If Johnson Debates...

[OwlRhetoric]

I don't think he will actually make the debates because he still hasn't polled over 15% in any national poll, but let's say he surges over the next couple weeks and pulls it off. What are the ramifications? Who does he hurt and who does he help?

Normally, the Libertarians should be assumed to pull more from disgruntled Republicans. Some of that is going on with lukewarm #NeverTrumpers going his way. But he's also taking a hard left turn for a LP candidate and seems to be picking up support from people who would otherwise vote Hillary.

I don't know what to make of Johnson's support or if it will last, much less what happens if he's introduced to the debates.

[Reginald]

Was about to post a new poll on this, so I'm glad I checked first. But I've been thinking about this as well and I think it has a higher potential to harm Clinton rather than help her.

There seems to be an argument that Johnson would cut into Trump's support moreso than Clinton's as he is campaigning as somewhat of a moderate Republican. However, polls aren't really exhibiting this afaik; he seems to be drawing equally from both parties as a protest vote more than anything. It makes sense; only nerds are paying attention to Libertarians.

My thought is you can't control what Johnson would do or how he'd market himself during his time on the big stage. If he goes up there and focuses on Trump to sway whatever's left of the #NeverTrumpers, perhaps HRC would benefit. But what I imagine his campaign strategy is primarily (if he has one at all) is to ignore ideology as much as possible and try to appeal mostly to youth and set some sort of a long-term foundation where the "cynical millenials" are increasingly receptive to the LP. No low-information voter really cares what the Libertarians stand for so long as they aren't Trump and they aren't Hillary.

Polls aren't exactly showing a Clinton landslide atm, and she may need to rely on the "Obama Coalition" strategy to win. So having the weedman propped up as a major candidate introduces unwanted uncertainty. Clinton doesn't need any more of that imo.

[Ebsy]

He's nowhere near 15%.

[Senator Spark]

Hurt Hillary and himself.

[Enduro]

This might be my prejudice talking, but I'd think he's do awesome, and make people think about him more.

[Likely Voter]

A theory I have seen some talking head pundits discuss is that Trump's ceiling is in the low 40s and that his best chance to win is to get Clinton to 40 or less by getting Johnson and Stein up to 20%+...and therefore it is in Trump's interest to get Johnson into the debate.  But so far there has been no reporting on Trump pushing for Johnson and his one comment on it to the WaPo a while back was actually the opposite.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Hurt Hillary, because every second he's on camera is one less second for TrumpMiller to go all Hitler in Downfall in front of the entire planet.

[The Other Castro]

This will remain a hypothetical barring a significant rule change by the CPD, which will almost definitely not happen. There is no possible way Johnson starts racking up the poll numbers required to hit 15%, let alone an average of 15% over 5 polls.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This will remain a hypothetical barring a significant rule change by the CPD, which will almost definitely not happen. There is no possible way Johnson starts racking up the poll numbers required to hit 15%, let alone an average of 15% over 5 polls.

The thing with the CPD's criteria is it's not the RCP average or anything like that - it's just the latest findings of each polling company out of the five they have selected. Assuming that everyone in their list but Fox (who just did a poll) will do another poll before they announce the participants, we have only seen one of the five polls that will actually be used to determine who will debate. Also the CPD has hinted at a possibility of treating 14.x% as 15%.

[The Other Castro]

This will remain a hypothetical barring a significant rule change by the CPD, which will almost definitely not happen. There is no possible way Johnson starts racking up the poll numbers required to hit 15%, let alone an average of 15% over 5 polls.

The thing with the CPD's criteria is it's not the RCP average or anything like that - it's just the latest findings of each polling company out of the five they have selected. Assuming that everyone in their list but Fox (who just did a poll) will do another poll before they announce the participants, we have only seen one of the five polls that will actually be used to determine who will debate. Also the CPD has hinted at a possibility of treating 14.x% as 15%.

I realize that, but Johnson has never hit above 13 in a poll and there's nothing to suggest that he'll randomly start getting 15+.

[DoctorWinstonOBoogie]

According to FiveThirtyEight, the five polls the CPD will look at will be ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News/New York Times, CNN, Fox News and NBC News/Wall Street Journal. If by September 26th Johnson isn't at an average of at least 14%, he won't be in the debates. If he's not in the first one, he won't be in the others, either.

If he made it, I think he'd hurt Clinton, but not too much more than Trump. It would basically be a wild card. It really depends on who he would focus his attacks on.

[Maxwell]

crowbar to himself.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I'm not so sure he'd do a good job,, but he'd get himself and his party's ideas a lot of exposure.

I think Austin Petersen would have done a better job at debating.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm not so sure he'd do a good job,, but he'd get himself and his party's ideas a lot of exposure.

I think Austin Petersen would have done a better job at debating.

Maybe, but Austin was a total nobody and an athiest. He probably would be doing worse than Johnson is now in the polls.

[Kingpoleon]

Hurt both.