Clinton's third-party headache

[ericson00]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clintons-third-party-headache-226700


far, FAR more spoiling against Clinton than Trump. So much for those who laughed at me yesterday on a similar thread.

A raft of new polls out this week carried almost unanimously good news for Hillary Clinton, staking the Democratic presidential nominee to significant leads over Donald Trump. But there’s one potential warning sign in these polls should the race narrow: Clinton’s lead over Trump shrinks when voters are allowed to choose one of the major third-party candidates in the race.
Yet the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket — composed of former GOP Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico and former GOP Gov. Bill Weld of Massachusetts — appears to draw more from voters who might otherwise be aligned with Clinton, especially younger voters.

Point is we don't need Johnson and Stein electing Trump, or keeping Hillary under 50% of the vote, which gives the GOP an easy talking point against her as they did against Bill.

[Doodley]

1. I wouldn't call it a headache at this point.

[bluedye33139]

2. Eventually we will have to trust in the intelligence of Voters

If the people of the United States cannot bring themselves to elect a government that functions, that's on them. This cycle has been marked by an extreme amount of hatred and vilification toward major nominees, and we will have to wait to see what the effect of all of this hatred will be. Perhaps in the future the Democratic Party will attempt to minimize the amount of hatred within its primary season.

[Demsrule86]

15. Closed primaries would be a good start. Democrats should decide who the candidates

will be. And voting for a third party is always a stupid thing to do...screw the Greens.

[bluedye33139]

17. I agree with so many of the Green Party policy positions except

for the one that requires all Green Party members to walk around 24/7 virtually dislocating their arms from their sockets because of the ferocity with which they at themselves on the back for never having participated in any bill or any legislation ever in history

[Demsrule86]

16. I trust those voters who recognize the danger

Trump poses and who will vote for Hillary Clinton.

[Freddie]

3. "The store was out of my favorite beer so I'll drink bleach instead"

That's voting third party "to make a point".
Has our side learned anything from the Nader debacle? Gotta wonder.

[ericson00]

4. enough people haven't

sadly enough. But the media is part to blame; why are they giving Libertarians a town hall, and might be giving the Greens one too?

[Freddie]

7. Unless we changed our election methods

From winner-take-all to instant runoff voting, or go to a parliamentary system, all third party candidates are merely spoilers and nothing more.

[TwilightZone]

5. Yes, the same thing happens every cycle. Libertarians and Greens poll well early, then they fade.

In 2012, Johnson was polling near 10% and ended up with 1%. Stein was polling mid-single-digits, ended up with 0.35%.

They may do slightly better this cycle, but they aren't getting anywhere near 15% combined in the end.

You also seem to be misreading those poll numbers. Clinton is still ahead in every one where she already had the lead except one, and that one is within the MOE.

They are also not "far more spoiling for Hillary" -- example: Fox News has her up 10 H2H and up 9 with third parties included. Obviously, only 1% is coming from Hillary. Where's the rest coming from? Oh, right - Trump.

[Hortensis]

8. +1.

Especially, that peculiar interpretation of which candidate is being hurt, not that it even makes any real difference for Trump, he's so far behind.

[ericson00]

10. can you not read the graph/numbers?

its pretty obvious what it says.

[TwilightZone]

12. Yes, it is. It's very obvious.

Example, again:

Fox News

Trump vs. Clinton: Clinton up 10
Trump vs. Clinton vs. third-party: Clinton up 9, third party share is 12

Clinton only loses 1 point vs. Trump if third parties are involved.

The only way that's possible is if a lot of that 12 is coming from Trump (or undecideds).

This really isn't that complicated.

Edit: you're also missing the larger point. This happens every four years. They poll well early, then disappear. There's little reason to believe this year is any different. The two of them combined barely broke 1% in 2012.

[beachbum bob]

6. if trump remains, many of his voters will split between hilalry and johnson...stein will be lucky to

even get close to 2% nationally...the die-hard fringe that support stein is a minutia quantity....and most likely will have zero impact...the fact that her supporters put ego first and country second is always troubling...and they so very want to "teach america" a lesson for rejecting bernie....just like nader supporters did in 2000 with GWB/cheney....

[RBInMaine]

9. In the end, the stench of Trump will push most Green sympathizers to Clinton.

[yellowcanine]

11. Not a headache because she is winning the states she needs - and then some.

This is where the EV system actually helps.

[bigdarryl]

13. She's not winning anything the election is in November not Aug.

I call these polls bullshit because they are just SNAPSHOTS!!

[Demsrule86]

14. You know what is annoying...

posts that say...' well things are great but' look at that possible disaster'...your concern is duly noted.