• 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 to drop out of GOP primary to run as Libertarian

Blackstone said:
How can you say it's "not a good move" but then endorse it with your vote?
Click to expand...

It's not a good move for Republicans, but it's a good move for me, because I am not stuck having to choose between tax and spend and batpoop insane to put my vote on.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
That will ensure, by draining votes from the Republican nominee, that Obama gets elected again. This is not a good move. Republicans should encourage Dennis Kucinich to even things up by running as a Green candidate again. :mrgreen:

As for myself, I will most likely vote for Johnson.
Click to expand...

So you think this I going to have even a blip of significance on the election?

How much of the vote do you think Johnson will get as an estimated guess?
 
pbrauer said:
WOW. If he gets the nomination he will be set to run in every state.


Gary Johnson will quit the Republican primaries and seek the Libertarian Party nomination instead, POLITICO has learned.

The former two-term New Mexico governor, whose campaign for the GOP nomination never caught fire, will make the announcement at a press conference in Santa Fe on Dec. 28. Johnson state directors will be informed of his plans on a campaign conference call Tuesday night, a Johnson campaign source told POLITICO.


Read more: Gary Johnson to drop out of GOP primary to run as Libertarian - Reid J. Epstein and Ginger Gibson - POLITICO.com​
Click to expand...

It would be great if he did, it might cancel out the effect of the GOP voter restriction laws.
 
Zyphlin said:
So you think this I going to have even a blip of significance on the election?

How much of the vote do you think Johnson will get as an estimated guess?
Click to expand...

Hopefully, at least 5 million votes! :)
 
Zyphlin said:
So you think this I going to have even a blip of significance on the election?

How much of the vote do you think Johnson will get as an estimated guess?
Click to expand...

Depends on access and presence in the debates. Unfortunately which are run by former Dem and Repub national committee chairmen.

I think the vibe this season for a third party is rather damn good. Not predicting a third party victory but I think there is room for it this election season more than most.
 
Zyphlin said:
So you think this I going to have even a blip of significance on the election?

How much of the vote do you think Johnson will get as an estimated guess?
Click to expand...

I don't intend to vote for a Democrat, but until the GOP loses it's batpoop insanity, I won't be voting for them either. If the Republican party wants my vote, they are going to have to earn it.
 
Blackstone said:
Oh no? The Libertarians weren't running a Libertarian candidate before Gary Johnson decided to switch party affiliations? Gary Johnson (or Ron Paul for that matter) hadn't been running as a Republican prior to this news? Is the candidate field so poor for libertarian voters that they are willing to stay home unless Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate?
Click to expand...
Settle down there bud. Just interpreting what I thought the guy was saying, I didn't say it.:peace
 
Blackstone said:
How exactly will Gary Johnson winning the Libertarian nomination for president allow you to "get to vote" in 2012? Are you ineligible to vote otherwise?
Click to expand...

The way I see it, no matter who wins the nominations I will have a choice between a progressive democrat or a progressive republican. Johnson and Paul are the only two candidates who I don't see as particularly progressive. Paul is not going to win the nomination and so that leaves Johnson as my only credible choice.
 
Blackstone said:
Oh no? The Libertarians weren't running a Libertarian candidate before Gary Johnson decided to switch party affiliations? Gary Johnson (or Ron Paul for that matter) hadn't been running as a Republican prior to this news? Is the candidate field so poor for libertarian voters that they are willing to stay home unless Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate?
Click to expand...

Meh, the Libertarian party typically runs a "whoever will best benefit the Koch brothers" candidate, not a real Libertarian.
 
poweRob said:
Depends on access and presence in the debates. Unfortunately which are run by former Dem and Repub national committee chairmen.
Click to expand...

It's a catch 22, you need support to be worthy to get into debates but debates help you get support.

Do you think every person that manages to get on a state ballot deserves to be in a debate, or do you simply wish to pick and choose whose worthy on a different criteria then what is currrently used but still excluding people?

I think the vibe this season for a third party is rather damn good. Not predicting a third party victory but I think there is room for it this election season more than most.
Click to expand...

danarhea said:
I don't intend to vote for a Democrat, but until the GOP loses it's batpoop insanity, I won't be voting for them either. If the Republican party wants my vote, they are going to have to earn it.
Click to expand...

So I'll ask again, either of you wanting to give me an estimate of what amount of the popular vote the librarian party will get to justify your belief it will harm the republicans in any noticeable way?
 
Zyphlin said:
It's a catch 22, you need support to be worthy to get into debates but debates help you get support.

Do you think every person that manages to get on a state ballot deserves to be in a debate, or do you simply wish to pick and choose whose worthy on a different criteria then what is currrently used but still excluding people?





So I'll ask again, either of you wanting to give me an estimate of what amount of the popular vote the librarian party will get to justify your belief it will harm the republicans in any noticeable way?
Click to expand...

To me that is not pertinent, and I don't care. The GOP no longer represents my values. Doesn't mean I will never vote GOP again, but they will have to earn my vote. I am perfectly happy to give it to a third party.
 
AdamT said:
Glad you liked it. :)

On a serious note, though, this guy really got screwed over by the GOP. How does a popular, two-term governor and successful businessman with excellent conservative credentials not have at least as much credibility as a Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum?
Click to expand...

He's Ron Paul-lite. He holds the same stances on most issues as Paul except he's a bit more moderate and doesn't intend to abolish the Fed. Other than that, they are both pretty similar. Libertarian-leaning voters are going to go for the guy with more name recognition and support. Like Huntsman, Johnson had an excellent opportunity to present himself as a candidate with great fiscally conservative credentials, good executive experience, and unlike much of the field, he just so happens to not to be bat****. Also, like Huntsman, he has failed to play up these qualities. Johnson is a real honest guy that does not like the bull****ting and self-aggrandizing that comes with campaigning. While I love this part about him, it has prevented people from getting to know about him. Oh well, there's always 2016.
 
The reason Johnson never got any notice is he is to much of a nerd and not a good public figure. Interestingly enough he will suck hard as a libertarian to if Paul decides to go that way. Then again I think Paul has somewhat of a chance this time.
 
Zyphlin said:
It's a catch 22, you need support to be worthy to get into debates but debates help you get support.

Do you think every person that manages to get on a state ballot deserves to be in a debate, or do you simply wish to pick and choose whose worthy on a different criteria then what is currrently used but still excluding people?
Click to expand...

The methodology for choosing who should be in the debates shouldn't be left solely up to the two major parties to decide. They also move the goal post when any third party gets close.
 
poweRob said:
The methodology for choosing who should be in the debates shouldn't be left solely up to the two major parties to decide. They also move the goal post when any third party gets close.
Click to expand...

So what do YOU think the methodology should be
 
danarhea said:
To me that is not pertinent, and I don't care. The GOP no longer represents my values. Doesn't mean I will never vote GOP again, but they will have to earn my vote. I am perfectly happy to give it to a third party.
Click to expand...

If you don't care, don't think it's pertinent, and refuse to back it up then why did you make this proclomation?

danarhea said:
That will ensure, by draining votes from the Republican nominee, that Obama gets elected again. This is not a good move.
Click to expand...
 
Zyphlin said:
So what do YOU think the methodology should be
Click to expand...

Not too sure but I do think that more than two party reps would be a good start. How about the four to five highest in the polls?
 
So why should someone with say .1% support be left out but someone with .3% does, all the while the person with .3% support is worthy of as much time and exposure as someone with 1000% more support then them?
 
Zyphlin said:
So why should someone with say .1% support be left out but someone with .3% does, all the while the person with .3% support is worthy of as much time and exposure as someone with 1000% more support then them?
Click to expand...

You are equating debate exposure solely with popularity when that is kind of putting the cart before the horse. You get the popularity when you are in the debates. This has been proven. Perot showed us this. You are asking me to front a proposal to get into the debates and then cutting me off at the knees about it when it is already the standard by which they are already selected. Popularity as displayed in polls. If you have a problem with top four polling getting into the debates then why don't you have a problem with the top two polling getting into the debates?

All I'm saying is, as long as the debates only front two parties, you can expect the two parties to merge into one more and more as time passes. Allowing more than two into the debates will more assuredly provide an offset to this merging as the non-top-two parties will bring more topics to the table than just the two major parties who sit there agreeing with each other... ie the Bush v Gore debates which were nothing but a disgusting agree-a-thon to the point of being worthy of vomiting over.
 
AdamT said:
Well this is absolutely shocking news! To discover that some guy named Gary Johnson has been running for President all this time?
Click to expand...

Imagine that. One of the most conservative candidates running for President and the GOP disses him. The GOP wouldn't know conservatism if it hit them on the head. They love their big statist candidates.
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
WOW. If he gets the nomination he will be set to run in every state.


Gary Johnson will quit the Republican primaries and seek the Libertarian Party nomination instead, POLITICO has learned.

The former two-term New Mexico governor, whose campaign for the GOP nomination never caught fire, will make the announcement at a press conference in Santa Fe on Dec. 28. Johnson state directors will be informed of his plans on a campaign conference call Tuesday night, a Johnson campaign source told POLITICO.


Read more: Gary Johnson to drop out of GOP primary to run as Libertarian - Reid J. Epstein and Ginger Gibson - POLITICO.com​
Click to expand...

Libertarians are not on the ballot in all 50 states. They, just like all third parties, are having to bust their asses to do ballot access signature drives in many states to get on the ballot. They are already on many states' ballots but they are not on all 50.

After they collect the signatures, they have to be verified by state officials, who just happen to be Dems and Repubs, who will void x amount of collected signatures and if they still qualify, you can expect the Repubs and/or Dems to contest the signature collections and sue them broke as they try to run for prez. It's how our politics work anymore. Richest man/group wins.

I'm speaking from experience as I worked on the Nader campaign and collected and submitted signatures in AZ. All the Dems had to do was to sue in various states where signatures were submitted, then drag out the proceedings beyond the election, and then admit they were wrong after the fact.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom