Johnson's poll numbers have been sliding lately. RCP has at 5.9%, down from a high of 9.2% back in September. 538 has him at 5.7%, from a September high of 9.0%. Given that third party candidates tend to significantly underperform on election day as compared to their polls, is the dream of 5% dead?
Apparently the slide in third party candidate popularity as the election season progresses is actually quite normal.
I think Johnson's popularity was a mixture of two things:
1. People advocating him out of protest
2. People not knowing who he was
If this is true, then the decline is perfectly expected.
Now I guess we shall wait for ljoss's take on the whole situation.
I would also assume that a lot of protest votes for Johnson were coming from Utah and Arizona, who are now more interested in McMullin for a protest vote rather than Johnson.
Johnson's poll numbers have been sliding lately. RCP has at 5.9%, down from a high of 9.2% back in September. 538 has him at 5.7%, from a September high of 9.0%. Given that third party candidates tend to significantly underperform on election day as compared to their polls, is the dream of 5% dead?
Apparently the slide in third party candidate popularity as the election season progresses is actually quite normal.
It is normal, but Johnson's slide is outpacing the norm. Probably a combination of Aleppo and, like MrM0nd4y said, the growing awareness of McMullin for "normal" Republican-type voters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Johnson's poll numbers have been sliding lately. RCP has at 5.9%, down from a high of 9.2% back in September. 538 has him at 5.7%, from a September high of 9.0%. Given that third party candidates tend to significantly underperform on election day as compared to their polls, is the dream of 5% dead?
Apparently the slide in third party candidate popularity as the election season progresses is actually quite normal.
It is normal, but Johnson's slide is outpacing the norm. Probably a combination of Aleppo and, like MrM0nd4y said, the growing awareness of McMullin for "normal" Republican-type voters.
Actually, everyone outside the major two parties is doing better than 2012. All 3rd Party Candidates made less than 2% of the vote in 2012. This time, that may be Jill Stein alone, and there's an abnormally large group of undecided voters compared to the previous cycle. And on top of that, Gary Johnson is still on track to get the Libertarian Party federal funding for the 2020 election, although that's not a comfortable certainty anymore.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Actually, everyone outside the major two parties is doing better than 2012. All 3rd Party Candidates made less than 2% of the vote in 2012. This time, that may be Jill Stein alone, and there's an abnormally large group of undecided voters compared to the previous cycle. And on top of that, Gary Johnson is still on track to get the Libertarian Party federal funding for the 2020 election, although that's not a comfortable certainty anymore.
We should be careful comparing Johnson's 2016 poll numbers with his 2012 results. Instead, compare his 2012 polling to his current polling. Johnson wasn't in nearly as many polls in 2012 as he is now, but the few he had saw him with 4-6% in September 2012 (this is the latest poll I can find: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/01/rel11a.pdf - I haven't found any from October or November that had him). In that same poll, Stein was at 3%. Both were pretty close to where they are now. But on election day, Johnson only managed a hair under 1%, and Stein about 0.36%.
Given that it's now late October and Johnson still has ~5%, I think it's fair to say he's doing better than last time. But I don't think we can reasonably expect that to translate to 5% on election day, unless this year is a break from past experience.
Given that it's now late October and Johnson still has ~5%, I think it's fair to say he's doing better than last time. But I don't think we can reasonably expect that to translate to 5% on election day, unless this year is a break from past experience.
Standard rule of thumb for 3rd Party candidates is take their polling support and cut it in half to get a ball park for their final votes. The last exception was Ross Perot, and the only 3rd Party candidate that is looking to beat that rule this election cycle is Evan McMullin.
The reason I've been ignoring that rule is because this hasn't been a particularly standard election (even though really it has; it's just a remix of previous elections to look like something new and interesting). I'm still on edge about using it because FiveThirtyEight is still reporting 15% undecided voters (compared to 5% in 2012), but as this trend continues, the Greens and Libertarians are not looking to do much better this time around despite Democrats and Republicans not being so popular...
...Because both 3rd Parties picked lousy candidates from an even worse primary pool. The Libertarians may still hit their mark, but they're likely going to have to hit back on McMullin hard and soon.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
...Because both 3rd Parties picked lousy candidates from an even worse primary pool.
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but I hear this point a lot from people who seem surprised that the third parties picked terrible people to run as their nominees, even during a historically bad election year for the main parties. The problem is that the third parties always run people of this caliber, since they have a much smaller pool of people to pick from and, out of that pool, you're unlikely to have very many "sane" candidates, as the majority of those would probably have already gone to one of the two major parties.
...Because both 3rd Parties picked lousy candidates from an even worse primary pool.
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but I hear this point a lot from people who seem surprised that the third parties picked terrible people to run as their nominees, even during a historically bad election year for the main parties. The problem is that the third parties always run people of this caliber, since they have a much smaller pool of people to pick from and, out of that pool, you're unlikely to have very many "sane" candidates, as the majority of those would probably have already gone to one of the two major parties.
I know. That's why I tacked on the "even worse primary pool." I glanced at a Green primary debate that was on RT awhile ago and Samantha Bee covered the Libertarian final debate which was during their National convention. I was not that impressed by either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I know. That's why I tacked on the "even worse primary pool." I glanced at a Green primary debate that was on RT awhile ago and Samantha Bee covered the Libertarian final debate which was during their National convention. I was not that impressed by either.
I mean, they could've had John McAfee, which would have been entertaining!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think Johnson's popularity was a mixture of two things:
1. People advocating him out of protest
2. People not knowing who he was
If this is true, then the decline is perfectly expected.
Now I guess we shall wait for ljoss's take on the whole situation.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Actually, everyone outside the major two parties is doing better than 2012. All 3rd Party Candidates made less than 2% of the vote in 2012. This time, that may be Jill Stein alone, and there's an abnormally large group of undecided voters compared to the previous cycle. And on top of that, Gary Johnson is still on track to get the Libertarian Party federal funding for the 2020 election, although that's not a comfortable certainty anymore.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
We should be careful comparing Johnson's 2016 poll numbers with his 2012 results. Instead, compare his 2012 polling to his current polling. Johnson wasn't in nearly as many polls in 2012 as he is now, but the few he had saw him with 4-6% in September 2012 (this is the latest poll I can find: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/01/rel11a.pdf - I haven't found any from October or November that had him). In that same poll, Stein was at 3%. Both were pretty close to where they are now. But on election day, Johnson only managed a hair under 1%, and Stein about 0.36%.
Given that it's now late October and Johnson still has ~5%, I think it's fair to say he's doing better than last time. But I don't think we can reasonably expect that to translate to 5% on election day, unless this year is a break from past experience.
The reason I've been ignoring that rule is because this hasn't been a particularly standard election (even though really it has; it's just a remix of previous elections to look like something new and interesting). I'm still on edge about using it because FiveThirtyEight is still reporting 15% undecided voters (compared to 5% in 2012), but as this trend continues, the Greens and Libertarians are not looking to do much better this time around despite Democrats and Republicans not being so popular...
...Because both 3rd Parties picked lousy candidates from an even worse primary pool. The Libertarians may still hit their mark, but they're likely going to have to hit back on McMullin hard and soon.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
This isn't necessarily directed at you, but I hear this point a lot from people who seem surprised that the third parties picked terrible people to run as their nominees, even during a historically bad election year for the main parties. The problem is that the third parties always run people of this caliber, since they have a much smaller pool of people to pick from and, out of that pool, you're unlikely to have very many "sane" candidates, as the majority of those would probably have already gone to one of the two major parties.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
I know. That's why I tacked on the "even worse primary pool." I glanced at a Green primary debate that was on RT awhile ago and Samantha Bee covered the Libertarian final debate which was during their National convention. I was not that impressed by either.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I mean, they could've had John McAfee, which would have been entertaining!