PPP: Clinton +4

[IceSpear]

The difference is that support for Perot was support for Perot. Most Johnson "support" is just as a generic "other" option.

I don't buy that distinction.  I'd say plenty of voters who voted for Perot basically saw him as a generic "other" option.

Perot was a widely recognized figure with a real campaign and name recognition.

[Mr. Morden]

The difference is that support for Perot was support for Perot. Most Johnson "support" is just as a generic "other" option.

I don't buy that distinction.  I'd say plenty of voters who voted for Perot basically saw him as a generic "other" option.

Perot was a widely recognized figure with a real campaign and name recognition.

Ah, but this is a different issue, IMHO.  I agree that Johnson will need some name recognition if he's going to do better than 1%, but it's an open question as to what his name recognition is going to be in November.  How much media attention will he get over the next few months?  Obviously, so far, it's significantly more than he got in '12, but not really enough to penetrate the consciousness of the average voter.  Will that change as coverage ramps up in the next few months?  I don't know.  I'd note that coverage of Nader increased a lot during the last month or two before election day in 2000.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The difference is that support for Perot was support for Perot. Most Johnson "support" is just as a generic "other" option.

Also Perot spent a boatload of his own money to support his candidacy.
Johnson won't have anywhere near that kind of resources.

[Mr. Morden]

The difference is that support for Perot was support for Perot. Most Johnson "support" is just as a generic "other" option.

Also Perot spent a boatload of his own money to support his candidacy.
Johnson won't have anywhere near that kind of resources.

I know he did in 1992.  How much did he spend in 1996 though?  It would have to be quite a bit in order to really make a real difference IMHO.  I think the bigger factor for 3rd party candidates except in rare cases is free media.  So again, it comes down to how much media coverage does Johnson get between now and November?  I don't know the answer to that.  The fact that, unlike in 2012, he's actually being included in polls and getting some invites to appear on TV, is a good sign for him, but he needs a lot more.

But anyway, there are a couple of issues here which should be kept separate.  One is how well Johnson is likely to do.  Will it be the 1% he got in 2012, or more like the 3% Nader got in 2000, or something else?

And a separate issue is whether his election day performance will match what his polling is going into election day.  Is there any way for polling to distinguish between a 3rd party candidate getting 1% and one getting 5%, for example?  Or do candidates in both categories poll at about 5%, and we won't know which category Johnson is in until election day?  Or what if his polling is still as high as ~10% going into election day?  Is there any good way to calculate an over/under on his national vote %age based on what his polling is?

[pbrower2a]

The first comparisons to Gary Johnson that we can reject are those to a racist secession from the Democratic Party  (Thurmond in 1948 or Wallace in 1968) who had great strength in one region , enough to win some electoral votes in that region, but little outside that region. Johnson is running no such campaign. His support will be more even nationwide, and he is no racist. The second to reject is Theodore Roosevelt, who had been President, who had been a well-received President, against his incumbent successor then perceived as a weak, do-little President.

He's not some rich fellow running a largely self-funded campaign, so in that sense he is not Ross Perot. Perot got about 19% of the popular vote in 1992 but no electoral votes while campaigning on a platform of major reforms. This could be intriguing.

So is John Anderson in 1980. People who thought the current President ineffective but the challenger too scary  could vote for John Anderson. Of course the current President has good approval ratings for a lame duck, but is not running for re-election. He'd win in a near-landslide against Donald Trump...  but consider the stark negatives for both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, presumptive nominees of their Parties. There is much opening for a Third Party nominee for President.

John Anderson got 6.61% of the popular vote (but no electoral votes) in 1980, and he had never been won a statewide election. He had never held the usual office (Governor or US Senator) that successful nominees for President normally have held at some point. 6.61% of the popular vote is unusually high for a Third Party nominee, but I have good cause to believe that Gary Johnson will outdo that. 

Both Libertarian nominees have been Republican Governors of states that now vote reliably for the Democratic Party. They obviously have some crossover appeal, especially against a nominee (Hillary Clinton) who has some potential legal baggage, and a Republican nominee who is running an erratic campaign. If one or the other falters badly in appealing to key constituencies in the usual coalition of the Big 2 parties, then Gary Johnson can easily get 10% of the popular vote.

Should Gary Johnson and William Weld get 10% of the popular vote, then they can make things so that the more successful of the two nominees in one state can win with 45% of the popular vote. With a nominee of average ability this could give a nominee whose Party has a floor and ceiling near 45% in a state the state's electoral votes. If Gary Johnson were taking votes largely from Hillary Clinton, then that would throw such states as Iowa, Minnesota,  New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that usually vote for Democrats (no more than once for any Republican nominee for President after 1988) to Donald Trump -- and of course any swing state of 2008 or 2012, like Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.  sticking the Democratic nominee with about 125 electoral votes while the Republican nominee gets about 410.

Assuming that Gary Johnson runs as a more conventional nominee who picks off dissident Republican votes, then the other side sees him picking off nothing from Hillary Clinton that Barack Obama won in 2012, but bringing the level of support needed for a Democratic win in some states to 45% or so. That would most obviously swing North Carolina (which was the only close loss for Barack Obama in 2012), but also states in which the Democrats have floors around 45% -- like Georgia, Arizona, Missouri, and Indiana.. but perhaps also Texas, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska. Such would leave Hillary Clinton with anywhere from 395 to 445 electoral votes.