Trump 42%, Clinton 39%, Johnson 10%

This is the second poll showing a libertarian candidate in double digits. He needs 15% to make the debates.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/05/18/fox-news-poll-2016-national-release-may-18/

Also supports the notion that Johnson would draw equally from Clinton and Trump--this poll shows 3% from each.

I hope he gets 15 percent. He makes a lot more sense than either of the other two.

Not a fan of Johnson's VP selection though.

I'd love to have Johnson part of the debates though I don't think I'll vote for him. I have libertarian leanings but I'm not Libertarian. I would definitely vote for him over Trump or Clinton and if I were polled I'd say I was supporting him to get him to the 15% mark.

Johnson belongs in the debates but I have serious doubts the debate commission would ever actually honor that 15% rule. They might for a true independent like a Ross Perot, but any candidate from another party they will do anything possible to make sure they don't have to allow them to debate. They exist for the sole purpose of maintaining the two-party monopoly in American politics. The problem is that no one can hit that 15% threshold if the poll doesn't include them in the question, and most polls are commissioned by one side or the other and have a vested interest in not letting a third party candidate muddy the waters.



Let's just say sometime over the next few months three polls find Johnson with more than 15% but ten others don't even give the respondent a chance to select Johnson. The truth in those polls would be that we wouldn't know for sure how many might have chosen Johnson. But what would happen is the debate commission would assume 0% for Johnson in those, add that to the three where he gets over 15% and say the average falls well below 15%. It's not accurate and not fair, but that's what they would do. It's how the continual scam against third parties works. Kudos to Fox for including Johnson in the question. unfortunately this is the exception an and not the rule.

People are so disgusted with the two that they want a third choice. I won't watch the debate if it is just the two clowns.

Do Trump or Clinton even have to attend a debate if they don't want to?

Mars wrote:
Do Trump or Clinton even have to attend a debate if they don't want to?

No, I don't think they have to.

If Trump were smart, which he is not, he would schedule a debate right now with Sanders.

I have some libertarian leanings, as well, but I don't like that Johnson is a socially liberal libertarian. If I'm going to vote third party anyway (which I am), I'm not going to waste it on yet another politician that I don't think is great.

hawkwing wrote:
If Trump were smart, which he is not, he would schedule a debate right now with Sanders.

Well, Trump's not an idiot either. A jerk, yes. But not an idiot.

byufan4ever wrote:

If Trump were smart, which he is not, he would schedule a debate right now with Sanders.

Well, Trump's not an idiot either. A jerk, yes. But not an idiot.

Agree to disagree on that one :)

Schmoe wrote:
I have some libertarian leanings, as well, but I don't like that Johnson is a socially liberal libertarian. If I'm going to vote third party anyway (which I am), I'm not going to waste it on yet another politician that I don't think is great.

I would prefer Johnson were pro life but it doesn't really matter - the courts aren't changing their opinions. The Republican party gave up on that years ago despite the rhetoric. If Johnson picks a SC nominee they'd be much more likely to overturn Roe v Wade than anyone Trump or Clinton would pick.

Abortion is tough, because legalizing it dropped the National crime rate about 20%. There would be major repercussions to making it illegal again.

Mars wrote:
Abortion is tough, because legalizing it dropped the National crime rate about 20%. There would be major repercussions to making it illegal again.

How about after 20 weeks? No partial-birth or third trimester? The way we get defeated is thinking in this all-or-nothing mindset. Also, if we made everything legal, it would drop the national crime rate by 100%, that doesn't matter to me one iota.



I also disagree with Johnson on legalizing things like prostitution.

Mars wrote:
Abortion is tough, because legalizing it dropped the National crime rate about 20%. There would be major repercussions to making it illegal again.

I know the freakonomics guys believe this and would have us all believe it but their analysis is garbage.



Among western nations the USofA has some of the most liberal abortion laws in world. And some of the highest crime rates.



FYI, Austin Petersen, one of the other libertarian candidates for president, is pro-life. They'll choose a candidate this weekend. If Petersen wins I'll probably vote for him. If not, I'll be choosing between between whoever the Libertarians pick and Darrel Castle.

If only we had more prostitution, drug use, and abortions, then our society would really be on the right path.

hawkwing wrote:
If only we had more prostitution, drug use, and abortions, then our society would really be on the right path.

I totally agree that we could use less of it. But disagree that making it legal would have any significant difference on how much of it is happening.

BroncoBot wrote:

If only we had more prostitution, drug use, and abortions, then our society would really be on the right path.

I totally agree that we could use less of it. But disagree that making it legal would have any significant difference on how much of it is happening.

And that's where and why I'll never be a Libertarian. Because I do think it would.