That question is directed to both Clinton and trump supporters. And I suspect that many would say yes. (Remember that I am stipulating that if you don't get Johnson it is 50-50.) It wouldn't matter normally because those saying yes wouldn't typically vote for Johnson even if he was their first choice, let alone their second, since it usually only helps the other side.

But what if 35% of Republicans consider Johnson either better or only slightly worse than Trump while considering Hillary much worse. And at the same time 35% of Democrats considered Johnson either better or only slightly worse than Clinton while considering Trump much worse.

And last but not least, both sides knew that there were about 35% of the opposite party who, like them would answer yes to my coin flip question. This implicit collusion could actually conceivably result in a Libertarian win.

So if you could anoint Johnson to avoid a coinflip, would you? (Remember he attended the Two Plus Two party and wants drugs and internet poker legalized.)

(If there is a mod out there who can turn this into a poll, please do. I don't know how. And please separate into Hillary and Trump supporters. )

I REALIZE BELATEDLY THAT I PHRASED THE POLL INCORRECTLY BECAUSE I APPEAR TO LEAVE OUT BERNIE SUPPORTERS. BUT THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE CATEGORIES UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT HE DOESN'T GET THE NOMINATION AND THOSE SUPPORTERS HAVE TO CHOOSE SOMEONE ELSE.

Poll added

You don't know how to make a poll? Seriously? Not that a poll can save yet another ridiculous "DS makes up a silly gambling politics hypothetical and wants everyone to play along" thread, but at least spend the 5 seconds needed to figure it out.

You missed the most obvious option.

no

I did not understand the choices of the question in the poll. I would vote for Johnson over the other 2 if it appeared he was leading or 2nd in the polls. Hillary has been in politics too long and seems entitled. Trump is a loose canon on trade, following the law, and terrorism. Johnson should say he going to build the wall, give Trump a no-bid contract to build the wall, and implement a 25% tax on imports from Mexico until it is paid for. Then give those that have been in the country 10 years, lifetime work visas without any benefits from government. Those less than 10 years, 6 month visas. Then allow poor in Mexico 6 months visas if they go home every 6 months and their family stays in Mexico.

Haven't recently heard several hours of Gary Johnson podcasts i would not take him over anyone. I don't even think he grasps the concepts of the presidency and people who are ignorantly throwing him a protest vote need to learn about him more. Maybe his campaign will dramatically improve, his positions will improved and he'll stop doing dumb stuff.

Single-handedly privatizing prisons inn New Mexico is not congrutruent with what his platform is.

I feel he is about non viable a third party candidate as we could have and I thimk just voting for him because he is not trump or Hillary is a mistake.

Trump has such a dangerous mentality when it comes to cheering crowds, use of force, Islamophobia/etc that I'd take almost anyone over a coin flip.

So easy yes but has me wondering where the line would be. Who wouldn't I take over a 50% chance of Trump? It would probably have to be someone quite trump like.

Same answer if Cruz was the nominee? I am asking because a no from you could either mean that you think Johnson is quite bad or that Trump isn't that terrible.

Who is Gary Johnson? (so, yes)

better 100% Johnson than 50% Trump imo

he at least seems like he gives a ****

Johnson was on the Joe Rogan podcast for 2 1/2 hours a few days ago. I listened to like 1/2 of it. Really doesn't seem that smart. Probably would be a gaffe machine if he was covered on the level of a Trump/Hillary.

Had some good stuff to say tho..

My answer is yes, but I'm currently a Johnson supporter and voted for him in 2012. The Republicans (and Democrats) simply haven't put up a good candidate in ages.

I'd take anyone who would legalize online poker without giving a damn what their positions on anything else were.

What if he wanted to deport all white males?

The poll looks like good news for Johnson if he plays his cards right and the race remains a tossup. My next magazine article is probably going to be about this odd situation.

If by good news you mean "goes from zero chance to zero chance" then sure, I guess. I feel kinda bad for 2+2 if they are going to try to increase their readership with nonsense like these political fauxtheticals.

I really don't understand the value in absurd hypotheticals like this. What do you learn about your response to a choice you'll never really be asked to make?

there was no option for 'yes, and I don't support trump or clinton' but if there was, that is what I would vote for

You just don't get it. This has nothing to do with Gary Johnson or politics anymore than my posts about whether a team should have gone for two has something to do with sports. It just so happens that situations arise in many areas that have an interesting mathematical/logical aspect to them.

People think that I look at subjects that interest me and try to show how they can be analyzed with logic and or math. Thus they think that I believe that almost all subjects can be analyzed that way. But I don't do that. Because none of these subjects actually interest me. And I do realize that most are too messy to analyze logically. But some aren't. And those are the ones that I pick.

In this case the fact that the election is a tossup and the fact that many are voting for someone they dislike to avoid someone they hate results in a theoretical possibility for a strange collusion between sides that rarely comes up in real life.

But if the subject was which movie you and your friends chose to go to it would be equally important.

Then don't post your ridiculous hypotheticals in the ****ing politics forum. This is ABC stuff. When it comes to actually caring about real world politics, this thread, like so many of your threads, is entirely useless. If you just want to play around with some very trivial, very basic, very low level "math" problem that is just expressed in terms of politics well fine, but don't do it here. And don't be shocked when others "don't get it".

Sure, but I don't this (or others of its ilk) is one of them.

I think you're fooling yourself if you think you can gather anything meaningful from presenting people with what amounts to false choices and/or ideas so detached from the real world that it's basically impossible to imagine realistic consequences.

This isn't me going at you specifically- I just always think these exercises are super pointless. It could be voting or pressing the "make somebody die" button. It's all mostly bull****.

The problem with this situation is that Gary Johnson was a Republican governor as was Weld.

Should Johnson win he would not be a truly Independent President. The entire Republican agenda would likely be installed. This includes massive tax cuts for the wealthy. A rollback of the Medicaid expansion. A repeal of the ACA with no real intent to deal with the uninsured or those with pre-existing conditions. A complete lack of initiative on the Immigration issue. Conservative Supreme Court nominees. Etc.

So for the same reason that some massive % of Republicans are supporting Trump even though he is unfit to be President - and they know it - I would take the toss-up and hope Clinton wins. I would even take a 40% shot on Clinton.

In real life Johnson has 0% chance of being elected through the Electoral College. If you don't see why that is true then you haven't been following this 2016 primary process especially on the Republican side.

This post is a great example of what happens every.single.time in these DS threads. DS proudly and admittedly has zero interest in Gary Johnson or politics here. He just wants to talk about some bizarre hypothetical that has zero bearing on reality where, hey, in that silly game there could be collusion! How cool! Not. But what happens, because he doesn't keep those thoughts to himself and posts them in a politics forum, is that people Mr Rick (quite reasonably) try to push back at the assumptions of the on-its-face ridiculous game that DS wants to talk about.

Given that I despise the libertarian wing of the conservative movement more than I do religious conservatives, the answer is no.

Maybe you should ask how Gary Johnson would fare if we used instant run-off voting?