Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with your theory is that Hillary was never winning states like Alaska,Idaho,Wyoming,or Montana anyway so it does nothing to prevent Hillary from getting to 270,it wouldn't change her total at all.It does nothing to hurt the democrat if a third party candidate wins only states that always go red anyway it would just split the Republican vote and make Hillarys margin look better.
None of this matters anyway,Johnson has no chance of winning 6-8 states,i'd be willing to bet he doesn't win ONE state.Like I said before,if Teddy Roosevelt couldn't pull it off Gary Johnson sure isn't going to either,all he did was give us Woodrow Wilson......and the country is still damaged from his legacy.
No, the real problem is you are thinking in terms of states. A candidate wins the Presidency by getting to 270 electoral votes, not by how many states they win. It appears this is going to be a very tight race, especially if Trump can pull off all or even most of the rust belt states. The states mentioned in the article that Johnson could actually steal add up to 32 electoral votes. When you are talking about a very tight race, 32 electoral votes are huge and can absolutely hurt Hillary just as much as Trump. You can't assume Hillary is just going to win every blue or blue leaning state with her sky high unfavorables meaning 32 electoral votes becomes extremely important. All bets are off in this election.
The problem with your theory is that Hillary was never winning states like Alaska,Idaho,Wyoming,or Montana anyway so it does nothing to prevent Hillary from getting to 270,it wouldn't change her total at all.It does nothing to hurt the democrat if a third party candidate wins only states that always go red anyway it would just split the Republican vote and make Hillarys margin look better.
None of this matters anyway,Johnson has no chance of winning 6-8 states,i'd be willing to bet he doesn't win ONE state.Like I said before,if Teddy Roosevelt couldn't pull it off Gary Johnson sure isn't going to either,all he did was give us Woodrow Wilson......and the country is still damaged from his legacy.
You're right about one thing - if Johnson doesn't nail down some states, he (and the rest of us) is toast. Perot got 19% of the vote but no electoral votes, so Bill Clinton stepped in and won with only 43% of the popular vote.
Johnson has GOT to win 50 electoral votes, or thereabouts, and some of them have to lean Democrat, to keep Hillary from winning 270. At this point I don't think there is any way Trump can win.
The "Likely D" states are CO-MN-WI-MI-VA. That's 59 electoral votes. If he manages to take those and can take some of the "Leans D" states FL-NC-OH-PA, he will have accomplished his mission. Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2016 President
It really doesn't matter how likely someone is to become president. Those odds have no possible way of changing or influencing my vote. If Kim Kardashian were to run, she would statistically be likely to win against most candidates because of name recognition alone, does that mean some of you people would vote for her because she would have a good chance of winning? Thats asinine.
Its simple, I'm voting for Johnson because his views most closely match mine, and there is no possible way I'd ever vote for Clinton or Trump, so its completely wrong to say my vote is somehow taking away from another candidate.
There are plenty of good reasons to vote for him, and my main reason is because if he gets 5% popular vote that means the Libertarian Party will be eligible for matching funds in 2020 and I strongly believe we need a third voice at the table to avoide some of the extreme left/right wing platform positions that seem to get more extreme every cycle.
This 100%. I don't care if he wins or not, but I can sleep at night knowing that I voted for who I consider the most qualified candidate.
If you had bothered to read the article I linked, you would have seen Johnson only needs to win 6-8 states to prevent Trump or Hillary from getting to 270. Then it would go to the House, where all bets are off as its a Republican majority. States that aren't that far fetched like New Mexico, where Johnson is still very popular and states like Alaska, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming who like their guns a lot more than Trump or Hillary and they hate big government. Its certainly within the realm of possibility.
He won't pull any states from Clinton.
Pre-convention, Johnson was polling at 14% to Clinton's 41% in New Mexico. There's no reason to think he's made any gain since, she'll comfortably carry NM.
The other states you listed are already in the red column. Johnson is only a threat to Trump, not Clinton.
I have been a someone who was planning to vote Trump, but know I am not so sure. He does not share many of my views but I was willing to set some of those aside to shake up the establishment. However, as he continues to demonstrate that he can't hold his tongue and take the high road, I find voting for him getting more and more difficult. Gary Johnson actually does align with the majority of my values, I just didn't want to "waste" a vote. If all of the people who fear the are wasting a vote, actually voted for him, could he win?
I don't think he can win - but a vote for Johnson is better than a vote for Trump!
I'm older than dirt, have been active in politics for 4+ decades but that's neither here nor there. The post to which I replied said a Johnson win in 5 western states would hurt HRC and that premise is absurd. 4 of those states are ones she won't carry and doesn't need, the 5th is one she will carry but doesn't need FTW. (Being HRC, she's not even taking safe blue NM for granted though.)
Re Sabato, he's on the nose: the Dems could lose 70+ safe/likely/leaning electoral votes and still win. The sparsely populated Western states aren't in that group so quibbling over them here is just silly.
Last edited by biscuitmom; 08-03-2016 at 10:17 PM..
The Capitol Hill Mafia/DC Crime Family is in control and Clinton is their pick!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does nothing to hurt the democrat if a third party candidate wins only states that always go red anyway 
it would just split the Republican vote and make Hillarys margin look better.
The Capitol Hill Mafia/DC Crime Family is in control and Clinton is their pick!
