Reason: New 7% Showing in CNN Poll Almost Certainly Dooms Gary Johnson’s Debate Chances

GaryJohnson_202796a_8col

By Matt Welch, Reason.com, September 6th, 2016:

CNN/ORC this morning came out with its first national presidential poll in more than month, and the results are terrible for Gary Johnson’s fading hopes of getting into this fall’s presidential debates. The Libertarian nominee pulled just 7 percent in the survey, down from 9 percent in the same poll at the end of July, and 13 percent—his highest-ever showing nationwide—two weeks prior to that.

CNN/ORC is one of the Big Five national polls that will be averaged by the technically nonpartisan, effectively bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in “mid-September” to assess which candidates will be taking part in the initial Sept. 26 event. Since another of the Big Five, Fox News, dropped a 9-spot on Johnson last week, that means that the other three polls would need to average 19.7 percent for Johnson to get to the unreasonably high 15 percent threshold. As it stands now, if the CPD were making its decision today, the Libertarian nominee would be at 8.8 percent across the selected five polls. Which, while being the most impressive third-party showing since Ross Perot in 1992, would still fall far short.

Read the rest of the article here. 

52 thoughts on “Reason: New 7% Showing in CNN Poll Almost Certainly Dooms Gary Johnson’s Debate Chances

  1. Matt Cholko

    Most people that have been around third party politics for at least one POTUS cycle knew there was essentially no chance of him getting into the debates. So, this is not surprising. It is unfortunate that the campaign has so tightly tied their success to debate inclusion though.

  2. ATBAFT

    ” It is unfortunate that the campaign has so tightly tied their success to debate inclusion though.”

    But one can imagine the bitching if the campaign had said “getting in the debates is hopeless so we won’t even try.”

  3. robert capozzi

    MC, I saw GJ say even if he doesn’t get in the first doesn’t mean he won’t get in the second or third. He’s building urgency, but also vowing to march on.

    It works.

  4. steve m

    The CNN poll failed to include the 18 to 34 population in reasonable numbers with respect to their percentage of the population.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-segal/cnn-na-is-still-not-ok_b_852671.html

    “OUR TIME told CNN that there are more than 70 million Americans between the ages of 18-34 and this age group represents more than 30 percent of the adult population over 18. Thus, if the CNN poll was to interview young Americans proportionately to their size in the population — they would have surveyed roughly 247, not the roughly 74-82 that would comprise the 9-10 percent they cited.”

    “This response from Keating Holland, CNN’s polling director.

    Keating ballparked that roughly 9-10 percent of the 824 poll respondents were under the age of 35, but refused to release the raw number of young survey respondents. CNN also issued the following statement:”

    The 18-34 year-old age group is included in all surveys conducted and released by CNN. The group was also included in the poll released on Tuesday, April 19, 2011. The data for the 18-to-34 age group is listed as “N/A” in the breakdown of age groups because the sample size was too small for statistically valid analysis. CNN polls, like all other polls conducted by news organizations, adjusts many groups to reflect their actual share of the total adult population as reported by the U.S. Census, so the overall results are unaffected by the small number of 18-to-34 year olds interviewed.

  5. Anthony Dlugos

    MC, The campaign didn’t tie its success to debate inclusion; that connection exists whether an LP ticket wants to admit it or not.

  6. George Phillies

    Bulloney it didn’t.

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/05/media/debate-lawsuit-gary-johnson-jill-stein/

    ” Johnson, too, talked about the importance of the fall debates during CNN’s Libertarian party town hall on Wednesday. “You can’t win the presidency if you’re not in that game,” he said. ”

    Stupid objective, stupid path.

    For the sound Libertarian path, I call your attention to the 50 State Strategy of Governor Dean and the ‘contest every election’ tactics of Tip O’Neill.

  7. George Phillies

    dL: Apparently you do not understand how polling is usually done in the real world.

    You are in much (bad) company on this.

    Suppose we are a polling house. We poll something and expect demographically that the 1000 people polled if a perfect demographic sample would have 500 men and 500 women. [GP: The number is wrong for the real world.] We do our poll. We find that in the poll we have 250 men, and 750 women. What do we do? We use demographic adjustment. Each male answer is counted double, so we they get a final weight of 500. Each female answer is counted 2/3, so they have a final weight of 500. That’s how you do real polling.

    The shortage of young people in the sample DOES NOT MATTER. (It may matter, if the sample of young people is elsewise non-random in a significant way.)

  8. dL

    “dL: Apparently you do not understand how polling is usually done in the real world.”

    George: turn your sarcasm meter on..

    Sincerely, dL

  9. Be Rational

    I call your attention to the 50 State Strategy of Governor Dean and the ‘contest every election’ tactics of Tip O’Neill …

    … neither of whom had any success in a national election for POTUS …

  10. Anthony Dlugos

    George,

    Sorry, I worded that poorly.

    I realize the ticket tied their success to getting into the debates. I have no problem with them doing so; that connection exists whether our ticket wants to admit it or not. In fact, as a delegate I disqualify any candidate who thinks otherwise, or is effectively incapable of reaching that goal. Nothing else is as important for our presidential ticket.

  11. robert capozzi

    br: … neither of whom had any success in a national election for POTUS …

    me: True. No third party candidate has, with the possible exception of 1860, which was a 4 way race, with iirc Lincoln being effectively from one of the two major parties.

    This election has nothing to compare it with. Shoe-horning interesting data points does not lead to a conclusive, clear analysis for reasonably objective observers.

  12. George Phillies

    BR As you are transparently unaware, the 50 state strategy was not related to running anyone for President. but to paths for developing the Democratic Party at the local,l state, and Congressional levels.

  13. George Phillies

    Getting into the debates (i) is highly unlikely to happen (ii) will not do any good, and (iii) is unrelated to the rational reasons for running a Presidential ticket.

  14. steve m

    I believe statistically that the confidence drops in polling results the smaller the sample size. In the case of the CNN poll where they stated that only 9 or 10% of their samples were in the age group 18 to 35 a group that has demonstrated higher levels of support for Johnson/Weld. 22% for at least the 18 to 29 year old milleniums. This CNN sample of 10% of 820 respondents would be a sample size of 82. They are using 82 people to characterize some 70 million people. My back of the envelope calculations indicate that if that 82 population included 2 too few Johnson supports and you multiplied the 18 to 35 year olds by 3 to correct the demographic issue you change Johnson’s support by at least 1%.

    Of those 82 we don’t know their sex, region of the country, education or income levels.

    The CPD might as well go down to the pony races and randomly pick a horse and if that horse were to win or place let Johnson into the debates. It would be every bit as objective a method as to use this CNN poll.

  15. steve m

    Johnson remains unknown to about 70% of the population. Those that do know him upwards of 54% like him. Getting into the debate would allow Johnson a chance to introduce himself to a significant portion of that 70%. So I claim, that getting into the debates would help increase Johnson’s polling results in November. That getting into the debates would increase the size of crowds showing up at Johnson events. Would increase in those states that have party affiliation Libertarian Registrations and that all of these would be good for growing the party and increasing awareness of Libertarian positions.

  16. Anthony Dlugos

    The only rational reason to run a presidential ticket is to win the presidency and you can’t do that without getting into the debates.

  17. steve m

    I disagree. 3rd parties run Presidential candidates to gain ballot access and grow the party. We wouldn’t turn down winning the presidency but winning the election is not the only rational reason.

  18. Anthony Dlugos

    Ballot access success and growing the party are both ancillary effects of running to win; the goals are not at all contradictory, they run in tandem.

    The primary problem with the LP running tickets to “educate,” “gain ballot access,” “grow the party,” et al, is that it creates a mindset of…”well, we can run a 35-year old blogger, or a drug addled murder suspect, or an anarchist, because we don’t need to win at this point.”

    And of course, all you get then is candidates that not only can’t win, but can’t come anywhere close to doing the things you want done either.

    Nominate the most electable candidate. Everything you want comes along with it. Nominate candidates that can’t win but make US feel good as anarchists and radical libertarians because we aren’t ready to win yet, and you’ll end up with nada.

  19. George Phillies

    “They are using 82 people to characterize some 70 million people. ”

    As anyone who knows anything about statistics is aware, the size of the population does not matter. The 82 people are equally good as samples of 70 thousand, 70 million, or 70 billion people. There is always concern about the quality of the sample and whether it was adequately random.

    For this reason, an aggregated average of many polls, perhaps with some weighting for house effects, tends to be more accurate. The Huffington post aggregator also allows you to adjust for “smoothing”…how much you weight more or less recent polls. Aggregation gives you much large sample sizes for all subgroups. Depending on how much smoothing you apply, Huffington averages Johnson to 7.6, 7.9, or 8.9%. — At the moment. Smoothing is time sensitive.

    “The only rational reason to run a presidential ticket is to win the presidency” Out of touch with reality. And if we wanted to have a shot at winning, we should not have handed the nomination over to a candidate with that campaign team.

  20. George Phillies


    From NBC’s Carrie Dann and Andrew Rafferty

    Tonight’s the night! Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will each face questions on national security, military affairs and veterans’ issues during tonight’s Commander-in-Chief forum, presented by NBC News and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and simulcast on MSNBC and NBC. ”

    And if I were running, we would have video and a podium. I would get the questions and answer them spontaneously, and put it up on video. That’s answers like “Anyone who thinks we can have an invincible military is out of their mind. In an age of nuclear weapons, the best you can do in a relationship with other nuclear powers is to realize that if they attack you they are going to be destroyed, too.”

  21. Anthony Dlugos

    I’m out of touch with reality? lol. Voters are actually trying to determine (by whatever standards they might use), who they feel is best qualified for the office of the president and you’re going to turn the mission into a political philosophy classroom or party building exercise.

    In my outreach, I’ve never had one voter ask me how Gary Johnson intends to build the LP. Believe it or not, they actually ask me about his positions, as if their primary concern is what he is going to do once in office.

    Who’d a-guessed that! lol

  22. Thomas Knapp

    “In the case of the CNN poll where they stated that only 9 or 10% of their samples were in the age group 18 to 35 a group that has demonstrated higher levels of support for Johnson/Weld.”

    And a demonstrated propensity to stay at home and play beer pong instead of voting, thus the decision to not give them more weight than they actually carry.

  23. Thomas Knapp

    “The only rational reason to run a presidential ticket is to win the presidency”

    Just because you don’t like the other reasons, it does not follow that they are irrational.

    There was essentially zero chance that the Democrats were going to win the White House in 1984 or that the Republicans were going to win the White House in 2008. Yet those parties ran presidential tickets in those years. Why?

    Answer: Because there were all kinds of rational reasons to do so other than winning the presidency. A few of them:

    1) A battle well fought, even though it is lost, helps keep the voter and donor base engaged.

    2) Even losing presidential candidates have coattails, and not running a candidate would have cost the losing party seats in close congressional races.

    3) In any real presidential campaign, the NEXT nominee is likely hitting the campaign circuit as a surrogate for the current nominee, getting his mug in the papers and on TV and impressing party rank and file.

    4) For a third party candidate with even less of a chance of winning than Mondale in 1984 or McCain in 2008, the rational purpose of a presidential campaign — the ONLY rational purpose of a presidential campaign — is to get the party’s message out and build the party for future elections.

    Reason #4 is why Johnson/Weld are a medicine show, not a presidential campaign.

  24. Jim

    Thomas Knapp “’In the case of the CNN poll where they stated that only 9 or 10% of their samples were in the age group 18 to 35 a group that has demonstrated higher levels of support for Johnson/Weld.’ And a demonstrated propensity to stay at home and play beer pong instead of voting, thus the decision to not give them more weight than they actually carry.”

    19% of the vote in 2012 came from those 18-29. That’s been increasing by about 1% every 4 years for the last several elections. It should be about 20% in 2016. Another 17% came from those 30-39 in 2012.

    So it should be roughly 28% for the 18-35 group in 2016.

  25. robert capozzi

    tk: the ONLY rational purpose of a presidential campaign — is to get the party’s message out and build the party for future elections.

    me: Welcome back.

    Given that the LP has been essentially flat for decades suggests that this approach of offering raw or camouflaged NAPsterism has had virtually no impact in terms of party building. Getting the message out optimally could involve running for prez AS IF it could win. Soapbox lunatic-ism turns off perhaps 90% of the pop., who will not waste time listening to quixotic sideshows.

    Many take J/W seriously, at unprecedented levels. They get hard-news coverage, which I’ve never seen before. Morning Joe panelists talk about whether GJ gets in the debates, etc. Some may well drill deeper, even read the SoP, and decide whether they too want to challenge the cult.

  26. Thomas Knapp

    “me: Welcome back.”

    I didn’t know I’d been gone.

    “Given that the LP has been essentially flat for decades suggests that this approach of offering raw or camouflaged NAPsterism”

    I said that the candidate’s job is to build the party, not to “offer raw or camouflaged NAPsterism.”

    “Getting the message out optimally could involve running for prez AS IF it could win.”

    Which is what I have always vocally supported. Running AS IF you could win is not the same thing as getting high on your own gas.

    “Many take J/W seriously, at unprecedented levels.”

    Did I say differently? It’s a shame that that is being wasted on a non-campaign which will end up harming rather than helping the party (and which will also not result in a Libertarian White House).

  27. robert capozzi

    tk: non-campaign

    me: You ARE a tough crowd. Tremendous media appearances, including 3 townhalls. Tremendous campaign vids of top-shelf quality. Well attended rallies across the country. 3 SuperPACs.

    Do they need to self-immolate or get arrested for driving without a license to gain your approval?

  28. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    What in the world would my approval have to do with it?

    Doing some smirky free media victory laps isn’t a campaign.

    Super PACs are legally forbidden to even coordinate with campaigns, so it’s kind of silly to credit the campaign with what the Super PACs are doing.

    Maybe they’ve finally shifted to top-quality campaign videos (15 or 30 seconds long and of television air quality). If so, good. All I have personally seen up to this point are 2-3 minute vanity porn pieces. Probably valuable in the same way and to the same crowd as the “raw or camouflaged NAPsterism” you denounce.

    They’re probably going to end up getting my vote, if I bother to cast one, but I’m an easy sell. To get votes out there in non-LP country, they’re going to have to stop fucking around and get serious.

  29. George Phillies

    “Given that the LP has been essentially flat for decades suggests that this approach of offering raw or camouflaged NAPsterism has had virtually no impact in terms of party building.”

    I’m sorry, you are saying that Barr and Johnson did what?

    And as a description of ” the ONLY rational purpose of a presidential campaign — is to get the party’s message out and build the party for future elections.”, your characterization is trollish.

  30. steve m

    “As anyone who knows anything about statistics is aware, the size of the population does not matter. The 82 people are equally good as samples of 70 thousand, 70 million, or 70 billion people. There is always concern about the quality of the sample and whether it was adequately random.”

    Then why sample more then 1? 1 should be as good as 82 or 70,000.

  31. steve m

    One thing that any one who knows about statistics, sampling theory or quality control (sorry the professional instrumentation engineer in me), is that you have to determine the accuracy of your sample population with respect to the total population. If you don’t you have no idea what the data means if it means anything. So, you would break your sample population up into to smaller sample sizes, hopefully randomly selecting each of these sets and see how these smaller sets compare to all the rest. Problem is you can’t break 82 into very many smaller sets… maybe 4 of 20 each. 5 of 8 each. and then look for something that is happening to 10% of the population. This is why 200 or 300 starts to give you useful data. Now you can break them up into 10 sets of 20 or 30 for example.

  32. langa

    I’ve asked this question about a billion times and never gotten a good answer to it, but people keep saying the same stupid shit, so here it comes again:

    If the only reason to run is to win, then if Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders had approached the LP and asked for our ballot line, should we have given it to them? Surely they would have had a better chance to win than Johnson/Weld.

  33. robert capozzi

    >Tk: What in the world would my approval have to do with it?
    Me: Your perception is your reality, as mine is mine. J/W is garnering more interest and more buzz than previous L campaigns, yet you share your perception that it’s a poor effort. Since you are your own Alpha and Omega, it’s surprising to me that you continue to discount the progress J/W has made in elevating a third liberty way into the public discourse.

    >TK: Doing some smirky free media victory laps isn’t a campaign.

    Me: Please then do share the TK definition of a campaign.

    >TK: Super PACs are legally forbidden to even coordinate with campaigns, so it’s kind of silly to credit the campaign with what the Super PACs are doing.

    ME: Legally true, but I disagree that it’s “silly.” This is the first L campaign that I know of that has inspired significant and multiple SuperPAC efforts.

  34. robert capozzi

    Gp: I’m sorry, you are saying that Barr and Johnson did what?

    Me: No, I’m saying that Hospers to Badnarik were raw and/or camouflaged NAPsterism. From the 80s til now, the cult-challenging ranks have remained within a narrow band.

    Barr and Johnson 12 were tentative steps away from that model. Johnson 16 is a flowering of a lessarchist approach. My sense is that the preliminary metrics suggest that it’s a far more effective means to reach millions of voters. Interest in the ticket is far, far greater than previous efforts.

  35. robert capozzi

    Langa: if Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders had approached the LP and asked for our ballot line, should we have given it to them?

    me: No. They are not lessarchists.

  36. Just Saying

    “Interest in the ticket is far, far greater than previous efforts.”

    Until, of course, people are actually exposed to it.

  37. robert capozzi

    tk: You utopian purist litmus-tester, you.

    me: Touche! Without a sense of virtue, victory is pointless. I’ve never said otherwise.

    The difference is that the NAPster believes that very specific virtues can be logically derived, then marketed to the public, possibly with very specific transition plans. If it worked, I’d be for it. I’m convinced it doesn’t.

    You soldier on.

    It’s all good!

  38. Thomas Knapp

    “The difference is that the NAPster as I conceive him or her has never been observed in the wild and may very well just be a figment of my imagination.”

    There, fixed that for ya.

  39. robert capozzi

    tk, anyone who signs and abides by the Pledge and SoP are NAPsters in my book. Discerning “abides by” is the tricky part.

    You, Harlos, Chair Nick, etc., are NAPsters, as I see it. You also happen to be the Knappster!

  40. Jim

    George Phillies “I’m sorry, you are saying that Barr and Johnson did what?”

    Barr did nothing. Johnson 12 didn’t do much, either. The measurable increases in LP interest between 2008 and 2015 (voter registration numbers, an uptick in US Congressional candidate vote percentages, etc.) was probably due almost entirely to Ron Paul. Because Ron Paul from 2008 through 2012 was able to get media attention and he was constantly associated by the media with libertarianism.

    Libertarian voter registration actually declined between 2004 and 2008 despite an incredibly unpopular war and gross violations of civil liberties. It had plenty of ammunition, but the LP wasn’t hitting the target and was slowly fading into obscurity. Ron Paul rescued the LP in 2008.

    However, Johnson 16 has contributed a lot towards the growth in the LP, including reversing its decline in fundraising and number of donors. And that is due to his ability to get media interest, which partially stems from Ron Paul fading from the spotlight, Johnson’s background as a former Governor giving him credibility, and his willingness to soften the edges of the LP platform in order to appeal to a wider audience.

    There is a reason Johnson is polling far ahead of Stein, Castle, De La Fuente, and McMullen. And if the LP had instead nominated Darryl Perry, Perry would be polling somewhere closer to where Castle is now, Jill Stein would be closer to 10%, and the number of donors to the LNC would finish the year somewhere close to 2015’s levels rather than somewhere close to 2002’s levels. I’m very interested to see where voter registration stands at the end of the year.

  41. Anthony Dlugos

    langa,

    If Cruz or Sanders came to the LP asking for the ballot access line, I would surely listen to their pitch as to why they want it.

    We need to keep it real here at IPR because I’m keeping it real. Despite the general perception among many Libertarians (a perception that veers into delusion among radicals and purists), voters in this country are not desperate to turn their country over to a cadre of inexperienced malcontents preaching the NAP gospel and promising to shut down the government, release anyone who has ever been convicted of a drug crime (violent or not), end federal funding of private prisons, unleashing god knows what into the streets, closing the Fed on Day One and bringing back the barter system, and various other elements of dystopian graphic novels. Most politicians realize this, many Libertarians do not.

    Point being, I would be generally positive about politicians from the duopoly parties who came to us interested in our ballot line, for the simple fact that the conversion in that case would almost certainly be genuine since we can offer them nothing other than the ballot line.

    And in exchange for that ballot access, those duopoly politicians willing to switch would be faced with their old gargantuan party ready to lay them out in the town square and disembowel them, AND an insufferable faction of the LP ready to yank the ballot line at the tiniest hint of NAP apostasy.

    In short, they’d had to have had a genuine conversion or be frankly suicidal.

  42. Anthony Dlugos

    Furthermore, langa, I don’t think we are going to have to wait long to test your theory as to whether or not a sitting politician would have a better chance than Johnson/Weld at winning.

    It’s pretty much a metaphysical certitude that there are sitting politicians who are watching Johnson-Weld, two politicians who have been out of the game for years, come dangerously close to getting into the debates, and realizing that a sitting politician like themselves running as a Libertarisn would almost certainly be in the debates right now.

    Considering who is likely to win the presidency, and how miserable their term is likely to be (polarizing won’t begin to describe it), and considering what Mr. Knapp has pointed out about the possibility of federal campaign funds for 2020, I’d book your tickets/lodging for the convention that year the minute they announce the location. It’ll make 2016 look as puny and pointless as meeting of Democrats in Utah.

  43. Be Rational

    “… the 50 state strategy was not related to running anyone for President. but to paths for developing the Democratic Party at the local,l state, and Congressional levels.”

    As you are so easilu fooled by propaganda and unable to perceive reality – you have apparently failed to notice that neither the Ds nor the Rs have had a 50 state strategy nor a contest every race strategy. There national parties abaodon states for decades at a time and leave scores of seats for US House, State Senate and State Rep uncontested in every cycle. Even statewide races are left uncontested by the Ds and Rs.

    And the Ds and Rs never run a 50 state POTUS race for party building either.

    They don’t have the resources. Neither do we.

  44. Thomas Knapp

    “come dangerously close to getting into the debates”

    Ah, evidence that Mr. Dlugos has paused in the Kool Aid quaffing and is beginning to consider the frightening prospect of facing facts.

    Maybe next he’ll understand that to the extent the purposes of the LP include electing people, they include electing libertarians, not whoever looks like he or she might be popular at any given moment.

  45. Anthony Dlugos

    haha.

    Mr. Knapp,

    You keep confusing elections with philosophical battles when they are not.

    I don’t want to elect a bunch of libertarians. I want to convert existing politicians into Libertarians. I use the upper and lower cases there intentionally.

    I want people who know how to get and stay elected doing the people’s business of reducing the size and scope of the federal government. There is no reason for us to scour the country for those people. We already know where they are: Washington D.C. All we need to do is demonstrate to them that reducing the size and scope of the federal government is what will keep them in office. They are better at that than libertarians. If libertarians were better at that, they’d be in office already.

    If you’re asking me if I think the people who are propping up the leviathan will be the ones to tear it down, the answer is yes, I do. When the people demand it. Don’t let them convince you that they’re in Washington D.C. for philosophical reasons. They aren’t.

  46. Thomas Knapp

    “You keep confusing elections with philosophical battles when they are not.”

    No, I don’t confuse elections with philosophical battles.

    I recognize that elections are weapons USED IN philosophical battles.

    That’s the theory that everyone, not just Libertarians, flogs.

    In practice, sure, a lot of people treat the whole thing as sport — and I’m more guilty of that than most.

    But ultimately there’s either a purpose to it or there isn’t.

  47. Steven Wilson

    Again I mention the obvious quality aspects of Trump vs. Clinton only debate: it will allow the American voter to manufacture in their own mind a picture of Johnson, Stein, and Castle while the proof of American deterioration under the two party system will seem crystal clear.

    With past performances on record the LP should see this as a victory of sorts as Clinton has proven the ability to utilize cracks in the armor of opponents through ads which are direct or indirect. Her people are very good at manipulating the media.

    Johnson appears to have the same team as he did in 2012 which offers him almost no cover in regards to international or global events and their effects on America. His stock answers about intervention won’t ride well when the American people are looking for maturation and intellect in Presidential comprehension of said events.

    A debate would just amplify Gary Johnson’s weaknesses on this front.

  48. Thomas Knapp

    I have to concur with Steven Wilson on that.

    Trump and Clinton would savage Johnson in a debate, if they deigned to pay any attention to him at all (if not, then he would probably look very awkward just sitting there).

    They will be very well-prepped. The free media appearances so far suggest that Johnson would not be.

    He’ll likely get more votes on the basis of how bad Trump and Clinton are than he will from any efforts to sell himself. Not being in the debate will highlight the former, while the latter would probably bomb.

  49. Thane Eichenauer

    I would just as well have Gary Johnson appear and succeed or fail by his presence. I would like to think that the Clinton team or the Trump team would see an advantage to having Johnson on stage. I don’t think either will when Hillary Clinton is on the defensive and Donald Trump probably believes that he is slowly but surely advancing against a weak candidate and weak campaign of Hillary Clinton. Michael Dukakis failed by his own actions. Democrats after him succeeded and failed on their own efforts.

    Even a supposed fail such as the Aleppo question has turned out well IMO. I have family that heard about Gary Johnson for President from a source other than my mouth. I count that as a net positive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *