The latest of the CPD selected polling firm reports offers little hope for a debate invitation to any candidate other than the two old party ones, at least based on the 15 percent (apparently national) stated polling requirement. 
In the past the CPD has suggested that candidates at the far low end of the margin of error for 15 percent might be invited. It’s also possible they would consider 15 percent in a handful of swing states to be sufficient. Their announcement of debate invitations is anticipated within days, if not hours (“by mid-September”).
The report by ABC News/Washington Post finds that, ” Clinton’s 5-point advantage is within this poll’s margin of error . . . Clinton takes a slight hit from the presence of Johnson and Stein; it’s a 51-43 percent contest (Clinton +8) in a two-way matchup with Trump alone. That occurs mainly because of defections by Bernie Sanders supporters: Clinton wins 92 percent of them one-on-one vs. Trump, but just 77 percent of them with Johnson and Stein in the mix. . . . Support for Johnson and Stein rises among those who expect a Clinton victory, suggesting that tamping down expectations is one strategy for Clinton to bolster her chances. That’s especially so given the changeability of those who back Johnson or Stein; they’re far more apt than either Clinton or Trump supporters to say they might change their minds by Election Day. Just 15 percent of Clinton and Trump supporters say they could change their minds, vs. 55 percent of Johnson’s and Stein’s.”
The full report can be read HERE.
Tony,
The “Elections Are Educational Events Because We Say So” Caucus also frequently limits the sample to analyze to Libertarian candidates for President only.
Since we’ve had no real success so far, this effectively allows them to play fantasyland as to who we nominate. What difference does it make? We’ll ALWAYS end up with .5% anyway! Might as well now nominate an angry anarchist radio talk show host!
Perversely, some of these poor blokes even start using previous failure to justify The Insanity Of Doing The Same Thing Over And Over. To wit, we are no longer a political party! We’re here to educate and results don’t count!!! (As if there was any independent, objective judge of success other than votes obtained).
I used this tactic once when I was trying to sell used cars. I wasn’t selling because I wasn’t listening to what the potential customers wanted and tailored my message to them, I told them what was important to me in a car. This was met with abject failure when I kept putting 21 year old girls who wanted to text whilst driving into cars with sticks because that is “true driving.”
My supervisor told me I wasn’t long for the job because I wasn’t selling well at all. So I told him he don’t understand; my job wasn’t to sell cars. It was to explain to these air headed chicks why they should be buying a stick. Until they understood that, there’s no point in selling them a car. Wherever they want is not relevant.
I was fired.
Of course, when we expand the sample for analysis to who people typically vote for, it becomes blatantly obvious who the proper nominee should have been in Orlando, and what the celing would have been on any of our other options, namely the .5% you referred to.
You have said nothing to suggest that the less watered down message you love so much would be getting more than the usual .05%.
There are plenty of people who are voting for Johnson / Weld because of who the other two candidates are. As of today I am voting for Johnson because I am not a big fan of Hillary and because his message is not the extreme ridiculousness you purists worship.
I do not deny that the three points you raised have some merit, but if the Libertarian option was Creepy Perry there is no friggin way he would be above 1% in the Polls. They are not voting blind. Mr. Potato head would not be at 10% in the polls.
Tony From Long Island said: “The ‘watered down’ message that you decry is one that voters are actually giving a second listen to, rather than the usual one that gets laughed at as extreme and attracts the usual .05%”
There are factors beyond who Johnson/Weld are and anything that they have said or done that are having a greater impact on the election, such as:
1) There are large segments of the population that do not like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump or both.
2) There has been a big increase in the popularity and recognition of the word libertarian since 2007 (a lot of this is due to people like Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, and John Stossel).
3) The Libertarian Party has ballot access in more states than any other minor party or independent candidate, and is therefore the only presidential ticket beyond that D’s and R’s that have ballot access in all 50 states plus DC.
None of these factors have anything to do with Johnson/Weld. Tom Knapp made the comment that the Libertarian Party could be running Mr. Potato Head for President right now, and Mr. Potato Head would be polling higher than average for a Libertarian Party candidate.
Going by my anecdotal evidence, which comes from talking to lots of people, most Johnson/Weld supporters are voting for them because they like the word Libertarian, and/or because they are the only minor party or independent ticket of whom they are familiar in the presidential race, and they do not like Hillary or Trump. Most of these people do not follow this stuff closely enough to know all of the negative things about Johnson/Weld which we discuss here, however, I have run into a few people who are aware of the problems with Johnson/Weld, and these people are not happy about them, and they are not voting going to vote for Johnson/Weld, and they think that the Libertarian Party screwed up and/or did something stupid by nominating Johnson/Weld.
Robert,
Another party endorsing a Libertarian candidate is not prohibited by the LP’s bylaws. It is the LP or any affiliate that is prohibited from endorsing a candidate of another party in a partisan election. See the following paragraph taken from the LP’s Bylaws (which are easily obtainable from their website so you can look them up next time you have a question about them):
4. No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in
any partisan election. No affiliate party shall take any action inconsistent with the Statement of
Principles or these Bylaws.
To the LP bylaws sticklers, I’ve not heard any feedback on J/W getting the Independence Party of NY cross-endorsement. Isn’t that verboten, per the bylaws? If so, what are the remedies for this transgression?
RC,
I think the most likely route to debate inclusion at this point is a combination of Trump somehow insisting on it and Clinton buckling because of her own weak…and weakening..,support.
Now is Tony From Long Island a lying moron?
GJ’s message is the same as the LP’s for decades. If anything, he’s more on-point.
It took a generation for at least the 10% center to get it. We knew that in 1971.
” . . . . So far, since the convention in late May, the grand sum of all of the L/W campaign activity has resulted in . . . a 4 point increase. . . . . . Watered down message? Unprepared interviews? Running as “co-presidents?” lack of transparency/funds going to consultants instead of media? Media bias? An American electorate that just doesn’t give a damn? Gross incompetence? . . . . . ”
Are you kidding me? And what has ANY LP Candidate for the last 40 years have to show that is anywhere NEAR this?
The “watered down” message that you decry is one that voters are actually giving a second listen to, rather than the usual one that gets laughed at as extreme and attracts the usual .05%
It’s not looking so great for debate inclusion. But we’re likely to have some more twists and turns on this pageant.
Interestingly Johnson’s website shows the ABC poll at 8 percent (rather than the current 9), and reports the CPD average as 10 percent.
Image captured from http://www.garyjohnson2016.com 13 September 2016.
How out of date are those numbers? It would appear the ABC number (8 percent) is from July 14th.
The latest CNN poll shows 7 percent (not 9 percent as on the website). See the full report HERE.
The latest CBS poll has Johnson at 9 percent, not the 12 reported on the campaign website. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-narrow-national-lead-donald-trump/
Readers who were claiming that the Huffington and RealClearPolitics polls were mostly tilted against Johnson, and Johnson was already at 12, are shown to be out of touch with our reality.
While there was an early June point at 5%, three were others at 9-12%. See Huffington Post.
So far, since the convention in late May, the grand sum of all of the L/W campaign activity has resulted in . . . a 4 point increase.
Watered down message? Unprepared interviews? Running as “co-presidents?” lack of transparency/funds going to consultants instead of media? Media bias? An American electorate that just doesn’t give a damn? Gross incompetence?
Poll numbers aren’t going to get him into the first debate. I know he has mentioned that maybe he’ll be able to get into a subsequent debate. I guess that is technically true. But, once he missea out on the news cycle around the first debate, I don’t see how his polls numbers could increase, and certainly not increase by the 5-6% that he would need to get to 15%.
@Rev. James Clifton I totally agree with you. If the US didn’t have the (S)Electoral College, and the vote for president was determined by the popular vote, the CPD might have a better reason to base its decision on whom to allow into the debates on some nationwide polling (whether or not that threshold would be as high as 15 percent).
Given how that is not the case, the criteria for the debates ought to be based upon how many Electoral votes a candidate can win, which in turn is based upon how many state ballots the candidate is on. After all, it is the Electoral vote that determines the winner, so that is what should determine who makes it into the debates.
“Rev. James Clifton
September 12, 2016 at 13:59
Both Johnson and Stein are on enough state ballots to win the Electoral College. They should both be in the debates.”
I’d say the same for Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle if he ends up on enough state ballots to have a theoretical chance to win the election.
A Johnson is near, at or above 15% in many of the states that “matter”
Both Johnson and Stein are on enough state ballots to win the Electoral College. They should both be in the debates.
Of some interest is the wording of the 4-way poll question:
” If the presidential election were being held today and the candidates were [(Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, the Democrats), (Donald Trump and Mike Pence, the Republicans)], [(Gary Johnson and Bill Weld of the Libertarian Party) and (Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka of the Green Party)], for whom would you vote? Would you lean toward [(Clinton and Kaine), (Trump and Pence)], [(Johnson and Weld) or (Stein and Baraka)]?”
“Of the” and “Party” are missing in the prompting/aided recall for the two old party candidates. They ARE Republicans or Democrats, but Johnson/Weld and Stein/Baraka are “of the X Parties” – like, what? they aren’t real Libertarians or Greens, but the R and D candidates are real?!?
Nitpicking, perhaps; but an influence/bias in how respondents hear the question? . . . I think so.