The GOP's Gary Johnson quandry

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There hasn’t been a single poll out of Colorado this year that’s shown Mitt Romney ahead of Barack Obama. Tuesday’s Public Policy Polling poll is no exception: Obama leads Romney in a head-to-head matchup by 49 percent to 42 percent.

But add libertarian Gary Johnson to the mix and the numbers are slightly different: Obama leads 47-39, with 7 percent going to Johnson, according to the PPP poll.

At that level of support, if Johnson qualifies for the ballot, he could end up having a significant impact in a three-way matchup — not only in Colorado but across the Mountain West, where he figures to run strongest.

The GOP's Gary Johnson quandary - POLITICO.com

If the numbers remain consistent it looks like Johnson could have an effect in Colorado and Arizona. New Mexico was going to Obama regardless.

 

[dblack]

Looks like the days of Republicans pretending to be libertarians (and getting away with it) are coming to a close.

 

[blastoff]

Kind of like Barry's presidential days of on the job training coming to a close on January 20 next year.

 

[signelect]

Lets try to forget about party affiliation. Lets elect people that have read and understood the constitution. Also it would be help that they agree with it. We also need people who obey they laws they pass. ; That eliminte most of the congress and administration current and past.

 

[Alan Stallion]

The GOP's Gary Johnson quandry

It's something that the GOP deals with every four years, from Ron Paul to Harry Browne to Michael Badnarik to Bob Barr, to name a few. There will also be votes going to the Constitution/American Independent candidate. The Democrats will likewise fret over losing votes to the Green Party candidate. Rosanne Barr, a celebrity candidate running for the Green Party nomination, would pose an interesting dynamic in the Presidential race, though she did lose in the California primary (not sure how she's doing overall).

So in most if not all cases, there will be more than three options. Those in "swing states" will have to make the decision whether to support the main party candidate closer to their political orientation, or vote for a third partry candidate and risk having the main party candidate they would least like win win.

I'm in a state (California) that will likely vote overwhemingly to Obama, so I can potentially vote for third party candidate out of principle and not worry about losing the election for the major party I'm closer-aligned with.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The GOP's Gary Johnson quandry

It's something that the GOP deals with every four years, from Ron Paul to Harry Browne to Michael Badnarik to Bob Barr, to name a few. There will also be votes going to the Constitution/American Independent candidate. The Democrats will likewise fret over losing votes to the Green Party candidate. Rosanne Barr, a celebrity candidate running for the Green Party nomination, would pose an interesting dynamic in the Presidential race, though she did lose in the California primary (not sure how she's doing overall).

So in most if not all cases, there will be more than three options. Those in "swing states" will have to make the decision whether to support the main party candidate closer to their political orientation, or vote for a third partry candidate and risk having the main party candidate they would least like win win.

I'm in a state (California) that will likely vote overwhemingly to Obama, so I can potentially vote for third party candidate out of principle and not worry about losing the election for the major party I'm closer-aligned with.

The point being that Gary Johnson, as of right now, is pulling a significant number of votes from Mitt Romney in some fairly important states.

 

[dblack]

... I can potentially vote for third party candidate out of principle and not worry about losing the election for the major party I'm closer-aligned with.

I think the key, and our best hope in my view, is that more and more people are starting to figure out there's not much point in worrying about which major party you're more closely aligned with. As the majors become more and more alike, it becomes apparent their only real function is in defending the status quo.

From my perspective the best (likely) outcome of this election is that, regardless of which party wins, they do so without a majority of the votes. This would not only increase the chances for real change in the future, it would make it clear that whichever party wins will rule without a genuine mandate.

 

[SniperFire]

Gary Johnson, Republican governor, decides to run as a third party and uses his name recognition to gain a single digit of the vote in some neighboring states.

Not very bright, but then again, look at his supporters.

 

[GJJG2012]

Gary Johnson, Republican governor, decides to run as a third party and uses his name recognition to gain a single digit of the vote in some neighboring states.

Not very bright, but then again, look at his supporters.

This "not very bright" candidate built a construction company from himself to over 1,000 employees when he sold it 23 years later. NM 2 of 3 vote Democratic He ran as Rep and beat the Dem. They loved Governor Veto so much for all the money he saved taxpayers, that he won again by a wider margin. He managed to climb the tallest peaks on four continents. This frugal millionaire built his own house. He swims 2.4 mi, runs 26.2 mi & bicycles 112 miles, loves skiing which he'll retire to if he doesn't win the presidency.

He bicycled several hundred miles in NH campaigning. He's at 7% there last I heard.

He was paragliding when a wing got stuck in a tree & he fell 50 feet. Broken bones: back, rib, knee. Rather than get hooked on opiates or getting an operation, he managed his pain the next 3 years using cannabis. He has publicly advocated re-legalization since 1999, & he now proposes taxing it 100% (est $19/oz), (90% cheaper) which would bring in double digit billions., It has been shown to sometimes be better than pills or operations for 126 medical conditions, cheap health care. End drug war, save $40B/yr + reduced crime.

Mitt Romney & Barack Obama want many harmless sick people locked up. Both refuse to discuss the #1 request to whitehouse.gov re-legalize cannabis. Romney called it unimportant. 25% of Americans are in chronic pain, think O or R care? Cannabis oil is reported to be curing cancer and other painful & often fatal illnesses. Think O & R care? It was in pharmacies until 1937, when cancer was rare. Now 30% of Americans die from cancer despite us spending the most on health care. Worldwide, 13% die from cancer.

Gary Johnson is one of the most honest, kindest, & smartest ever to run for the presidency.
He cares about the 100% equally & can't be bribed. He believes we should get back all of our Constitutional rights & stop spending money we don't have. Is that bad? Best wishes.

 

[Mac1958]

.

On one hand, one has to wonder what Johnson is thinking. He can't possibly be so naive as to think that he can actually win this, and he must know he's damaging Romney, possibly fatally.

On the other hand, the ego of professional politicians is limitless, and ego often trumps reason.

.

 

[dblack]

.

On one hand, one has to wonder what Johnson is thinking. He can't possibly be so naive as to think that he can actually win this, and he must know he's damaging Romney, possibly fatally.

On the other hand, the ego of professional politicians is limitless, and ego often trumps reason..

Oh good grief. Ego? He's sure to lose - how can that be for ego?

People like Johnson and Paul actually believe in what they are promoting - an alien concept in modern politics. The point is to further the libertarian cause and give people who actually care about freedom a way to express it on the national stage. A good showing by Johnson will have a far greater impact on the future of our nation than any minor differences between Romney and Obama.

 

[Mac1958]

.

On one hand, one has to wonder what Johnson is thinking. He can't possibly be so naive as to think that he can actually win this, and he must know he's damaging Romney, possibly fatally.

On the other hand, the ego of professional politicians is limitless, and ego often trumps reason..

Oh good grief. Ego? He's sure to lose - how can that be for ego?

People like Johnson and Paul actually believe in what they are promoting - an alien concept in modern politics. The point is to further the libertarian cause and give people who actually care about freedom a way to express it on the national stage. A good showing by Johnson will have a far greater impact on the future of our nation than any minor differences between Romney and Obama.

Oh, okay. So this is about making a statement, furthering a cause.

"My cause is so important it's worth anything that happens."

Sounds to me like, uh, never mind...

.

 

[dblack]

.

On one hand, one has to wonder what Johnson is thinking. He can't possibly be so naive as to think that he can actually win this, and he must know he's damaging Romney, possibly fatally.

On the other hand, the ego of professional politicians is limitless, and ego often trumps reason..

Oh good grief. Ego? He's sure to lose - how can that be for ego?

People like Johnson and Paul actually believe in what they are promoting - an alien concept in modern politics. The point is to further the libertarian cause and give people who actually care about freedom a way to express it on the national stage. A good showing by Johnson will have a far greater impact on the future of our nation than any minor differences between Romney and Obama.

Oh, okay. So this is about making a statement, furthering a cause.

"My cause is so important it's worth anything that happens."

Sounds to me like, uh, never mind...

.

Neither I, nor Johnson have said it's worth "anything". We're saying it's not worth playing the lesser-of-two-evils game over two candidates who are virtual clones of one another.

At least try to understand that, from our perspective, Romney and Obama are essentially the same choice. It's like the old "elections" they used to have in Soviet Russia - where only one party-endorsed candidate was on the ballot. In that case would you disparage people who voted for an outsider, even if they had no chance to win? Would you tell them to fall in line and support the only 'viable' candidate?

 

[konradv]

Lets try to forget about party affiliation. Lets elect people that have read and understood the constitution. Also it would be help that they agree with it. We also need people who obey they laws they pass. ; That eliminte most of the congress and administration current and past.

Not going to happen unless we change how elections are financed. Special interests fund both sides, so that other voices can't be heard.

 

[candycorn]

There hasn’t been a single poll out of Colorado this year that’s shown Mitt Romney ahead of Barack Obama. Tuesday’s Public Policy Polling poll is no exception: Obama leads Romney in a head-to-head matchup by 49 percent to 42 percent.

But add libertarian Gary Johnson to the mix and the numbers are slightly different: Obama leads 47-39, with 7 percent going to Johnson, according to the PPP poll.

At that level of support, if Johnson qualifies for the ballot, he could end up having a significant impact in a three-way matchup — not only in Colorado but across the Mountain West, where he figures to run strongest.

The GOP's Gary Johnson quandary - POLITICO.com

If the numbers remain consistent it looks like Johnson could have an effect in Colorado and Arizona. New Mexico was going to Obama regardless.

I don't think that the President will need either of those States but it is good news for him none the less.

 

[candycorn]

Lets try to forget about party affiliation. Lets elect people that have read and understood the constitution. Also it would be help that they agree with it. We also need people who obey they laws they pass. ; That eliminte most of the congress and administration current and past.

I think it would be better if we, as a nation, realized that living under what amounts to a 200+ y/o business plan is frankly stupid. It desperately needs to be updated to deal with 21st century realities.

 

[konradv]

The GOP's Gary Johnson quandry

It's something that the GOP deals with every four years, from Ron Paul to Harry Browne to Michael Badnarik to Bob Barr, to name a few. There will also be votes going to the Constitution/American Independent candidate. The Democrats will likewise fret over losing votes to the Green Party candidate. Rosanne Barr, a celebrity candidate running for the Green Party nomination, would pose an interesting dynamic in the Presidential race, though she did lose in the California primary (not sure how she's doing overall).

So in most if not all cases, there will be more than three options. Those in "swing states" will have to make the decision whether to support the main party candidate closer to their political orientation, or vote for a third partry candidate and risk having the main party candidate they would least like win win.

I'm in a state (California) that will likely vote overwhemingly to Obama, so I can potentially vote for third party candidate out of principle and not worry about losing the election for the major party I'm closer-aligned with.

It's true. If Gore had received half of Nader's votes in NH, FL wouldn't have mattered.

 

[dblack]

Lets try to forget about party affiliation. Lets elect people that have read and understood the constitution. Also it would be help that they agree with it. We also need people who obey they laws they pass. ; That eliminte most of the congress and administration current and past.

I think it would be better if we, as a nation, realized that living under what amounts to a 200+ y/o business plan is frankly stupid. It desperately needs to be updated to deal with 21st century realities.

I couldn't agree more. Any confidence we could agree on what updates to make?

 

[candycorn]

Lets try to forget about party affiliation. Lets elect people that have read and understood the constitution. Also it would be help that they agree with it. We also need people who obey they laws they pass. ; That eliminte most of the congress and administration current and past.

I think it would be better if we, as a nation, realized that living under what amounts to a 200+ y/o business plan is frankly stupid. It desperately needs to be updated to deal with 21st century realities.

I couldn't agree more. Any confidence we could agree on what updates to make?

Absolutely!

Just for starters.

We have one house of Congress that can, in effect, totally ignore the work of another house and has the ability to kill legislation by not letting it come to a vote. Now I have no problem whatsoever with party line votes that kill legislation. If you have 51 of one party and 49 of another party, the 51 should be able to pass whatever it wants to pass in the Senate. If you have 218 of one party in the House and 217 of the other party; the 218 should be able to pass whatever it wants to pass. The problem is that some party hack is preventing legislation from having these up or down votes. More importantly in the macro is that it also silences the debate about these bills.

We have a Chief Executive that is able to overturn your work on a jury, convictions of persons who have been through the appeals process, change the sentencing decision of judges. Why have the system if one person can overturn the work? We should get rid of the pardon system. Or we should make the President pardon persons before they go through the judicial process...before conviction. These midnight pardons are a sick, twisted, and disgusting allowance we make.

Every 10 years, the Congress should, by law, have to create a budget voting for EVERY EXPENDITURE over a certain amount. Lets say $1,000,000 just for the sake of argument. So if you want to look up what congresswoman Jane Doe voted for and find that she voted NAY on body armor for our troops; we could see that. Not some vote on a billion dollar defense bill that has competing interests that could obscure such a vote.

Tie the budget to a percentage of GDP.

Either include the War Powers Act in the Constitution or get rid of it all together. Either/or. Either the Congress can declare war or it can't.

So many more...

 

[Mac1958]

Tie the budget to a percentage of GDP.

I can understand something like that, but my preference would be a balanced budget amendment. Make both fucked up parties justify all expenses, all taxes, all cuts to services. Right now it's all just pandering to the base, no accountability.

.