NBC Poll: Johnson and Stein help elect Trump

[ericson00]

As I was going thru RCP's polls, I noticed something:

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Clinton 46, Trump 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Clinton 39, Trump 38, Johnson 10, Stein 6 Clinton +1

the second poll is in the MoE, so its a tie. The MoE is 3.1% for this poll; the first one has Clinton winning cleanly.

Basically, what all of us need to do is tell our friends to avoid voting for any of the third party spoilers if they wanna keep Trump out of the White House. I also hope this encourages Johnson and Stein to drop their campaigns. Even if Clinton wins, we don't need another scenario where the GOP uses that someone got under 50% as an excuse to delegitimize them. They used it against Bill, falsely with the Perot-myth, and they'll use it against Hillary. While yes the first poll has no one at 50%, in two ways, candidates often don't get there because of undecideds, but when undecideds decide, there are none left, as in they drop out of the denominator (so 46 out of 87 is already 53%).

see here

[tonyt53]

1. Johnson and Stein won't end up with more than 2% total between them.

Johnson will not even be on the ballot in every state because they can't afford the filing fees - said so himself. Polls in June about a November election mean zip! Start paying attention to them Labor Day. Also, use the electoral college map, not the map of the country.

[TwilightZone]

14. Agreed.

Happens pretty much every cycle. They poll high early, then fade after the conventions.

[MohRokTah]

18. Historically, the Libertarian almost always polls at 6% in June.

The Green usually shows up on the polls too.

It all goes away by Labor Day resulting in less than 2% combined between them with the one exception of 2000 when Nader did slightly better.

[democrattotheend]

24. I disagree

I think Gary Johnson will break 5%, because a lot of Republicans don't like Trump but can't stomach voting for Hillary. Johnson provides them an alternative. I bet the Libertarian Party has its strongest showing this century, assuming Trump is the Republican nominee.

[LiberalFighter]

45. That is odd. Johnson yesterday stated they were on the ballot in all 50 states.

Yet, there website shows them only with 33 states. Johnson must have lied.

[NobodyHere]

64. Johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

[brooklynite]

2. Tis data is meaningless...

...a national poll tells you nothing about which States might potentially be vulnerable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. If candidates want the votes of the left, they should appeal to the left.

[LuvLoogie]

4. If the Left wants to advance, they should join the Democratic Party and support it's candidates.

Bernie did. He knows that the Democratic Party is the only viable vehicle for organizing into a legislative force that can effect change for the better.

[David__77]

10. I would say they could "join the Democratic Party and BE its candidates."

That, of course, requires not just joining; it requires organization and work.

[cheapdate]

13. +1

I have a number of local leftist friends who I've met in various ways. They're a lot younger than me and just full of ideas on how to bring about positive change without dirtying their hands in electoral politics.

Finding a group of people who think like you do is relatively easy. Persuading people who don't to change their outlook is hard.

[ericson00]

7. you got your $15 dollar minimum wage. Be happy

and vote for Hillary.

[white_wolf]

34. As a die-hard Sanders supporter, I'll freely admit

the $15 an hour minimum wages makes voting for Clinton a lot easier. Mostly because it shows she's willing to listen to her critics on the left. So yeah, I'll vote for her, I'll encourage friends and family to vote for her, but don't expect me to be particularly happy about it.

[floriduck]

53. Unfortunately, that's only as good as the down ballot results are. But we can hope.

[MohRokTah]

19. If the left wants any say, they should vote for the only viable candidate on the left. eom

[MohRokTah]

23. Hillary Clinton is a viable candidate on the left and saying she isn't is bad form. eom

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. However, the overall RCP poll averages don't show so much of a change

4 way Clinton +5.6%: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

2 way Clinton +6.7%: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

and, FWIW, with Johnson, but not Stein, Clinton +6.6%: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-5949.html

[RAFisher]

8. The ABC/WaPo poll that came out today shows no 3rd Party effect

Clinton is +11% without 3rd parties and +10% with 3rd parties. Third parties always poll much higher than they actually do. I don't see this as a problem.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

[ericson00]

9. its in the realm of possibility, and as someone whose seen first hand

the how the GOP always tries to delegitimize a Democratic POTUS, be it Bill because he got under 50% of the vote (even tho unlike W. in 2000, he still got the most votes), Obama for supposedly being "born in Kenya," I don't wanna see this stuff again, even if the possibility is only remote.

PS: Maddow indeed likened the Perot-myth to the birther movement.

I understand why Republicans want to tell each other this story. It
delegitimizes the whole Clinton presidency in the same way they tried for
years to delegitimize the Obama presidency saying he wasn`t really the
president. He swooped in from Kenya somehow to steal it. They don`t like
to think they`ve been beaten fair and square.

And given how both 1994 and 2010 panned out, its obvious why they do this.

[George Eliot]

11. Every American owns his/her vote without threat or judgment.

If Trump attracts the largest vote, he wins. If Clinton attracts the largest vote, she'll win. That's how it works. Claim policies that people want to vote for and you'll win. What's wrong with that? Besides, polls have become unreliable and it's too early to predict anything. Much ado about nothing IMO.

[MohRokTah]

20. That's bullshit, I'll always judge people for their votes.

For example, anybody who tells me they are voting for Jill Stein I immediately judge to be a fucking moron.

[lapucelle]

29. I agree.

I think it's valid to make judgements about people based on where their votes fall on the political continuum and whether they use their vote as a weapon or a tool.

If people want a safe zone, they should keep their vote secret.

[Stinky The Clown]

32. This^^

[Hiraeth]

46. .

[MohRokTah]

47. .

Not now, nor have I ever been a Christian, thus the moldy old book written by nomadic ignorant goatherds has no meaning to me.

I judge anybody so stupid as to vote for Jill Stein to be ten times more stupid than anybody stupid enough to vote for Trump.

[Hiraeth]

48. oh my.

how judge-y of you.

[MohRokTah]

49. IT is human nature to judge other.

I embrace my humanness.

[Hiraeth]

50. you're just so darn hug-able!

[BlueCaliDem]

51. K&R! ^^^This!^^^ Spot ON, MohRokTah. eom

[George Eliot]

63. Hmm...maybe why Clintonites get so emotional.

That appeared to me to be a big difference between Sanders and Clinton supporters. Sanders seemed more about issues. But since I don't judge, you're welcome to your opinions.

[Turin_C3PO]

25. I disagree.

Sure, every American is entitled to vote without fear of illegal threats/retaliation. But they're sure not free from judgement!

I definitely can and will judge anyone who helps usher in a theoretical Trump presidency. That includes Trump voters, 3rd party voters, and non-voters. The last two groups aren't quite as bad if they're in a very safe blue state.

[George Eliot]

33. Then you will expend a lot of unproductive energy.

[synergie]

35. As will those voters who insist on voting for candidates that have no practical chance of actually

winning, they also boast the added act of helping a truly insane and dangerous idiot win.

[George Eliot]

59. As I said, it is their decision. Abe Lincoln had no chance...but he won.

[synergie]

60. Not really sure what that means? Lincoln and every single president of the US ever was

on the ballot of every state. When you have no chance, it means that none exists. My dog has no chance of being president. That means that will never happen. He's not on the ballot, he has no no0mination, and while he was quite charming, he was a dog and is now deceased, hence the "no chance" thing. No buts about it.

[George Eliot]

62. The unexpected can happen.

http://www.downtownwestchester.com/view_program.php?id=224

The New Republican Party
To achieve Pennsylvania's support would take a complex mixture of strategic planning and political maneuveuring. It began in June 1856 when the new Republican Party had its first presidential primary in Philadelphia. The party's nominee for president was John C. Fremont, a former California senator famous for his military exploits during the Mexican-American War. Up for grabs was the vice-presidency with some 15 contenders. Leading the pack was former New Jersey Senator William L. Dayton. But the Illinois delegation, wanting to have their voice heard, managed to talk the Pennsylvania delegation into nominating Lincoln, who was not at the convention. When it was their turn to speak, John Allison, president of the Pennsylvania State Convention, took to the floor and read a set of his state's resolutions supporting Fremont for president. Once he finished, it was on to the next matter, one he was less familiar with.

"I nominate for the vice-presidency, Abram Lincoln," Allison declared, getting his first name wrong.

"Who is he?" was shouted from the audience.

"An old-line Whig and the prince of good fellows," responded Allison to laughter and applause.

It was a surprising moment made even more so when the Lincoln supporters garnered 110 votes to Dayton's 259 on the informal ballot. But when the formal ballot was taken, Lincoln received just 20 votes and the Illinois delegation withdrew his name.

snip snip snip

As the convention got underway, politics got heavy. On the first day of voting, Seward received the most votes with Lincoln a distant second. But it was not enough to give Seward the nomination so the delegates adjourned until the next day allowing the Lincoln supporters to ramp up their efforts to get sympathetic supporters to change their vote to Lincoln. When the morning arrived, counterfeit tickets were given to eager supporters who filled the hall, shutting out their opposition. The Pennsylvania delegation shifted their vote and Lincoln secured the presidential nomination on the third ballot.

Really, all I'm pointing out is that Lincoln was a virtual unknown and his supporters made promises to secure his nomination. It really won't surprise me at all if one day we have a successful write-in candidate or the libertarians or greens give us an unexpected President. Unlikely but you never know. I never consider my vote a waste if I'm supporting someone who shares my values. If the nominee really does reflect the values of the most people, that nominee will win regardless of who else is running.

From Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/7/21/1404380/-The-Write-In-Vote
Did you know that the Presidency could be won by a write in candidate? Find a map a very short explanation. Anything is possible.

[bettyellen]

55. I'm judging anyone who votes for Trump, lol. Because he is an idiot. Easy.

[GusBob]

61. To this day I judge Nader voters

And the verdict is not good

They betrayed our country

[TwilightZone]

12. Nah, it's the same pattern as other elections. They poll high early, then fade.

In 2012, Johnson was polling 8%; he ended up with 1%.

Stein was polling mid-single-digits; she ended up with 0.35%.

By the time the conventions are over, they'll be polling in the low single digits, if not before.

[HerbChestnut]

15. Just FYI

MoE of 3.1% means that either candidate's numbers could actually be higher or lower by 3.1%. That means that both polls are statistical ties.

Sorry for the Statistics Police intrusion.

[thesquanderer]

16. Within margin of error does not quite mean statistically tied.

It means they are 95% sure the number will fall within the specified range... but not all numbers within that range are equally likely to occur. The farther from the quote number, the less likely the result, even if still within the MOE.

Also check out http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/one-last-encore-great-statistical-tie-fallacy

[MohRokTah]

21. "Statistical ties" are actually when a poll reveals two people to be precisely the same percentage.

So no, it's not a statistical tie.

[HerbChestnut]

56. Yikes, not true at all.

I'll withhold from the snarky response and instead suggest to look up what a T-Test is and how it works.

[Hiraeth]

17. Hillary is the winner!!

[synergie]

36. She sure is!

[MaggieD]

26. Trump is not going to be president

You heard it here first.

[lapucelle]

27. I remember the impact Nader had in 2000 especially with purists

who (for some reasons no one can seem to remember) cast Al Gore as "the lesser of two evils".
I also remember the impact Ross Perot had in 1992.

Similarly, the Brexit vote remorse shows what can happen when individuals who are casting a vote to lash out at a system (rather than to change the policies that are really causing their problems) realize that no one is going to rescue them from that vote. You have to live with the consequences. The architects of the "Leave" side are already shrugging their shoulders, walking back false promises, and more or less telling the people they duped "You should have read the fine print, stupid".

I hope that Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters can consolidate behind Clinton. We should work on consensus through compromise and do the right thing in November.

[Jitter65]

28. Never forget!!! nt

[lapucelle]

30. The whole world would now be a different place had Gore won.

My husband is a FDNY 9/11 survivor, so I know lots of people who died that day. I sometimes find myself wondering how many of them would still be alive if Gore had won.

[madinmaryland]

31. Ross Perot actually had support, unlike either Johnson or Stein...

How many votes did they get in their primaries? Who outside of DU and a few other political sites has ever heard of them or would actually consider voting for them?

[Betty Karlson]

37. Second poll that warns of the third party vote going very high.

Last edited Tue Jun 28, 2016, 07:43 AM - Edit history (1)

We would do well to take this VERY seriously, and start thinking of a platform, a VP choice, a DNC chair and other functionaries and policies to get extra voters from the left - which is the only place we have a reasonable chance of getting them from.

This is no time for complacency. Ditch the TPP and TTIP and get the vote. The alternative is Trump. Full attack on Citizens United, unless you want Mitch McConnell to attack women's health. No more corporation-coddling, unless you want neo-nazis in charge of border-control. At this point, insisting on more Third Way policies is insisting on a Trump presidency.

[Betty Karlson]

42. I think the WaPo would take issue with that summary. Quote:

"Despite his woes, not all the results of the new polls were heartening for Mrs. Clinton. The Journal-NBC survey found that her lead essentially disappears when candidates from the Green Party and Libertarian Party are included. She essentially tied Mr. Trump, with 39 percent to his 38 percent. Together, third-party candidates grabbed 16 percent of the support."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/us/politics/donald-trump-slips-further-behind-hillary-clinton-in-new-polls.html?action=click&contentCollection=us&module=NextInCollection®ion=Footer&pgtype=article&version=newsevent&rref=collection%2Fnews-event%2Felection-2016

[DanTex]

40. Johnson gets more votes than Stein. So by your logic, we should appeal to libertarians, right?

[Betty Karlson]

41. Not really: we can win Green votes without losing our centrist voters, but not

libertarian voters without losing 40% of our base.

[NorthCarolina]

52. I don't see Johnson as posing much of a threat, but it is conceivable that Dr. Stein could

wind up doing much better than the 2% predicted.

[beachbumbob]

54. National poll...when it comes down to states...still a landslide

For Hillary...

[Joe the Revelator]

57. The more the merrier

There is a right leaning 3rd party candidate and a left leaning 3rd party candidate. At the end of the day, they will cancel each other out and have no effect on the real results, but there CERTAINLY should be allowed to run. The two party system is a joke, and that has nothing to do with our current slate of candidates.

[pnwmom]

65. Not true. If we win a plurality with less than 270 electoral votes, the Republicans

in the House and Senate will get to choose the next President and Vice President.

Like it or not, we have a two party system. A strong third party could throw the election to Congress to decide.

[CobaltBlue]

58. Since 2000…

The combined percentages of the U.S. Popular Vote—Republican-vs.-Democratic nominees—were:

• 2000: 96.25

• 2004: 99.00

• 2008: 98.58

• 2012: 98.18



I am dismissing the poll—with regard for the candidates outside the two major political parties—as unlikely. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein probably won’t combine for greater than 2 or 3 percent.