• 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!

Johnson up double digits: Can he break the 15% threshold?

Ikari said:
There are a lot of competency and knowledge tests that the average person on the street couldn't answer. Doesn't mean we should teach things like science or math or literature.
Click to expand...
True
Ikari said:
It doesn't matter how much noise he makes, without the D or the R, he won't get coverage. It's as simple as that. The system is set up to marginalize and dismiss third party challenge. He needs that coverage for people to "give him the time of day". And around the Catch-22 we go.
Click to expand...

Probably true as well, but c'mon, lets not be too pessimistic. Others have risen from nothing to be a household name. Who knows, could happen again, but it won't unless he tries and tries again.
 
Lovebug said:
He needs to make noise. May be do a Trump to get more publicity, come up with something catchy. Once he has more name recognition, perhaps more people will give him the time of day.
It may not be enough, but may make for a better chance than he has now.
Click to expand...
Please, NO!

We don't need another one!

Mr. Trump is more than enough noise for one lifetime! :doh
 
ModerateGOP said:
UH any evidence that voters even actually care about this?
Click to expand...

Probably not, but they should. When both major parties have flawed candidates, it's high time to hear from those "other" candidates no one has heard about.
 
Fiddytree said:
It was very encouraging to see Johnson give a nod to public accommodations.
That, alone, is one of the biggest barriers any libertarian would have with people of color, women, religious minorities, and people with disabilities.
Click to expand...

Well, that just means he will lose libertarian votes. Good luck to him.
 
Chomsky said:
Please, NO!

We don't need another one!

Mr. Trump is more than enough noise for one lifetime! :doh
Click to expand...

Lol, Johnson needs to learn from a master in attention getting. That's all. He has a lot to offer, as did Dr. Paul Sr at the time. He also was a mediocre communicator, too quiet, something that may be desirable in other circumstances, but not in the political arena.
 
Lovebug said:
True


Probably true as well, but c'mon, lets not be too pessimistic. Others have risen from nothing to be a household name. Who knows, could happen again, but it won't unless he tries and tries again.
Click to expand...

The last to do it was Perot, he was let into the debates and he got 19%. It's because of that the Republocrats stripped the League of Women Voters of their traditional role of managing and running the Presidential debates and put in the 15% margin just to get into the debates.

This was specifically set up to remove any possible threat or influence of the third parties. And now that the Republocrats have isolated themselves from the people, they have grown fat and corrupt faster than anything we've ever seen before. This is how we lose the Republic.

We cannot guarantee that people will vote third party, we cannot guarantee that third party candidates will win. But we do need to guarantee that third party candidates are visible, that the information is presented, and that they get coverage...particularly any that are polling over 5%. Political competition is the only thing we have to threaten the power base of the Republocrats and only by threatening the power base of the Republocrats may we keep them in line. This is a necessity for a free and democratic Republic.
 
Ikari said:
It doesn't matter how much noise he makes, without the D or the R, he won't get coverage. It's as simple as that. The system is set up to marginalize and dismiss third party challenge. He needs that coverage for people to "give him the time of day". And around the Catch-22 we go.
Click to expand...

Americans historically haven't liked pluralities.

A couple of weeks ago, I found an old book in our office that contained a great account of an episode in our state's political history. Early in the 20th century we had a populist-socialist party that rose to prominence (arguably the most prolific in the nation), who had eschewed the 2 party order. Realizing that creating a traditional third party was stupid, they instead created a non-partisan structure that put forward candidates from either party that embraced its platform. They scored big and basically had the run of things for a while, until corruption and the Great Depression harmed their ranks.

Over time it had greatly weakened on continually trying to find finding candidates from either party to run under its platform. By the mid-50's, they were continuing to realize the futility of the venture, because pluralism harmed rather than helped their cause. Eventually, they engaged in a several-year struggle to imbed the "party" under the Democrats. Eventually, they won out and created a unified liberal party and platform.
 
Henrin said:
Well, that just means he will lose libertarian votes. Good luck to him.
Click to expand...

Losing libertarian votes isn't exactly a threat, given that Johnson becomes more attractive and successful by appealing to dissatisfied Republicans (and some Democrats). He's become a bit more of a fusionist candidate than libertarians of the past. This still produces a number of libertarian eccentricities, but by giving nod to the 20th century has improved his poll numbers.
 
Lovebug said:
Lol, Johnson needs to learn from a master in attention getting. That's all. He has a lot to offer, as did Dr. Paul Sr at the time. He also was a mediocre communicator, too quiet, something that may be desirable in other circumstances, but not in the political arena.
Click to expand...
Hehe - I just like the way you used "Trump", and "make noise", in the same sentence! :thumbs:
 
Fiddytree said:
Americans historically haven't liked pluralities.

A couple of weeks ago, I found an old book in our office that contained a great account of an episode in our state's political history. Early in the 20th century we had a populist-socialist party that rose to prominence (arguably the most prolific in the nation), who had eschewed the 2 party order. Realizing that creating a traditional third party was stupid, they instead created a non-partisan structure that put forward candidates from either party that embraced its platform. They scored big and basically had the run of things for a while, until corruption and the Great Depression harmed their ranks.

Over time it had greatly weakened on continually trying to find finding candidates from either party to run under its platform. By the mid-50's, they were continuing to realize the futility of the venture, because pluralism harmed rather than helped their cause. Eventually, they engaged in a several-year struggle to imbed the "party" under the Democrats. Eventually, they won out and created a unified liberal party and platform.
Click to expand...

And our system is stable at two, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the SAME TWO. Parties have switched in the past. The moves by the Republocrats in recent decades is to remove the possibility of a switch. That's why we need the political competition. It is the feedback mechanism we have on the circuit. It's how we actually servo government. Third parties don't need to be prominent, they just need to be there. Allowed to participate, covered fairly, and always nipping at the main parties. Should one of the main parties falter, they can then be replaced easily.

Turnover, competition, an open system...we need these things so that We the People can better control the government.
 
Fiddytree said:
Losing libertarian votes isn't exactly a threat, given that Johnson becomes more attractive and successful by appealing to dissatisfied Republicans (and some Democrats).
Click to expand...

I suppose, but the fact is once he goes out of his way to support property right violations he will lose the libertarian vote. That might not matter in the grand scheme of things, but I would very much like it if it meant that the libertarian party kicked him out.
 
Henrin said:
I suppose, but the fact is once he goes out of his way to support property right violations he will lose the libertarian vote. That might not matter in the grand scheme of things, but I would very much like it if it meant that the libertarian party kicked him out.
Click to expand...

This is from an avidly anti-libertarian poster, so of course, take that for what it is.
But libertarians are going to have to modernize. With the increasing numbers of people of color, more numerous religious minorities, women in power, and growing numbers of people with disabilities, you're not going to do anything but harm by maintaining the 19th century credo that despised populations do not have the right to access the commons.
 
Ikari said:
....do libertarians not want to teach science, math, or literature?
Click to expand...

Well, most of them don't want to do it with tax payer money, which de facto they don't want to teach science, math, or literature. Johnson is a little more center-right on this issue, but the Libertarian Platform makes it pretty clear:

"Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education."​

The centrists like Johnson want to make a publicly-funded voucher system and dismantle the Department of Education. (Yeah, that's the "centrist" libertarian position.)
 
A major problem for him is the way the polls are conducted. His support is strongest among young people, who generally don't have landlines. As I understand it, polls are generally conducted by calling landline telephones (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
 
Fiddytree said:
This is from an avidly anti-libertarian poster, so of course, take that for what it is.
But libertarians are going to have to modernize. With the increasing numbers of people of color, more numerous religious minorities, women in power, and growing numbers of people with disabilities, you're not going to do anything but harm by maintaining the 19th century credo that despised populations do not have the right to access the commons.
Click to expand...

There is nothing that needs modernized. No one is saying people don't have a right to access commerce that is consented to, but just that when someone is unwilling it is wrong to force the issue. It is also wrong to force them to build things like ramps, reserve parking for certain people(which violates the fourteenth amendment btw) or other such things when people don't consent to it. How is that not a modern view? Is consent somehow outdated? Why are minorities unable to get on board with the idea of voluntary transactions? All you're trying to tell me is that civility is outdated and I refuse to accept that.
 
Ikari said:
And our system is stable at two, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the SAME TWO. Parties have switched in the past. The moves by the Republocrats in recent decades is to remove the possibility of a switch. That's why we need the political competition. It is the feedback mechanism we have on the circuit. It's how we actually servo government. Third parties don't need to be prominent, they just need to be there. Allowed to participate, covered fairly, and always nipping at the main parties. Should one of the main parties falter, they can then be replaced easily.

Turnover, competition, an open system...we need these things so that We the People can better control the government.
Click to expand...

But without the great attempt to convene with another major party's constituents, you aren't going to get that.

The Era of Great Feelings was produced by the death of the Federalist Party, but not long after, the remaining grouping and kids of those Federalists created a modified Federalist Party called the Whigs. When the Whigs were falling apart, it was because the attempt to hold the union through negotiation of slave territories was no longer going to work. There were Free Soilers and Liberty Party representatives, but a substantial backbone to the forming Republican Party was the Whig Party. Even the Free Soilers and Liberty folks were pre-disposed to having a big past in the Whig Party.

Libertarians have consistently stood athwart either Party and have an alienation that can only be rivaled by the various Socialist Parties in our country's history.

That's not how you create a new 2 party structure.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Well, most of them don't want to do it with tax payer money, which de facto they don't want to teach science, math, or literature. Johnson is a little more center-right on this issue, but the Libertarian Platform makes it pretty clear:

"Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education."​

The centrists like Johnson want to make a publicly-funded voucher system and dismantle the Department of Education. (Yeah, that's the "centrist" libertarian position.)
Click to expand...

Most...yeah? So you got those statistics?

Taking down the Department of Education doesn't mean that one doesn't want education provided to the People. The DoE has only had negative effects on our overall education quality. It's pointless and counterproductive. We need a public school system, an educated populace is a necessity to a Free Republic. But we need something that works and the bits and parts of government that fight against a working system need to be demolished.
 
Lovebug said:
No candidate, good or bad, can just sit by and wait for things to happen.
Click to expand...

I agree this is what Johnson appears to be doing himself. But as other governors and senators found out in the primary you can't just wait until Clinton and Trump implode. That seems to hold back libertarians more than anything, the hope that the two party system at some point will crumble. They have to make it crumble and so far it has been pretty lackluster as of late. Ron Paul may have been their last hope and as much as I despised that guy, Gary Johnson is no Ron Paul.

Trump and Clinton are both very good at what they do and how they know how they got to this point in their careers. Johnson is an amateur compared to them and even compared to most people who ran in the primaries.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Well, most of them don't want to do it with tax payer money, which de facto they don't want to teach science, math, or literature. Johnson is a little more center-right on this issue, but the Libertarian Platform makes it pretty clear:

"Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education."​

The centrists like Johnson want to make a publicly-funded voucher system and dismantle the Department of Education. (Yeah, that's the "centrist" libertarian position.)
Click to expand...

That link gives me a corrupt content error. WTF? That's a new one.
 
Ikari said:
Most...yeah? So you got those statistics?

Taking down the Department of Education doesn't mean that one doesn't want education provided to the People. The DoE has only had negative effects on our overall education quality.
Click to expand...

Actually, most of the improvements of the last 40 years have happened because of the DOE. Stagnation and complacency is usually to be found within the state's. The negative aspect to the DOE is that a number of their ventures had ailed to produce positive results, and occasionally made things worse.
 
Fiddytree said:
But without the great attempt to convene with another major party's constituents, you aren't going to get that.

The Era of Great Feelings was produced by the death of the Federalist Party, but not long after, the remaining grouping and kids of those Federalists created a modified Federalist Party called the Whigs. When the Whigs were falling apart, it was because the attempt to hold the union through negotiation of slave territories was no longer going to work. There were Free Soilers and Liberty Party representatives, but a substantial backbone to the forming Republican Party was the Whig Party. Even the Free Soilers and Liberty folks were pre-disposed to having a big past in the Whig Party.

Libertarians have consistently stood athwart either Party and have an alienation that can only be rivaled by the various Socialist Parties in our country's history.

That's not how you create a new 2 party structure.
Click to expand...

But now there's no way to regroup, modify, or replace the parties. Without the competition, while the Republocrat structure may fail, there's nothing we can replace it with. Once you've stagnated the system, it will quickly grow out of control from the People.

Third parties need to be allowed to participate and should find representation in the debates and press. We cannot control the system unless we have a lever through which we can exert a torque on the system. In this case, it's the third parties. If you completely shut them out, as we've done, you've lost control.
 
Fiddytree said:
Americans historically haven't liked pluralities.

A couple of weeks ago, I found an old book in our office that contained a great account of an episode in our state's political history. Early in the 20th century we had a populist-socialist party that rose to prominence (arguably the most prolific in the nation), who had eschewed the 2 party order. Realizing that creating a traditional third party was stupid, they instead created a non-partisan structure that put forward candidates from either party that embraced its platform. They scored big and basically had the run of things for a while, until corruption and the Great Depression harmed their ranks.

Over time it had greatly weakened on continually trying to find finding candidates from either party to run under its platform. By the mid-50's, they were continuing to realize the futility of the venture, because pluralism harmed rather than helped their cause. Eventually, they engaged in a several-year struggle to imbed the "party" under the Democrats. Eventually, they won out and created a unified liberal party and platform.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting story there, Fiddy.

Thanks for sharing it!

And I additionally find it interesting that their morphing back into the two-party system reflects Duverger's work, also of the same '50's/'60's era.
 
Ikari said:
But now there's no way to regroup, modify, or replace the parties. Without the competition, while the Republocrat structure may fail, there's nothing we can replace it with. Once you've stagnated the system, it will quickly grow out of control from the People.

Third parties need to be allowed to participate and should find representation in the debates and press. We cannot control the system unless we have a lever through which we can exert a torque on the system. In this case, it's the third parties. If you completely shut them out, as we've done, you've lost control.
Click to expand...

Third parties have nearly as much influence and control as they always did. Actually, in some respects, more so now with the modernization of communications technologies.
 
Fiddytree said:
This is from an avidly anti-libertarian poster, so of course, take that for what it is.
But libertarians are going to have to modernize. With the increasing numbers of people of color, more numerous religious minorities, women in power, and growing numbers of people with disabilities, you're not going to do anything but harm by maintaining the 19th century credo that despised populations do not have the right to access the commons.
Click to expand...

Huh? Libertarians are not against minorities in any sort of way.
 
Fiddytree said:
Third parties have nearly as much influence and control as they always did. Actually, in some respects, more so now with the modernization of communications technologies.
Click to expand...

Not when there is media blackout and blacklisting from debates. Even more so now with the modernization of communication and control of broadcast by the major news corps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom