The long hard surge to 15%

[GSUAlumniEagle]

http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-jo ... f-campaign

Currently, former Governor Johnson is registering anywhere from 5 to 9 percent, depending on the state and the poll. Unfortunately, most corporate media outlets – the ones used by the Commission on Presidential Debates to determine which candidates are invited to the nationally televised debates – refuse to even include Gary Johnson’s name as one of the poll’s choices

“Without Governor Johnson on the debate stage, there will be no debate about wars. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both support foreign intervention,” Nielson explains, “There will be no debate about civil liberties. Just a Democrat and a Republican who both support the Patriot Act, who both will continue the failed War on Drugs, and neither of whom will defend marriage equality as a Constitutional right.”

[AZGrizFan]

[Ivytalk]

Johnson is a decent, bright guy, but it's hard to see his candidacy as anything but a spoiler in a close race that will put Obama back in office. Remember, Johnson was a Republican until last year, and his GOP candidacy got no traction. He's not Perot: he's not rich, and he's not nuts. But Perot, for all his money and TV exposure, won zero states and finished second in only one. Arguably, he cost the elder Bush the election. That said, even if Johnson gets to the 15% polling level required for inclusion in the debates, he'd take votes overwhelmingly from Romney as opposed to BHO. It's an "idealistic" vote that we simply can't afford this year. And scenarios showing a Johnson victory, like the chart appearing in the story, are simply delusional. Even if he won, he couldn't govern: there will be ZERO Libertarian Congresspeople come November 8, and he's by no means a lead-pipe cinch to have all the GOP legislators on board with him. If you really think there's not a dime's worth of substantive policy difference between Obama and Romney, or between the two principal parties, think again. Hard. Hating "corporatists" is no substitute for reasoned analysis.

[dbackjon]

If the election is not close in Arizona, I'll vote for Johnson.

[AZGrizFan]

If the election is not close in Arizona, I'll vote for Johnson.

As will I.

[89Hen]

Right now it's about a 9 point lead for Romney in AZ. I'm thinking there's no way Jon votes for Johnson unless Obama has the state in hand.

[GSUAlumniEagle]

Johnson is a decent, bright guy, but it's hard to see his candidacy as anything but a spoiler in a close race that will put Obama back in office. Remember, Johnson was a Republican until last year, and his GOP candidacy got no traction. He's not Perot: he's not rich, and he's not nuts. But Perot, for all his money and TV exposure, won zero states and finished second in only one. Arguably, he cost the elder Bush the election. That said, even if Johnson gets to the 15% polling level required for inclusion in the debates, he'd take votes overwhelmingly from Romney as opposed to BHO. It's an "idealistic" vote that we simply can't afford this year. And scenarios showing a Johnson victory, like the chart appearing in the story, are simply delusional. Even if he won, he couldn't govern: there will be ZERO Libertarian Congresspeople come November 8, and he's by no means a lead-pipe cinch to have all the GOP legislators on board with him. If you really think there's not a dime's worth of substantive policy difference between Obama and Romney, or between the two principal parties, think again. Hard. Hating "corporatists" is no substitute for reasoned analysis.

1) Romney's not going to win, anyway.

2) Of course Johnson got no traction in the primaries. He favors gay marriage, the legalization of marijuana, abortion, and stem cell research. I'm absolutely shocked he didn't do well in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina! He'll fare much butter in a general election where both candidates are weak.

3) Of course he would govern. The state of New Mexico got through eight years of this guy as governor just fine, thank you.

4) There's absolutely zero REAL difference between the President and Romney. Romney's tried to create some fictional differences between them over the past three years, but once he got in office (due to some huge circumstance that he wins) he'd be Obama-lite.

5) Even if you don't vote for Johnson, if you believe in his cause it's worth supporting him until the debates just to get his voice out there. Imagine a debate where the President and Governor Romney actually have to debate his ideas. So he gets in the debates and gets killed in the election. Who cares? At least we actually get to discuss the issues. Instead of arguing about whether Mitt Romney left Bain in 1999 or 2002 - which you know will probably be 45% of the debate if he doesn't get in.

6) You eat the elephant one small bite at a time.

[dbackjon]

Right now it's about a 9 point lead for Romney in AZ. I'm thinking there's no way Jon votes for Johnson unless Obama has the state in hand.

You don't think I would support a Johnson?

[AZGrizFan]

Right now it's about a 9 point lead for Romney in AZ. I'm thinking there's no way Jon votes for Johnson unless Obama has the state in hand.

You don't think I would support a Johnson?

My understanding was that Jon would support a Johnson if the state wasn't close EITHER way.

[AZGrizFan]

You eat the elephant one small bite at a time.

[89Hen]

You don't think I would support a Johnson?

My understanding was that Jon would support a Johnson if the state wasn't close EITHER way.

I think that's what he said, but I was giving an opinion on what would happen.

[DSUrocks07]

Swing states are the only ones that matter (ECB= Electoral College Bias). I'm still undecided but I refuse to vote for Obama or Romney I am leaning towards Johnson tho...

Are we electing a President or a Homecoming King (popularity contest)?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[AZGrizFan]

Swing states are the only ones that matter (ECB= Electoral College Bias). I'm still undecided but I refuse to vote for Obama or Romney I am leaning towards Johnson tho...

Are we electing a President or a Homecoming King (popularity contest)?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Basedon 2008 I'd say it's a popularity contest.

[youngterrier]

I would rather not have him in office. A debate would be entertaining though.

[HI54UNI]

Swing states are the only ones that matter (ECB= Electoral College Bias). I'm still undecided but I refuse to vote for Obama or Romney I am leaning towards Johnson tho...

Are we electing a President or a Homecoming King (popularity contest)?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Basedon 2008 I'd say it's a popularity contest.

Yep. Obama = American Idol President.

[Seahawks08]

Last time I checked, Ron Paul is the libertarian candidate of choice. If anyone should be at the debate other than Romney and Obama, it should be him.

[AZGrizFan]

Last time I checked, Ron Paul is the libertarian candidate of choice. If anyone should be at the debate other than Romney and Obama, it should be him.

Ron Paul isn't running as a Libertarian. Gary Johnson is.

[Seahawks08]

I know that, but the only way for Gary Johnson to gain any relevance is if he can get the Paul supporters on his side. And that won't happen until after this year. At least he's laying the groundwork for the future. The Paul/Johnson era could be the beginning of something special.

[Ibanez]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2 ... a-two.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But Johnson is actually much closer to the mainstream of American voters than he is to the fringes. Poll after poll show growing numbers of Americans are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. “I don’t think either major party embraces those values,” says Johnson. “I’m running in the same political category as most people in this country.”

They figured that out in New Mexico, where Johnson was governor from 1995 to 2003. Though the state is overwhelmingly Democratic, Johnson won a solid victory with his platform of cutting taxes and reining in spending. And in spite of facing a legislature that was two-thirds Democratic, he delivered, vetoing 750 bills and thousands of line-item expenditures. He easily won reelection, and when he left office the state had a $1 billion budget surplus.


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2 ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ivytalk]

I know that, but the only way for Gary Johnson to gain any relevance is if he can get the Paul supporters on his side. And that won't happen until after this year. At least he's laying the groundwork for the future. The Paul/Johnson era could be the beginning of something special.

"Special" in what sense? That the Libertarian wing of the GOP will finally take control of the party? Or that the Libertarians will become a major party in the United States? With the foreign policy baggage that the Libertarians carry, surely you can't mean the latter.

[Ibanez]

I know that, but the only way for Gary Johnson to gain any relevance is if he can get the Paul supporters on his side. And that won't happen until after this year. At least he's laying the groundwork for the future. The Paul/Johnson era could be the beginning of something special.

"Special" in what sense? That the Libertarian wing of the GOP will finally take control of the party? Or that the Libertarians will become a major party in the United States? With the foreign policy baggage that the Libertarians carry, surely you can't mean the latter.

I think the most we can hope for is that the libertarian wing takes control and initiates some change in Washington. Our 2 party system is divisive and failing the American people.


I still can't believe Obama is waiving "welfare to work."

[AZGrizFan]

I know that, but the only way for Gary Johnson to gain any relevance is if he can get the Paul supporters on his side. And that won't happen until after this year. At least he's laying the groundwork for the future. The Paul/Johnson era could be the beginning of something special.

THAT I would agree with. After listening to RP babble on at the debates I've already made the switch. Johnson is Paul without the craziness factor.

[Seahawks08]

"Special" in what sense? That the Libertarian wing of the GOP will finally take control of the party? Or that the Libertarians will become a major party in the United States? With the foreign policy baggage that the Libertarians carry, surely you can't mean the latter.

If anything, the foreign policy will be one of the largest reasons WHY the libertarian party will gain steam. The dems/reps are using one foreign policy and have been for some time now. Basically it's screw congress and I can go to war anytime I want. They may pick their battles differently (Iraq vs. Libya) but the overall agenda is the same.

[Ivytalk]

"Special" in what sense? That the Libertarian wing of the GOP will finally take control of the party? Or that the Libertarians will become a major party in the United States? With the foreign policy baggage that the Libertarians carry, surely you can't mean the latter.

If anything, the foreign policy will be one of the largest reasons WHY the libertarian party will gain steam. The dems/reps are using one foreign policy and have been for some time now. Basically it's screw congress and I can go to war anytime I want. They may pick their battles differently (Iraq vs. Libya) but the overall agenda is the same.

If that's true, the Libertarians should have had more traction in 2008 or 2004 when the Mideast wars were front and center. They've traditionally been "fortress America" types who advocate limited political engagement with the world. Johnson may be the first non-crank Presidential candidate they've ever had. And that includes Paul. if they really want to step up to the plate as a major party, they have to do much better at the state and local level as well. Most Libertarian candidates in DE and PA seem to be geeks and oddballs. That's probably true nationally as well.

[kalm]

If anything, the foreign policy will be one of the largest reasons WHY the libertarian party will gain steam. The dems/reps are using one foreign policy and have been for some time now. Basically it's screw congress and I can go to war anytime I want. They may pick their battles differently (Iraq vs. Libya) but the overall agenda is the same.

If that's true, the Libertarians should have had more traction in 2008 or 2004 when the Mideast wars were front and center. They've traditionally been "fortress America" types who advocate limited political engagement with the world. Johnson may be the first non-crank Presidential candidate they've ever had. And that includes Paul. if they really want to step up to the plate as a major party, they have to do much better at the state and local level as well. Most Libertarian candidates in DE and PA seem to be geeks and oddballs. That's probably true nationally as well. :geek

Very good discussion here boys. As Seahawks points out, the country is definitely trending socially liberal/fiscally conservative. The problem is that the fiscal conservatives tend to be awol once their party gets into power. But perhaps a younger "non-crank" without Paul's religion and race issues might help the party gain some traction in the coming years. I also think the geek/oddball tendencies might be changing just a bit as well.