the latest nbc / wall street journal poll shows hillary clinton leading donald trump by either 11 or 14 points. salt those results to taste: the sample size is small, and respondents were all interviewed over the weekend, within 48 hours after the release of the billy bush video. <u+201c>interviews for the poll were continuing monday and could signal whether mr. trump had rebounded after sunday<u+2019>s debate,<u+201d> the journal notes. perhaps the stench of republican doom will dissipate over the next few days. if not, this could be a big year for the libertarian party. to see why, look at those nbc/wsj poll results. when the major-party candidates are matched face to face, mrs. clinton leads 52% to 38%. in a four-way race, it<u+2019>s 46% to 35%, with 9% going to libertarian gary johnson and 2% to green jill stein. johnson, a former republican governor of new mexico, is not going to be the next president. electionbettingodds.com overestimates his chances at 0.1%<u+2014>1 in 1,000, or 1/159th trump<u+2019>s likelihood of winning<u+2014>as we write. but he may realistically aspire to another significant threshold well short of victory. as real clear politics<u+2019> bill scher explains: how likely is johnson to reach 5%? not very, if history is your guide. the libertarian party was founded in 1971 and has nominated candidates in 11 past presidential elections. its first nominee, john hospers in 1972 , received a vote in the electoral college, from a faithless nixon elector. eight years later ed clark received 1.06% of the popular vote, making him the first and only libertarian nominee to break into the single digit. johnson, also the nominee in 2012 , came close to becoming the second, with 0.99%. this year it<u+2019>s a good bet johnson will top 1%, but can he make it to 5%? as scher notes, <u+201c>third-party candidates often tank at the end.<u+201d> one reason to think this year may be different is that both major-party candidates are so widely loathed. that<u+2019>s not necessarily a reason to vote third-party: there are degrees of loathing, and lots of citizens will vote for a candidate they loathe because they find the other one even more loathsome. but if the outcome appears not to be in doubt<u+2014>if one of the loathsome candidates, namely mrs. clinton, seems to be running away with it<u+2014>then some voters will feel relieved of the duty of holding their noses and casting an unnecessary or futile ballot for the less loathsome candidate. that<u+2019>s how johnson could surpass 5%. then what? maybe nothing: the reform party did it in 1996 , when ross perot surpassed 8%. in 2000 pat buchanan got a $12.6 million subsidy and managed only 0.43%<u+2014>though his total in florida was considerably greater than the margin between george w. bush and al gore. the reform party still exists, but barely. but 2016 may be an unusually opportune year for a third party to cross the threshold. as we noted yesterday , the trump travails have brought the gop to the verge of catastrophe. a loss in november<u+2014>even a less-than-catastrophic one<u+2014>will leave the party bitter and divided. as scher observes, an ascendant libertarian party <u+201c>could permanently divide the right, making it exceedingly difficult for republicans to win the white house, or, in the most apocalyptic of scenarios, make the republican party go the way of the whigs.<u+201d> we somewhat disagree. a permanent division of <u+201c>the right<u+201d><u+2014>i.e., the emergence of a lasting three-party system<u+2014>seems implausible. the two-party system is a natural outcome of america<u+2019>s constitutional system, with its strong presidency and necessity for an electoral college majority. if there<u+2019>s only one party (as in the early 1820s), centrifugal forces tend to break it down. if there<u+2019>s only one viable party<u+2014>the democrats, in scher<u+2019>s split-right scenario<u+2014>centripetal forces tend to draw the opposition together toward a single alternative. since 1856 and the inception of the modern two-party system, no third party has ever received electoral votes in more than one election. (there is a single, qualified exception: populist party nominees james weaver and william jennings bryan received, respectively, 22 votes in 1892 and 176 in 1896 . but bryan was also the democratic nominee.) but the libertarians could ultimately emerge as a major party if the gop goes the way of the whigs (i.e., to oblivion). the odds of that happening after this year<u+2019>s elections may not be high, but they are not zero. and if the gop is unable to stay together, the libertarians are better positioned to take advantage than they would have been in the past. johnson and running mate william weld<u+2014>also a former gop governor, from massachusetts<u+2014>are more or less mainstream politicians, of a socially liberal, fiscally conservative bent. johnson told the wall street journal<u+2019>s editorial board last week that on a questionnaire given to candidates for the party<u+2019>s nomination, he was the only one who answered in the affirmative when asked if he would have signed the civil rights act of 1964. that it was even a question demonstrates why the libertarians have never before been more than a fringe party, but johnson<u+2019>s answer opens the possibility of broadening the party<u+2019>s appeal. (for more on the editorial board<u+2019>s meeting, read joe rago <u+2019>s weekend interview.) many current republicans would not feel at home in even a mainstream libertarian party. johnson and weld are quite liberal on social issues, and many trump supporters would find their pro-trade and pro-immigration views anathema. but the democratic party is bitterly divided too, even if less acutely so than the gop, suggesting the possibility of new coalitions forming across current party lines. it<u+2019>s possible that within a few elections america will have a stable two-party system in which the parties will look very different from the current ones. what would we do without experts? the soft bigotry of low expectations <u+201c>debate star ken bone: my red sweater <u+2018>is more famous than me<u+2019><u+00a0><u+201d><u+2014>headline, cnn.com, oct.<u+00a0>10 so much for ending the war on drugs <u+201c>hillary clinton said she would go high. and then she didn<u+2019>t.<u+201d><u+2014>headline, boston globe, oct.<u+00a0>11 humblest brag ever <u+201c>billy bush bragged about vulgar trump video to nbc staffers<u+201d><u+2014>headline, new york post, oct.<u+00a0>10 hypothesis and proof hypothesis and disproof cause and effect question and answer<u+2014>i question and answer<u+2014>ii it<u+2019>s always in the last place you look <u+201c>the moral outrage over donald trump<u+2019>s lewd comments is misplaced<u+201d><u+2014>headline, federalist, oct.<u+00a0>10 bottom stories of the day <u+201c>trump<u+2019>s lewd 2005 comments disgust women, but sway few opinions<u+201d><u+2014>headline, associated press, oct.<u+00a0>11 <u+2018>dumb and disrespectful<u+2019> justice ruth bader ginsburg, last seen inappropriately expressing her political opinions , is weighing in again, this time on a considerably lower-stakes question, the hill reports: whaddya know, we concur. follow @jamestaranto on twitter. join fans of best of the web today on facebook. subscribe to the best of the web email with one click. (carol muller helps compile best of the web. thanks to jackie harty, wes van fleet, chris papouras, debbie wells, michael segal, miguel rakiewicz, tony lima, david hallstrom, frederick welk, winston morrison, ethel fenig, mordecai bobrowsky and dorothy dimock. if you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com , and please include the url.)
a chance in l - wsj
james taranto