Skip to main content

Time to remind Public Policy Polling to keep the Gary Johnson question in

Right now, only PPP is even including Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in any of its polls.

That's the good news, but there is, as we say, "other news" as well.

In its recent polling in Virginia, PPP included only Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode with President Obama and Governor Romney.  To some extent this makes sense, as Goode is a former Virginia congressman who can be expected to poll better in his home state, like Gary Johnson would in New Mexico.

On the other hand, leaving out the Libertarian alternative doesn't tell us if any of the 6% "undecided" might be Gary Johnson voters.

Likewise, we don't know about the 8% undecided in Ohio, and the 8% undecided in Iowa, because again PPP didn't include Gary.

In Iowa this becomes particularly problematic because PPP wasted a question on a Ron Paul-Barack Obama match-up.  What we do learn from that question, however, is that a lot of both the Romney and Obama votes are not as solid as the two parties would like us to think.

For example, against Ron Paul, President Obama drops from 51% to 47%, but the 41% Romney was getting also drops to 39% for Paul.

Undecided jumps from 8% up to 14%.

That's critical because it suggests that the Ron Paul vote, together with the undecideds and the "soft" Obama-Romney voters might be sufficient to propel a Gary Johnson vote up toward the key 15% range.

But if PPP stops including Gary Johnson in every presidential poll, we'l never know, and because polls help construct reality as well as report it, the Governor's chances will plummet.

Write PPP today at information@publicpolicypolling.com and tell them you want Gary Johnson in the mix--every time.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...