• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Failed Third Party Candidate Gary Johnson

SCDeac13 said:
Yeah the 1% from 4 years ago is irrelevant to getting the 15% he needs to get in the debates. He's already been getting 10%+ in polls that he's actually been included in. He just needs to get included more and get his name out. You could make an argument that he polls better than he'll get in the actual election but that doesn't matter for getting into the debates.
Click to expand...

Trump and HRC are the two most hated major party nominees in American history. Polling at 15% just gets Johnson into the debate. That's not the same thing as getting 15% of the actual vote. George Wallace got 13% of the votes and won 5 states in 1968. Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992. Well over 15% of the registered voters I know vehemently hate both Trump and Hillary
 
If he can win New Mexico & keep the others from 270, he could be President.
 
It would be a good move for Hillary to lobby to get Johnson on the stage with less than 15%.
 
StrickDeac said:
If he can win New Mexico & keep the others from 270, he could be President.
Click to expand...

Well, probably not. If no one has 270, it goes to the house, who would presumably pick Drumpf, but maybe not. Maybe enough house Dems would get together with enough house Pubs to get a majority to go for Johnson as a bipartisan alternative. And it also depends on who finishes 1st, 2nd and 3rd with everyone less than 270. Drumpf would at least sweep the South and have 150-200. But let's say Hillary finishes 3rd. I believe she could throw her delegate total to Johnson to put him over 270, like Clay did for Adams in 1824. A fun exercise would be let's say each gets 33% of the vote nationwide. Who, with those numbers, wins which states?
 
bobknightfan said:
I'll lay $300 against $100 that Johnson doesn't get 10% of the vote.
Click to expand...

When did bkf become Mr. Vega$? Seems he's willing to lay odds and big $$$ all over the boards to bet against HRC. Why don't you just donate to Trump instead and buy more bumper stickers for those hicks that can't afford them.
 
it's because he knows people won't take a bet that big and it makes him feel rich
 
cville deac said:
Well, probably not. If no one has 270, it goes to the house, who would presumably pick Drumpf, but maybe not. Maybe enough house Dems would get together with enough house Pubs to get a majority to go for Johnson as a bipartisan alternative. And it also depends on who finishes 1st, 2nd and 3rd with everyone less than 270. Drumpf would at least sweep the South and have 150-200. But let's say Hillary finishes 3rd. I believe she could throw her delegate total to Johnson to put him over 270, like Clay did for Adams in 1824. A fun exercise would be let's say each gets 33% of the vote nationwide. Who, with those numbers, wins which states?
Click to expand...

The GOP says this wouldn't happen, but if nobody reaches 270 I fully expect Paul Ryan to be president.
 
bobknightfan said:
Damn. You $60K/year WF hotshots get bent out of shape over a measly $100?
Click to expand...

I'll take the bet, if we both agree to donate to Brenner Children's Hospital regardless of the result.

I don't think Johnson will get 10%, but I donate money there frequently anyway, so this will be a fun way to do it.

$300 to Brenner from BKF if Johnson gets 10%
$100 to Brenner from Doofus if Johnson doesn't get 10%.

Sound good BKF?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I'll take the bet, if we both agree to donate to Brenner Children's Hospital regardless of the result.

I don't think Johnson will get 10%, but I donate money there frequently anyway, so this will be a fun way to do it.

$300 to Brenner from BKF if Johnson gets 10%
$100 to Brenner from Doofus if Johnson doesn't get 10%.

Sound good BKF?
Click to expand...

You don't get to pick the charity for both of us. I fully agree to the charity idea, because I don't want your money anyway....but you don't get to pick the charity if I win. I will do it like this: If Johnson gets 10% or more and you win, I will donate $300 to Brenner Childrens' Hospital....but if Johnson gets less than 10% and I win, you donate $100 to the charity of my choice.

If you agree to those terms...or if you don't agree to those terms....so post and we will know whether or not we have an agreement.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
my parents charge me rent for the basement, dude. sad!
Click to expand...

At today's prices, there are two types of people who should not be going to WF for a liberal arts degree:

1) Those who can afford it. (Have more money than sense.)
2) Those who cannot afford it. (Even worse.)

Bottom line...and this affect the way I look at all conversation on these boards: I seriously question the sound judgment of anyone who would choose to go to WF at the prices they are charging today. There is no way I would have even considered going to WF today. (Of course, I would have fallen into the 2nd category. There would have been no way I could have afforded to go to WF even if I had wanted to do so...unless I was willing to go into debt about $100,000 or so in today's dollars, which in my opinion, would be a totally asinine thing to do.
 
Last edited:
bobknightfan said:
You don't get to pick the charity for both of us. I fully agree to the charity idea, because I don't want your money anyway....but you don't get to pick the charity if I win. I will do it like this: If Johnson gets 10% or more and you win, I will donate $300 to Brenner Childrens' Hospital....but if Johnson gets less than 10% and I win, you donate $100 to the charity of my choice.

If you agree to those terms...or if you don't agree to those terms....so post and we will know whether or not we have an agreement.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as long as it's a legit charity I'm down.

Also, somehow even when making a bet where money will go to charity you come across as a dick. That's impressive.
 
bobknightfan said:
At today's prices, there are two types of people who should not be going to WF for a liberal arts degree:

1) Those who can afford it. (Have more money than sense.)
2) Those who cannot afford it. (Even worse.)

Bottom line...and this affect the way I look at all conversation on these boards: I seriously question the sound judgment of anyone who would choose to go to WF at the prices they are charging today. There is no way I would have even considered going to WF today.
Click to expand...

What about those who get in on academic or athletic scholarships?

Also, just because you can afford it and choose to go there doesn't mean you "have more money than sense". That's your opinion, it's not a fact.
 
bobknightfan said:
At today's prices, there are two types of people who should not be going to WF for a liberal arts degree:

1) Those who can afford it. (Have more money than sense.)
2) Those who cannot afford it. (Even worse.)

Bottom line...and this affect the way I look at all conversation on these boards: I seriously question the sound judgment of anyone who would choose to go to WF at the prices they are charging today. There is no way I would have even considered going to WF today.
Click to expand...

would you consider going tomorrow?
 
RJKarl said:
It would be a good move for Hillary to lobby to get Johnson on the stage with less than 15%.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we're all mature enough to let this post go without a lewd comment.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
You're an imbecile.
Click to expand...

Well, he has actually earned $60,000 * 4 in his lifetime, so it's possible his familiarity with the true value of that cost is different from posters who may not have done so yet. Isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top