# data[].attributes.headline
It's saying that he is the last hope for people that don't like either canadate. 

# data[].attributes.subject
It's saying that he is the last hope for people that don't like either canadate. 

# data[].attributes.headline
its something about how its hard for her to get younger generations on her side. They are a more inportant genorations

# data[].attributes.subject
its something about how its hard for her to get younger generations on her side. They are a more inportant genorations

# data[].attributes.headline
It is saying what he all promised. Like that he would build a wall. That he would make america great again.

# data[].attributes.subject
It is saying what he all promised. Like that he would build a wall. That he would make america great again.

# data[].attributes.body
tv ad for donald trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NEW DONALD TRUMP TV AD: “DEPLORABLE” Basket Of Deplorables

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Good news, disgruntled Americans: As you ponder whether to vote for one of the two most-disliked, dishonest, and morally corrupt politicians ever to run for president - Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton - you just might have a third option. His name is Gary Johnson. He's a popular two-term former governor of New Mexico. He's the likely Libertarian party nominee. And he's set to be on the ballot in the vast majority of states.

Moreover, the short case for him is pretty compelling. Johnson is a self-made man, starting a handyman business in college that grew into a 1,000-employee construction firm. He ran for governor as a fiscal conservative in a blue state, won handily, and can now boast that he cut taxes, vetoed hundreds of bills, presided over significant job growth, balanced the state budget, and created a substantial reserve fund. He won reelection in a rout.

Johnson is an extraordinarily strong gun-rights advocate, and he favors free trade, but he's far too committed to relatively open borders - advocating a "simpler and more efficient" process for entering the country.

He calls himself pro-choice, but he's well to the right of Hillary Clinton - supporting late-term abortion bans, parental-notification laws, and opposing public funding for abortion - and he's indicated that he'd appoint judges "who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning." He also believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because it "expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution." In the past, Johnson has indicated that he'd rather leave abortion policy to the states.

Being generous, one could even call him a sort of peaceful Teddy Roosevelt: an adventurer politician. He's run dozens of triathlons, he's climbed the highest mountain on all seven continents (including Mount Everest), and he built his house with his own hands. So, on balance, Gary Johnson for president, right?

So, on balance, Gary Johnson for president, right?

Not so fast. This being 2016, the world has gone mad, and there are no easy choices left. Johnson is a Libertarian, and that means he's for drug legalization. That's not necessarily disqualifying. After all, his views are similar to those of the founder of National Review, William F. Buckley Jr., and are shared by a number of conservatives. Johnson, however, is an actual drug user - boasting recently that he'd just consumed "Cheeba Chews," a form of "marijuana-infused taffy." (To be fair, he claims that he does not drink alcohol.) But that's not all, not by a long shot.

In 2014, Johnson became a "pot entrepreneur." He was named the CEO of Cannibas Sativa. The company's intended products included medicinal oils and - get this - a "cough drop-like" pot candy. Johnson of course tried and endorsed the product, asking, "Why would anybody ever smoke marijuana given this as an alternative?"

#share#But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and presume for the moment that he would not, in fact, transform the Cabinet into a highbrow version of Obama's legendary "Choom Gang." Are there any other reasons to worry about Gary Johnson?

As a two-term governor and self-made millionaire, Johnson has serious credentials.

Oddly, when it comes to religious liberty and the rights of conscience, he may not be libertarian enough. In the Libertarian party's presidential debate, he offered a bizarre and rambling defense of forcing a Jewish baker to bake a Nazi wedding cake - in the name of ending religious discrimination. He also briefly endorsed, then walked back, using state power to ban the burqa in the United States. (On the bright side, he did indicate that he understood the political nature of sharia law and its incompatibility with American conceptions of liberty.)

Regarding national defense, he's not as extreme as some libertarians - some go so far as to view the rise of jihad as fundamentally America's fault - but he does believe that American military interventions have made the terrorist problem "worse." I've often wondered how a self-defense oriented libertarian would alter American policy once they received a full and complete national-security briefing. Libertarian purists would likely be surprised at the military aggression of a libertarian president. If Johnson were ever elected, we'd get to find out.

#related#Unless and until there is another viable third-party alternative, now is the time for the Libertarian party candidate to make a serious case to the American public. As a two-term governor and self-made millionaire, Johnson has serious credentials. And he has more executive experience than either Clinton or Trump. I'd rather see Rand Paul as the libertarian alternative - he could at least get on the presidential debate stage, he's pro-life, and he has far-more-developed and realistic policy goals. But Johnson is likely his party's choice.

Make your argument, governor. You can make the case for liberty to a nation embracing authoritarianism. You won't win, but you can matter. This is your moment.

David French - David French is a senior writer forNational Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. @DavidAFrench

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson a Plausible Alternative to Trump and Clinton? | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Good news, disgruntled Americans: As you ponder whether to vote for one of the two most-disliked, dishonest, and morally corrupt politicians ever to run for president - Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton - you just might have a third option. His name is Gary Johnson. He's a popular two-term former governor of New Mexico.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With just six weeks to go until Election Day, younger voters are shunning the two major political parties on a scale not seen since Ross Perot's third-party bid for the presidency in 1992, a striking swing in public opinion that is slicing into Hillary Clinton's thin margin for error.

Though young people are notoriously fickle about showing up at the polls, they are a growing and potentially pivotal bloc of voters. Millennials now outnumber baby boomers as the country's largest generation. And while they may be more predisposed than other groups to vote Democratic, they are not moving toward the party and its nominee as quickly and predictably as they have in past elections.

The Clinton campaign held several events on Wednesday aimed at millennials, underscoring the urgency with which she and her team are working to lock down the group: about 75 million Americans. Mrs. Clinton traveled to New Hampshire with her former primary rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, for a rally with college students.

The first lady, Michelle Obama, spent the day visiting campuses in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. She had blunt words for anyone thinking about voting for a third party. "If you vote for someone other than Hillary, or if you don't vote at all," she said, "then you are helping to elect Hillary's opponent."

Though Mrs. Clinton is riding high after a strong debate performance on Monday, during which she explicitly mentioned issues, like climate change, that appeal to the young, she has a lot of ground to make up.

Several factors are complicating the immense task of registering and turning out millennials, the 18- to 34-year-olds who are already hard to reach because their media consumption habits do not lend themselves to traditional television-focused campaigns.

They tend not to be motivated by any single, unifying issue, making the job of messaging harder. They are declaring themselves unaffiliated with either party at a rate faster than any other generation. They say the political process and the two-party system are unresponsive to their concerns.

And, in what is one of the most difficult barriers for Mrs. Clinton to break through, young people often display little understanding of how a protest vote for a third-party candidate, or not voting at all, can alter the outcome of a close election.

The vast majority of millennials were not old enough to vote in 2000, when Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party nominee and, with the strong backing of young voters, helped cost Vice President Al Gore the presidency.

"Ralph who?" said David Frasier, a junior at Charleston Southern University.

"Didn't he kind of come in at the last minute and kind of alter the votes or something?" Mr. Frasier, 26, asked, his memory barely jogged. "I was too young to remember."

The Clinton campaign's biggest problem with young voters could be summed up by Mr. Frasier. He is liberal-minded and voted for Mr. Sanders in the South Carolina primary. But he is not likely to vote for either Mrs. Clinton or Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee, both of whom he called "pawns and puppets."

Echoing sentiments that seem to be driving many young people away from politics, Mr. Frasier said he felt powerless to bring about change through voting. "I don't feel like we have control," he said. "I kind of feel like this whole election is just playing the American people."

Mrs. Clinton's weakness with young voters is largely because of the support third-party candidates are drawing away. Mr. Trump's support among the young has hovered around 25 percent in recent polls.

More than a third of voters 18 to 29 said in the latest New York Times/CBS News poll that they would vote for either Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, or Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate: Mr. Johnson had the support of 26 percent of those voters, and Ms. Stein had 10 percent.

Given the choice of just Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, 10 percent said they would not vote at all - double that of any other age group. An ABC News/Washington Post poll this month found a similar level of support for third-party candidates: 20 percent for Mr. Johnson and 6 percent for Ms. Stein among registered voters ages 18 to 39.

Image

Ralph Nader at the University of Michigan-Dearborn in October 2000. Votes for him contributed to the loss of the Democratic candidate, Al Gore. Credit Monica Almeida/The New York Times

The stubborn popularity of the third-party candidates has become a concern to Mrs. Clinton and her allies. So far, the support for them has not softened, as it often does in the fall.

"Historically, that's what has happened," said Jefrey Pollock, who is advising the "super PAC" working on Mrs. Clinton's behalf, Priorities USA. "But history isn't repeating itself right now, which is one common theme of this election cycle."

Some of Mrs. Clinton's advisers believe that the absence of Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein from the debate stage on Monday - both failed to meet the 15 percent polling threshold to qualify - will help bring down their numbers. In the meantime, the Clinton campaign has accelerated its aggressive courting of young voters.

That effort involves enlisting Mr. Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, two figures popular with young people, to make the case that Mrs. Clinton cannot make for herself.

"I suspect that I know about as much about third-party politics as anybody in Congress," Mr. Sanders, an independent himself until he decided to run for president as a Democrat last year, said in an interview. "And I want anybody who's thinking about voting against Hillary Clinton, and casting a protest vote because she is not all they would like her to be, to understand what the consequences for the country and the world will be."

As interviews with young voters show, it is a hard sell.

Nick Chanko, 20, is a student at McGill University in Montreal who plans to vote in his home state, New York. A registered Democrat, he said he would either vote for Ms. Stein or not vote at all.

"I feel like a lot of the stuff Hillary does, you can see when she is trying to, like, earn the youth vote, and it just doesn't work," Mr. Chanko said. "It's just kind of cringeworthy. She just doesn't seem genuine."

Mr. Chanko said he did remember Mr. Nader's candidacy but thought it was unfair to blame protest votes for spoiling an election.

The debate over the merits of casting a third-party ballot can seem endlessly circular.

"I understand the frustration, but channel that frustration into making government work, not into throwing away your vote," Ms. Warren said in an interview. "They should not trust the system," she added. "But the answer is to seize the system and make it work for the people, not to just turn it over to the bigots and billionaires."

The possibility of young voters' staying away from voting booths in droves come November is very real. Turnout rates among Americans ages 18 to 24 dropped significantly in 2012, to 41 percent from 49 percent in 2008.

This is both a frustration and a paradox to people who try to get them to the polls.

This huge pool of potential voters has been the animating force behind the largest new social movements on the left, from Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter. Yet many do not equate voting with social change.

"They've shown they have the civic muscle to get things done," said Allegra Chapman, the director of voting and elections at Common Cause, a nonpartisan civic engagement group. "The question becomes, how do we translate this civic muscle into the kind that shows up and has a presence at the ballot box?"

Repairing the mistrust millennials have of institutions and the political system is not easy.

Nathan Mowery, a 26-year-old federal contractor who lives in Gainesville, Va., said that as a Muslim, he would find it hard to vote for Mr. Trump. But he said that he found Mrs. Clinton uninspiring and that he planned to vote instead for a third-party candidate. He was unapologetic about his choice.

"I'm casting a protest vote because it makes it visible to major parties that there are people who are motivated to vote but are unwilling to vote for either of them," he said. "I hope that whoever runs in 2020 will get their act together and one of the parties will put somebody up that younger voters can align themselves with."

Asked if he remembered Mr. Nader, Mr. Mowery captured the essence of the Clinton campaign's fears about young voters.

He said he was vaguely familiar with Mr. Nader as another third-party candidate. "Other than that," he said, "I don't know much."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Clinton Struggles to Win Back Young Voters From 3rd Parties. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hillary Clinton Struggles to Win Back Young Voters From Third Parties

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With just six weeks to go until Election Day, younger voters are shunning the two major political parties on a scale not seen since Ross Perot's third-party bid for the presidency in 1992, a striking swing in public opinion that is slicing into Hillary Clinton's thin margin for error.

# data[].attributes.headline
the person that made this thinks he is the last hope

# data[].attributes.subject
the person that made this thinks he is the last hope

# data[].attributes.body
This is showing that she has a reflex of lying

# data[].attributes.body
this is showing what he stands for