Deez Nutz : The Gary Johnson Deception

 

Greetings,

I intend to briefly elucidate the mechanics (and illusion) of how Gary Johnson has managed to poll 12% in the mainstream political polls. This is a test run for my future contributions to ATP.

Gary Johnson in reality is not favored by voters in double digits. As you can see in the above photo, when a third option is included into a mainstream political poll, pollsters know that automatically will lead to the third option polling at a minimum threshold, as can be demonstrated with the fictitious nominee, Deez Nuts. Dee Nuts was able to poll at 9% in the NC primary polls for no other reason than the fact he was included.

The Libertarian Party is attempting to use establishment connections it has recently made to create an artificial image of progress via polls. The Party itself is aware of this third option phenomenon and is attempting to trick voters into thinking that Gary Johnson is gaining traction, when in reality, Deez Nutz could have polled this well IF included as a poll option.

Gary Johnson is in reality not favored by 12% of the electorate. It is an elaborate ruse. To quote Mark Twain, “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Gary Johnson supporters choose the third method of deception.

D

Advertisements

2 responses to “Deez Nutz : The Gary Johnson Deception

  1. What a crock.

    As Gary Johnson himself openly acknowledges: yes, there’s a lot of demand for a third choice against Trump and Clinton, and any third name will poll better than normal.

    But Deez Nuts won’t be on the ballot in all 50 states. Gary Johnson will be. He’s not a theoretical third option, he’s the actual third option. A poll including his name is the actual choice voters will have on their ballots.

    This is an untrue anti-third-party myth that polling support for third party candidates doesn’t reflect any actual support. As was noted over at IPR– http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/06/andy-craig-how-accurate-are-polls-that-include-third-party-candidates

    Polling companies and media organizations sometimes argue that including third-party candidates in a poll produces an inaccurately high result for that candidate.

    In the era of modern polling, there have been seven third-party presidential candidates included through the final polls in early November. Only one time did the difference between the final poll and the actual election result exceed 2%, and that was when Perot over-performed the final poll by five points in 1992.

    Not once has a third-party candidate been included in polls, and then under-performed the final poll by more than the margin of error.

    2000 Nader -Final Poll: 4% Result: 3%, Error +1%
    1996 Perot -Final Poll: 7% Result: 8%, Error -1%
    1992 Perot -Final Poll: 14% Result: 19%, Error -5%
    1980 Anderson -Final Poll: 8% Result: 7%, Error +1%
    1968 G. Wallace -Final Poll: 15% Result: 14%, Error -1%
    1948 H. Wallace -Final Poll: 4% Result: 2%, Error +2%
    1948 Thurmond -Final Poll: 2% Result: 2%, Error 0%

    Like

  2. The problem with this analysis is that while it is correct in pointing out that there is a certain “troll effect” in polling, Gary Johnson isn’t truly a troll answer.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s