Jesse Walker: Election Do-Over Poll Shows Gains for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein; No sign of third-party regrets

Jesse Walker at reason.com:

Netflix

If the people who participated in last year’s election could do it all again, Donald Trump would win the popular vote this time—but he wouldn’t actually get more support than before. Instead, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, many Hillary Clinton voters would now stay home or back a third-party candidate.

In the actual election, Clinton bested Trump in the popular vote, 48 percent to 46 percent. In the survey, 46 percent said they voted for Clinton and 43 percent said they voted for Trump—not the same numbers, obviously, but it’s a similar margin. When those same people were asked who they’d pick if they could do it again, Trump now won, 43 to 40.

You’ll note that Trump hasn’t gotten any more popular—he gets 43 percent either way. But Clinton has bled support: Gary Johnson now gets 5 percent of the vote (one point higher than how the respondents said they voted last year), Jill Stein gets 3 percent (another one-point bump), and another 8 percent would either vote for someone else or not vote at all. (The remainder say they have no opinion.) The pollsters note that “nonwhites are 10 points more likely than whites to say they would not support Clinton again, with more than a third of them heading to the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.”

It’s not all bad news for the Clintonites, though. When you include people who didn’t vote in 2016, Clinton comes out ahead in the do-over, 41 percent to 37 percent. (Johnson and Stein are still at 5 and 3 percent, respectively.) So some nonvoters appear to wish they hadn’t sat the last election out.

But when it comes to third-party supporters, we don’t seem to be seeing anything like the regretful Ralph Nader voters of 2000. If anything, this poll suggests we’re witnessing the opposite.

Bonus link:Again and again this year, Americans looked at the choices before them and said, I’d prefer something else.

28 thoughts on “Jesse Walker: Election Do-Over Poll Shows Gains for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein; No sign of third-party regrets

  1. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . .When you include people who didn’t vote in 2016, Clinton comes out ahead in the do-over, 41 percent to 37 percent . . . . .”

    You all do realize that the ONLY reason Darth Trump is our president was Clinton voter apathy? Trump, of course, does not realize this. A narcissist only sees things one way.
    —————————————————————-

    ” . . . . . Gary Johnson now gets 5 percent of the vote (one point higher than how the respondents said they voted last year), Jill Stein gets 3 percent (another one-point bump) . . . . . ”

    If this poll is taken again in about a year, I bet Johnson & Stein’s numbers bump a few points more. . . . . . . . (cue angry anti Johnson post by Andy)

  2. paulie Post author

    You are both correct. Almost all Trump voters would still vote for Trump. More people who would have voted for Clinton did not vote and now wish they had, while some other people voted for Clinton and now wish they voted for Johnson or Stein. The numbers aren’t that hard to read.

  3. paulie Post author

    Let’s be fair, that was at 5 am NM time and a clearly planned gotcha question, or some context would have been added on the second pass instead of “seriously?” …but yeah.

  4. Tony From Long Island

    Actually George, more people voted for someone else and 3 million voted for Clinton.

    #Trump_Regrets

  5. Oliver Steinberg

    George, Trump is the fake President primarily (one is tempted to say ONLY) because of the electoral college, an archaic constitutional booby-trap which sure trapped a booby this time; and secondarily because of several reasons: 1. Republican-directed voter suppression efforts intended to and partially succeeding in reversing the voting rights act of 1965 et seq.; 2. the obsequious treatment of Trump by mass media and the overwhelming amount of free publicity he received despite his manifest unqualification; 3. the vicious sustained smear campaign against Mrs. Clinton going back to the early 1990’s; 4. the undemocratic practices of the Democratic party as its inner circles set out to rig the nominating process in favor of Mrs. Clinton–a scheme which backfired because she never was a popular candidate–lacking that indefinable popular appeal often called “charisma”–and only reached high office because of her husband’s erstwhile popularity. Trump is unqualified but does have the kind of popularity accorded to playground bullies; Mrs. Clinton was qualified in a technical sense but not able to be “popular”–some have it, some don’t. Otherwise how could unknown Obama have bested her in 2008, and unknown Sanders given her a run in 2016?
    Even so, she did win the popular vote by almost 3 million plurality, which was far less an endorsement of her than a deliberate rejection of Trump by the American people who DID bother to vote.
    Ironically, much of Trump’s support was a mirror image of that–to wit, people who voted for him not because they liked him but in order to head off Hillary. 2016 was the climax of the “lesser-of-two-evils” phenomenon in presidential voting.
    This rational response to your Pavlovian post won’t make any impression on you, since like many others you seem to have put your mental faculties into the Fuhrer’s “safekeeping,” but it should make sense to objective observers.

  6. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    April 26, 2017 at 09:15
    You are both correct. Almost all Trump voters would still vote for Trump.”

    I don’t know what the breakdown is, but I’ve heard buzz online in the alternative circles from people who voted for Donald Trump now regretting it.

    I imagine that there are those out there who voted for Trump and are not completely happy with him, but who still think that he was the lessor evil as compared to Hillary Clinton, so they are glad they voted for him to keep Hillary out of office.

    There are of course others who voted for Trump who are happy about it and like everything he’s doing.

  7. paulie Post author

    Andy,

    Stop internet commenting. It’s noon and we need to get out.

    And next time you are online add a blurb to your Tom Woods article. It would take less time than one of your comments.

  8. Tony From Long Island

    Oliver: I agree with 95% of your post. You have analyzed it quite accurately.

    The only bit I have a qualm with was: ” . . . . . .and only reached high office because of her husband’s erstwhile popularity. . . . . ”

    When she ran for Senate here in 2000, it was actually the ONLY time in my life that I voted for a Republican (something that is highly unlikely to be repeated). Rick Lazio is a moderate who is from my town and a decent guy. However, Hillary won that race fair and square and was an effective senator for New York, particularly after 9/11. Other than who her husband was, her qualifications were no less than many other people who seek the office of Senator.

    I didn’t vote for her during the 2008 primary, the 2016 primary or the 2016 General (since the unfair Electoral College already guaranteed her New York) but I never suffered from Hillary Derangement Syndrome. There was no “lesser of two evils.” She was miles above Darth Trump in qualification, knowledge of the issues and experience. Her lack of a suave personality would have been a non-factor until about 40 years ago.
    —————————————————–

    Now Andy will respond with some mumbo jumbo about the CFR and some conspiracy nonsense

  9. George Phillies

    more people voted for Clinton in total…that’s totally irrelevant.

    People voted for Trump in each of the 50 states, and as a result Trump won a clear majority oft eh electoral college.

    Democrats will of course rant against the electoral college. Sorry, that was part of the deal we made to get agreement on having our country. If you want a country in which popular vote elects the President, go for partition a la Czechoslovakia at which point “America” can do one thing and “The United States” can do the other, as seen in my forthcoming novel on the Disunion (it is positive, not a dystopia).

  10. Tony From Long Island

    Jorge: ” . . . . If you want a country in which popular vote elects the President, go for partition a la Czechoslovakia . . .

    Or go to just about every other civilized country.

    George, you are too smart for that post. Donnie won by the slightest of margins in the three states that put him over for that “clear majority” of the Electoral College (which was smaller than every single election – except 2004 – since 1960).

  11. Tony From Long Island

    I obviously meant 2000 & 2004 🙂 Can’t forget the debacle of 2000

  12. Gene Berkman

    You can say that Donald Trump won because of the Electoral College, since Hilary Clinton did receive 2.9 million more votes than Trump.

    Or you can say that Trump won because members of the Electoral College are chosen on a state-wide winner take all basis. If Presidential Electors were chosen by Congressional District, Clinton might have beaten Trump. If Electors were chosen by Proportional Representation, Clinton would have won, and Gary Johnson would have received 2 or 3 votes in the Electoral College.

    A federal law mandating that Electors be chosen by district or by P.R. would be easier to pass than a Constitutional Amendment ending the Electoral College.

  13. Just Some Random Guy

    If Electors were chosen by Proportional Representation, Clinton would have won, and Gary Johnson would have received 2 or 3 votes in the Electoral College.

    The claim Clinton would have won if electors were chosen by proportional representation is complete speculation.

    Why? Because if electors were chosen by proportional representation, voting patterns would have been different. People in swing states would have less incentive to vote for one of the primary candidates and people in non-swing states would have more incentive. For example, if you lived in California, you might as well have not even bothered voting in the presidential election because everyone knew Hillary would win it in a landslide so your vote would do nothing. But if it was proportional? Suddenly, your vote holds much more power in the election. If you think no one would change whether they voted or who they voted for if the system was different then you’re wrong.

    Saying “if proportional representation was done, Clinton would have won” or “if it had been done in popular vote, Clinton would have won” is little more than speculation because the votes would have been different if that was the case. The same goes for claims like “Trump only won because of the electoral college.” The only thing that’s accurate to say is that if everyone thought the regular electoral college was at play and then (after voting) it was spontaneously changed to proportional or popular vote, that Clinton would have won.

    Although, even if the votes themselves were the exact same, would proportional voting have created a different outcome? It doesn’t correlate perfectly with the popular vote, because not only are the voting percentages rounded, electoral votes aren’t divided up precisely by population, because they take the number of representatives the state has (which is decided by population) and then adds 2 to it (for the senators each state has). Getting a higher popular vote doesn’t mean you’d get more electoral votes even in a proportional representative electoral college. Has anyone done all of the calculations to figure out exactly how many votes each candidate would have gotten in the electoral college had proportional representation been done?

    Also, it is worth pointing something out: If the proportional electoral college votes did turn out to be about the same (percentage-wise) as the popular vote, then Clinton STILL wouldn’t have won. If you don’t get more than 50% of the electoral college, then the House decides who becomes president and with the House controlled by the Republicans, it seems highly unlikely that Clinton would have become president.

  14. George Phillies

    “If Presidential Electors were chosen by Congressional District, Clinton might have beaten Trump. ”

    It is possible to look up how many Congressional Districts and states these two turkeys each won.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/30/1627319/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presents-the-2016-presidential-election-results-by-congressional-district

    Trump carried 230, Clinton Carried 205.

    Also courtesy Balltopedia
    Trump carried 30 states; Clinton carried 20.

    There is no Clinton Victory here.

  15. Luke

    If it was not for the dirty tricks from the FBI and the FSB/former KGB Trump would have never even come close to being president. He also tapped into a lot of secret and not-so-secret racism and bigotry.

  16. Luke

    Why oh why are some people impressed by Doncheeto Trumpolini winning in a lot of places where people live further from their neighbors than most people do?

  17. Luke

    Finally, why should we be impressed that he would have benefited from gerrymandering by the same party that nominated him had the vote been done by congressional district?

  18. Tony From Long Island

    Jorge Fillipe:

    “If Presidential Electors were chosen by Congressional District, Clinton might have beaten Trump. ”

    It is possible to look up how many Congressional Districts and states these two turkeys each won.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/30/1627319/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presents-the-2016-presidential-election-results-by-congressional-district

    Trump carried 230, Clinton Carried 205. . . . . .
    There is no Clinton Victory here.

    Another post from George that I think is beneath his intelligence. I know you were just providing facts, but you should have shot the idea down because of the ridiculously gerrymandered congressional districts to favor Republican power.

    Congressional districts are all relatively similar in population size (it’s actually the rural ones that are often larger due to one district states). Yet, democrats always seem to accumulate more total house votes than republicans.

  19. George Phillies

    The original source claimed that if the vote had gone by Congressional district Clinton might have won. We only have one set of Congressional districts, so it is possible to look the answer up. Well, it is possible for those of us with a brain to look it up.

    Readers may recall that 25 years ago it was the Democrats who controlled Congress even if the Republicans got more votes; on a uniform shift, back then the Republicans needed ca 54% of the vote to capture Congress.

  20. George Phillies

    Interesting 2011 book
    The Lost Majority by Sean Trende\

    Interesting themes: The “realignment election” meme is wrong and inconsistent with the data. Large Presidential vote coalitions are unstable. The “Reagan Revolution” actually started in 1952 with Eisenhower. He wrote before Clinton lost, but pointed out that the Bill Clinton coalition was collapsing under Obama. The Democratic youth vote of recent years was the non-white vote; there is no substantial trend of young white voters toward the Democrats.

    interesting line: page 105 “In theory, the Obama coalition could become so heavily concentrated in a few states that it makes an electoral victory difficult.”

    He totally got that one right. It is a really enjoyable, interesting and educational book.

  21. Tony From Long Island

    George, I know you were only presenting facts, but you didn’t point out the fallacy of the argument.

    Gerrymandering is stupid no matter which side does it. I am Ok with a small bit of adjusting so that certain population groups are not split in an unusual way, but I feel that every district (other than the one state districts of course) should be a square as much as possible or some sort of shape that resembles a square. They should have a logical shape while keeping the population of each one as similar as possible.

  22. Luke

    It’s supposed to be one person, one vote. Some people, based on maps they circulate on email, facebook and wherever else they can, seem to think it should be one acre, one vote, or one county, one vote. States, counties and zip codes that have less dense population favored Drumpf, but why is that relevant to anything or some kind of great achievement? Substantially more people voted for Clinton than Drumpf, and a recent record voted for other candidates altogether, especially considering that none of those candidates had billions of dollars they could spend or decades as household names.

    When you add it all up, it’s about the same 40% popularity Drumpf has in popularity polls right now and about the same percentage he was showing in national polls before the election. The Clinton campaign was just too arrogant in believing they had the election already won and ignored what turned out to be the battleground states on the assumption those wouldn’t even be close, focusing instead on the next tier or two of states in hopes of getting a congressional majority. They were too unfocused and too much in denial in response to the FBI and FSB attacks in the last couple of weeks of the campaign. And they underestimated how many people held secret racial and religious bigotry that they were more comfortable expressing in the privacy of the voting booth than anywhere else. Their supposedly state of the art get out the vote efforts failed along with a candidate who lacked both character and charisma. As a result, we now have the unveloping Drumpf disaster we have today. If we are really, really, really lucky, some of us may yet survive it.

  23. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . . there is no substantial trend of young white voters toward the Democrats. . . . . . ”

    I think that the next 8 years will prove that false.

    Young voters in general have no taste for the xenophobic conservatism pushed by the person who currently occupies the white house.

    Clinton beat Drumph 56 – 34 among 18-24
    She beat him 54 – 38 among 25 – 29
    She beat him 51 – 39 among 30 – 39

    Trump won because those 50 – 64 made up 30% of the electorate. He won that group 52 – 44.

    Had there been better turn out by the younger voters he would not have won. I know that every four years we say turnout by young voters was low, but I have a feeling that will not be the case in 2020.

    18 -44 year old — Clinton 53 Drumpf 39
    Old people — Drumpf 52 – Clinton 44.

    http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

  24. Tony From Long Island

    Those numbers also fail to take into account that Mrs. Clinton was not a very likeable candidate. Any other Democrat would likely have reduced the Trumpster’s numbers more than a little bit.

  25. Stephen Kent Gray

    I voted straight Libertarian in 2016. I did it to oppose Trump and would do it again. I usually vote Libertarian for every race a Libertairan is running, but vote for other races as well, so normally don’t vote straight Libertarian. This time I ignored all races where a Libertarian wasn’t running! I’d do it as long a Trump is President, but in 2024 will go back to my moral voting patterns of Libertarians and Republicans wher no Libertarian is running,

Leave a Reply

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