Tell me about Gary Johnson

[PricklyPete]

Like I said, you can vote third party for the placebo effect if you want, but that's all you'll get. Exactly same as not voting for President.

While the argument you are presenting has its merit, it really doesn't answer my OP. I happen to not agree with your view that it is throwing away my vote, but even if I did, you have in no way told me why I should not like Gary Johnson. So I think we all understand what you are saying, but I think we all would appreciate a more on-topic response going forward.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I'm giving Johnson serious consideration.

People saying he can't win or it's a wasted vote aren't following the polls.

Hillary nor Trump are making a majority happy. They have vocal minorities behind them. Polls typically put them each at 30-35% at best. In those same polls, Gary is getting 10-15%.

Gary's also been climbing in the polls, quickly. And he's actually doing even better among important demographics. Gary is polling higher among the active military than Donald Trump!

Only about half the country has decided they're Trump or Hillary. There's a huge, huge chunk of the voter base that doesn't like either, and if Gary's the only other legit option (Jill Stein isn't, she doesn't have the traction nor is on all ballots in all states), he might find himself getting a windfall of votes.

Gary's also flat out more qualified for the job than either Trump or Hillary. It's a no contest.

 

[FerrelGeek]

While the argument you are presenting has its merit, it really doesn't answer my OP. I happen to not agree with your view that it is throwing away my vote, but even if I did, you have in no way told me why I should not like Gary Johnson. So I think we all understand what you are saying, but I think we all would appreciate a more on-topic response going forward.

Well as was pointed out, senseamp and dank view any vote not cast for Hillary as a defacto vote for Trump.

 

[glenn1]

Well as was pointed out, senseamp and dank view any vote not cast for Hillary as a defacto vote for Trump.

Still this no matter how they phrase it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

 

[woolfe9998]

That's not necessarily true nor something to wager on.

Especially since the interest in 3rd parties is at its all time high, his numbers are skyrocketing, and a majority of the country doesn't want either Hillary or Trump. Gary's a remarkably better choice and is obviously so to any reasonable person that isn't afraid to go outside party lines.

Is it really? Then why did Ross Perot poll substantially better in 1992 and 1996 than Gary Johnson is now? Yet his actual electoral performance was much lower than his polls. I don't think "interest in third parties" is higher than it was with Perot.

 

[theeedude]

Well as was pointed out, senseamp and dank view any vote not cast for Hillary as a defacto vote for Trump.

Try again. It's same as not voting, not same as voting for Trump.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Try again. It's same as not voting, not same as voting for Trump.

That's a fallacy. A vote is a vote.

 

[theeedude]

While the argument you are presenting has its merit, it really doesn't answer my OP. I happen to not agree with your view that it is throwing away my vote, but even if I did, you have in no way told me why I should not like Gary Johnson. So I think we all understand what you are saying, but I think we all would appreciate a more on-topic response going forward.

I like a lot of people who won't and shouldn't be president, so I will not be telling you who you should or shouldn't like. It's not a like/dislike thing.

 

[dank69]

I disagree. That mindset is going to stick us with 2 parties for ever.

No. First past the post is what sticks us with 2 parties forever. If you vote anything other than D or R, it is basically the same as voting for R in most cases.

 

[dank69]

That's a fallacy. A vote is a vote.

Wrong. First past the post guarantees that we will be stuck with 2 parties, which means a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote. Additionally, the GOP benefits from low turnout, so a wasted vote is essentially a vote for Trump at this point.

 

[PricklyPete]

I like a lot of people who won't and shouldn't be president, so I will not be telling you who you should or shouldn't like. It's not a like/dislike thing.

Simple...don't post in my thread then. I didn't ask for your voting theories, I asked for opinions on Gary Johnson. If you don't have any, please leave and start your own thread on voting theory.

 

[glenn1]

Wrong. First past the post guarantees that we will be stuck with 2 parties, which means a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote. Additionally, the GOP benefits from low turnout, so a wasted vote is essentially a vote for Trump at this point.

People considering voting for Johnson don't give a shit that you think it's "essentially a vote for Trump." That doesn't scare us like it does you so that appeal has no influence on us since we view Trump and Clinton as equally bad propositions.

 

[PricklyPete]

Wrong. First past the post guarantees that we will be stuck with 2 parties, which means a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote. Additionally, the GOP benefits from low turnout, so a wasted vote is essentially a vote for Trump at this point.

See my last post. Not interested in your voting theories...go start your own thread for that.

 

[theeedude]

Simple...don't post in my thread then. I didn't ask for your voting theories, I asked for opinions on Gary Johnson. If you don't have any, please leave and start your own thread on voting theory.

OK, stay in your little bubble then, bye. Will add you to my ignore list so I don't accidentally reply to you, since you are so sensitive.

 

[PricklyPete]

OK, stay in your little bubble then, bye.

 

[nakedfrog]

I live outside the one district in Nebraska where it actually could maybe make a difference, so I'm probably voting Johnson.

 

[Genx87]

OK, stay in your little bubble then, bye. Will add you to my ignore list so I don't accidentally reply to you, since you are so sensitive.

Hahaha tells somebody to stay in their bubble while creating one for themselves. Senseamps safe zone grows by the day.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Wrong. First past the post guarantees that we will be stuck with 2 parties, which means a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote. Additionally, the GOP benefits from low turnout, so a wasted vote is essentially a vote for Trump at this point.

Fallacy.

 

[dank69]

See my last post. Not interested in your voting theories...go start your own thread for that.

Sorry, but I think it is more important to educate yourself about the reality of voting third party. You want to know about the Libertarian party? Fine. They have some stuff right:

Less foreign war
Minimal 2A restriction
Legalize drugs
Legalize prostitution
Legalize assisted suicide
Minimal government intrusion into most aspects of social life

They have other stuff wrong:

Less government regulation
Deny overwhelming evidence that Keynesian economic theory works in practice
An unhealthy obsession with returning to the gold standard
Take foreign policy too far towards isolationism

 

[dullard]

Is it really? Then why did Ross Perot poll substantially better in 1992 and 1996 than Gary Johnson is now? Yet his actual electoral performance was much lower than his polls. I don't think "interest in third parties" is higher than it was with Perot.

People who call themselves independents peaked in the early 1990s at about 39%. Then it bottomed around 2004. Finally, they are peaking again in the lower 40% range right now.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx
So, while I would say that the "interest in third parties" may be technically a tiny bit higher now, it is basically a tie.

In 1992, independents got 19% of the vote. In 1996, they got 9% of the vote. Right now independents are running right around 15% of the vote (for example, see the largest poll by far done so far this election: https://www.scribd.com/document/318637789/NBC-News-SurveyMonkey-Toplines-and-Methodology-7-11-7-17). Again, while not an exact tie, they are basically the same.

 

[TechBoyJK]

OK, stay in your little bubble then, bye. Will add you to my ignore list so I don't accidentally reply to you, since you are so sensitive.

The people that think it's a wasted vote are the ones in the bubble.

 

[dank69]

Fallacy.

You can keep saying that all you want but if you don't actually show your work you might as well be a toddler improperly using a new word he just learned.

 

[PricklyPete]

Sorry, but I think it is more important to educate yourself about the reality of voting third party. You want to know about the Libertarian party? Fine. They have some stuff right:



Less foreign war

Minimal 2A restriction

Legalize drugs

Legalize prostitution

Legalize assisted suicide

Minimal government intrusion into most aspects of social life



They have other stuff wrong:



Less government regulation

Deny overwhelming evidence that Keynesian economic theory works in practice

An unhealthy obsession with returning to the gold standard

Take foreign policy too far towards isolationism

I didn't ask about the libertarian party...I asked about Gary Johnson. I know some of the above apply to him...but I believe others do not. Not interested in your critique of a "party". I'm interested in your critique of a man.

 

[dank69]

People who call themselves independents peaked in the early 1990s at about 39%. Then it bottomed around 2004. Finally, they are peaking again in the lower 40% range right now.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx
So, I would say that the "interest in third parties" may be technically a tiny bit higher now, it is basically a tie.

In 1992, independents got 19% of the vote. In 1996, they got 9% of the vote. Right now independents are running right around 15% of the vote (for example, see the largest poll by far done so far this election: https://www.scribd.com/document/318637789/NBC-News-SurveyMonkey-Toplines-and-Methodology-7-11-7-17). Again, while not an exact tie, they are basically the same.

Yup, and all that adds up to a giant nothing burger where third parties essentially capture 0 electoral votes.

 

[local]

Here is how I look at it. Three of the last four elections had a less than 5% difference in votes so if a third party pulled more votes than the margin of victory I would bet we see one or both parties trying to move that direction. No, I don't believe this would happen after one or two elections but if it became a trend then it could drive some actual change. The only way to throw your vote away is to not vote.

I don't believe in voting for the lesser evil. Vote for the person that best represents your views. Their ability to actually win is irrelevant. Barring some earthshaking revelation I'm voting for Johnson again and I will be perfectly happy with my vote no matter who wins.