(05-19-2012 09:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But to energize those voters, republicans need to create a vision. So far, they aren't very good with the vision thingy.

Agree. But that's what the conventions are for. It's very difficult to get that grand vision out prior to the convention.

The internals to polls are what I think should be concerning to Obama. Romney has closed the gender gap and Obama is losing white, working males by huge proportions. If Romney pulls enough to decrease the traditional Dem advantage among women then Obama has serious problems. Also don't underestimate Obama's most recent flip flop on gay marriage impact on the Hispanic/Latino vote. It won't decide the election, but it could cut into those margins as well.

(05-19-2012 07:25 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-19-2012 06:02 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  That combined with 5-20% for Gary Johnson

The last six LP presidential nominees and their national vote-%:

1988 Ron Paul - 0.47%
1992 Andre Marrou - 0.28%
1996 Harry Browne - 0.50%
2000 Harry Browne - 0.36%
2004 Michael Badnarik - 0.32%
2008 Bob Barr - 0.40%

So the highest % was 0.50 and the lowest was 0.28. That seems like a fairly narrow range of outcomes. Against that background, I would be impressed if Gary Johnson can crack 1.0% nationwide, and I would be shocked if he ran better than 3.0%. A lot can change in 5 months, but right now there is just no credible basis for thinking Johnson will get in the 5%-20% range nationally.

I voted for Marrou and for Browne both times, so I would be happy to see Johnson run a successful campaign and even (ideally) win a few states like New Mexico or Nevada, where Johnson's brand of western libertarianism would probably find the electorate most friendly. But right now, I just don't see any realistic path for that to happen.

Polling has him at 7% nationally.

(05-19-2012 02:51 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-19-2012 07:25 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-19-2012 06:02 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  That combined with 5-20% for Gary Johnson

I would be impressed if Gary Johnson can crack 1.0% nationwide, and I would be shocked if he ran better than 3.0%. A lot can change in 5 months, but right now there is just no credible basis for thinking Johnson will get in the 5%-20% range nationally.

Polling has him at 7% nationally.

I would like to see a link to those polls, but even accepting them at face value, there have been plenty of examples of 3rd-party candidates polling much higher than their actual vote-result in November.

John Anderson polled in the high-teens during August-September. He wound up with 6-7%. George Wallace polled 22-25% in August-September. He got 13-14%. Similar story with Ralph Nader and Ross Perot, and so on.

Maybe it'll be different with Johnson. We'll see. Personally, I would love it if the MSM has to interrupt the Obama/Romney blather on Election Night to discuss Gary Johnson's "surprising strength" in the national returns, and his "shocking breakthrough" in the Electoral College by winning New Mexico and Nevada. That would be a very beneficial development, IMHO, for the LP and for American politics in general. But like I said before, I just don't see any realistic path right now for that to happen.

(05-19-2012 02:51 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-19-2012 07:25 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-19-2012 06:02 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  That combined with 5-20% for Gary Johnson

The last six LP presidential nominees and their national vote-%:

1988 Ron Paul - 0.47%
1992 Andre Marrou - 0.28%
1996 Harry Browne - 0.50%
2000 Harry Browne - 0.36%
2004 Michael Badnarik - 0.32%
2008 Bob Barr - 0.40%

So the highest % was 0.50 and the lowest was 0.28. That seems like a fairly narrow range of outcomes. Against that background, I would be impressed if Gary Johnson can crack 1.0% nationwide, and I would be shocked if he ran better than 3.0%. A lot can change in 5 months, but right now there is just no credible basis for thinking Johnson will get in the 5%-20% range nationally.

I voted for Marrou and for Browne both times, so I would be happy to see Johnson run a successful campaign and even (ideally) win a few states like New Mexico or Nevada, where Johnson's brand of western libertarianism would probably find the electorate most friendly. But right now, I just don't see any realistic path for that to happen.

Polling has him at 7% nationally.

When polled, I'll definitely say that I intend to vote for Gary Johnson just because it is wrong the way minor party candidates are excluded from the debates.

(05-19-2012 02:51 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-19-2012 07:25 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-19-2012 06:02 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  That combined with 5-20% for Gary Johnson

The last six LP presidential nominees and their national vote-%:

1988 Ron Paul - 0.47%
1992 Andre Marrou - 0.28%
1996 Harry Browne - 0.50%
2000 Harry Browne - 0.36%
2004 Michael Badnarik - 0.32%
2008 Bob Barr - 0.40%

So the highest % was 0.50 and the lowest was 0.28. That seems like a fairly narrow range of outcomes. Against that background, I would be impressed if Gary Johnson can crack 1.0% nationwide, and I would be shocked if he ran better than 3.0%. A lot can change in 5 months, but right now there is just no credible basis for thinking Johnson will get in the 5%-20% range nationally.

I voted for Marrou and for Browne both times, so I would be happy to see Johnson run a successful campaign and even (ideally) win a few states like New Mexico or Nevada, where Johnson's brand of western libertarianism would probably find the electorate most friendly. But right now, I just don't see any realistic path for that to happen.

Polling has him at 7% nationally.

Which polls? His own internal ones. I have yet to see any polls that show anything other than a 2 person race.

Johnson is polling at 7% in New Hampshire and around 2% nationally. The shame is that he probably could pull 15% nationally if he got fair coverage. A left party could probably also pull around 15% nationally with money and media, but it's just not going to happen.

PPP: Gary Johnson 6% http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/19/uh...johnson-6/


Sorry, I was off by 1%.

(05-19-2012 04:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  PPP: Gary Johnson 6% http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/19/uh...johnson-6/


Sorry, I was off by 1%.

PPP is always the least accurate AND uses Registered Voters not Likely Voters. PPP is a far left polling group that has at times done polls with The Daily KOS. PPP always understates the Republican percentage by 3 - 5%. In the end Johnson will probably get around 2% pulling very little from Romney, but getting votes from people who would otherwise not vote.

(05-19-2012 04:35 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-19-2012 04:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  PPP: Gary Johnson 6% http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/19/uh...johnson-6/


Sorry, I was off by 1%.

PPP is always the least accurate AND uses Registered Voters not Likely Voters. PPP is a far left polling group that has at times done polls with The Daily KOS. PPP always understates the Republican percentage by 3 - 5%. In the end Johnson will probably get around 2% pulling very little from Romney, but getting votes from people who would otherwise not vote.

You need to stop reading the right-wing propaganda. PPP ranked fourth in polling accuracy in the 2010 cycle and had a slight GOP-lean in their numbers.

Obama is going to lose. If you'd like to make a wager on it, I'm game, UMGrad.

The poll showing Gary Johnson at 6% nationwide was taken April 12-15, with a sample of 900 "American voters", per PPP's website. Given the historic trend of 3rd-party candidates over-polling their final results, I can't really say that 6% is all that encouraging for Johnson. But I would love to see him run a strong campaign and be the exception to the rule.

Other than that, I hope that the surveys between now and November 6th will compare "Obama/Romney" questions with "Obama/Romney/Johnson". That would be interesting data, especially at the individual state level.

I don't see any real difference between this election and the midterms. There is going to be a huge anti-Obama vote.

(05-20-2012 12:14 AM)Claw Wrote:  I don't see any real difference between this election and the midterms. There is going to be a huge anti-Obama vote.

I guess if you live in tea bag world and that is all you see, then I can understand why you would think that. But the tea party only makes up a relatively small portion of the overall country(despite them being a majority where you live).

(05-20-2012 12:14 AM)Claw Wrote:  I don't see any real difference between this election and the midterms. There is going to be a huge anti-Obama vote.

I use to think that an anti-vote is effective in politics until the 2004 election. There was a huge anti-W vote but there was also a huge pro-W vote. In the end the pro-W vote won because there wasn't a strong pro-Kerry vote.
Also, you guys might be over playing the anti-Obama vote. The people that you hang out with might be anti-Obama but most of you live in states where Romney is going to win anyway. I spoke to a female friend yesterday (she is a surgical tech) and she said "My doctor can't stand Obama. He keeps saying that he has ruined America. I just don't get it. Things aren't great, but he's doing ok." I've heard very similar from Women all year. The anti-Obama folks that I know are men. The other thing that I noticed is when a Mitt Romney commercial comes on at work, the ladies at work say things like "I don't really like him" to each other.

There was a large enthusiasm gap in 2010. There is no such gap this year.

(05-20-2012 07:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 12:14 AM)Claw Wrote:  I don't see any real difference between this election and the midterms. There is going to be a huge anti-Obama vote.

I use to think that an anti-vote is effective in politics until the 2004 election. There was a huge anti-W vote but there was also a huge pro-W vote. In the end the pro-W vote won because there wasn't a strong pro-Kerry vote.
Also, you guys might be over playing the anti-Obama vote. The people that you hang out with might be anti-Obama but most of you live in states where Romney is going to win anyway. I spoke to a female friend yesterday (she is a surgical tech) and she said "My doctor can't stand Obama. He keeps saying that he has ruined America. I just don't get it. Things aren't great, but he's doing ok." I've heard very similar from Women all year. The anti-Obama folks that I know are men. The other thing that I noticed is when a Mitt Romney commercial comes on at work, the ladies at work say things like "I don't really like him" to each other.

You dismiss anecdotal evidence, and immediately submit some of your own?

(05-19-2012 11:14 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The poll showing Gary Johnson at 6% nationwide was taken April 12-15, with a sample of 900 "American voters", per PPP's website. Given the historic trend of 3rd-party candidates over-polling their final results, I can't really say that 6% is all that encouraging for Johnson. But I would love to see him run a strong campaign and be the exception to the rule.

Other than that, I hope that the surveys between now and November 6th will compare "Obama/Romney" questions with "Obama/Romney/Johnson". That would be interesting data, especially at the individual state level.

I like the fact that you are rational. GTS needs some of that. We all know that the LP isn't going to win or really influence anything in the national election.

Side bet: GTS if you wanna have a signature bet on Johnson's % in the national election, I'll do it. I'll take under your 7% guess. Let me know if you want to.

(05-20-2012 12:17 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  There was a large enthusiasm gap in 2010. There is no such gap this year.

110 million people voted in 2008. 35 million voted in 2010.

(05-20-2012 12:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 07:32 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 12:14 AM)Claw Wrote:  I don't see any real difference between this election and the midterms. There is going to be a huge anti-Obama vote.

I use to think that an anti-vote is effective in politics until the 2004 election. There was a huge anti-W vote but there was also a huge pro-W vote. In the end the pro-W vote won because there wasn't a strong pro-Kerry vote.
Also, you guys might be over playing the anti-Obama vote. The people that you hang out with might be anti-Obama but most of you live in states where Romney is going to win anyway. I spoke to a female friend yesterday (she is a surgical tech) and she said "My doctor can't stand Obama. He keeps saying that he has ruined America. I just don't get it. Things aren't great, but he's doing ok." I've heard very similar from Women all year. The anti-Obama folks that I know are men. The other thing that I noticed is when a Mitt Romney commercial comes on at work, the ladies at work say things like "I don't really like him" to each other.

You dismiss anecdotal evidence, and immediately submit some of your own?

I live in a swing district. I have really conservative friends and really liberal ones.

(05-20-2012 07:33 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 12:17 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  There was a large enthusiasm gap in 2010. There is no such gap this year.

110 million people voted in 2008. 35 million voted in 2010.

Turnout for a mid-term is never as high as a presidential. It's silly to compare anything about the two.