Gary Johnson for President

[Roger Bissell]

16 hours ago, Guyau said:

Poll including third-party options indicates they throw the election from Clinton to Trump.

Gov. Johnson interviewed on PBS NewsHour

 

I'm sure this will be true in some states. But what about West Virginia, which Hillary should lose (because of antagonism toward her anti-coal position)? Won't Johnson throw it toward Clinton? I'd wonder the same about states like Ohio.

3 hours ago, Guyau said:

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp,

. Or what’s a heaven for?” –R. Browning

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Looks like best states in which to concentrate.

To win any electoral votes or to win any seat in the Congress would be a toehold. 

 

Yup.  

REB

[william.scherk]

6 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

Realistic - yes, no?

https://libertarianvindicator.com/2016/06/07/a-realistic-electoral-college-map-for-the-libertarian-party-gary-johnson/

I don't think the Libertarian ticket will gain any electoral votes.   And I don't think the new PPP polling from Pennsylvania** (which has slots for 3rd party) has much to tell us about other state contests -- and it can be argued that those numbers are taking a picture of a PA race that has not yet begun.

But the 270towin.com site is great for playing out different possible scenarios. Here are a few, in which the so-called battleground states flip just enough one way to mark out a Trump victory (and conversely for the Clinton ticket).  First the numbers from the Obama/Romney contest ... 

2012

"Battlegrounds" in grey.

 

Knife-edge Trump

 

 

Knife-edge Clinton

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

 

______________________

 

** "Pennsylvania is a great microcosm of the issue Clinton faces in winning over Sanders fans. Among people who support Sanders in a head to head match up with Trump, only 72% support Clinton in the general. 10% would go to Trump, 6% to Stein, 4% to Johnson, and 9% are undecided. If Clinton could win over even just half of those Sanders supporting hold outs her lead over Trump would go from a tenuous 41-40 to a comfortable 47-40. Whether it's possible for her to do that time will tell."

 

-- it is early enough in the ongoing process that a lot of fun can be had by everyone -- guessing and guessing again, sketching glory for your candidate, sketching crushing defeat for the opponents.  Me, I think the moment is an almost pointless time in the greater campaign --  between the declaration of presumptive winners and the Cleveland/Philly carnivals. The intense media hoopla of the exciting primary season is still cranked up, but the Word People are still on meth, still jabbering intensely about evanescent things. Fucking Mexicans. The next stage of the spending and yawping is when the Show Biz conventions go live. Then all the media stargazers will seem cranked on meth. Once that binge of hoopla is  over (with who knows how many hundreds of millions expended), we can pretend we are in the Real Campaign. And we can then add our minor hoopla to the giant buzzing that won't go away.

 

I would foolish to make any prediction of November winner,  with one hundred and fifty days to go, but I will cross my fingers and say "taking a snapshot today, it will be a squeaker."

 

--and another thing. There is still the inter-party jabbering and hysteria to tamp down.  Bernie is going to the White House for snacks and ten minutes with Obama. Obama will ask him who he wants in the White House next.  All the Flakes and Huckabees who are now bitching about Donald Trump will either fall into line or shut the fuck up or get hysterical and tug that lever to prevent something. What I really can't figure out is who wants to prevent what. 

 

-- oh, and the tickets. Mr Trump and Mr/s X and Mrs Clinton and Mr/s X.   Will it make the least difference?  And the guys at the White House snack meeting?  There are variables here that are not yet in play which I think are keys to the November result.  If held at gunpoint, I will say the same thing about this election as I did throughout 2012 -- the GOP has a deficit in necessary demographics as measured today.  If Mr Trump can beat Romney's demographics, he can squeak out a win. If he can poach Bernie crazies from the Democrats, he can edge even higher in electoral votes. On the other hand, if the Democrats grip the same demographic as 2012, it's a walk.  Will Bernie and Barack and Hillary grab hands and head out on the campaign trail against Trump?  

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

I would foolish to make any prediction of November winner,  with one hundred and fifty days to go, but I will cross my fingers and say "taking a snapshot today, it will be a squeaker."

William,

I predict it will mirror the primary. Lots and lots of resistance, lots of controversy, lots of predictions about Trump's demise, more controversy, Trump's numbers improving, but vacillating a couple of times. Them mostly squeaker stuff for a while, some wins by him and some by her state by state. But finally, amid slowly sinking prospects, Hillary throws a Hail Mary pass. Fizzle. Trump ends up winning the rest in a landslide.

 

All of this is presupposing she is not damaged or disqualified by the FBI investigation or similar.

Oh... I forgot. This is a thread about Johnson and his election possibilities.

Well it sure looks like I forgot, doesn't it?    

Michael

[Guyau]

.

The Candidates' Positions on Marijuana

I wonder if Clinton or Trump will see advantage in shifting towards the Libertarian approach as the campaign unfolds.

 

[Roger Bissell]

12 hours ago, william.scherk said:

 If held at gunpoint, I will say the same thing about this election as I did throughout 2012 -- the GOP has a deficit in necessary demographics as measured today.  If Mr Trump can beat Romney's demographics, he can squeak out a win. If he can poach Bernie crazies from the Democrats, he can edge even higher in electoral votes. On the other hand, if the Democrats grip the same demographic as 2012, it's a walk.  Will Bernie and Barack and Hillary grab hands and head out on the campaign trail against Trump?

 

 

Yes, and I think that will be decisive. Johnson's impact will be (mostly) to throw some should-be Trump states back to Clinton, by siphoning off some of the laboring-class Reagan Democrats from Trump.

The marijuana issue will have a minor effect, and perhaps none, if Trump or (more likely) Clinton co-opt it from Johnson. Hard to say, though - Hillary is making a big deal about the "chaos" of Trump's foreign and domestic policies, and she might extend this mantra to the idea of legalizing drugs, even if just pot. I can't see Trump going for it, because he has been ranting about heroin coming over the border, and as we all know, marijuana is a "gateway" drug to the really bad stuff. 

But yes, count on Democratic Party unity. Bernie will have a Come to Jesus moment with Obama, and he will marginalize his hopes for future influence if he balks at helping Clinton get elected - which she will, with or without him.

REB

[william.scherk]

On 6/8/2016 at 10:01 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On 6/8/2016 at 8:15 PM, william.scherk said:

I would [be] foolish to make any prediction of November winner,  with one hundred and fifty days to go, but I will cross my fingers and say "taking a snapshot today, it will be a squeaker."

I predict it will mirror the primary.

150 days out, all of our glimpses of the future are fantasy. I add a note of fantasy with an excerpt from a backstage Hate Club exchange (at bottom).

Here's opinion on Johnson by Nick Gillespie, from the Reason blog Hit and Run:

Is This Where Libertarians Say Goodbye to Conservatives?

To right-wingers, Gary Johnson's embrace of "social liberalism" negates his pledge to "sign off on any reduction in the federal government."

Fast-forward many years—after the Reagan presidency, which saw a massive centralization of power in Washington and the launching of a national anti-porn action headed up [by] Attorney General Ed Meese; the end of the Cold War; the massive expansion of spending, debt, war, and surveillance under George W. Bush and a Republican Congress; and more—and the libertarian-conservative relationship is mostly in tatters.But the final straw in the #NeverTrump era may be, according to a number of influential conservatives, that the Libertarian Party failed to appeal to social conservatives with the selection of its presidential ticket.

Kind of sad/funny -- the notion that the Libertarians need the Christian Right, need at least to pander to anti-abortion, socially-conservative blocs and cohorts. 

In my fantasy, Johnson takes aim at states that have already made the transition on Libertarian platform items -- the Western states that have legalized recreational marijuana after ballot measures. He would not take heat in Washington, Oregon, Colorado for example, for the issue that sticks in the craw of the mainline GOP. (my Canucki goggles probably distort the issue, next-door to Washington, and with the Liberals set to legalize marijuana nationwide).

If Gary Johnson is polling around ten percent in the surveys that offer him as a choice, then his fantasy must be that he pushes polls up to fifteen and so gets to be on debate stages with Clinton and Trump.

-- it seems obvious to me that a certain proportion of Objectivish people, who would otherwise vote for a GOP candidate, will either abstain, choose Johnson, or in extremis, vote for Hillary to block Trump.  I think fantasy politics are more fun when you consider all variables.  

For me, the present polls are pretty meaningless. The primary voting is essentially over for the general public. There will be no actual votes recorded until November. All there will be is snapshots of voter intentions, in fifty states, each state contest its own microcosm. So, for me,  a fun fantasy of Gary Johnson success would be a consolidation of the present ten percent, enough polling weight to get him on 'the shows' -- and then a further inching up to the debate threshold.

Quote

Them mostly squeaker stuff for a while, some wins by him and some by her state by state. But finally, amid slowly sinking prospects, Hillary throws a Hail Mary pass. Fizzle. Trump ends up winning the rest in a landslide.

Michael, I am appointing you Trump's Hispanic Outreach Ambassador.  Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to build a persuasive case to present to waverers, doubters and haters. Because to install Trump at 1600 means some haters have to flip. With your mighty persuasive chops, it will be a tottle.

A precious idea, that Trump wins in a landslide.  It is possible, but I think most here would agree that it is contingent.  A victory of that magnitude will mean a lot of flips. I'd like to read the scenario that figures out the little and large shifts that will be necessary for a landslide -- for either Hillary or Donald. Use the tool at 270towin -- it helps shave down the contest to its heart, state-by-state, in the mind.  State-by-state demographics, state-by-state voter registration, state-by-state GOTV;

 

Quote

2016 Presidential Election Forecasts

How the 2016 electoral map landscape is currently looking from the vantage point of a number of professional and media forecasters.

Just click/tap any of the maps to view a larger size, which you can use as a starting point to create your own 2016 electoral map.

 

 

 

 

 

-- this is from a backstage fantasy politics exchange between me and an OL insider. It has absolutely no mention of Johnson, and may belong in a different thread, but it makes a point about contingent variables and Grand Hoopla:

At the convention, there is a veritable tug-of-war, and a boondoggle of would-be superstars. There will be intense squabbling over everything, and it will all bleed into the water.  Whether the speaker list or the 'bombshell' speech of a little-known GOP grifter from Tennessee, or the Policy Preachments --  squabble, power-plays, imposition of Free Will by the biggest dogs in the pen.  Fun.

The Democratic convention hears the last of the Old Bernie. And then the New Bernie hits the campaign trail. He will be promised 71 virgins, not in heaven, but in Vegas. He will grab the rope and tie it around his neck, and take the plunge: He will campaign actively against Trump, groomed and in-speeched and guided by HillaryMachine.  

Trump will make a shocking but fun Final Four appointment of his running mate competitors, live on TV. First up, his wife Melania. She smiles and glistens, and he expertly pivots by introducing his second choice, Newt Gingrich. Before Melania and Newt take bows, he invites a New Chris Christie to come on out. Then those who were asked but declined -- Ben, then some no-name Latina and then he takes fifteen minutes to winnow them down.  Occasionally he will turn to the convention audience and ask them to rate the Apprentices. There will be tears. The Biggest Ratings Ever!

Before I drift too far and go over the falls, a bit more from the Nick Gillespie piece. It is so weird to see an argument for forced-marriage. What awful mixed-premise child would be an anti-abortion, socially-conservative "Libertarian"?  I think Johnson actually does embody the electable parts of the Libertarian platform. That he is out of step with cross-wielding crotch-snufflers is a bad thing for liberty?

Instead of, say, choosing a well-spoken young candidate with absolutely no experience in elected office who is anti-abortion (Austin Petersen), the LP delegates chose instead the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-pot, pro-immigration Gary Johnson. Worse still, the LP went along when Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico who was also the party's 2012 nominee, insisted that his running mate be William Weld, another liberal, Republican, two-term governor (of Massachusetts). "Libertarians could appeal to social conservatives," reads the headline to a piece at The Federalist by David Harsanyi. "They just don't want to." When Govs. Gary Johnson and William Weld had the temerity to appear on MSNBC shortly after winning the party's backing, the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney divined the occult message being sent: "The message was clear: We don't need those backward Christian Right bozos as much we need as you MSNBCers." What does it mean, I wonder, that Johnson was grilled this weekend by the crew at Fox News Sunday?

[...]

So Gary Johnson was unacceptable to conservatives four years ago and now that conservatives are floundering between a rock (Trump) and Hillary (a hard place), Johnson is even more unacceptable, even though he is opposed to late-term abortions, public funding for abortions, and forcing insurance companies to cover any particular procedure. It's a good thing that Barry Goldwater isn't running in today's Republican Party. As a pro-abortion conservative, he wouldn't make it past a primary.

 

Edited June 10, 2016 by william.scherk
Added hashmarks to link paragraphs to Twitter message

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Michael, I am appointing you Trump's Hispanic Outreach Ambassador.  Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to build a persuasive case to present to waverers, doubters and haters. Because to install Trump at 1600 means some haters have to flip. With your mighty persuasive chops, it will be a tottle.

William,

I'm not going to play and restrict my Trump support efforts to a single race (that would be racist, no?  )--I'm supporting Trump all the way with everybody, but I will chime in from the peanut gallery if you like. 

For instance:

Let's get a baseline, shall we? From Fox News Latino June 7:

Opinion: Big data reports Latino support for Trump on the rise at 37%

OK.

Hmmm...

Trump could improve that percentage, I agree. How could I not? That's only enough for Trump to win the general election comfortably (all other elements being equal), but not win by a landslide. If my prediction is to be correct, that 37% Latino support needs to improve.

 

Or do you prefer a different baseline, like the following poll from the Washington Examiner also on June 7?

Poll: Hillary beats Trump in Mexico, 88%-1%

Of course, for this baseline, you have to pretend that Mexicans in Mexico are American voters, but it sure looks like Trump is in trouble with Latinos down there, huh?

 

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

16 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I would [be] foolish to make any prediction of November winner,  with one hundred and fifty days to go, but I will cross my fingers and say "taking a snapshot today, it will be a squeaker."

 

 

I predict it will mirror the primary.

 

 

150 days out, all of our glimpses of the future are fantasy.

 

 

If the November election "mirrors the primary," then Hillary will win by a comfortable margin.

I got the following data from Real Clear Politics, in case someone wants to double-check my analysis: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Hillary got 15.7 million votes in the primaries, while Trump got only 13.3 million votes. That's a spread of 2.4 million. Even if you allow for the greater number of GOP primary candidates, there were also 1 million more votes cast in the GOP primaries than in the Democratic ones. (So, after all the hooplah about how much greater the GOP participation was this time around, they still barely eked out more than the Democrats? Surely a reality tv star should be able to do better than that - and in fact we were all bedazzled with this claim, which turns out to basically have resulted in approximate parity between the parties.)

Trump didn't do as well percentage-wise either: 57% of the Democratic primary votes for Hillary, 43% for Bernie, compared to 46.5% for Trump against all the rest. (I saw Fox News last Tuesday night posting primary results with Hillary's percentage compared to Bernie's *BELOW* Trump's percentage, which while often noticeably and impressively larger than Hillary's (e.g., 80% vs. 60%), were far short of 100%, even though everyone else had dropped out. (Perhaps Fox is no longer in the tank for Trump after his stupid racist remark about the judge, but they still appeared so in their biased primary result graphics. This stuff isn't accidental. Why report Trump's results at all, if he has no opposition? If he does have opposition, why not include at least the highest other one in the totals?)

William is exactly right that we have 50 individual races now that will all culminate on the same day, and demographics will rule in many of the close ones. Trump is shooting himself and the GOP in the foot repeatedly, while Clinton will have the backing of Obama (endorsed her today, has high approval ratings) and Elizabeth Warren and (I predict) Bernie, along with a unified Democratic Party. It may not be a 1964-style bloodbath, but it won't be close either. I predict Clinton, even with multiple opponents, will get about 50% of the popular vote, and Trump somewhere between 40 and 45%, with 5-10% for the rest. (And no, I do not think Gary Johnson will have the 15% poll support necessary to be in the debates, sad to say. I'm supporting and voting for him, anyway.)

REB

[william.scherk]

On 6/9/2016 at 0:47 PM, Roger Bissell said:

On 6/9/2016 at 9:43 AM, william.scherk said:

On 6/8/2016 at 10:01 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On 6/8/2016 at 8:15 PM, william.scherk said:

I would [be] foolish to make any prediction of November winner,  with one hundred and fifty days to go, but I will cross my fingers and say "taking a snapshot today, it will be a squeaker."

I predict it will mirror the primary.

150 days out, all of our glimpses of the future are fantasy.

If the November election "mirrors the primary," then Hillary will win by a comfortable margin.

Dissent!

Misdirection!

Insensible stats!

On 6/9/2016 at 0:15 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Opinion: Big data reports Latino support for Trump on the rise at 37%[...]

Trump could improve that percentage, I agree. How could I not? That's only enough for Trump to win the general election comfortably (all other elements being equal), but not win by a landslide. If my prediction is to be correct, that 37% Latino support needs to improve.

I am sure we both had a good look for the toplines and methodology of the 'big data' report, and am reasonably sure that we both noted the article at FoxNews Latino was published under "Opinion."  I don't know if either of us can figure out where the numbers cited as sentiment turn into electoral "support." Mexicans.

In other words, the big data is not a sampling of voter intentions at all, and can't be said to represent an objective measure of Trump support.  The kindest thing to say about touting this black box as a meaningfully accurate measure of voter intentions is: 'keep fishing.' Or, to mix a measure, when we check the cherries, we sample from all trees, not just the one marked Black Box Analysis. To pick an outlier is special pleading, or cherry-picking.

However: the methodology is not suspect, just proprietary, according to the black-box firm's spokesman/owner who wrote the article, and so it causes us to go "Hmmmm."

Quote

 

Based on big data analysis over the last 30 days as of June 1st, Trump reports 37 percent of Hispanic positive sentiment versus 41 percent for Clinton. Surprisingly, the candidates tie in negative sentiment across Hispanics at 38 percent; discounting the fact that Latinos default as Democrats or are completely turned off by Trump’s off-color comments. After all, over 50 percent of Latinos identify as political independents.

 

 

Now, does not knowing how the 'analysis' was done mean that there isn't something interesting being done?  Not for me.  As the black-box owner says (emphasis added): 

Quote

Similar analysis has been done leading up to the primaries, which have demonstrated a direct correlation between positive sentiment and actual voting results.

I have been writing since February about this new way to mine political intelligence, which leverages the power of big data analysis via artificial intelligence, keyword Boolean, search analysis, keyword spiders, site scraping, text analytics and machine learning/tagging under the proprietary methodology of CulturIntel™. It is mining, not social listening; it is big data of millions, not just a few thousands, surveyed. If this methodology is good enough for the Harvard Medical School to conduct healthcare research and for major corporations to mine business intelligence, why not use it for political strategy?

Everyone may have an opinion but real strategic power comes from data. Clearly, while many may criticize Trump’s methodology, many are agreeing with his ideology; and, this time, it’s the data speaking, not me.

Such an odd thing to say, when no one can see her data.  As for the 'real strategic power,'  that is bound to reality. This has been a bad week for Mr Trump on the Mexicans front.  The research hinted at by the black box was completed June 1st and so cannot be said to have captured 'Hispanic positive sentiment' of the week and its centre of attention.

I have followed the lady on Twitter and will keep tabs on her next sounding on the Hispanic Outreach strategy.  My joshing to Michael was meant to point out that everybody who comprise Waverers, Doubters and Haters visiting the forum have a hundred and fifty days of fantasy too.  Helping them flip to the Donald is a months-long project for anyone. It can't be easy to do it for love alone.

Meanwhile, elsewhere at Fox News Latino ... previous POLLS!  Numbers, analysis. Prevailing thought!  Wrong cherry tree!  And just to let you know: you can prise these black cherries from my  cold, dead hands.

There is money to be made in Big Data, if not in Cherry-Picking for Trump ...

Back to Gary Johnson ...he seems to be picking up positive sentiment directly from Trump, with Clinton sailing straight: 

Quote

The poll shows there’s potential support for an independent candidate.  In the Clinton-Trump matchup, seven percent of voters volunteer the response “someone else.”  In addition, in a three-way contest that includes Libertarian Gary Johnson, he receives 12 percent, yet Clinton still tops Trump by 39-36 percent.

[Roger Bissell]

One hot summer day, when I was about 12, I helped Dad clear out a stretch several hundred feet long of hemp plants, taller than either of us, in a ditch north of our farmstead. (This was on orders from the Iowa Department of Agriculture.) I still have wistful thoughts of the fortune we could have made by making...um...agricultural commodity use of the plants instead of just hacking them down and leaving them to wither away.

Gary Johnson for President! 12% and rising! A chicken in every pot - and pot in every chicken!  

REB

[Guyau]

.

 

Why I'm Running for President

 

[Roger Bissell]

50 minutes ago, Guyau said:

Why I'm Running for President

Stephen, that didn't look a bit like you - but you have my vote, anyway!  

Seriously, his rapid-fire litany of bad stuff about Trump and Hillary was pretty effective. I don't know how many conservatives he will win over - or how many disaffected freedom-oriented liberals - but when you have both the Objectivists and the anarcho-purist libertarians pissed off at you, you must be doing something right!  

REB

[Guyau]

.

On the weekly Shields & Brooks portion of the PBS Newshour this evening:

David Brooks:

“And while Trump’s poll numbers are really taking a hit [this week], hers are sort of steady and they’re not steady at a great place. In three-way races---I’m really struck by the three-way races all the sudden, where she’s at 39 or 40, and Trump is at like 35, and then suddenly Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate, is like at a 10.

"And one can see there is so much dissatisfaction with those two that if Johnson could run a good campaign, he could stick around in the double digits and really he will be a big story as we talk about the rest of the year.”

[turkeyfoot]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives

Im finding the "real" Veto is a public personna mincing words with little regard for the truth. He hangs his hat on his tenure as NM govenor and the balanced budget and his so called anti government sentiment.  His bona fides seemed to make a case for him being a fine, suitable, alternative candidate. It appears the only thing that makes him Libertarian is his legalize marijuana stance, anti war and pro gay positions.  

https://ballotpedia.org/Verbatim_fact_check:_Did_Gary_Johnson_issue_750_vetoes_as_governor_of_New_Mexico%3F

The Veto Vato moniker, it seems, is based on numbers that approximate the truth. But because the NM constitution prohibits operational spending deficits he was legally bound to veto as governor to rein in the spending by democrats.

 

[william.scherk]

Mitt the milk and toast man made some friendly noises about Gary Johnson in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. From an intriguing Guardian story on Johnson:

Johnson may already have at least one Republican leader knocking on his door. Mitt Romney, the party’s 2012 nominee, told CNN on Friday that he was considering casting his lot with the Libertarians.

“If Bill Weld were at the top of the ticket, it would be very easy for me to vote for Bill Weld for president,” he said. Weld is Johnson’s running mate and preceded Romney as governor of Massachusetts.

Johnson, who is at 12% in a recent national poll, hopes that by winning voters disaffected by Trump and Hillary Clinton, he can establish his party as a political force to be reckoned with.

In particular, Johnson insisted that he is a fit for supporters of a Democrat – the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders – who may be less than enthused about Clinton’s nomination for the party. He cited an online quiz in which he sided with the Vermont senator 73% of the time, adding: “We’re on the same page when it comes to people and their choices.”
 

Mitt's toe-test of the Johnson water got under somebody's skin. Mexicans. And so thin-skin leapt to the keyboard and  thumbed out a terrific choke-dog comment. Such energy and focus in the wee hours of the morning. Give this guy a taco salad:

Mitt Romney had his chance to beat a failed president but he choked like a dog. Now he calls me racist-but I am least racist person there is

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 11, 2016

Edited June 11, 2016 by william.scherk
Added 'give this ...'

[Guyau]

.

CNN will host a Town Hall for the Libertarian Ticket tomorrow night at 9:00 p.m EST.

Polls are continuing to show that when Johnson is included, as he will be included on the ballot in all 50 states this fall, the winner of the Presidency will be lucky to get 40% of the vote. Then she can be constantly reminded that 60% of the country voted against her.

 

[PDS]

On 6/11/2016 at 11:18 AM, william.scherk said:

Mitt the milk and toast man made some friendly noises about Gary Johnson in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. From an intriguing Guardian story on Johnson:

Johnson may already have at least one Republican leader knocking on his door. Mitt Romney, the party’s 2012 nominee, told CNN on Friday that he was considering casting his lot with the Libertarians.

“If Bill Weld were at the top of the ticket, it would be very easy for me to vote for Bill Weld for president,” he said. Weld is Johnson’s running mate and preceded Romney as governor of Massachusetts.

Johnson, who is at 12% in a recent national poll, hopes that by winning voters disaffected by Trump and Hillary Clinton, he can establish his party as a political force to be reckoned with.

In particular, Johnson insisted that he is a fit for supporters of a Democrat – the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders – who may be less than enthused about Clinton’s nomination for the party. He cited an online quiz in which he sided with the Vermont senator 73% of the time, adding: “We’re on the same page when it comes to people and their choices.”
 

Mitt's toe-test of the Johnson water got under somebody's skin. Mexicans. And so thin-skin leapt to the keyboard and  thumbed out a terrific choke-dog comment. Such energy and focus in the wee hours of the morning. Give this guy a taco salad:

Mitt Romney had his chance to beat a failed president but he choked like a dog. Now he calls me racist-but I am least racist person there is

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 11, 2016

William:

You owe me one. 

Your link to one of Trump's tweets forced me to read his last 5-6 tweets from just today.   What a sad state of affairs.    I really cannot recall anybody this thin-skinned since roughly junior high school.   It makes my head spin to think Trump has a 1 in 2.5 chance of becoming President.    If he gets over 40% of the vote in November I will be pretty shocked. 

[KorbenDallas]

18% of Bernie's Voters Say They'll Back Gary Johnson
http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/22/sanders-voters-for-gary-johnson

Quote

Gary Johnson keeps pitching his presidential campaign to Bernie Sanders' disappointed supporters.  [...]  And indeed, according to a recent Bloomberg poll, "barely half of those who favored Sanders—55 percent—plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they'll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson."

 

[Guyau]

.

HuffPost Pollster today:

"In the coming weeks we will separate the questions that include Johnson into a separate chart. That means we’ll have two general election charts: Trump vs. Clinton with an “other” category, and Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson. Our default general election chart will still be the Trump vs. Clinton chart, but in response to high demand and the aforementioned methodological issues, we’re adding one that will explicitly include Johnson."

CNN Town Hall with the Libertarian ticket is tonight at 9:00 p.m. EST.

 

[Guyau]

.

Video recording of the CNN Town Hall for the Libertarian ticket:

22 June 2016

 

[Guyau]

.

Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian? --Reuters

RCP: Clinton v. Trump v. Johnson

 

[Guyau]

.

 

Christian Science Monitor on Libertarian daylight.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, Guyau said:

.

 

Christian Science Monitor on Libertarian daylight.

 

God help the libertarians if Trump becomes their avatar....

[9thdoctor]

This is a well done ad:

Did the word Libertarian appear?  If so I missed it.

[Jonathan]

We've balanced budgets and built roads!

Muh roads!

J