble finding another viable candidate. Just watch a few questions from the libertarian primary debate to see what their second choices were like.
It's important to note that what Johnson/Weld has a very solid shot at is crossing the 5% threshold. That's a big step, not just in future presidential elections, but in establishing the legitimacy of Libertarians as a valid party for other positions as well.
Like that time the Reform party crossed the 5% threshold. Now we all agree they're a legitimate party.
I'll believe that Gary Johnson doesn't know what Aleppo is as soon as we all start believing that Obama thinks there are 57 states. It's absurd.
What's absurd is that you think these are equivalent.
And as for the world leaders question, would you again re-read/re-listen to it? Because right now I feel like the only one that actually paid attention to what the question was.
Good thing he had Weld there to cover for him. The look of terror that comes over Johnson's face when he realizes he doesn't know any world leaders is hilarious. And then he tries to buy for time by repeating the question.
Yet we can't talk about radical Islam. Can't even admit that this has anything to do with Islam at all.
We must face the fact that ISIS is a murderous, violent movement driven by Sharia ideology, not by the religion of Islam.
Nevermind that Johnson doesn't seem to understand what Sharia is (Sharia is sort of like the Talmud - it's just all the rules a Muslim lives by. Even moderate, peaceful Muslims have their version of Sharia.), but it seems like Johnson agrees with Highroller here.
If getting on the ballot in all states is so easy, why is it that no other third party can do it?
Because the other third parties are dumpster fires of incompetence? The Green party, for example, failed to get on the ballot in South Dakota (and like two or three other states). You need to get 3,000 signatures to do that. It's not exactly a high bar.
10%+ can't be that insignificant as crooked Hillary is making a concerted effort to buy their votes. And really, it's no surprise, as it is a more powerful demographic than the Muslims or illegals that she normally panders to.
10% is significant when it's another brick in your coalition - even 1% can make or break elections. It's insignificant when it's all you have.
40% * 3 = 120%. Mathematically impossible.
I'm not saying 40% is the benchmark for whether you're in touch. I'm saying that that's what parties which are in touch currently get.
Exactly.
So are Johnson and Weld just in it to plunder the party's resources and organization in order to get their name out and get some attention for their circus of a candidacy, or are they actual believers? If we were in a Twilight Zone episode and Gary Johnson won the election, would he fill his cabinet with Libertarian party stalwarts, or would he ditch them at the first opportunity for republicans?
They are indisputably the 3rd largest political party in this country.
So again, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld both served as Republican governors of Democratic states, are on the ballot in all 50 states and currently carry 10%+ of the vote with very limited media exposure and without the kinds of resources that the big parties have developed over more than a century of exploitation against the people of this country. To suggest that they are comically out of touch with the American people is... comically out of touch.
I love that the two great achievements you hold up are that they got on the ballot (requires a few thousand signatures in most states and the wherewithal to file on time), and that they manage to scrape together a tiny minority of the polls (which has not in the past translated to actual votes - at this point in 2012 Johnson was polling at 6%. He got <1% on election day). 10% is terrible. But apparently we have to use kiddie gloves for the libertarians and give them a pat on the back for it. And also give them an invite to the debates, because while 10% is a great achievement, 15% is apparently impossible.
You know how many votes a party that is in touch with American voters earns? 40-50%. As far as libertarian candidates go, Johnson and Weld are not terribly out of touch. But their newfound party is. Johnson got booed at the libertarian debates for saying he thinks driver's licences aren't the worst idea in the world (every other candidate on stage vehemently opposed them), and for saying that he would sign the civil rights act. Johnson might even have a political future - not as president, but maybe in congress - but the mere choice to take up the libertarian mantle is comically out of touch. It's not a serious party, and no serious candidate would run under their banner. Johnson surely knows this - when he wanted to be president in 2012, he first ran as a republican, and only joined the libertarian ticket when it was clear the republicans weren't interested.
Absolutely. Presidential elections (and really any office of significant enough import) involve substantially more than just picking a winner. Pressure from other candidates can force policy shifts the eventual winner that are hard to backtrack on. And, when you have 62% of the country wanting to hear what he has to say it is absurd to me that the CPD refuses to allow him to participate.
Do I think he can win? No, not realistically. Do I think his participation would have an immensely positive impact on the debates, and the subsequent policies? Absolutely.
The fact of the matter is the CPD exists to exclude non (r) or (d) candidates from participating. They've done their job admirably.
If 62% of the country want to hear what he has to say, there are endless interviews, forums, and other debates in which he and his VP have participated. The presidential debates should be a way for people to find out about the people who might be president. Not yet another platform for irrelevant candidates to grandstand.
If Gary Johnson's presence would have a significant impact on the debates and on the resulting policies, should we also allow Jill Stein to participate? Darrell Castle? Vermin Supreme?
Being one of just 3 candidates that is on the polls in all 50 states + carrying more than 10% of the electorate with very limited media coverage, fundraising and support structures is not insignificant. For a small d democrat, I'm surprised that you'd be so interested in limiting the public's right to know and make an informed decision.
Also, do you think Donald Trump actually has a legitimate chance of winning?
The public is not obstructed from finding out everything there is to know about Gary Johnson by him not appearing in this debate. That's an absurd strawman.
I think Donald Trump has a legitimate chance of winning. He's not the favorite, but his chances are non-zero. Fivethirtyeight has it as 60/40, which given recent polls is probably a fair picture of the current state of the race. Unlike Johnson, whose chances are literally zero. His chances of getting even a single EV are essentially zero. Having 10% is insignificant. If Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump had 10% they'd be laughed out of politics forever.
It's official. he will not be on the stage. According to the polls utilized only 10% of the electorate (average) would vote for him, so he is out of the first debate.
The two party lock has never been more obvious, and while there have been electoral outcomes I disliked and disagreed with this is the first time since I've been eligible to vote that I am legitimately disappointed by the system itself.
The former New Mexico governor added that the commission "may scoff at a ticket that enjoys ‘only’ 9 or 10% in their hand-selected polls, but even 9% represents 13 million voters, more than the total population of Ohio and most other states."
You're disappointed that the guy who has a 0% chance of being president isn't in the debates to figure out who should be president?
When you say platform, are you talking about the party's written platform?
I mean more generally the set of policies the party and the candidate in particular advocate. The written platforms the parties put out, especially third parties, are often too vague to make much of a judgment about.
That was not entirely what I meant, though. To be clear: I am wondering if there are a reasonable number of realistic scenarios under which a 3rd party hits 15% again. If not, I think a lot of people would agree that we've got a problem.
There are many such scenarios, but they all start with a third party adopting a platform which is not comically out of touch with Americans.
I guarantee you that Gary Johnson knew as well. He said he did in his statement after the fact, and the dude spends plenty of time talking about foreign policy/the Syrian refugee crisis. Do you really think he didn't know what Aleppo was just because he had a brain cramp when it was brought up completely out of context as a "gotcha" question?
Oh, well, if he said he knew it, then I guess that settles it.
I guarantee you that Barack Obama knew there were only 50 states, too.
I disagree. Anybody who's been following the election at all knows something is going on in Syria. The refugee crisis has been in the headlines as a key point of the debate for months. Asking about Syria isn't a problem because it's borderline common knowledge that something is going down there. It's quite a different thing to ask about some random ass city in the country that's supposedly the "center" of the crisis. He didn't ask where Aleppo is either, so most people not knowing where Syria is isn't a valid argument. He asked what Aleppo is, since he thought it was an acronym for something.
So the standard for fair questions is "common knowledge"? We can't expect the candidates to know more than the average uninformed American?
I guarantee you Hillary Clinton knows what Aleppo is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I mean, they could've had John McAfee, which would have been entertaining!
We should be careful comparing Johnson's 2016 poll numbers with his 2012 results. Instead, compare his 2012 polling to his current polling. Johnson wasn't in nearly as many polls in 2012 as he is now, but the few he had saw him with 4-6% in September 2012 (this is the latest poll I can find: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/01/rel11a.pdf - I haven't found any from October or November that had him). In that same poll, Stein was at 3%. Both were pretty close to where they are now. But on election day, Johnson only managed a hair under 1%, and Stein about 0.36%.
Given that it's now late October and Johnson still has ~5%, I think it's fair to say he's doing better than last time. But I don't think we can reasonably expect that to translate to 5% on election day, unless this year is a break from past experience.
And that's generously assuming they can actually put together a real campaign in 2020. If the post-Perot reform party is any indication, they'll have a bit of trouble finding another viable candidate. Just watch a few questions from the libertarian primary debate to see what their second choices were like.
Like that time the Reform party crossed the 5% threshold. Now we all agree they're a legitimate party.
Oh wait...
What's absurd is that you think these are equivalent.
Good thing he had Weld there to cover for him. The look of terror that comes over Johnson's face when he realizes he doesn't know any world leaders is hilarious. And then he tries to buy for time by repeating the question.
Nevermind that Johnson doesn't seem to understand what Sharia is (Sharia is sort of like the Talmud - it's just all the rules a Muslim lives by. Even moderate, peaceful Muslims have their version of Sharia.), but it seems like Johnson agrees with Highroller here.
Because the other third parties are dumpster fires of incompetence? The Green party, for example, failed to get on the ballot in South Dakota (and like two or three other states). You need to get 3,000 signatures to do that. It's not exactly a high bar.
10% is significant when it's another brick in your coalition - even 1% can make or break elections. It's insignificant when it's all you have.
I'm not saying 40% is the benchmark for whether you're in touch. I'm saying that that's what parties which are in touch currently get.
So are Johnson and Weld just in it to plunder the party's resources and organization in order to get their name out and get some attention for their circus of a candidacy, or are they actual believers? If we were in a Twilight Zone episode and Gary Johnson won the election, would he fill his cabinet with Libertarian party stalwarts, or would he ditch them at the first opportunity for republicans?
So they're first among losers?
I love that the two great achievements you hold up are that they got on the ballot (requires a few thousand signatures in most states and the wherewithal to file on time), and that they manage to scrape together a tiny minority of the polls (which has not in the past translated to actual votes - at this point in 2012 Johnson was polling at 6%. He got <1% on election day). 10% is terrible. But apparently we have to use kiddie gloves for the libertarians and give them a pat on the back for it. And also give them an invite to the debates, because while 10% is a great achievement, 15% is apparently impossible.
You know how many votes a party that is in touch with American voters earns? 40-50%. As far as libertarian candidates go, Johnson and Weld are not terribly out of touch. But their newfound party is. Johnson got booed at the libertarian debates for saying he thinks driver's licences aren't the worst idea in the world (every other candidate on stage vehemently opposed them), and for saying that he would sign the civil rights act. Johnson might even have a political future - not as president, but maybe in congress - but the mere choice to take up the libertarian mantle is comically out of touch. It's not a serious party, and no serious candidate would run under their banner. Johnson surely knows this - when he wanted to be president in 2012, he first ran as a republican, and only joined the libertarian ticket when it was clear the republicans weren't interested.
If 62% of the country want to hear what he has to say, there are endless interviews, forums, and other debates in which he and his VP have participated. The presidential debates should be a way for people to find out about the people who might be president. Not yet another platform for irrelevant candidates to grandstand.
If Gary Johnson's presence would have a significant impact on the debates and on the resulting policies, should we also allow Jill Stein to participate? Darrell Castle? Vermin Supreme?
The public is not obstructed from finding out everything there is to know about Gary Johnson by him not appearing in this debate. That's an absurd strawman.
I think Donald Trump has a legitimate chance of winning. He's not the favorite, but his chances are non-zero. Fivethirtyeight has it as 60/40, which given recent polls is probably a fair picture of the current state of the race. Unlike Johnson, whose chances are literally zero. His chances of getting even a single EV are essentially zero. Having 10% is insignificant. If Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump had 10% they'd be laughed out of politics forever.
You're disappointed that the guy who has a 0% chance of being president isn't in the debates to figure out who should be president?
I mean more generally the set of policies the party and the candidate in particular advocate. The written platforms the parties put out, especially third parties, are often too vague to make much of a judgment about.
There are many such scenarios, but they all start with a third party adopting a platform which is not comically out of touch with Americans.
Oh, well, if he said he knew it, then I guess that settles it.
A slip of the tongue is not the same.
So the standard for fair questions is "common knowledge"? We can't expect the candidates to know more than the average uninformed American?
I guarantee you Hillary Clinton knows what Aleppo is.