Libertarian ticket cost Trump the popular vote.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Johnson/Weld internal polling suggesting an even bigger win for Trump if the Libertarian and Green tickets weren't present:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/libertarian-ticket-cost-trump-the-popular-vote/article/2614458

[heatcharger]

Trump would not have gotten 75% of Johnson voters, especially considering many would've stayed home. This is a ridiculous notion.

[Adam Griffin]

Haven't read the article (namely, because I don't want to give Washington Examiner any revenue), but according to the quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a stretch to claim with certainty that Trump would have won the popular vote. He lost by 2,868,000 according to Atlas. Seventy-five percent of Johnson's total is 3,367,000, giving Trump a lead of approximately 500,000 votes if you give him all of those voters and give none to Clinton. However, it's not implausible at all to speculate that Clinton would have got at least 11% of Johnson's vote to pull even. Everyday Libertarians tend to vastly underestimate the amount of their support at the ballot that doesn't come from a position of informed ideological purity, or even from right-of-center.

Their estimates of what percentage of the Libertarian vote Trump would have received isn't out of line at all with recent elections (in more normal elections, it's a general 75/25 split when pushing Libertarians to pick a major party). In such a "normal" scenario, Trump would only close the popular vote by 2.2 million votes or so, and would still lose. You would have needed for all of the usual GOP-supporting Libertarian types to have turned out for Trump regardless, while at the same time, the vast majority of the non-GOP Libertarian voters would have needed to either stay home or vote for an alternative third party.

This doesn't jive with the nature of the race: Johnson's totals were inflated by disgust for Trump much more so than for Clinton. All of those supposedly principled upper-middle class suburbanite GOP voters who turn out in high numbers would have had to make a genuinely principled choice (stay home, vote for Clinton, or vote for Trump) in the absence of Johnson. Based on how this year's Libertarian coalition was built, I think it'd be a much less difficult decision on average for the non-GOP Libertarian supporters to back Clinton in sufficient numbers to maintain her PV lead than for Trump to coast to victory.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

This doesn't jive with the nature of the race: Johnson's totals were inflated by disgust for Trump much more so than for Clinton. All of those supposedly principled upper-middle class suburbanite GOP voters who turn out in high numbers would have had to make a genuinely principled choice (stay home, vote for Clinton, or vote for Trump) in the absence of Johnson. Based on how this year's Libertarian coalition was built, I think it'd be a much less difficult decision on average for the non-GOP Libertarian supporters to back Clinton in sufficient numbers to maintain her PV lead than for Trump to coast to victory.

Many could've stayed home, maybe the popular vote would've been won or not, but it would've been a lot closer for sure. But I vehemently disagree that more were disgusted by Trump than Clinton.  She still comes off to many as an evil, cold criminal mastermind.  It would have been worth the risk to see if Trump would do some libertarian things and blow up the system.  (Which it looks like he's doing in some ways right now: EPA essentially non-functional, DoE (Education) has a home-schooling crony in charge and a one sentence bill to end the DoE gaining momentum in Congrees)

[AGA]

Even if Trump and Clinton split the libertarian vote 75/25, the numbers show that she still would have won the popular vote.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I tend to believe this analysis, in that in many states, Johnson/Weld was the only ticket many disaffected Republicans could talk themselves into voting for.

Given how many #NeverTrump types came home to Trump in the end, particularly in close states, I think it's more likely than not that Johnson/Weld cost Trump the popular vote. 

[Vosem]

This seems pretty doubtful to me; in 2012, at least, there was agreement that Johnson took more from Obama than Romney, especially in western states. I'd expect Trump to do worse than Romney among Libertarian second-preferences.

McMullin voters, probably, would've indeed preferred Trump to Clinton. But I'm unconvinced that's true even of a plurality of Johnson voters, much less 75%. I know I personally voted for Johnson, and was unambiguously Johnson > Clinton > Trump; most of the Johnson supporters I knew were either of that persuasion or would've switched to a different third party without a Libertarian candidate.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

This seems pretty doubtful to me; in 2012, at least, there was agreement that Johnson took more from Obama than Romney, especially in western states. I'd expect Trump to do worse than Romney among Libertarian second-preferences.

McMullin voters, probably, would've indeed preferred Trump to Clinton. But I'm unconvinced that's true even of a plurality of Johnson voters, much less 75%. I know I personally voted for Johnson, and was unambiguously Johnson > Clinton > Trump; most of the Johnson supporters I knew were either of that persuasion or would've switched to a different third party without a Libertarian candidate.

I was mostly pro-Clinton but voted Johnson because my presidential vote in CA doesn't matter and he had some ideas I liked. I definitely would've voted Hillary in a swing state.

[mencken]

I suspect that most of that 75% did end up voting for Trump, as Johnson's dismal performance relative to his polling indicates.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The electoral map if Trump got 75% of Johnson's votes (and Clinton the other 25%):

Only New Hampshire and Minnesota flip.  The national PV is Clinton +0.45.

Competitive states (PV within 10)
Minnesota: Trump +0.41
Maine: Clinton +0.41
Nevada: Clinton +0.76
New Hampshire: Trump +1.70
Pennsylvania: Trump +1.90
Michigan: Trump +2.01
Florida: Trump +2.27
Colorado: Clinton +2.32
Wisconsin: Trump +2.56
New Mexico: Clinton +3.69
Virginia: Clinton +3.83
North Carolina: Trump +5.03
Arizona: Trump +5.54
Georgia: Trump +6.61
Oregon: Clinton +8.62
Ohio: Trump +9.65
Delaware: Clinton +9.71

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Thanks for that map^^. It's hard to say what happens with the Stein vote too.  I'd guess randomly around half just stay home or vote write-in Bernie or something, the other half would probably be 80/20 Clinton.

I suspect that most of that 75% did end up voting for Trump, as Johnson's dismal performance relative to his polling indicates.

A good point too, how many did flip to voting Trump already and how many stuck with Johnson like I did?

[NOVA Green]

This seems pretty doubtful to me; in 2012, at least, there was agreement that Johnson took more from Obama than Romney, especially in western states. I'd expect Trump to do worse than Romney among Libertarian second-preferences.

McMullin voters, probably, would've indeed preferred Trump to Clinton. But I'm unconvinced that's true even of a plurality of Johnson voters, much less 75%. I know I personally voted for Johnson, and was unambiguously Johnson > Clinton > Trump; most of the Johnson supporters I knew were either of that persuasion or would've switched to a different third party without a Libertarian candidate.

I have a lot of friends like this too.  In fact I've seen this pattern play out over the last 8 years.  Voting libertarian seems to be last stop on the train before converting from Republican to Democrat in today's environment.  Too bad democrats don't take up more libertarian policies, they'd have a party that would totally dominate among those under 40.

I agree with both Vosem and NonSwingVoter on their respective points....

Additionally, it is important to note that Johnson performed worst in the most Republican part of the country, the states of the Old Confederacy, and generally best in the Mountain and Far West, where if anything in the most populous Atlas Red States, there is a good chance that Johnson may have taken more votes from Clinton than Trump.... certainly my precinct analysis of Oregon seems to show a correlation between high 3rd Party voting patterns (Including Libertarian) and drop-off in Democratic support from '12 to '16.

I suspect, this might be similar in states in New England....

The great plains states likely was more heavily a drop-off from Romney '12 voters that could not abide Trump '16.... Not so sure about the upper Midwest, but I suspect that the Libertarian voters were heavily <35 yrs old, which was certainly not a demographic where Trump was considered at all "cool"...

[NOVA Green]

Thanks for that map^^. It's hard to say what happens with the Stein vote too.  I'd guess randomly around half just stay home or vote write-in Bernie or something, the other half would probably be 80/20 Clinton.

I suspect that most of that 75% did end up voting for Trump, as Johnson's dismal performance relative to his polling indicates.

A good point too, how many did flip to voting Trump already and how many stuck with Johnson like I did?

First point: In some states, like Oregon for example you actually had both Stein and Write-Ins..... Although unfortunately it is impossible to know the breakdown of the write-in vote it is likely that 2/3 were Bernie Write-Ins, and a chunk of the rest McMullen Write-Ins, not to mention a higher than average performance for our perennial candidates Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck....

I have only met a few Stein '16 voters that I know of, but she did place 2nd ahead of Donald Trump in some half-dozen overwhelmingly densely populated precincts in Oregon that typically vote >90% Democratic:  Inner East Portland ("The Kremlin" is a local political operative nickname for these areas) as well as areas of East Eugene..... These votes were all a significant defection to the Left against a candidate that in all moral conscience many Progressive Democrats could not support.

Now regarding ExtremeRepublicans very good point, it does seem that the collapse of Johnson's polling numbers vs Election Day results, was probably close to the max that Trump could have expected from Republican defectors flirting with Johnson, and again this leaves the remaining pool of Johnson voters probably much closer to 55-45 Trump/Clinton than 75/25 Trump-Clinton.

[Lachi]

The electoral map if Trump got 75% of Johnson's votes (and Clinton the other 25%):

Only New Hampshire and Minnesota flip.  The national PV is Clinton +0.45.

Competitive states (PV within 10)
Minnesota: Trump +0.41
Maine: Clinton +0.41
Nevada: Clinton +0.76
New Hampshire: Trump +1.70
Pennsylvania: Trump +1.90
Michigan: Trump +2.01
Florida: Trump +2.27
Colorado: Clinton +2.32
Wisconsin: Trump +2.56
New Mexico: Clinton +3.69
Virginia: Clinton +3.83
North Carolina: Trump +5.03
Arizona: Trump +5.54
Georgia: Trump +6.61
Oregon: Clinton +8.62
Ohio: Trump +9.65
Delaware: Clinton +9.71

And this is also assuming that the L-R swing was uniform across the country.

[Heisenberg]

Well, I think a decent number would have had blank ballots, or written in someone else. I'd say many third party voters just really hated both major candidates. The enthusiastic big-L Libertarians were only 1% of the 2012 vote IIRC. With California so large and overwhelmingly Democratic, I think it would take a MASSIVE landslide for Republicans to get the popular vote.

[JoshPA]

no it was California damn one party system i mean election system this is why i hate two round voting.

[JoshPA]

Johnson/Weld internal polling suggesting an even bigger win for Trump if the Libertarian and Green tickets weren't present:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/libertarian-ticket-cost-trump-the-popular-vote/article/2614458

I forgive you guys since we now have gary johnson memes.

[JoshPA]

Johnson/Weld internal polling suggesting an even bigger win for Trump if the Libertarian and Green tickets weren't present:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/libertarian-ticket-cost-trump-the-popular-vote/article/2614458

it was California.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I could see a lot of pot smoking Bernie bros voting Libertarian.

[Lothal1]

This seems pretty doubtful to me; in 2012, at least, there was agreement that Johnson took more from Obama than Romney, especially in western states. I'd expect Trump to do worse than Romney among Libertarian second-preferences.

McMullin voters, probably, would've indeed preferred Trump to Clinton. But I'm unconvinced that's true even of a plurality of Johnson voters, much less 75%. I know I personally voted for Johnson, and was unambiguously Johnson > Clinton > Trump; most of the Johnson supporters I knew were either of that persuasion or would've switched to a different third party without a Libertarian candidate.

I have a lot of friends like this too.  In fact I've seen this pattern play out over the last 8 years.  Voting libertarian seems to be last stop on the train before converting from Republican to Democrat in today's environment.  Too bad democrats don't take up more libertarian policies, they'd have a party that would totally dominate among those under 40.

I agree with both Vosem and NonSwingVoter on their respective points....

Additionally, it is important to note that Johnson performed worst in the most Republican part of the country, the states of the Old Confederacy, and generally best in the Mountain and Far West, where if anything in the most populous Atlas Red States, there is a good chance that Johnson may have taken more votes from Clinton than Trump.... certainly my precinct analysis of Oregon seems to show a correlation between high 3rd Party voting patterns (Including Libertarian) and drop-off in Democratic support from '12 to '16.

I suspect, this might be similar in states in New England....

The great plains states likely was more heavily a drop-off from Romney '12 voters that could not abide Trump '16.... Not so sure about the upper Midwest, but I suspect that the Libertarian voters were heavily <35 yrs old, which was certainly not a demographic where Trump was considered at all "cool"...

The South doesn't vote for third party candidates (since 1972), it is monolithic for both parties. Perot did terrible in the South. Anderson, McCarthy, Nader, etc all did horrendous in the south.

[Canis]

according to the exit polls http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls
 16% of third party voters or write ins would vote for clinton and 19% would vote for trump and 65% would have stayed at home
could somebody do a map for those percentages?

[SingingAnalyst]

according to the exit polls http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls
 16% of third party voters or write ins would vote for clinton and 19% would vote for trump and 65% would have stayed at home
could somebody do a map for those percentages?

Given that we are taking about a net gain of just 3% of the Johnson vote for Trump, I suspect the map would match what happened IRL, with the possible exception of NH.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This seems pretty doubtful to me; in 2012, at least, there was agreement that Johnson took more from Obama than Romney, especially in western states. I'd expect Trump to do worse than Romney among Libertarian second-preferences.

McMullin voters, probably, would've indeed preferred Trump to Clinton. But I'm unconvinced that's true even of a plurality of Johnson voters, much less 75%. I know I personally voted for Johnson, and was unambiguously Johnson > Clinton > Trump; most of the Johnson supporters I knew were either of that persuasion or would've switched to a different third party without a Libertarian candidate.

I have a lot of friends like this too.  In fact I've seen this pattern play out over the last 8 years.  Voting libertarian seems to be last stop on the train before converting from Republican to Democrat in today's environment.  Too bad democrats don't take up more libertarian policies, they'd have a party that would totally dominate among those under 40.

I agree with both Vosem and NonSwingVoter on their respective points....

Additionally, it is important to note that Johnson performed worst in the most Republican part of the country, the states of the Old Confederacy, and generally best in the Mountain and Far West, where if anything in the most populous Atlas Red States, there is a good chance that Johnson may have taken more votes from Clinton than Trump.... certainly my precinct analysis of Oregon seems to show a correlation between high 3rd Party voting patterns (Including Libertarian) and drop-off in Democratic support from '12 to '16.

I suspect, this might be similar in states in New England....

The great plains states likely was more heavily a drop-off from Romney '12 voters that could not abide Trump '16.... Not so sure about the upper Midwest, but I suspect that the Libertarian voters were heavily <35 yrs old, which was certainly not a demographic where Trump was considered at all "cool"...

The Great Plains/Mountain West is both the most Republican part of the country and also the place where Gary Johnson did best.  Johnson did better in WV than in MD, better in IN than in IL, and better in TN than in NY.  At the same time a large number of his voters must have been Obama voters, esp somewhere like Maine or the Dakotas, but its hard to say just how many.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

This is why I believe Trump will win the popular vote in 2020.

The election after an election with a huge third party turnout almost always has significantly less third party turnout.

1980 - Anderson gets 7% of the vote. In 1984, I don't think third parties even got 0.7% of the vote.

1992 - Perot gets 19% of the vote. In 1996, he gets only 8%.

2000 - Nader gets 3.5% of the vote. In 2004 he barely even registers.

This makes sense because by the 2nd election everyone "knows" the incumbent already.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

This seems pretty doubtful to me; in 2012, at least, there was agreement that Johnson took more from Obama than Romney, especially in western states. I'd expect Trump to do worse than Romney among Libertarian second-preferences.

McMullin voters, probably, would've indeed preferred Trump to Clinton. But I'm unconvinced that's true even of a plurality of Johnson voters, much less 75%. I know I personally voted for Johnson, and was unambiguously Johnson > Clinton > Trump; most of the Johnson supporters I knew were either of that persuasion or would've switched to a different third party without a Libertarian candidate.

I have a lot of friends like this too.  In fact I've seen this pattern play out over the last 8 years.  Voting libertarian seems to be last stop on the train before converting from Republican to Democrat in today's environment.  Too bad democrats don't take up more libertarian policies, they'd have a party that would totally dominate among those under 40.

I agree with both Vosem and NonSwingVoter on their respective points....

Additionally, it is important to note that Johnson performed worst in the most Republican part of the country, the states of the Old Confederacy, and generally best in the Mountain and Far West, where if anything in the most populous Atlas Red States, there is a good chance that Johnson may have taken more votes from Clinton than Trump.... certainly my precinct analysis of Oregon seems to show a correlation between high 3rd Party voting patterns (Including Libertarian) and drop-off in Democratic support from '12 to '16.

I suspect, this might be similar in states in New England....

The great plains states likely was more heavily a drop-off from Romney '12 voters that could not abide Trump '16.... Not so sure about the upper Midwest, but I suspect that the Libertarian voters were heavily <35 yrs old, which was certainly not a demographic where Trump was considered at all "cool"...

The South doesn't vote for third party candidates (since 1972), it is monolithic for both parties. Perot did terrible in the South. Anderson, McCarthy, Nader, etc all did horrendous in the south.

Do you think places like Philly, Chicago and NYC are less likely to vote third party as well due to the big city machine bosses running the show?