• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gary Johnson going third party with a Libertarian Party nomination

poweRob

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
83,522
Reaction score
57,995
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Says he's considering but looks pretty positive that he will go for the LP nomination. Interesting turn of events. Wonder if he will be able to reach the debates in the general when they are still being controlled by the two party Commission on Presidential Debates who do all they can to keep third party candidates out of the debates altogether?

===============
'Abandoned' by GOP, Johnson could seek Libertarian nod

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson knows he's not going to win the New Hampshire presidential primary and that he won't be the 2012 Republican presidential candidate.

But in an interview Wednesday, he said he's seriously considering running for the Libertarian Party nomination for president.

"I feel abandoned by the Republican Party," Johnson said in a phone interview. "The Republican Party has left me by the wayside."

He's been left out of all but two of the seemingly endless Republican presidential debates. His fundraising is low and his poll numbers are below radar level.

"If I'd have been included in 16 of the last debates we wouldn't even be having this conversation," Johnson said.
===============
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Says he's considering but looks pretty positive that he will go for the LP nomination. Interesting turn of events. Wonder if he will be able to reach the debates in the general when they are still being controlled by the two party Commission on Presidential Debates who do all they can to keep third party candidates out of the debates altogether?
Click to expand...

Probably not, and he probably shouldn't be. Even the abysmally polling nationally Huntsman and Santorum have polled better than him. When it comes to the first few actual primary states he's not even a blip on the radar. Exposure and attendance in debates is a double edged sword. Yes, exposure helps to get noticed. However, if you're not noticed enough to even REGISTER at first you're not going to have air time wasted on you. At least a crazy like Santorum or a relative unknown like Huntsman can garner more than 3% in one of the first states that have primaries which is more to say than what Johnson's been able to do.

The Libertarian Party couldn't manage even .5% of the popular vote last year. That's less than half a percent. Same goes for 2004. Guess what, same goes for 2000 as well. Actually, if you add up their percentage of the popular vote for the past THREE Presidential elections you BARELY get over 1% total of the popular vote (1.08%). Look at that again, you've got to add up their votes for the past three elections to even get to 1% of the popular vote. Over the past twenty years, that's 6 elections, they've not even broken 2.5% combined (2.33%) with their highest in that span being half a percent in 1996. That's pathetic.

Even if we assumed that being in the debates would give them...hell, lets go crazy...a 500% bump in their COMBINED results they'd still only have 14% of the popular vote. And that's going over their combined totals from 6 elections. Going off their average, to get to that same measely 14%, would mean that they'd need a 3,500% bump. To get from their average over the past 20 years (.39) to even a THIRD of the popular vote would mean an increase of almost 8,500%. I don't care if they had a debate that was nothing BUT the Libertarian candidate on stage, there's no way in hell that it's going to give them a 500% bump let alone one 17 times that amount.

A libertarian candidate can't even garner enough interest on their own merits and platform to warrant 1% of the popular vote, there's no good reaosn to waste the voteres time by inviting them into the debates because the libertarians have no better claim (unless they use their same generalized style of argument use against them) for that than the Constitutional party, the Green party, random independents, etc. Which means you suddenly have Presidential debates watered down, with wasted time and doing a disservice to the voters, with half a dozen candidates who are about as likely as Mickey Mouse of having any impact on the national election.

Get a Libertarian Candidate who can poll at the necessary level of 15% and they'll get in on the debates. Hell, I'd be fine at putting it at 10%...last election cycle Bobb Barr didn't even garner that much in any poll. Till then, Johnson has no more business in a Presidential debate than Grimace or that crazy dude down the street holding a "the end is nigh" sign.
 
I would not blame Gary Johnson for leaving the Republican Party; I would however blame him for running third party. If anyone should run independent in this race it should be Ron Paul which has the same platform, yet thousands times the support. I would however like to see Gary Johnson as that VP.

Call me crazy but I think a Ron Paul run against Obama has a chance... libertarianism lets liberal states be liberal and conservative states be conservative. There is no better battle plan when it comes to the electorate.
Ron Paul is the most fiscially conservative candidate ever. If Republicans ever put their money where their mouth is.
 
Well he could help turn New Mexico from a swing state to a solid blue state next year, if he runs and takes a significant fraction of the Republican vote away from the Republican nominee...
But then, I doubt that the election will hinge on New Mexico anyway.
 
USAMP1970 said:
Call me crazy but I think a Ron Paul run against Obama has a chance...
Click to expand...

I agree with the first half of that statement anyway. ;)

USAMP1970 said:
Call me crazy but I think a Ron Paul run against Obama has a chance... libertarianism lets liberal states be liberal and conservative states be conservative. There is no better battle plan when it comes to the electorate.
Ron Paul is the most fiscially conservative candidate ever. If Republicans ever put their money where their mouth is.
Click to expand...
.
That is his view on the Civil War too. If he were president the slave-states would remain slave states and anti-slave states would have no slavery.
He is not a fiscal conservation when it comes to himself. #36 of all in Congress in special earmarks for his district.
 
Last edited:
Former Gov. Johnson hasn't been included in the debates because he has had virtually no support throughout his campaign. Polling has consistently shown him receiving less than 1% of the vote. Hence, even if he gains the Libertarian Party nomination, his chances of being invited to the debates between President Obama and his Republican challenger are remote.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Former Gov. Johnson hasn't been included in the debates because he has had virtually no support throughout his campaign. Polling has consistently shown him receiving less than 1% of the vote. Hence, even if he gains the Libertarian Party nomination, his chances of being invited to the debates between President Obama and his Republican challenger are remote.
Click to expand...

Polling low among Republicans doesn't come close to what he'd poll nationally among all voters. He has to be seen to be known. Therein lies the rub.
 
poweRob said:
Polling low among Republicans doesn't come close to what he'd poll nationally among all voters. He has to be seen to be known. Therein lies the rub.
Click to expand...

He's not registering a blip by Republicans and Independents generally included in a variety of the current polls. Exactly how much support do you honestly see him gaining from Democrats? I mean...I guess 1% "doesn't come close" to 0% relatively speaking...
 
joko104 said:
I agree with the first half of that statement anyway. ;)


.
That is his view on the Civil War too. If he were president the slave-states would remain slave states and anti-slave states would have no slavery.
Click to expand...

Really? When did he say this? In what speech? What interview?
 
Johnson running third party means precious little to getting the LIB PARTY over the one-half percent mark that Zyphlin documents so well. Ron Paul would be the exception. As he has announced he will not run again for Congress, perhaps that is in the future for him? If its Romney as the GOP nominee, I would see Paul getting 2 to 4%, perhaps even more if certain things go his way, as a third party independent on a party that already has 50 state ballot access. He may do better without the LIBERTARIAN label as it is akin to the skull and crossbones on a medicine bottle to most voters.

If its Newt or another conservative, cut that number in half at least.
 
Gary Johnson running 3rd party will only hurt Ron Paul. No people that are going to vote for Johnson would suddenly have a change of heart and go with a status quo candidate. If Paul gets the nomination, Gary Johnson should do liberty a favor and drop out and endorse Dr. Paul.
 
The Prophet said:
Gary Johnson running 3rd party will only hurt Ron Paul. No people that are going to vote for Johnson would suddenly have a change of heart and go with a status quo candidate. If Paul gets the nomination, Gary Johnson should do liberty a favor and drop out and endorse Dr. Paul.
Click to expand...

Well that's not going to happen anyway, so it's a moot point. The party that nominated John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford isn't going to nominate a guy like Ron Paul. Dream on.
 
Zyphlin said:
He's not registering a blip by Republicans and Independents generally included in a variety of the current polls. Exactly how much support do you honestly see him gaining from Democrats? I mean...I guess 1% "doesn't come close" to 0% relatively speaking...
Click to expand...

As I said in my last post...

He has to be seen to be known. Therein lies the rub.

He's not getting seen via the GOP ticket, hopefully the Libertarian ticket will get him a platform which won't bury him like the GOP has.
 
Kandahar said:
Well that's not going to happen anyway, so it's a moot point. The party that nominated John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford isn't going to nominate a guy like Ron Paul. Dream on.
Click to expand...

You're right, they won't as it stands now. Alot of things have to change before they would do that. If Ron Paul wins Iowa and New Hampshire in landslides, the media will be forced to give Paul attention. If some heavy hitters come out and endorse him and throw alot of money at him, expect opinions to change in the GOP. They don't like his foreign policy, but they absolutely hate Obama. In 2000 George Bush ran on a no nation building, mind our own business, platform. If that was popular with the GOP then, it can be again.
 
The Prophet said:
In 2000 George Bush ran on a no nation building, mind our own business, platform.
Click to expand...

He sure did. I remember that. What a fail on the delivery of that he was.
 
Zyphlin said:
Probably not, and he probably shouldn't be. Even the abysmally polling nationally Huntsman and Santorum have polled better than him. When it comes to the first few actual primary states he's not even a blip on the radar. Exposure and attendance in debates is a double edged sword. Yes, exposure helps to get noticed. However, if you're not noticed enough to even REGISTER at first you're not going to have air time wasted on you. At least a crazy like Santorum or a relative unknown like Huntsman can garner more than 3% in one of the first states that have primaries which is more to say than what Johnson's been able to do.

The Libertarian Party couldn't manage even .5% of the popular vote last year. That's less than half a percent. Same goes for 2004. Guess what, same goes for 2000 as well. Actually, if you add up their percentage of the popular vote for the past THREE Presidential elections you BARELY get over 1% total of the popular vote (1.08%). Look at that again, you've got to add up their votes for the past three elections to even get to 1% of the popular vote. Over the past twenty years, that's 6 elections, they've not even broken 2.5% combined (2.33%) with their highest in that span being half a percent in 1996. That's pathetic.

Even if we assumed that being in the debates would give them...hell, lets go crazy...a 500% bump in their COMBINED results they'd still only have 14% of the popular vote. And that's going over their combined totals from 6 elections. Going off their average, to get to that same measely 14%, would mean that they'd need a 3,500% bump. To get from their average over the past 20 years (.39) to even a THIRD of the popular vote would mean an increase of almost 8,500%. I don't care if they had a debate that was nothing BUT the Libertarian candidate on stage, there's no way in hell that it's going to give them a 500% bump let alone one 17 times that amount.

A libertarian candidate can't even garner enough interest on their own merits and platform to warrant 1% of the popular vote, there's no good reaosn to waste the voteres time by inviting them into the debates because the libertarians have no better claim (unless they use their same generalized style of argument use against them) for that than the Constitutional party, the Green party, random independents, etc. Which means you suddenly have Presidential debates watered down, with wasted time and doing a disservice to the voters, with half a dozen candidates who are about as likely as Mickey Mouse of having any impact on the national election.

Get a Libertarian Candidate who can poll at the necessary level of 15% and they'll get in on the debates. Hell, I'd be fine at putting it at 10%...last election cycle Bobb Barr didn't even garner that much in any poll. Till then, Johnson has no more business in a Presidential debate than Grimace or that crazy dude down the street holding a "the end is nigh" sign.
Click to expand...

Well, you see that is where you and much of this nation are wrong. It is about principle and voting for those who most represent your beliefs. Unfortunately the nation has become so bloody partisan that no candidate has a chance unless they are vetted and approved by the two ruling factions of Corpgov: Democrats or Republicans. Those two factions have a virtual lock on American governance. Unfortunately Americans have neither the balls nor the intelligence to toss the both parties out on their fat asses.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Well, you see that is where you and much of this nation are wrong. It is about principle and voting for those who most represent your beliefs. Unfortunately the nation has become so bloody partisan that no candidate has a chance unless they are vetted and approved by the two ruling factions of Corpgov: Democrats or Republicans. Those two factions have a virtual lock on American governance. Unfortunately Americans have neither the balls nor the intelligence to toss the both parties out on their fat asses.
Click to expand...

No matter how much you hold your nose while voting for the lesser of two evils, your vote is still a 100% endorsement of whom you cast it for. Therefore you are perpetuating a downward spiral only because you gave 100% of your support to someone who you only agree with 25%.

If you vote third party because you agree with their politics far more and that person loses, you still told the country that X% of people more agree with these policies. As that % grows, the other parties shift to adopt those stances to secure those votes. This is how many big policies got made.

Winning isn't the only way to win.
 
poweRob said:
As I said in my last post...

He has to be seen to be known. Therein lies the rub.

He's not getting seen via the GOP ticket, hopefully the Libertarian ticket will get him a platform which won't bury him like the GOP has.
Click to expand...

And as I said in my earlier post, what in the world gives you any notion that people are even going to give a damn about paying attention to the libertarian ticket when they've not managed over .6% of the popular vote for over 20 years. As the Libertarian candidate he'll get a minuscule amount of attention more than he's currently getting
 
Risky Thicket said:
Well, you see that is where you and much of this nation are wrong.
Click to expand...

You thinking its wrong doesn't change reality.

It is about principle and voting for those who most represent your beliefs.
Click to expand...

For SOME people it is. Indeed, I actually share your belief to a point which is why I voted Paul in the primaries last year. However, in reality on a national stage, no its not about that...its about picking the candidate that most represents your view that is likely to win for the vast majority of voters. You can debate whether that SHOULD be the case, but there's no debate that it IS the case.

Unfortunately the nation has become so bloody partisan that no candidate has a chance unless they are vetted and approved by the two ruling factions of Corpgov: Democrats or Republicans. Those two factions have a virtual lock on American governance. Unfortunately Americans have neither the balls nor the intelligence to toss the both parties out on their fat asses.
Click to expand...

While I don't agree with your analysis of the reasons and what needs to definitely happen...in general, you're right. No candidate that isn't part of the two main parties has much of a chance. Which was kind of my point.
 
Zyphlin said:
And as I said in my earlier post, what in the world gives you any notion that people are even going to give a damn about paying attention to the libertarian ticket when they've not managed over .6% of the popular vote for over 20 years. As the Libertarian candidate he'll get a minuscule amount of attention more than he's currently getting
Click to expand...

Mayhap or mayhap not.
 
poweRob said:
Mayhap or mayhap not.
Click to expand...

Here, I'll back up why I make my assertion that he won't......Libertarian candidates haven't generated enough interest to get over roughly .5% of the popular vote in over two decades and without additional evidence there's no reason to magically think that will be the case this time.

Now, you go...what evidence or facts do you have to suggest that its a reasonable or realistic notion that his running as a libertarian will garner him any kind of significant attention?
 
Zyphlin said:
Here, I'll back up why I make my assertion that he won't......Libertarian candidates haven't generated enough interest to get over roughly .5% of the popular vote in over two decades and without additional evidence there's no reason to magically think that will be the case this time.

Now, you go...what evidence or facts do you have to suggest that its a reasonable or realistic notion that his running as a libertarian will garner him any kind of significant attention?
Click to expand...

No historical background to dispute you. Only that disgust and approval ratings of the two major parties is fostering a better environment for third parties than there has been before. I'm not saying he'll do gang-busters great, I'm just not so eager to dismiss people as it seems you are doing. I'm a huge fan of busting up the two party duopoly and I've seen this same casual dismissal of third parties like you are making and I find it rather annoying. Because it is that casual dismissal argument that is the basis of why voters fall in line behind the lesser of two evils theory that is ****ing up our country.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom