Gary Johnson

BOHtox

The Libertarian Party candidate.
What sort of a roll do you think he will play? I think I read that the Libertarian's highest ever % of vote was 0.5. Johnson was polling between 7-10 when I last saw. He is looking to boost this to 15% to take part in the debates.

Do you think Johnson's social policies will attract voters from Obama or do you think Romney will lose support to the bigger conservative?

I think Johnson could play a big role in this election taking support from both candidates. He'll be lucky to win a state even but he could have a big say in some.

Thoughts?

Brian?

I think you're being optimistic in thinking he'll have any impact at all on either candidates chances.

How is he polling in swing states?

BOHtox

I think he'll have a say in New Mexico which is Democrat leaning. He was elected twice there as a governor.

Not all polls include Johnson so I'll estimate that he will pick up a good bit of this.

Florida - Gary Johnson, 3 weeks ago, was at 2%. Others and undecideds are at 9% (4% and 5%)

Virginia - other is at 2%. Undecided is at 10%

New Hampshire- Undecideds at around 15% with none of the above at 1%

Ohio- Other is 6% with undecided at around 8-9%

Iowa - last two polls rather ironically at 9 and 11% for others.

Nevada- 5-8% undecided. Can't find figures for this state.

Colorada- GJ at 7% with undecided at 11%

BOHtox

I think if Ron Paul doesn't run as an independent and the Paul vote goes to Johnson rather than Romney, we will see GJ be relatively successful!

Although I'm not sure that the Paul vote is going to Johnson I think they'll vote for Romney.

Objective 1: anybody but Obama
Objective 2: Gary Johnson

K3lso

Gary Johnson would need a 15% share as you've rightly pointed out and I do think he could scrap that together but the work would of needed to have started a long time ago. He's working on a shoe-string budget compared to other Libertarians, namely Ron Paul. Paul got given $35 million dollars and most of it went up in smoke. There is a lot of shady conspiracy stuff going around with regards to where exactly the money went but the fact that it hasn't gone away or officially been address says that it may have some merit.

What we do know is that Paul's son-in-law Benton turned out to be a liability after he was hired by the Paul campaign. I think he ended up taking nearly 500,000 dollars from the donation coffers. Regardless, if Ron Paul was in it to win it, I think he must have been incompetent to allow the farce his campaign turned into. I honestly don't think he is stupid, but I do believe the campaign hasn't or rather, didn't do what was required.

If you look at the inconsistencies, you'll notice that Paul didn't direct any grassroots money at bashing Romney, but what you will find is that most of it went to bashing Romneys immediate rivals, Gingrich and Santorum. Then we had the whole Rand endorsing Mitt which has played a big role in turning people off. The fact of the matter is that what has happened is what I feared would happen - the Paul people have turned Ron into a martyr - someone to be fussed at, obsessed over and worshiped.

They follow Ron Paul, the man...instead of Libertarian solutions to issues. So for that reason we can see that it will ultimately be the liberty movement that stops a liberty minded individual, in this case Johnson from getting into the debates, ironically. I can't understand the point of writing someones name in. If Ron Paul is not on the ballot, then those people will not have their dissent/vote registered or counted at all. It's a futile process where they would be better staying in bed the morning of the election.

At least with Johnson there is at least a Mathematical chance of pushing a few percentage points up to make what could be a breakthrough in taking some points away from the two-parties. I don't think that time is soon...

southsiderosie

The last poll I saw was 5.3%.

I like Gary Johnson, but I think it is delusional to expect him to have any impact on this election whatsoever. He is not going to win a state - even Ron Paul would not have won a state. Johnson may do fairly well in New Mexico, but he is going to be a non-factor in the general election.

Eliot Rosewater

southsiderosie wrote: »

The last poll I saw was 5.3%.

I like Gary Johnson, but I think it is delusional to expect him to have any impact on this election whatsoever. He is not going to win a state - even Ron Paul would not have won a state. Johnson may do fairly well in New Mexico, but he is going to be a non-factor in the general election.

I think the OP's claim is that Johnson will have an impact by taking votes off of the two main candidates in some disproportional fashion so that the presence of Johnson results in a change in the winner in some states. Is this plausible?

Does anyone have any idea of the profile of Johnson voters? Would they be likely to otherwise mostly vote for Republican?

neiphin

southsiderosie wrote: »

The last poll I saw was 5.3%.

I like Gary Johnson, but I think it is delusional to expect him to have any impact on this election whatsoever. He is not going to win a state - even Ron Paul would not have won a state. Johnson may do fairly well in New Mexico, but he is going to be a non-factor in the general election.

DID HE NOT WIN IOWA ?
AFTER A COURT CASE

southsiderosie

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think the OP's claim is that Johnson will have an impact by taking votes off of the two main candidates in some disproportional fashion so that the presence of Johnson results in a change in the winner in some states. Is this plausible?

Does anyone have any idea of the profile of Johnson voters? Would they be likely to otherwise mostly vote for Republican?

I honestly dont' think it is, but I guess you would have to look at the states where the race between Obama and Romney is close, and then maybe look at the votes Ron Paul got in the primaries to guess how many voters Johnson could peel away from the GOP?

So according to Real Clear Politics, the toss-up states are:

Colorado - Johnson may do well on the big college campuses, but Colorado is also home to not only a sizable Mormon population, but also some of the nation's biggest Evangelical megachurches - if they won't vote for Romney (because of his Mormonism) they aren't going to switch over to Johnson (because of his liberalism on social issues) - they will just not vote.

Florida - If Florida is really tight, and there is a 'Pat Buchannan' or Ralph Nader situation where 5,000 reliable votes for one party or the other go to Johnson, then that could affect the outcome. But a small government message isn't going to go over big in a state where a huge percentage of the population relies on Medicare, Medicaid, and social security.

Iowa - I believe Paul won on a technicality, but I don't imagine that Johnson will catch afire with GOP voters, especially since Iowa Republicans are socially conservative

Nevada - Romney locks up the Mormon vote here; I can't see Johnson doing that well.

New Hampshire - This is the one state where I could really see Johnson getting some traction, but it is too small to have a major impact in the general election. Plus, as a neighbor state to Massachusetts, I would think that Romney would do quite well here

North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia - no way

Wisconsin - Ryan will clean up in his home state

Speaking of Ryan, I have to think that people who lean libertarian would get behind him on the Romney ticket - he represents the best chance of getting someone who clearly shares many core economic (if not social) principles into a position of real power. But I guess it depends on how important that is to potential supporters.

Denerick

Paul won around 20% of the Republican primary vote. That is a relatively low number given the sample. That vote is basically meaningless in a national election, even assuming all of that support were to migrate to Johnson. He is likely to hurt the Republicans in swing states like New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. The 'live free or die' types in those western states are generally so anti government they would never countenance a democrat vote. If they vote at all, it'll be for a Republican (In the final analysis, libertarians ultimately demand and vote for economic liberty in a greater priority to personal liberty.)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't actually disagree with this in theory, but in practice it is virtually impossible giving the electoral institutions in the US. With first-past-the-post (50%+1) voting, and single-member districts, the system organically evolves into a two-party structure; this is explained by Duverger's Law.

If the US had a system of proportional representation, and multi-member districts, a libertarian party could actually become quite an important political force: it could likely tip the balance in Congress on many issues, and therefore the other parties would have to accommodate at least some of their proposals. The Basque and Catalan regional parties in Spain are quite good at this in the national legislature. But, again, given US electoral institutions, I don't think the comparison to the Greens in Ireland is accurate.

When it comes to third-party voting under the US system, most Americans will think what Kang and Kodos said explicitly: "GO AHEAD! THROW AWAY YOUR VOTE!" (sorry YouTube only has the Spanish version!). So people will hold their noses and vote for the party that at least represents the majority of their interests, in part to keep the 'other guys' out of office.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well voting for a third party makes more sense if you are in a solidly blue or red state because you know what the outcome will be regardless. But if a race is tight, then I think the calculus for most people would be to vote for one of the main parties which best represents your interests. Certainly on social issues there is a huge difference between the parties - I support reproductive choice, the legalization of marijuana, and gay marriage, so while I could plausibly support a Libertarian candidate, I would almost never vote for a Republican candidate, especially for national office. So while I like Gary Johnson, I would only cast a vote for him if I was sure that it would not increase the likelihood of a Republican winning the election.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

This is perhaps a little irrelevant, but that video is just awful.

I do agree with Permabear though, the libertarian party could gather maybe 5-10% of the popular vote in a truly free and fair election with a proportional system. American's electoral college is an anachronism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't see 15-20%, not unless they became more like the German Free Democrats or the Irish PDs and moderated many of their positions (Becoming a liberal party in the European tradition rather than the quite radical libertarianism of the American tradition) I don't think 5 to 10 percent in any national vote is really likely in the present system. People like Ross Perot could get sizable votes back in the day as a third party candidate, but he was basically a republican anyway so it wasn't the same thing. If libertarians started getting 5 to 10% of the vote under the present system it would permanently leave the democrats with a safe majority, so I really can't see the average libertarian leaning Republican allowing something like that to happen.

poeticseraphim

Libertarians are not necessarily pro-choice which would bother me.

If it came to a choice between republicans or libertarians i would choose the latter. I percieve the latter to be racist sexist cultish crony capitalists at this stage. You know facists. A lovely bunch of lads.

I percieve the democrats to be crony socialist hybrid capitalists who like republicans are war mongers.

It is a corporatist democracy sham.

The only way the libertarian party could get in would be to embrace the sham to get donations.

I would vote whatever way i thought would make sure the republicans did not get in.

The electoral system would put a stop to gains made by any third party over the years it has helped keep America a two party system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

He did a reddit AMA thing

Favourite part so far:
[–]mrbananagrabber1 626 points 10 days ago
Would you rather fight 100 duck-sized horses or one horse-sized duck?
permalink
[–]GovGaryJohnson[S,] 1121 points 10 days ago
One horse-sized duck

Ah no, serious answers to questions also:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/zq0ow/i_am_gov_gary_johnson_the_libertarian_candidate/?limit=500

20Cent

I think the video is bad not due to the production qualities but because there is no correlation between the facts presented and being a libertarian. Someone could agree with all of them yet they aren't necessarily a libertarian.

Has Johnson had a national convention yet?
DO they have one?

K3lso

20Cent wrote: »

I think the video is bad not due to the production qualities but because there is no correlation between the facts presented and being a libertarian. Someone could agree with all of them yet they aren't necessarily a libertarian.

Has Johnson had a national convention yet?
DO they have one?

A Convention? How do you suppose Johnson was nominated as LP candidate? He was nominated at the convention in Las Vegas in May.

20Cent

K3lso wrote: »

A Convention? How do you suppose Johnson was nominated as LP candidate? He was nominated at the convention in Las Vegas in May.

A show of hands in a pub maybe?

K3lso

20Cent wrote: »

A show of hands in a pub maybe?

The LP are the 3rd largest party in the US.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

A show of hands in a pub maybe?

They should just have everyone shout and have one person on a stage decide if over 2/3 went for either option.

K3lso

Deleted User wrote: »

They should just have everyone shout and have one person on a stage decide if over 2/3 went for either option.

lol - like the Republican convention where the "Nays" clearly had it.

Corrupt scumbags.

20Cent

K3lso wrote: »

The LP are the 3rd largest party in the US.

600 people in a casino I was close.

Sounds like the von Mises lot don't like him.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/29475.aspx

K3lso

20Cent wrote: »

600 people in a casino I was close.

Sounds like the von Mises lot don't like him.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/29475.aspx

There will be NOBODY as philosophically clean as Ron Paul.

You may not agree with him, but his conviction and consistency over 30 years are at least to be respected. Having said that, a libertarian is not someone with an exact clear-cut set of opinions. They differ and differ substantially. Ron Paul approaches problems from a philosophical stand point i.e - you own yourself and therefore, nobody has the right to tell you not to smoke weed for example. Gary Johnson, I'm assuming is more your guy in that he would approach problems in America from a "cost-basis analysis" which involved statistical charts and mathematics. Both would, in the end, legalise weed because it is the logical thing to do but both have different approaches. I'm not saying Gary Johnson is perfect, Ron Paul wasn't Libertarian enough for some - but between him and the muppet show, he's the most sane individual running for the Presidency.

20Cent

K3lso wrote: »

There will be NOBODY as philosophically clean as Ron Paul.

You may not agree with him, but his conviction and consistency over 30 years are at least to be respected. Having said that, a libertarian is not someone with an exact clear-cut set of opinions. They differ and differ substantially. Ron Paul approaches problems from a philosophical stand point i.e - you own yourself and therefore, nobody has the right to tell you not to smoke weed for example. Gary Johnson, I'm assuming is more your guy in that he would approach problems in America from a "cost-basis analysis" which involved statistical charts and mathematics. Both would, in the end, legalise weed because it is the logical thing to do but both have different approaches. I'm not saying Gary Johnson is perfect, Ron Paul wasn't Libertarian enough for some - but between him and the muppet show, he's the most sane individual running for the Presidency.

No libertarian would be "my guy" I don't find any of them sane. The point about the video is sure lots of people would like weed legalised or don't care about the issue. Its not very controversial. Legalising crack and crystal meth might not be such popular policies.

K3lso

20Cent wrote: »

No libertarian would be "my guy" I don't find any of them sane. The point about the video is sure lots of people would like weed legalised or don't care about the issue. Its not very controversial. Legalising crack and crystal meth might not be such popular policies.

Johnson doesn't want to legalise crack and crystal meth.

jank

20Cent wrote: »

No libertarian would be "my guy" I don't find any of them sane. The point about the video is sure lots of people would like weed legalised or don't care about the issue. Its not very controversial. Legalising crack and crystal meth might not be such popular policies.

What is it about libertatisanism that scares you? I presume you like the social sides of their policies but don't like their fiscal conservatism?

Denerick

jank wrote: »

What is it about libertatisanism that scares you? I presume you like the social sides of their policies but don't like their fiscal conservatism?

I think the fact that the overall impact on society would leave people little above the condition of economic slavery, and add in the reality that for thousands of years there was no such thing as a proper middle class, there was a tiny elite at the top who controlled all the wealth and power. Now, while our present system isn't by any means perfect, the libertarian solution would make life an abject misery for the overwhelming majority of people.

20Cent

K3lso wrote: »

Johnson doesn't want to legalise crack and crystal meth.

Where does he say that?
The arguments he uses for legalising weed are the same for legalising everything else.

20Cent

jank wrote: »

What is it about libertatisanism that scares you? I presume you like the social sides of their policies but don't like their fiscal conservatism?

It doesn't "scare" me. Would agree with alot of the social side of it but find the fiscal side of it abhorrent.

K3lso

20Cent wrote: »

Where does he say that?
The arguments he uses for legalising weed are the same for legalising everything else.

Read his website for crying out loud.

Denerick

Denerick wrote: »

I think the fact that the overall impact on society would leave people little above the condition of economic slavery, and add in the reality that for thousands of years there was no such thing as a proper middle class, there was a tiny elite at the top who controlled all the wealth and power. Now, while our present system isn't by any means perfect, the libertarian solution would make life an abject misery for the overwhelming majority of people.

Funny, I was thinking exactly the same about most of the proposals on the "benevolent dictator" thread

20Cent

K3lso wrote: »

Read his website for crying out loud.

You're the one saying he would ban hard drugs can't see anything about that in the drugs policy part of his website. He picks the non controversial drug he would legalise doesn't say anything about hard drugs just that they would treat it as a medical problem. If he's against prohibition for weed they why would he be for it for other drugs? He says legalising weed would end cartels etc, by that logic he should legalise all drugs.

Denerick

bluewolf wrote: »

Funny, I was thinking exactly the same about most of the proposals on the "benevolent dictator" thread

You do realise that the benevolent dictator thread was intended as lighthearted? (Though I do think I'd create a desert prison for right wing talk radio hosts)

K3lso

20Cent wrote: »

You're the one saying he would ban hard drugs can't see anything about that in the drugs policy part of his website. He picks the non controversial drug he would legalise doesn't say anything about hard drugs just that they would treat it as a medical problem. If he's against prohibition for weed they why would he be for it for other drugs? He says legalising weed would end cartels etc, by that logic he should legalise all drugs.

How would be ban hard drugs - they're already banned ffs.

He's saying he would approach the issue from a health stand point instead of a criminal one. The one drug he details is weed. He has said that he doesn't think it's a fantastic idea to legalise ALL drugs. Remember, this guy is not the definition of a philosophical Libertarian. But he is the best candidate currently left in the race.

I thought most welfare spending was usually done by the states, how would a Libertarian president affect that?

BOHtox

Anyone got any word of how he's polling? He was doing reasonably well when I started this thread. Was this just an undecided vote going to Johnson or was it a strong Johnson vote? It's very hard to find a poll with his name included

Endless Nameless

What the hell happened??????

He was polling really well for months, but he ended up with the typical 1%

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

What happened to all the Paulbots?

southsiderosie

Third party candidates can't win in a winner-take-all system.

Brian?

Endless Nameless wrote: »

What the hell happened??????

He was polling really well for months, but he ended up with the typical 1%

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

What happened to all the Paulbots?

They ran home to momma and voted for Romney. Just like Ron Paul, who happily endorsed Mitt. Ron Paul is libertarian up to a point, that point seems to be that he tows the GOP party line.

K3lso

Endless Nameless wrote: »

What the hell happened??????

He was polling really well for months, but he ended up with the typical 1%

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

What happened to all the Paulbots?

Ron Pauls people never got behind Johnson. Paul didn't even endorse him which I think he should have but he had his reasons. I suspect he didn't want to jeopardize his sons position in the GOP. Paul has worked for decades building a Libertarian wing in the Republican Party and all that would have been for naught had he gone and supported another candidate that was seen as a spoiler. In any event, the GOP will be livid with the Liberty wing of their party. The same people that nearly clinched the nomination away from them will be viewed as the ones that took the Presidency away from Romney.

The two party system is corrupt and the media are willful participants in maintaining the status quo. It is worrying that the only television network that carried third party candidate debates were those outside of the United States. Obama/Romney were plastered over every media outlet that one (particularly someone with no great interest in politics) would be forgiven for thinking there were only two candidates in this race. Apart from the obvious media attention and the howling of Republicans and Democrats from the rooftops, Libertarians find it extremely difficult to gain ballot access and usually spend much of their resources just trying to give voters a choice on election day.

Last night, Pauls people had a drink in each hand. They toasted to Romney not getting the victory and then drank because of Obamas win. They know the only victor last night was Gladman Sachs no matter who would have won.

matthew8

Paul doesn't like Johnson. He gets along very well with Romney personally too. Poor show for Johnson, but we legalized marijuana in 2 states.

Suryavarman

Brian? wrote: »

They ran home to momma and voted for Romney. Just like Ron Paul, who happily endorsed Mitt. Ron Paul is libertarian up to a point, that point seems to be that he tows the GOP party line.

Ron Paul didn't endorse Mitt Romney let alone endorsing him happily.

Brian?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Ron Paul didn't endorse Mitt Romney let alone endorsing him happily.

He did endorse him. Are we living in alternate realities?

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

He did endorse him. Are we living in alternate realities?

Actually he didn't. Apologies all.

Suryavarman

Brian? wrote: »

Actually he didn't. Apologies all.

Rand did endorse him though. Easy mistake to make I suppose.