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.
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.
You think Hillary could afford to lose 70+ electoral votes in what will likely be a very close race? Keep dreaming. She can't even afford to lose half that in an election where 15 votes could be the difference. Remember, her unfavorables are about as bad as Trump's.
I haven't been a big Libertarian fan, but I was very impressed with Johnson and Weld
last night on CNN's townhall.
I agreed with most of their policies, and they were very knowledgable and competent.
Both were highly successful republican governors.
I won't vote for either Trump or Hillary --- Johnson and Weld are worth taking a deeper look at. Even if they can't win, it sends a message to the other two parties.
I really hope they make it to the debates, so more voters can get a chance to hear them.
Trump is a maverick who appears at best to be highly inconsistent and illogical. Bombastic rhetoric is no substitute for policy. Alternatively, he is a nutcase. He appeals to a lot of people who want to put a bomb under the Washington establishment. But you can do that by voting for Johnson too
Clinton comes over as dishonest, a corporate and special interests shill, and a creature of the Washington establishment. Johnson used the word 'beholden' last night which pretty much sums her up.
In all conscience, I cannot vote for either of them.
Johnson is closer to my own views than those two. He might not stand a chance but who knows? In any event, I will be voting for the candidate I want rather than for the 'least bad'.
A matter of months ago, I could not see myself voting for Johnson. And I am still strongly opposed to some of his policies.
But it's all a trade off. If he will simply leave the Middle East and stop jacking around with foreign affairs, then I will accept his position about the war on drugs.
Best of all, to me, is his position that he will be president to preside, not rule.
I am sick of rulers.
And they make one point that I believe will be spot on:
There will be a great many legislators who will be relieved that the president is not a member of their party. They will then be given freedom to think on their own and not worry too much about what the party machine would like for them to do.
8 years of that kind of thinking may heal both parties.
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.
I know how the electoral college works,thats my point,Hillary isn't threatened by Johnson.If Johnson won all eight states listed in the article,and I don't expect him to win any of them,Hillary loses about 10 electoral votes and Trump loses about 22.You can't assume Johnson is going win the eight states just because some writer thinks 'they have a strong libertarian streak',if that were true they might have some actual,elected officials of some significance who are Libertarians....none of them do.
Go to your beloved '270 to win' site and show us how Hillary doesn't hit 270 because of Gary Johnson.You're the guy who has lectured us for a year ad infinitum about how Trump is going to lose in an 'electoral landslide',now YOU THINK its going to be a very tight race with with Trump winning ALL or Most of the rustbelt states???!!!!!
You think Hillary could afford to lose 70+ electoral votes in what will likely be a very close race? Keep dreaming. She can't even afford to lose half that in an election where 15 votes could be the difference. Remember, her unfavorables are about as bad as Trump's.
Wrong.
Hillary's average net unfavorable is about 10. That's obviously not good. But it's a whole lot better than Trump's net unfavorable average of 25. The NBC News poll that just came out has his unfavorables at well over double his favorables, 61 to 25.
And nope, it's not going to be a very close race. Hillary's lead is growing and that's not even factoring in the electoral college math. Using "Crystal Ball" linked upthread, Hillary's looking at 190 plus 59 likely - that gets her to 249 and she only needs another 21 out of the 98 leans Democratic states.
But if you add ALL of the red or even reddish states, Trump is only at 191. He has to not only win every state that even leans Republican, he has to start converting states that lean Democratic.
That's not even remotely a very close race.
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.
If Johnson won all eight states listed in the article,and I don't expect him to win any of them,Hillary loses about 10 electoral votes and Trump loses about 22.You can't assume Johnson is going win the eight states just because some writer thinks 'they have a strong libertarian streak',if that were true they might have some actual,elected officials of some significance who are Libertarians....none of them do.
