Poll shows Gary Johnson at 10.6% in Ohio

[trailmonkee]

Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2012, 03:52 PM - Edit history (1)

http://newmexico.watchdog.org/16306/poll-shows-gary-johnson-at-10-6-in-ohio-is-that-for-real/

Does Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson really have more than 10 percent support in the critical battleground state of Ohio? Or is the number just a mirage?

While most political observers and pollsters obsess about the numbers between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, a poll last week by an organization called Gravis Marketing showed the former two-term governor of New Mexico picking up support of 10.6 percent of 594 likely voters who answered a telephone survey between September 21-22.

“I can’t answer exactly why” Johnson scored so highly in the poll, Doug Kaplan, the president of Gravis Marketing told Capitol Report New Mexico on Monday (Oct. 1). “Ten percent is tremendous.”
While most all other polling organizations have asked potential voters to choose among Obama, Romney and “other,” Gravis included Johnson in its survey of Ohio, which holds 18 Electoral College votes. Here were the results when Johnson’s name was included:

11. If the Presidential election was held today and the candidates were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romey, and Libertarian Gary Johnson, whom would you vote?

Johnson 10.6%

Obama 44.5%

Other/Unsure 7.1%

Romney 37.8%

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. because theyre are Republicans who will not vote for Romney...

[tama]

9. If they are not voting for Republican candidate

but the Libertarian candidate, how are they Republicans?

Are Greens Democrats who will not vote for Obama?

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. Historically, a large number of registered libertarians voted for Republicans.

They were still libertarians.
What I think we are seeing are Republicans who can't vote for Romney, probably because he is a Morman, so they moved over to the other Conservative choice.

Members of the Green Party who vote for Obama are still members of the Green Party. Independents, or here California 'Decline to State' voters, who vote for Obama are still independent or 'Decline to State.'

No one is required to vote for the party they belong to in this country. Voting for a Democrat or a Republican does not change ones party.

Under Reagan, a lot of Democrats crossed over and were known as Reagan Democrats. They maintained membership in the Democratic Party, but voted for Reagan.

Colin Powell endorse Obama in 2008, but remained a Republican. It is the way our system works.

[tama]

13. Strange system there

If I understand correctly, you become "party member" when you register as voter and tell which party you support, if any, so you can vote in preliminaries of that party? And minority of registered voters are "independents".

Here we don't have voter registration, it's automatic for all citizens. And very few people are party members, it takes active decision to join a party - and to pay membership fees. So here people are "registered" (or rather not registered) according how they vote and/or how they voted in previous election.

Without voter+party registration, how many people there would actively choose membership in political party?

[Agnosticsherbet]

15. It is more complicated than that.

Each state slightly different rules about parties and membership and registration.
People are not required to join a party, or vote for that matter. Right now, in accordance with this story Record-High 40% of Americans Identify as Independents in '11, the number of independents is on the rise.

Where being an independent of a 'Decline to State' voter comes in is in local and state primaries. In some states, in primaries they may only vote for candidates in non-partisan offices. Some Cities like San Diego, supposedly, have offices that are by law non-partisan. Those running can not call themselves Republican or Democrat, but everyone knows what party they belong to.

The ballot is secret in the U.S. No one knows how people vote, so that is no indicator of the party. They do keep records of who voted.

[tama]

18. Thanks for taking time to explain

I figured that various state systems make the whole picture more complicated.

The general drift away from partisan politics and representative system seems to be intensifying. Today I learned that in latest Greek elections - In Greece voting is compulsory, in principle (but not in practice) you get some bureaucratic trouble if you don't vote - 40 percent did not vote, which is big change there from the usual c. 80%.

[oldhippydude]

2. siphoning votes is easy

when you have a BIG JOHNSON

[Dawgs]

3. Gravis Marketing has proven to be much worse than Rasmussen.

They should be embarrassed for the poll numbers they put out.

[trailmonkee]

5. sure is interesting that they have such a high # for Johnson...

don't know why they would promote that?

[HughBeaumont]

4. Pretty sure I'm just Jim Dandy with that.

Johnson takes away Romney votes more than anything. Gary Johnson is no progressive by any stretch of the word.

[Jamaal510]

19. Cenk Ugyur of the Young Turks has certainly been hyping him as some super-progressive.

I even heard him say last week that the "true progressives" running are Rocky Anderson and Gary Johnson. I think sometimes you have to take what he says with a grain of salt, though.

[HughBeaumont]

20. Cenk is on some serious barbituates on this one.

Economically, Gary Johnson's a Fair Taxer (Neal Boortz idea and a favorite of idle rich conservatives), a Free Trader (Which ALL regressive wingnuts lurve), a Voucher champion for schools and medicare (SUPER wingnuttery), a deregulator (Let Big Biznezz run WILD), wants to abolish the IRS (Paulbot stupidity) and wants to defund/eliminate social programs (or, as conservaturds put it, "entitlements&quot .

He's also a pro-lifer, is anti-universal health care and even hates the insurer-friendly "Obamacare".

Progressive, Cenk? Did he even look at Johnson's platform? This is all verbatim from his site. I think ending the military interventions, ending the TSA/spying on citizens lunacy, pro-marriage equality and ending the drug war (not so much because he's pro-peace, pro-liberty, pro-gay or pro-pot, but more because he's an anti-federal-government-getting-involved-in-ANYthing states rights guy) are just about the only progressive initiatives on his board. Everything else is wingnut crapola, especially his economic plan.

[Uncle Joe]

6. I suspect people all along the ideological spectrum are getting fed up

with the insanity of the immoral and unjust so called "War on Drugs."

Thanks for the thread, trailmonkee.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I Think He Misplaced The Decimal Point Two Places To The Right

.

[oldhippydude]

8. a couple of "ifs"

if this is truly taking Republican votes. i believe he is on the ballot in over 40 states (correct me if i'm wrong)..

first thing apparent is thats good thing for us.. at least on an electoral collage level, as that would be splitting the anti Obama vote, and thus allow us to take more states... i am wondering what that may mean for down ticket races... do these voters split the top and vote Republican?... or simply vote Libertarian and walk out?.. this is the wild card that may give us the house!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. He's Not Going To Get 10.6% Of The Vote Anywhere, Even In The State He Was Governor Of

You can bookmark this post.

[rox63]

11. Could be working-class white guys who would normally vote republican

But can't stomach voting for Romney.

[Spike89]

14. Sometimes polls are just nonsense

The disaffected often choose the "fun" choice just to mess with "the man". This is especially evident with silly questions (is Obama a citizen, do you believe in angels, ect.) A lot of republicans will say they think Obama is Kenyan, even though they don't neccessarily believe it. A lot of people believing that Romney has no chance may choose the 3rd choice just to muck up the polls.

We (Democrats) do it too, but fewer polls are currently looking to showcase our biases. The "PC" polls are an obvious example where some liberals poke fun at the questions and try to skew the results.

Aside from responder "fun", it is extremely easy to tweak either the question or delivery of the question (as well as tweaking the sample surveyed). Ask, "are you likely to vote for the Kenyan, the Mormon, or the libertarian who has sensible ideas?" and it might affect the numbers. Even having young women asking the question can skew the polls, especially if the young women hint even the least bit that they prefer one answer over another--many men will try and give "the right answer" even if it isn't what they believe.

Getting accurate, truthful answers for polls is anything but easy.

[yardwork]

16. My sister lives in a deep-red rural county in Ohio. She tells me that they won't vote for Romney.

The people she knows who voted for McCain in 2008 are saying that they can't vote for Romney. They aren't very fond of Obama, though. It's possible they're breaking third party. In any case, they aren't voting for Mittens. Can't stand him.

[k2qb3]

17. Third party support tends to evaporate on election day...

people decide they want to vote for the lesser evil with a shot.

That said, Johnson is the best candidate the LP has ever had, Romney sucks, and the GOP managed to alienate libertarians to a degree that seems suicidal to a lot of people this year (and to a lesser degree over the last decade)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

21. Not necessarily...

If you're a Libertarian-leaning Republican and really don't like Romney, it's also likely that you'll vote for Johnson as a protest vote IF IT APPEARS THAT ROMNEY IS GOING TO LOSE ANYWAY. So as long as Obama maintains a high single-digit lead in Ohio, and especially if Romney gives up on the state, I would guess that many of those voters will go ahead and vote for Johnson, knowing that their vote won't make a difference one way or another.

[SidDithers]

22. Must be all the good press he got from people like Glenn Greenwald...nt

Sid

[standingtall]

23. Gary Johnson

is a child labor supporting scumbag. The only reason to put out a poll like this is to make Ohio seem closer than it is. The poll shows Obama up by just under 7% over Romney. You logically would have to assume if Johnson weren't on the ballot they would overwhelming brake for Romney flipping the state. If these numbers are accurate, but they are not. Nothing more than a head fake by a crap pollster.