I think the analysis that he’s taking more votes from Hillary than Trump is flawed. It is true that in opinion polls where they first give a choice of two candidates and then a choice among 4, that there is slightly more movement downward in Clinton’s numbers than in Trump’s. Part of that is the Green candidate, but people are missing the fact that there are people who are saying they would vote for Clinton, who in a normal year would be Republican voters. They’ve ALREADY left Trump. That’s why he’s polling below 40% to start with. And why any future increases that Johnson sees are likely to be further defections of people unwilling on principle to vote for Trump. Keep in mind if he gets to 15% they have to include him in the debates.
ok
got you pegged babble-on
Precisely my point. The people who would turn to Gary Johnson would not have voted for Trump under any circumstances. Voting Republican if somebody else was the party nominee is not an issue here. We are trying to deal with present reality. Present reality is that these people are not going to be voting for Trump and never were going to be voting for Trump.
Some Republicans have already voiced the idea that they are going to be voting Hitlerly. Johnson is not a factor in that. They would have done the same had Johnson not been an alternative.
And why any future increases that Johnson sees are likely to be further defections of people unwilling on principle to vote for Trump.
And here is our area of disagreement. Again, it appears to be a contradictory statement. If these people were unwilling on principle to vote for Trump --your conclusion-- is true, then it seems that the premise is flawed. Namely, these people were never defecting from Trump. They were never with Trump to begin with.
Keep in mind if he gets to 15% they have to include him in the debates.
If played properly, might end up being a blessing in disguise for Trump.
You have two basic types of Libertarian, and Libertarian-minded conservatives/Republicans: No, i'm not talking about Anarchists vs. Minarchists. That is a strictly Libertarian thing.
What i am speaking of are idealists vs incrementalists. There are some even in Republican circles who want change all at once. Others see the harm that would cause.
From what i have read of his position papers (i don't pay any attention to his rhetoric), Trump is in favour of rolling things back gradually. One does not for example, rebuild the US Military over night. One does not repeal "Obamacare" overnight. Congress, no matter how well intentioned simply cannot move that fast, and the replacement structures that Trump speaks of in his position papers have to be first put into place.
Trump plays that debate right, and Johnson-Weld look like bomb-throwing Anarchists. They're NOT incrementalists. The opposition ends up divided between Johnson and Hitlerly. It may be likely that even more Sanders supporters defect from Hitlerly --assuming she has any.