Third Parties Cutting into Hillary Clinton's Lead Over Donald Trump

[Frodo]

Thankfully it doesn't look like this is going to be a particularly close election, if Trump keeps shooting himself in the foot through November (as seems likely):

Clinton's third-party headache:
Polls show younger voters are taking a long look at the Libertarian and Green Party nominees this year. That could be a big problem for Hillary Clinton in a close race against Donald Trump.

By Steven Shepard
08/05/16 05:18 AM EDT

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clintons-third-party-headache-226700#ixzz4GSh5mPa8

[Mehmentum]

Look at the polls, inclusion of third parties doesn't make that much of a difference, usually they take like 1% off of Clinton's margin.

[HillOfANight]

In states like Georgia, Johnson is helping her go over the top.

[Pyro]

If things continue the way they are, we may see unprecedented levels of support for third parties. Granted, early in the campaign season third party candidates typically see greater gains in the polls than what they receive in November, but this election has been unusual since Day 1 so ya never know. Doubt it takes much away from Clinton though.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

If the way the polls are now holds this will shape up to be an electoral college blowout for Hillary.  Not sure why people are naval gazing about Jill Stein and friends.

[Nyvin]

Even if they are considering Johnson and Stein...the polls never match up to the actual election results.   Third Parties always fall off a cliff when people are actually in the ballot box voting.

[MasterJedi]

And Johnson is polling higher and taking away a lot of people that would normally vote Republican hurting Trump more.

[StateBoiler]

It's not the people's fault that Democratic and Republican primary voters were effing idiots and nominated these two pieces of sh**t. If you don't want third parties to peel off support, you should've picked someone better.

[HAnnA MArin County]

It's not the people's fault that Democratic and Republican primary voters were effing idiots and nominated these two pieces of sh**t. If you don't want third parties to peel off support, you should've picked someone better.

Yeah, actually it IS their fault for not turning out and voting for different candidates. All these people of whom you speak who allegedly hate both candidates had their chance to vote just like everyone else, so I feel no sympathy for them. Elections have consequences.

[ProudModerate2]

Even if they are considering Johnson and Stein...the polls never match up to the actual election results.   Third Parties always fall off a cliff when people are actually in the ballot box voting.

Agree.

[HillOfANight]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/08/05/in-georgia-hillary-clintons-path-to-victory-could-be-paved-by-a-libertarian/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Gass3268]

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/08/05/in-georgia-hillary-clintons-path-to-victory-could-be-paved-by-a-libertarian/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Priorities USA should run pro-Johnson ads in Georgia, Arizona, and Utah the last couple weeks of the race.

[Ebsy]

There isn't really any broad empirical evidence for this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll believe that third parties will do well when they actually do.  It seems like every year at this time in the election cycle, third parties will get up to the 5 to 10% range in some polls exciting their advocates, but they almost always fall back to normal.

[Trapsy]

I think the third party candidates are overrated atm.  These small samples don't really paint a clear picture.

[Wells]

It will only hurt her in a close race, something this election won't be.

[Illiniwek]

I'll believe that third parties will do well when they actually do.  It seems like every year at this time in the election cycle, third parties will get up to the 5 to 10% range in some polls exciting their advocates, but they almost always fall back to normal.

[OwlRhetoric]

I keep waiting for the typical third party collapse to happen too. If it doesn't for some freak reason, what are the long-term implications of the Libertarians and possibly even the Greens coming back in 2020 with matching funds and better ballot access?

[IceSpear]

There isn't really any broad empirical evidence for this.

Yeah, this smells like more BS from Politico. Which candidate benefits from including the third party options seems to vary wildly based off the pollster itself and what time the poll was conducted. I have not noticed a consistent trend.

[Figueira]

Jill Stein will be lucky to match her 2012 percentage. I can see Johnson doing well, but probably no more than 6% or so.

[cwt]

I keep waiting for the typical third party collapse to happen too. If it doesn't for some freak reason, what are the long-term implications of the Libertarians and possibly even the Greens coming back in 2020 with matching funds and better ballot access?

I don't think there are any implications. The Reform Party won matching funds in 1996 and look what good it did them.

[amdcpus]

I keep waiting for the typical third party collapse to happen too. If it doesn't for some freak reason, what are the long-term implications of the Libertarians and possibly even the Greens coming back in 2020 with matching funds and better ballot access?

I don't think there are any implications. The Reform Party won matching funds in 1996 and look what good it did them.

Reform "Party" was a joke. It had no organization whatsoever and was started literally months before the election. The Libertarian Party is much more organized and has been in existence for over 40 years.

[Mr. Morden]

Even if they are considering Johnson and Stein...the polls never match up to the actual election results.   Third Parties always fall off a cliff when people are actually in the ballot box voting.

I don’t think that’s true.  Both Perot 1996 and Nader 2000 weren’t that far off their polling average on election day.  Now, Perot 1996 declined in the polls over the course of the year, but his polling average by October/November was pretty much spot on with the results on election day.

[twenty42]

Even if they are considering Johnson and Stein...the polls never match up to the actual election results.   Third Parties always fall off a cliff when people are actually in the ballot box voting.

Err...you do realize that third-party candidates directly affected the outcomes of the 1968, 1992, and 2000 elections, right?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even if they are considering Johnson and Stein...the polls never match up to the actual election results.   Third Parties always fall off a cliff when people are actually in the ballot box voting.

I don’t think that’s true.  Both Perot 1996 and Nader 2000 weren’t that far off their polling average on election day.  Now, Perot 1996 declined in the polls over the course of the year, but his polling average by October/November was pretty much spot on with the results on election day.

This isn't October.  It's the first freaking week of August.