Will most 2020 general election polls include at least one 3rd party candidate?

[Mr. Morden]

Almost every poll of the general election contest in 2012 included just Obama and Romney.  No Johnson or anyone else.  However, in 2016, we're now mostly getting polls with four candidates being listed as options: Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein.  Is this just a one-off, due to the unpopularity of the two major party nominees?  Or will we continue to have the Libertarian or Green Party nominees (or someone else) listed as options when the news orgs are polling the race in 2020?

Does it depend in part on how well Johnson does this year?  If he breaks 5% in 2016, then will the news orgs decide that they've got to include the Libertarian nominee in 2020 polling, regardless of who it may be?

[sparkey]

I think that there are two main reasons that polling companies include third party candidates. One, as you mention, is if the strength of the 2 major parties is less than normal. The other is if the third parties are stronger than usual. Compared to 2012, it's obvious that the major parties are weaker, but it's also true that the third parties are stronger--in particular, Johnson's running mate Weld in 2016 is stronger than his running mate Gray in 2012. There was some minor controversy at the 2016 LNC about how fellow VP candidate Alicia Dearn was influenced to endorse Weld when she dropped out because pollsters were telling her that they would only poll the Libertarians if the ticket included Weld.

So for 2020, there are a lot of factors that could be at play, but again we'll be looking at the relative strength of both the major and third party candidates. I don't think that Johnson's performance in 2016 will be much of a factor, unless perhaps Johnson himself decides to run again (my guess is he doesn't). More important will probably be whether Clinton or Trump wins in 2016.

If Clinton wins, then the GOP will probably have a stronger opponent against her in 2020, and possibly some strong libertarian-leaning candidacies in the Republican primaries like Rand Paul or Justin Amash, which will discourage any big names from jumping in the LP race. We'd probably be looking at an LP primary featuring Adam Kokesh vs. Austin Petersen, neither of which I would expect to be polled much in the general.

If Trump wins, then the LP could be a stronger vehicle for a bigger name from earlier on. I'm cautious to name names, but if we got someone with similar experience as Johnson, then I don't see why the polls wouldn't include them.

[Mr. Morden]

I think that there are two main reasons that polling companies include third party candidates. One, as you mention, is if the strength of the 2 major parties is less than normal. The other is if the third parties are stronger than usual. Compared to 2012, it's obvious that the major parties are weaker, but it's also true that the third parties are stronger--in particular, Johnson's running mate Weld in 2016 is stronger than his running mate Gray in 2012. There was some minor controversy at the 2016 LNC about how fellow VP candidate Alicia Dearn was influenced to endorse Weld when she dropped out because pollsters were telling her that they would only poll the Libertarians if the ticket included Weld.

I am skeptical of the idea that pollsters including Johnson or not hinged on Weld being picked.  Fox News, Monmouth, and PPP all started including Johnson in their national polls before Weld was announced as Johnson's choice, and there were probably other pollsters doing that at the state level, but I'm too lazy to look up all the state polls from the spring.  I think it's just a matter of one or two pollsters making the decision to include someone, and then it starts the bandwagon effect, where even being included in a poll at all generates some news coverage, which leads other pollsters to follow suit.

But why do those one or two or three polling organizations make that decision to be the first to include 3rd party candidate X in their polls?  In this case, I think it really is just the weakness of the major party candidates, which generated more interest in people looking at third parties.  But in particular, it was dissatisfaction with Trump among many GOP elites.  Once Sasse and others started talking about not voting for Trump in the GE, it naturally led to questions about what the other options were.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Johnson's performance will definitely have some impact on whether the Libertarian Party gets any coverage in 2020.  If he really only got ~1% like in 2012, then the media would conclude that, regardless of what the poll #s say, the Libertarians are going to be a non-factor for the indefinite future.  But if he manages ~5% or more, then they'll latch onto the idea that the LP can be a real factor, which would make them more likely to talk about the party's nominee in 2020, even if that nominee has far less experience than Johnson.

[sparkey]

I think Johnson's performance will definitely have some impact on whether the Libertarian Party gets any coverage in 2020.  If he really only got ~1% like in 2012, then the media would conclude that, regardless of what the poll #s say, the Libertarians are going to be a non-factor for the indefinite future.  But if he manages ~5% or more, then they'll latch onto the idea that the LP can be a real factor, which would make them more likely to talk about the party's nominee in 2020, even if that nominee has far less experience than Johnson.

Suppose the LP nominates somebody like Adam Kokesh, and the GE is something pretty conventional, like Clinton vs. Ryan. Why would Johnson getting 5% in 2016 make pollsters ask people about Adam Kokesh? That didn't happen with Buchanan in 2000 after Perot's 1996 performance, or with Cobb in 2004 after Nader's 2000 performance, did it?