Various Hypothetical Election Polls (1 Viewer)

[Captain Cranks]

I'm curious what the election would look like had Republicans and Democrats not elected the two biggest turds on the stage.  

 

[massraider]

Why Kasich?

He was the most attractive of the R candidates, but never sniffed the winners circle.

 

[Steve Tasker]

• Johnson
  
• Toss-up between Johnson and Sanders, undecided
  
• Johnson
  

 

[Captain Cranks]

Why Kasich?

He was the most attractive of the R candidates, but never sniffed the winners circle.

Always polled better in head-to-heads against Clinton than his competition.  While he never sniffed the winners circle, I like to blame the media and Republican voters for that.  

I'll add Cruz to the polls as that's probably warranted and interesting.  

 

[Captain Cranks]

16 votes and not a single person voting for Trump?  Are all the Trump supporters busy watching Hee Haw reruns at this hour?  

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Clinton

Sanders

Kasich

Clinton

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

A lot of Johnson love in here, apparently.

 

[Sinn Fein]

A lot of Johnson love in here, apparently.

I take it as more an indictment on the other choices, rather than love for Johnson.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Johnson

Sanders

Kasich - probably, but might have gone Johnson here also

Johnson

 

[Sinn Fein]

I do think that an internet board, populated with, mostly, white-collar, middle-to-upper class white guys is not the prime Trump demographic.  But, it is a good indication that the GOP should be taking lessons from the DNC on how to conduct a primary election.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

  Are all the Trump supporters busy watching Hee Haw reruns at this hour?  

Once you've bought the entire dvd collection it's like a waste of money watching anything else.

 

[mquinnjr]

Johnson

Johnson

Kasich

Johnson

R's went off the rails this go-round against what should've been a beatable Hillary with a moderate Republican with some experience. Instead, they trot Trump out there. Extremely disappointing. Forced me to look at something else and lo and behold, my politics line up perfectly with Johnson. Smell ya later, Trump.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Johnson

Johnson

Kasich

Johnson

R's went off the rails this go-round against what should've been a beatable Hillary with a moderate Republican with some experience. Instead, they trot Trump out there. Extremely disappointing. Forced me to look at something else and lo and behold, my politics line up perfectly with Johnson. Smell ya later, Trump.

Everyone saw this Trump Trainwrech coming but no one could stop him in the primaries, and plenty tried.  I think the GOP needs to split.

 

[Captain Cranks]

 I think the GOP needs to split.

Split...like get out of Dodge?  'Cause I'd be all for that.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

I will say this about Trump - I have underestimated his support from the very beginning.  I assumed he would top-out at 15-20% of GOP primary support, and the when the field narrowed, he would have been overtaken by the "mainstream" candidate that was left standing.  I think that he does tap into an underlying current of anti-establishment types, and that those voters are highly energized/motivated to support Trump.  Trump seems to make them feel good about something - I worry about some of what they feel good about - blaming outsiders for whatever ails them, but I don't think there is anything Trump can say or do to lose their support.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

40% for Johnson is pretty funny.  FBGs are 5-8x more likely to support him than the public.

 

[mquinnjr]

Everyone saw this Trump Trainwrech coming but no one could stop him in the primaries, and plenty tried.  I think the GOP needs to split.

I'll be honest, I never looked at a Libertarian candidate seriously before. The party drove me here, and I'm shockingly kind of happy it happened. Hopefully this is the driver for the split and I'm representative of moderate R group think that would've been on board with a Kasich/Rubio, etc. ticket if Trump wasn't forced down everyone's throats. Unfortunately, I think that's asking wayyyyyy too much from the base to do the legwork of a self-reflection/evaluation of personal politics in light of Trump's nomination.

 

[The Future Champs]

Weird results when you sub Cruz for trump - apparently that causes Clinton voters to change to Johnson voters.   

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I'll be honest, I never looked at a Libertarian candidate seriously before. The party drove me here, and I'm shockingly kind of happy it happened. Hopefully this is the driver for the split and I'm representative of moderate R group think that would've been on board with a Kasich/Rubio, etc. ticket if Trump wasn't forced down everyone's throats. Unfortunately, I think that's asking wayyyyyy too much from the base to do the legwork of a self-reflection/evaluation of personal politics in light of Trump's nomination.

If they don't split now then it will never happen. These conditionals are perfect for it.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Weird results when you sub Cruz for trump - apparently that causes Clinton voters to change to Johnson voters.   

Yeah that's what I thought too, but it looks like that last question was added later so it's not the same sample of voters.

 

[mquinnjr]

If they don't split now then it will never happen. These conditionals are perfect for it.

Really rooting for Johnson to get the 15% to be included in the debates. If forced to discuss policy vs. both Hillary and Johnson, Trump would not be able to utilize shtick (Trump = Chad on the Bachelor, but in a bizarro parallel universe actually bests all of the other guys on the show and has JoJo fall in love with his charm, but instead of get married Trump runs the free world) to deflect away from what I anticipate will be him getting Palin'ed when he has to actually specify how he will do anything he has vaguely promised or exhibit knowledge required of a president (e.g., names of foreign leaders, names/locations of our allies/enemies in the middle east, articles of the constitution, etc.). As much as I'm not aligned with Hillary or her politics, she has had experience and training in this arena and will make him look silly if pressed on these questions with nowhere to hide. Nothing else will matter to the remaining undecided voters, and we'll get Hillary.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Really rooting for Johnson to get the 15% to be included in the debates. If forced to discuss policy vs. both Hillary and Johnson, Trump would not be able to utilize shtick (Trump = Chad on the Bachelor, but in a bizarro parallel universe actually bests all of the other guys on the show and has JoJo fall in love with his charm, but instead of get married Trump runs the free world) to deflect away from what I anticipate will be him getting Palin'ed when he has to actually specify how he will do anything he has vaguely promised or exhibit knowledge required of a president (e.g., names of foreign leaders, names/locations of our allies/enemies in the middle east, articles of the constitution, etc.). As much as I'm not aligned with Hillary or her politics, she has had experience and training in this arena and will make him look silly if pressed on these questions with nowhere to hide. Nothing else will matter to the remaining undecided voters, and we'll get Hillary.

I don't think there is any scenario, where Trump does not use shtick.  His supporters seem to thrive on it, so he is unlikely lose any voters by calling out Clinton (or Johnson) on petty stuff.  I think Trump sees his best chance at "winning" a debate is by not engaging in policy discussions, but rather playing to his strengths of sound bytes and insults.  If he can avoid policy discussions, and/or drag others into the weeds - he wins.

 

[mquinnjr]

I don't think there is any scenario, where Trump does not use shtick.  His supporters seem to thrive on it, so he is unlikely lose any voters by calling out Clinton (or Johnson) on petty stuff.  I think Trump sees his best chance at "winning" a debate is by not engaging in policy discussions, but rather playing to his strengths of sound bytes and insults.  If he can avoid policy discussions, and/or drag others into the weeds - he wins.

Sigh, yeah. Moderators will have their hands full, total herding cats scenario.

 

[snogger]

I take it as more an indictment on the other choices, rather than love for Johnson.

 

[snogger]

40% for Johnson is pretty funny.  FBGs are 5-8x more likely to support him than the public.

Probably because we've seen his name posted here many times throughout other Threads.
For those of us that refuse to vote for Trump or Hillary, and looking for someone other then writing in "None of the Above" he falls into that category.

I've brought his name up to friends and family and each and every time have gotten the look.

 

[mquinnjr]

40% for Johnson is pretty funny.  FBGs are 5-8x more likely to support him than the public.

I'd say there's a lot more people here willing to dig a little deeper than tuning to CNN or Fox News to make up their minds, too. I don't give the general public that much credit, TBH.

 

[dutch]

Clinton

Sanders

Clinton

Clinton

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Really rooting for Johnson to get the 15% to be included in the debates. If forced to discuss policy vs. both Hillary and Johnson, Trump would not be able to utilize shtick (Trump = Chad on the Bachelor, but in a bizarro parallel universe actually bests all of the other guys on the show and has JoJo fall in love with his charm, but instead of get married Trump runs the free world) to deflect away from what I anticipate will be him getting Palin'ed when he has to actually specify how he will do anything he has vaguely promised or exhibit knowledge required of a president (e.g., names of foreign leaders, names/locations of our allies/enemies in the middle east, articles of the constitution, etc.). As much as I'm not aligned with Hillary or her politics, she has had experience and training in this arena and will make him look silly if pressed on these questions with nowhere to hide. Nothing else will matter to the remaining undecided voters, and we'll get Hillary.

Gary Johnson would be incredible at the debates - he would pull Bernie supporters also. I like his stance on Drugs, immigration, his foreign policy, and support environmental issue.

I do not like his stance on abortion and his get the government out of marriage idea (if I am reading his viewpoint right)- sounds nice BUT that will just give a license for the southern states to ban it.

 

[The Commish]

Gary Johnson would be incredible at the debates - he would pull Bernie supporters also. I like his stance on Drugs, immigration, his foreign policy, and support environmental issue.

I do not like his stance on abortion and his get the government out of marriage idea (if I am reading his viewpoint right)- sounds nice BUT that will just give a license for the southern states to ban it.

If the govt is out of out how will states ban it?  Thought his position was at all levels of govt but I could be wrong

 

[mquinnjr]

Gary Johnson would be incredible at the debates - he would pull Bernie supporters also. I like his stance on Drugs, immigration, his foreign policy, and support environmental issue.

I do not like his stance on abortion and his get the government out of marriage idea (if I am reading his viewpoint right)- sounds nice BUT that will just give a license for the southern states to ban it.

I think traditional liberals and conservatives looking at him will find things they respectively don't like on some individual points, but if you are willing to negotiate to get one candidate both sides could settle on in the larger scheme of things and concede some points to get some vs. the conservative/liberal all or nothing traditional party candidates, Gary's worth a look. IMO, true "across the aisle" thinking is embedded into his platform in total, and that's what draws me.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Gary Johnson would be incredible at the debates - he would pull Bernie supporters also. I like his stance on Drugs, immigration, his foreign policy, and support environmental issue.

I do not like his stance on abortion and his get the government out of marriage idea (if I am reading his viewpoint right)- sounds nice BUT that will just give a license for the southern states to ban it.

Wait, what?

I'm admit I'm not intimately familiar with Gary Johnson, but if he has common ground with Sanders supporters on environmental issues he would be the most un-Libertarian Libertarian ever.

 

[Jobber]

Gary Johnson would be incredible at the debates - he would pull Bernie supporters also. I like his stance on Drugs, immigration, his foreign policy, and support environmental issue.

I do not like his stance on abortion and his get the government out of marriage idea (if I am reading his viewpoint right)- sounds nice BUT that will just give a license for the southern states to ban it.

I'm with you on Johnson. I figure you can't have everything with a particular candidate, but with Johnson I feel like I get pretty darn close.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Following up on Johnson and the environment.  From his website:
 

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators and personal choices will ultimately bring about the environmental restoration and protection society desires. Conversely, destroying prosperity and innovation through government intervention will only harm the environment.

When it comes to global climate change, Gov. Johnson believes too many politicians are having the wrong debate. Is the climate changing? Probably so. Is man contributing to that change? Probably so. The important question, however, is whether the government’s efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the marketplace in order to impact that change are cost-effective — or effective at all. Given the realities of global energy and resource use, there is little evidence that the burden being placed on Americans is making a difference that justifies the cost.

That would pretty much make him the anti-Sanders.

 

[Don't Noonan]

Trump

Trump

Kasich 

Cruz

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

If the govt is out of out how will states ban it?  Thought his position was at all levels of govt but I could be wrong

Am I supposed to be reading that as the government should not ban gay marriage or should I be read it as no ruling on gay marriage from the government.  IMHO the government needs to protect those people's right to marry.

 

[mquinnjr]

Following up on Johnson and the environment.  From his website:
 

That would pretty much make him the anti-Sanders.

Just interpreting his policies in general, he's very anti-Sanders. I keep seeing people say he's going to pull in Sanders voters, and I don't get it. In a nutshell, he's for complete laissez-fiare government on every possible policy debate point. In summary, there will be things traditional liberals and conservatives would not like, but he's in total a hybrid of what moderates on both sides could possibly negotiate towards. For instance, Trump wants to wall us off from the world. Johnson would open the borders to anyone and everyone. However, taxes would be 0% for corporations and individuals and social programs stripped to nil. To fund basic government programs, 23% national federal consumption sales tax would be enacted on goods and services. So it's an extreme give and take as an example of how he would handle immigration, social programs, and taxes. Up to the voters to decide how that sits with them, I guess.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Just interpreting his policies in general, he's very anti-Sanders. I keep seeing people say he's going to pull in Sanders voters, and I don't get it. In a nutshell, he's for complete laissez-fiare government on every possible policy debate point. In summary, there will be things traditional liberals and conservatives would not like, but he's in total a hybrid of what moderates on both sides could possibly negotiate towards. For instance, Trump wants to wall us off from the world. Johnson would open the borders to anyone and everyone. However, taxes would be 0% for corporations and individuals and social programs stripped to nil. To fund basic government programs, 23% national federal consumption sales tax would be enacted on goods and services. So it's an extreme give and take as an example of how he would handle immigration, social programs, and taxes. Up to the voters to decide how that sits with them, I guess.

Yup, totally agree. The only way he pulls Sanders voters is if they are so bitter about the loss to Clinton and what the DNC did, and so convinced Stein is a lunatic that they vote out of spite instead of on the issues.

 

[The Commish]

Am I supposed to be reading that as the government should not ban gay marriage or should I be read it as no ruling on gay marriage from the government.  IMHO the government needs to protect those people's right to marry.

You should read it as not caring one way or the other who gets married.  Keeping their noses out of the "marriage" business all together, which includes getting rid of tax laws based on marital status as well.

 

[The Commish]

Just interpreting his policies in general, he's very anti-Sanders. I keep seeing people say he's going to pull in Sanders voters, and I don't get it. In a nutshell, he's for complete laissez-fiare government on every possible policy debate point. In summary, there will be things traditional liberals and conservatives would not like, but he's in total a hybrid of what moderates on both sides could possibly negotiate towards. For instance, Trump wants to wall us off from the world. Johnson would open the borders to anyone and everyone. However, taxes would be 0% for corporations and individuals and social programs stripped to nil. To fund basic government programs, 23% national federal consumption sales tax would be enacted on goods and services. So it's an extreme give and take as an example of how he would handle immigration, social programs, and taxes. Up to the voters to decide how that sits with them, I guess.

Yup, totally agree. The only way he pulls Sanders voters is if they are so bitter about the loss to Clinton and what the DNC did, and so convinced Stein is a lunatic that they vote out of spite instead of on the issues.

There is a growing group of people that feel the government should be all in or all out (take your pick, but choose) on several issues like healthcare and education.  The philosophy is "either do it correctly and dedicate the resources so that the electorate taken care of properly and completely or get out and let the private sector have a shot".  These people are for ANY solution that isn't simply kicking the can down the road.  In that light I can easily see how one of these people would flip from one to the other.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

There is a growing group of people that feel the government should be all in or all out (take your pick, but choose) on several issues like healthcare and education.  The philosophy is "either do it correctly and dedicate the resources so that the electorate taken care of properly and completely or get out and let the private sector have a shot".  These people are for ANY solution that isn't simply kicking the can down the road.  In that light I can easily see how one of these people would flip from one to the other.  

Do you have any evidence of this growing group of people?  I've literally never in my life met a person whose approach to, say, environmental regulation is "either do a ton of it or don't do anything."

 

[The Commish]

There is a growing group of people that feel the government should be all in or all out (take your pick, but choose) on several issues like healthcare and education.  The philosophy is "either do it correctly and dedicate the resources so that the electorate taken care of properly and completely or get out and let the private sector have a shot".  These people are for ANY solution that isn't simply kicking the can down the road.  In that light I can easily see how one of these people would flip from one to the other.  

Do you have any evidence of this growing group of people?  I've literally never in my life met a person whose approach to, say, environmental regulation is "either do a ton of it or don't do anything."

I gave you examples of where I've heard this position taken.  Not sure why you'd ignore that and ask me for evidence in some other area.  The "evidence" (and I wouldn't go that far by calling it such) is the readings and discussion with others on various topics.  If you pay attention when a new "event/crisis" pops up, you'll see people talking about what it takes to do things the right way and if the gov't doesn't have the stomach to do things that way, they should punt.  It happened a good bit during the Iraq war GWB decided to start.  That was the first I had heard it.

I thought it was obvious, but I guess it wasn't so I need to point out that I haven't heard this approach being taken on every single political position out there.  It appears to be relatively new.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I gave you examples of where I've heard this position taken.  Not sure why you'd ignore that and ask me for evidence in some other area.  The "evidence" (and I wouldn't go that far by calling it such) is the readings and discussion with others on various topics.  If you pay attention when a new "event/crisis" pops up, you'll see people talking about what it takes to do things the right way and if the gov't doesn't have the stomach to do things that way, they should punt.  It happened a good bit during the Iraq war GWB decided to start.  That was the first I had heard it.

I thought it was obvious, but I guess it wasn't so I need to point out that I haven't heard this approach being taken on every single political position out there.  It appears to be relatively new.

I understood what you were saying I think, but IMO that "all or nothing" concept is isolated to health care. No reasonable person would want the government out of education entirely, that would be disastrous.  In that industry and most others, pretty much everyone agrees that some regulation is necessary and the question is simply how much is the sweet spot between protecting the public and limiting the burden on businesses and taxpayers.  In those areas Johnson and Sanders voters are pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum. 

OTOH I can understand the desire to shake things up with an anti-establishment candidate and I DEFINITELY understand the desire to legalize weed, so there's some common ground I guess.

 

[mquinnjr]

LA Times Interview with Gary Johnson

Everyone should give this a read, and whether or not you agree, reply if you think Gary belongs in the debates. This is easily more tangible policy points and examples than I've heard out of Trump since he announced his candidacy, and possibly Hillary for that matter.

 

[The Commish]

I understood what you were saying I think, but IMO that "all or nothing" concept is isolated to health care. No reasonable person would want the government out of education entirely, that would be disastrous.  In that industry and most others, pretty much everyone agrees that some regulation is necessary and the question is simply how much is the sweet spot between protecting the public and limiting the burden on businesses and taxpayers.  In those areas Johnson and Sanders voters are pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum. 

OTOH I can understand the desire to shake things up with an anti-establishment candidate and I DEFINITELY understand the desire to legalize weed, so there's some common ground I guess.

Perhaps I am unreasonable because I am not sure this is the case.  If we relegate this back to the states, which is what Johnson's position is I believe, would that really be worse than what we have today?  Our federal government doesn't have a great track record in this department.  I don't have to go back very far to find common core and "no child left behind" as decisions made by our federal government.  I'm not sure Sanders being of the position that the federal government should pay for everyone's education is "complete opposite ends of the spectrum" from Johnson's position that the states should be doing this not the federal government but I'm up for a more thorough spelling out of that theory.  

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

12 guys out of 105 are voting Trump on August 1st, on a forum with a  450+ page Trump thread? Those must be 12 active posters. Wow.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Perhaps I am unreasonable because I am not sure this is the case.  If we relegate this back to the states, which is what Johnson's position is I believe, would that really be worse than what we have today?  Our federal government doesn't have a great track record in this department.  I don't have to go back very far to find common core and "no child left behind" as decisions made by our federal government.  I'm not sure Sanders being of the position that the federal government should pay for everyone's education is "complete opposite ends of the spectrum" from Johnson's position that the states should be doing this not the federal government but I'm up for a more thorough spelling out of that theory.  

I wasn't using "government" as shorthand for "federal government."  I thought you were talking about a full privatization of education. We're on the same page here.  Not sure I want to parse the details of the education platforms of two guys who aren't gonna be president, though.  If we're gonna talk about them I'd rather talk about legalized weed

 

[T J]

Trump

Trump

Kasich 

Cruz

Me too. 

 

[mquinnjr]

I wasn't using "government" as shorthand for "federal government."  I thought you were talking about a full privatization of education. We're on the same page here.  Not sure I want to parse the details of the education platforms of two guys who aren't gonna be president, though.  If we're gonna talk about them I'd rather talk about legalized weed

Just from a math standpoint, this would be a gigantic windfall for everyone: Tax revenue @ 28% on all weed sales. slashed budgets for LE's spend to fight the "war on weed," slashed budgets to imprison offenders of the "war on weed," and - legalized weed. Who is saying no to that? Cartels and LE?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Just from a math standpoint, this would be a gigantic windfall for everyone: Tax revenue @ 28% on all weed sales. slashed budgets for LE's spend to fight the "war on weed," slashed budgets to imprison offenders of the "war on weed," and - legalized weed. Who is saying no to that? Cartels and LE?

"Preaching to the choir" doesn't even do this justice, GB. You're preaching to the deacon.

 

[msommer]

Just from a math standpoint, this would be a gigantic windfall for everyone: Tax revenue @ 28% on all weed sales. slashed budgets for LE's spend to fight the "war on weed," slashed budgets to imprison offenders of the "war on weed," and - legalized weed. Who is saying no to that? Cartels and LE?

Big Prison.

Big Pharma because people would buy fewer painkillers?