[The Final Dakar]

Perhaps some of you will think this is premature, but considering McMuffin is outpolling him in Utah, I'd say it's pretty definite. He probably will get 5% nationally but it's a far cry from the 15% or more we were seeing in the summer.

So what went wrong? How is it in a year where both mainstream candidates have record unfavorables he's producing more Nader numbers than Perot?

[subego]

He's a dork.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

He's a dork.

Ha, I start a thread instead of posting in the punditry thread and you kill it in one post. Bravo!

[andi*pandi]

I think Utah can be considered an exception.

If this were Jeb vs Bernie, Johnson would be doing much better.

[OAW]

There are structural disadvantages to any third party candidate in our two-party system. His well-publicized foreign policy gaffes certainly did him no favors. And traditionally most third party candidates start fading the closer we get to the election because the potential consequences of a "protest" vote start to become more real for the electorate.



OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I think Utah can be considered an exception.

If this were Jeb vs Bernie, Johnson would be doing much better.

Why is that?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

There are structural disadvantages to any third party candidate in our two-party system. His well-publicized foreign policy gaffes certainly did him no favors. And traditionally most third party candidates start fading the closer we get to the election because the potential consequences of a "protest" vote start to become more real for the electorate.



OAW

He was supposed to buck the trend. He didn't.

[andi*pandi]

With polarizing candidates, people are voting defensively against the person they hate. With more milktoast candidate Jeb, or even fringe Bernie, the pressure would be off somewhat.

Or maybe at this point, we'd all be angrily claiming Jeb is the antiChrist and Bernie was going to make us all join a collective.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by OAW 

There are structural disadvantages to any third party candidate in our two-party system. His well-publicized foreign policy gaffes certainly did him no favors.

While I agree with you in principle, it was supposed to be the perfect storm for the Libertarian Party to lap up votes from disgruntled Conservatives (and, to a lesser degree, disillusioned Democrats). It has simply become clear that Johnson is not of sufficient caliber to become President. Nor has the political program congealed enough to be main stream (there were some Libertarians who were dismayed that Johnson supports driver's licenses).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

With polarizing candidates, people are voting defensively against the person they hate. With more milktoast candidate Jeb, or even fringe Bernie, the pressure would be off somewhat.

Or maybe at this point, we'd all be angrily claiming Jeb is the antiChrist and Bernie was going to make us all join a collective.

That's kind of what I'm leaning towards - a third party candidate probably has better chances in a non-polarized atmosphere because voters won't see a negative outcome as catastrophic.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Or maybe at this point, we'd all be angrily claiming Jeb is the antiChrist and Bernie was going to make us all join a collective.

Bingo. The base level for calling your political opponent the anti-christ/hitler is so high that there's no room for actual dialog, and valid complaints are lost in the noise. This time around there are lots and lots of legitimate scandals for both candidates but all people can seem to focus on are tiny hands and coughs.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Bingo. The base level for calling your political opponent the anti-christ/hitler is so high that there's no room for actual dialog, and valid complaints are lost in the noise. This time around there are lots and lots of legitimate scandals for both candidates but all people can seem to focus on are tiny hands and coughs.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Bingo. The base level for calling your political opponent the anti-christ/hitler is so high that there's no room for actual dialog, and valid complaints are lost in the noise.

I am not so sure about this: this should be the ideal time for third-party candidates. Trump and Clinton are the most disliked candidates, and all of the dirt that has surfaced IMHO should rouse interest in a serious alternative. Trump couldn't be a worse candidate if he tried (and he seems to), yet he still garners ~40 % of the public vote.

Johnson's (and to a lesser degree Stein's) failure to divert votes from Republicans and Democrats alike despite these conditions is theirs.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Bingo. The base level for calling your political opponent the anti-christ/hitler is so high that there's no room for actual dialog, and valid complaints are lost in the noise. This time around there are lots and lots of legitimate scandals for both candidates but all people can seem to focus on are tiny hands and coughs.

I think it's a function of learning curve. It's easy to understand what cough could represent. It's much harder to sort out campaign finance or charity law.

Edit: It might be why the tape finally killed Trumps numbers. But I could just as easily see it working from a different angle.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I am not so sure about this: this should be the ideal time for third-party candidates. Trump and Clinton are the most disliked candidates, and all of the dirt that has surfaced IMHO should rouse interest in a serious alternative. Trump couldn't be a worse candidate if he tried (and he seems to), yet he still garners ~40 % of the public vote.

Johnson's (and to a lesser degree Stein's) failure to divert votes from Republicans and Democrats alike despite these conditions is theirs.

That would be the case if on a sociological scale any society could be considered rational. Unfortunately, people do not behave as a person would. It is far easier and more entertaining to buy into the drama and sensationalism that this election has brought rather than form a rational basis from which to define your vote. Much like why the NFL is so popular, people get far more zealous (and therefore create far more entertainment) about the 2 majors than about any 3rd party candidate. It's classic "us vs them" syndrome.

Until you start seeing a 3rd party candidate on the debate and as part of the news cycle, you'll only ever hear about how a 3rd party candidate shot himself (or herself) in the foot rather than the sane, "boring" policies they put forth.

IMO, It's a societal problem that comes with the complacency of having a wealthy nation for at least 2 generations. No one today really knows what it was like to be on the brink or facing the survival of our way of life. For the majority, they're basically voting for which bathroom policy America should use going forward, rather than how we're going to deal with the mounting debts, strategic threats, & long term social issues we face today.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

That would be the case if on a sociological scale any society could be considered rational. Unfortunately, people do not behave as a person would. It is far easier and more entertaining to buy into the drama and sensationalism that this election has brought rather than form a rational basis from which to define your vote. Much like why the NFL is so popular, people get far more zealous (and therefore create far more entertainment) about the 2 majors than about any 3rd party candidate. It's classic "us vs them" syndrome.

I understand that third-party candidates have it tough in the US system, but I don't think this is enough to explain Johnson's lack of success. For instance, you neglect that the Republican Party is unraveling right now, historically that's quite a rare situation.

Ross Perot was able to get 18.9 % in 1992. So while he had no chance getting the Presidency, I think a similar amount of votes for Johnson would be enough of a success for the Libertarian Party to make inroads to getting seats in Congress, for example. But they're not. Nor am I seeing anyone trying the recipe of creating a party that represents socially liberal, fiscally conservative values, that'd be be quite successful a combination.

[The Final Dakar]

So here's another question: Did Libertarian politics even factor into the rejection of Johnson? Because my knee-jerk is no, they did not.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

That would be the case if on a sociological scale any society could be considered rational. Unfortunately, people do not behave as a person would.

I agree, people aren't rational, and even if they were, our politics is full of contradictions.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

IMO, It's a societal problem that comes with the complacency of having a wealthy nation for at least 2 generations. No one today really knows what it was like to be on the brink or facing the survival of our way of life. For the majority, they're basically voting for which bathroom policy America should use going forward, rather than how we're going to deal with the mounting debts, strategic threats, & long term social issues we face today.

That's an interesting perspective, because when I think of the last 10 years, I think of the worst recession since 1933, millions of people losing their homes, a stagnant job market for the recently graduated, and the continuing trend of low skill workers having no options when they lose jobs that are outsourced, obsolete, or they became too physically old to continue.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I understand that third-party candidates have it tough in the US system, but I don't think this is enough to explain Johnson's lack of success. For instance, you neglect that the Republican Party is unraveling right now, historically that's quite a rare situation.

I think if one side had a shit candidate it'd be easy to lure voters over, but the only thing worse than a Trump presidency is a Clinton presidency, and that glue will hold quite a few voters to their R guns. Likewise, Trump freely advertises reasons not to vote for him, and coupled with Hilary's embrace of and Trump's rejection of the female vote, Hillary gets a nice swing that way.

Plus no candidate supports the (historically significant) conservative Christian viewpoint, so many of them are voting for Trump in the hopes that an R in the office means women stop murdering babies. This is literally the reason my dad gave me last August for his planned Trump vote.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

For the majority, they're basically voting for which bathroom policy America should use going forward, rather than how we're going to deal with the mounting debts, strategic threats, & long term social issues we face today.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Plus no candidate supports the (historically significant) conservative Christian viewpoint, so many of them are voting for Trump in the hopes that an R in the office means women stop murdering babies. This is literally the reason my dad gave me last August for his planned Trump vote.

Single issue voting. I wouldn't say Trump doesn't support the conservative Christian viewpoint, because he's been outspoken in that regard. He just doesn't embody it.

[Captain Obvious]

1) He was not polished, articulate, or charismatic enough to take advantage of the media coverage he had

2) His over emphasis on the legalization of marijuana made it the signature issue he is known for championing. That is an asinine policy to have surrounding you in the eyes of voters when more pressing national issues need to take center stage.

3) Trump's unstable behavior scared conservative moderates who were considering Johnson. It was enough to sway them to abandon that idea out of concern of throwing electoral votes to Trump. HW Bush v. B Clinton was a much more benign outcome in the eyes of many compared to this election.

Mcmullin does not jeopardize the election in Trump's favor and he is solid on TV when he discusses policy which gives him an air of credibility Johnson failed to inspire.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I think if one side had a shit candidate it'd be easy to lure voters over, but the only thing worse than a Trump presidency is a Clinton presidency, and that glue will hold quite a few voters to their R guns. Likewise, Trump freely advertises reasons not to vote for him, and coupled with Hilary's embrace of and Trump's rejection of the female vote, Hillary gets a nice swing that way.

I can see the logic behind this argument, but I don't think it suffices to explain Johnson's lackluster performance. A Clinton victory is very likely one way or the other, so as a Republican you could also use this election to stick it to the party establishment by voting third party. Instead, it's just that Johnson is not very appealing. He's not well-versed on international politics, a bit, well, goofy, and a party without direction. To me that's just as plausible, if not more so. (Of course, neither one of us will have much proof either way.)

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Plus no candidate supports the (historically significant) conservative Christian viewpoint, so many of them are voting for Trump in the hopes that an R in the office means women stop murdering babies. This is literally the reason my dad gave me last August for his planned Trump vote.

The US is growing less attached to Christianity, so while there is still a healthy voter base who ensured a Bush II victory, I don't think this is enough to explain the lack of interest in Johnson.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

1) He was not polished, articulate, or charismatic enough to take advantage of the media coverage he had [...]

Yup, I think this pretty much sums it up. (Ditto for Jill Stein.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Single issue voting. I wouldn't say Trump doesn't support the conservative Christian viewpoint, because he's been outspoken in that regard. He just doesn't embody it.

What Christian values does Trump embody? I guess the only “hope” is that “true” Christians will have enough influence on Trump's Supreme Court candidates. I also think that if you base your whole election on a single issue that is nowhere near the top of the list of important issues, I think you should re-examine how you pick candidates.

[andi*pandi]

Trump embodies none. However he has made promises to the Religious Right about the Supreme Court. Will that promise be another of his checks that bounces?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Ross Perot was able to get 18.9 % in 1992.

Because he was a billionaire willing to self-fund his own campaign and blanket the airwaves with political ads. I contend if he were not he would have fared no better than Johnson.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Because he was a billionaire willing to self-fund his own campaign and blanket the airwaves with political ads. I contend if he were not he would have fared no better than Johnson.

OAW

That detail has been forgotten. I don't know where Nader ranks in all that though.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

he's an SJW knobhead?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

A Clinton victory is very likely

Sure, if you believe the crooked, slanted media. Trust Trump, he's winning.

[Chongo]

Too bad Madonna didn't offer her "Johnson services" for Johnson votes instead HRC.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Sure, if you believe the crooked, slanted media. Trust Trump, he's winning.

Dude, look at the size of his rallies to Hillary. Trump wins again

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Dude, look at the size of his rallies to Hillary. Trump wins again

Kaine sure packs them in. Most of them was press.

[Laminar]

An uncredited photo without context! I'll let my political leanings write the story!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

An uncredited photo without context! I'll let my political leanings write the story!

WOW! Tim Kaine Holds Rally and ONLY 30 PEOPLE Show Up!

[andi*pandi]

Wow, some random guys blog! I totally believe everything he says now!

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

WOW! Tim Kaine Holds Rally and ONLY 30 PEOPLE Show Up!

I counted at least 35 in one photo.

[Laminar]

But they were mostly press! The ramifications of this revelation will resound THROUGHOUT THE AGES.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Because he was a billionaire willing to self-fund his own campaign and blanket the airwaves with political ads. I contend if he were not he would have fared no better than Johnson.

Yes, but McMullin's success in Utah shows that it is possible you can get more than 5~7 % of the vote as an independent. I realize that McMullin being a Mormon plays a major role here, but it still points to the fact that things aren't that simple.

[...deleted...]

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, but McMullin's success in Utah shows that it is possible you can get more than 5~7 % of the vote as an independent. I realize that McMullin being a Mormon plays a major role here, but it still points to the fact that things aren't that simple.

No, it's completely unique. For some reason Trump turns of Mormons in a way evangelicals are immune to, plus McMuffin being Mormon is a 1-2 punch we aren't likely to see again. As it was, Mormons were still keeping Trump afloat until the grab tape came out.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by And.reg 

Because more people are convinced that either Bim or Bo will run for president and people are casting their vote for one of them to make sure that the other won't be president.

Not to mention, the two finalists were not officially finalists until the end of summer.

Tl;dr political polarization. I mostly agree.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I counted at least 35 in one photo.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But they were mostly press! The ramifications of this revelation will resound THROUGHOUT THE AGES.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Wow, some random guys blog! I totally believe everything he says now!

*hands them a napkin*

There's some froth around your mouth, might want to get that.

[Chongo]

Maybe had sold more of these...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

*hands them a napkin*

There's some froth around your mouth, might want to get that.

Then this happened
Tim Kaine Sarasota rally canceled
http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20...rally-canceled