Gary Johnson and the rust belt

[jman123]

What can account for the fact that Gary Johnson got over 3% in the rust belt like Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin?

[SingingAnalyst]

Johnson got around 3.5% in MI where he was viewed as a moderate, and an alternative to the widely disliked major party candidates. Like many candidates viewed this way, he really had no pockets of strong support, instead doing fairly uniformly well (poorly, actually) across the state. He got up to 5% along the I-96 corridor from Lansing to Grand Rapids and suburbs; got over 4% in wealthy Livingston County, and 3.5% in Oakland County. In Macomb, however (where Trump was king) he barely reached 3%.

[Adam Griffin]

He got over 3% in around three-fourths of all states. A better question would be why did he do so relatively well in GA of all places.



The general answer to the question of "why did Johnson not do well/not break 3% in some states?" is below:

[mieastwick]

Gary Johnson performed well in GA due to a solid performance in the big rich suburban and exurban counties of Cherokee, Cobb, and Forsyth. More likely than not due to Marcobros.

In Michigan, Gary Johnson's best performance was in the City of Midland, home of Dow Chemical.

[Hydera]

Johnson got a lot of votes from independents, people who didnt like either candidates and also a lot of votes from people who voted democrat in 2012 and didnt want to vote for Hillary.

[mencken]

The general answer to the question of "why did Johnson not do well/not break 3% in some states?" is below:

Gary Johnson performance adjusted for state blackness*:

*Assuming increasing black population means fewer potential Libertarian voters (arithmetic relation) and more tribalistic/less libertarian behavior among nonblacks (exponential relation).

[SingingAnalyst]

The general answer to the question of "why did Johnson not do well/not break 3% in some states?" is below:

Gary Johnson performance adjusted for state blackness*:

*Assuming increasing black population means fewer Libertarian voters (arithmetic relation) and more tribalistic/less libertarian behavior among nonblacks (exponential relation).

I assume red means less than expected, yellow means more than expected, and green means much more than expected?

[mencken]

The general answer to the question of "why did Johnson not do well/not break 3% in some states?" is below:

Gary Johnson performance adjusted for state blackness*:

*Assuming increasing black population means fewer Libertarian voters (arithmetic relation) and more tribalistic/less libertarian behavior among nonblacks (exponential relation).

I assume red means less than expected, yellow means more than expected, and green means much more than expected?

Yeah. I disregarded those that were within half a percentage of the regression line as insignificant (grey)

[AGA]

He got over 3% in around three-fourths of all states. A better question would be why did he do so relatively well in GA of all places.



The general answer to the question of "why did Johnson not do well/not break 3% in some states?" is below:

As far as I know, the Libertarian party has a relatively strong presence in Georgia. Also, I'm sure a lot of Republicans in the Atlanta suburbs were disaffected with Trump and decided to support Johnson.

[RI]

Johnson was also the only third party candidate on the ballot in GA and IN (and OK).