Gary Johnson may prevent Mitt Romney's election in November. Real Clear Politics says that Johnson aims to utilize increasingly important social media; if the strategy is successful and Johnson wins 15% in three national polls, he will participate in the national debates. This will be an important step to ending the two-party system, which has led to increasing corruption and ever bigger government. Politico notes that an Arizona survey found that Johnson will receive nine percent. The poll, published by Public Policy Polling on May 23, notes that, in a head-to-head race, Romney leads Obama by 50 to 43 percent in Arizona. Although 80% of Arizona voters say that they are not sure of their opinion of Gary Johnson, question 11 indicates this:
11. If the candidates for President this year were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, and Libertarian Gary Johnson, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 41%
Mitt Romney................................................... 45%
Gary Johnson ................................................. 9%
Undecided....................................................... 6%
According to The New Mexico Watchdog, also based on a Public Policy Polling poll, Johnson was polling at seven percent in a three-way race among himself, Obama, and Romney. Obama wins against Romney in a two-way race, but wins by a 75 percent larger margin (48-44 versus 46-39) if Johnson is included.
Johnson says that he has an eight percent support level nationally. Public Policy Polling is a Democratic poll. Unfortunately, the Republican Rasmussen poll so far has excluded Johnson. Its results may therefore be distorted in Romney's favor. If Johnson is polling more than five percent, polling firms should include him. Their margin of error (confidence interval in percentage terms) is smaller than Johnson's support. In other words, they can't argue that Johnson's effect will be overwhelmed by random noise. It is bigger than random noise, and it will hurt Romney.
It is unfortunate that the GOP has chosen to pursue a big-government strategy. I would like to see Obama unseated, but the cycle of pitting a corrupt, big-government Republican against a corrupt, socialist Democrat needs to end. Those who oppose the expansive state that Romney advocates will be drawn to Johnson. His name recognition is still low, so six to eight percent may be significantly less than his ultimate support. The law suits being planned against the Romney campaign by Lawyers for Ron Paul (h/t Mike Marnell) may add to Johnson's support. Lawyers for Ron Paul alleges significant voter fraud and criminality in the Romney campaign. If these allegations are extended over the next five months, they may raise the support level for Johnson. The 15 percent target means that anyone who favors less government wastes their vote by supporting Romney.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The perfect is the enemy of the somewhat better. Do you really believe that, in this country of rational ignorance, the perfect will ever become elected? What do you achieve by knowingly maximizing the chances for the somewhat worse to be elected? Do you believe the country will revolt and next around elect the perfect? One cannot believe you entertain this unreasonable belief. Given that, what is your motive?
Let's see what you define as someone better. According to researchers at the Jerome Levy Economic Institute ( http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?docid=1462 ) the subsidies to the investment community during the 2007-9 bailout were $29 trillion. That is twice the entire economy.
If someone came up to you in 2006 and said, "Would you consider it somewhat better to give twice the entire economy to a failed industry that has never produced value? Would you favor doing so if there were two candidates, one who favored giving $29 trillion, while the other favored giving $29.9 trillion?" Would you have answered,
"Yes the one who advocates giving $29 trillion is somewhat better. We cannot expect perfection."
I would suggest to you that that is what you are saying. You are saying that a criminal who advocates handing twice the US economy to failed banks that do not produce value is "somewhat better" than another criminal who favors handing $29.9 trillion to the same interests.
I suggest that you are an extremist who has become so addicted to the lies on television, on Fox, and in the newspapers, so brainwashed, that you believe that the difference between $29.9 trillion and $29 trillion is a matter of grave importance.
What is YOUR motive?
Post a Comment