Updated 2016 w/ stronger Libertarian and Green Parties

[vcczar]

I'm making an update version of 2016 with strong 3rd parties. According to several polls, both 3rd parties are showing an increase of strange by about 4x on average. So basically, I've increased their 2012 polling numbers by 4 for both parties, reducing the major parties accordingly, with Libertarians draining Republicans (generally) and Green draining Democrats. 

The interesting part is that the Libertarian Party could give red states MT, MO, IN, along with all the battleground states, except for Michigan, where the Green Party hurts Clinton there. 

Basically, every place that the Green Party does well, the Libertarians also do well, except in Michigan. Thus, in theory the Green Party shouldn't really hurt Clinton, while the Libertarian Party hurts Trump. 

[ThePotatoWalrus]

Technically, the Libertarian party is taking more voters away from Hillary.

[vcczar]

@ThePotatoWalrus

Do you have a source for this information? I have never heard that from any source. 

[Zach]

@vcczar From Fortune, a magazine based in the United States:

Quote

Today, young voters are disproportionately Bernie Sanders supporters. In the Democratic primary, Clinton has struggled to overcome a generational divide. The divide emerged in Iowa (where young voters chose [Michael Foot] over Clinton by a margin of six to one), and has persisted throughout the nomination process. The million-dollar question of presidential politics is: Where will these Sanders voters go when Clinton secures the Democratic nomination? White, blue-collar, less-educated Sanders voters may gravitate to Trump. His avowed strategy is to attract Reagan Democrats and make Rust Belt states electorally competitive. If younger voters were to gravitate to the Libertarian party rather than acquiesce in the Clinton nomination, then the libertarians could throw the election to Trump. Michael Bloomberg decided to forgo an independent third-party run for fear that he would take more votes from Clinton and give the presidency to Trump. Weld may now play the role that Bloomberg refused to play.

 

[vcczar]

@Zach

That's more speculation than a source. Logically, it doesn't make sense for a supporter of a Socialist to support a Libertarian, unless the voter is a single-issue voter on a common issue Sanders and Johnson are in agreement, but I think even younger voters are more complex than that. Overall, I doubt Johnson will get the 15% needed to be in the debates, unless Trump tanks, which would then mean Trump (and not Clinton) is definitely losing out to Johnson. What I'm looking for is not speculation, as this quote is; I'm trying to find credible polling data that suggests the Libertarians are taking more votes from Clinton than they are from Trump. 

[Zach]

@vcczar Here's something from The Washington Examiner (United States):

Quote

Harvard University reports Thursday that millennial voters are turning away from Democrat Hillary Clinton, registering a 10-point drop in support for her, while those that back Republican Donald Trump are showing sky high enthusiasm and passion for their guy.

The latest poll from the Institute of Politics, located at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, also showed less support for Clinton among voters up to 29 years old than President Obama won in 2012.

What's more, the survey indicated that just 47 percent of the voters "definitely" plan to vote in the fall election.

The younger voters have long been fans of Sen. Bernie Sanders, and now appear to be looking at Independent Gary Johnson. In a three-way matchup, Johnson wins 13 percent of the younger vote and appears to take much more support from Clinton than Trump.

And here's another source from FiveThirtyEight (United States):

Quote

The majority of pollsters (12) have Clinton’s margin over Trump shrinking when at least one third-party candidate is included. The difference in margins, however, varies among pollsters, and a few, such as Ipsos, have Clinton’s lead rising by the tiniest of bits when at least Johnson is included. Overall, including third-party candidates takes about 1 percentage point away from Clinton’s margin, on average.

We can argue about the significance of a single percentage point. It’s not a very big deal when Clinton is leading by 5.5 percentage points in the FiveThirtyEight national polling average and is projected to win the national vote by 6.3 percentage points in the FiveThirtyEight polls-only model. (Note that our model prefers the versions of polls that include Johnson. Otherwise, Clinton’s advantage would be slightly larger.) The discrepancy could, however, become an issue if the race becomes tighter. Although Clinton has been hurt by the inclusion of third-party candidates over the past month, it hasn’t been consistent.

Note that the margin between Clinton and Trump has narrowed significantly since this article was published. Clinton was ahead by 5.5% in early July 2016, whilst now Trump leads by 1.1% in the latest RealClearPolitics average.

[vcczar]

@Zach

Thanks for including these. Yeah, I'll have to wait and see. Let's see how the convention bounces go, and then I'll probably remake my scenario based on current polls, but just makes the 3rd parties, especially the Libertarians have a much strong campaign organization than Anthony has it in the official scenario. 

I'm sort of disappointed in left-leaning young voters who support Sanders and then Johnson. It's shows a real disconnect in their logic. Sanders and Johnson are about as economically and domestically dissimilar as they come. They have some agreement. You pretty much have to be a single-issue candidate to make that leap. Is it anti-establishment just for the sake of anti-establishment?

Do you know how many undecided Republicans there are to undecided Democrats?  

[Zach]

2 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Michael Foot is a dead British Socialist?! wtf Zach

I was waiting for someone to get the joke.

[Zach]

27 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm sort of disappointed in left-leaning young voters who support Sanders and then Johnson. It's shows a real disconnect in their logic. Sanders and Johnson are about as economically and domestically dissimilar as they come. They have some agreement. You pretty much have to be a single-issue candidate to make that leap. Is it anti-establishment just for the sake of anti-establishment?

@vcczar I don't know what's going through their heads, but it's good for both the world economy and geopolitical stability that their support is moving away from Sanders. 

Quote

Do you know how many undecided Republicans there are to undecided Democrats?  

Here's what a June 2016 poll from CNBC (United States) says:

Quote

The poll of 801 registered voters conducted June 11-14 shows Clinton with a 40 percent to 35 percent lead, but the poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Pollsters for CNBC say the survey shows a tight race with 25 percent undecided, including 14 percent who right now choose "neither" candidate.

And for what it's worth, here's some results from the latest poll from CNN and ORC International (United States):

[vcczar]

@Zach

Thanks for this info. 

[ThePotatoWalrus]

23 hours ago, vcczar said:

@ThePotatoWalrus

Do you have a source for this information? I have never heard that from any source. 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/01/libertarian-johnson-will-likely-hurt-clinton-trump/ 

I don't typically believe these things, but here you go: 

With the things that Gary Johnson says about, "agreeing with Sanders on 73% of issues" I wouldn't be surprised.

[vcczar]

Breitbart isn't the most credible source. They're sometimes right though, but they're more misleading than a lot of other newsources. They aren't as bad as, say, infowars.