How does Gary Johnson fit into 2012?

[Matt Collins]

How does Gary Johnson fit into a Ron Paul 2012 Presidential run?

[rancher89]

as vice president, she says again and again....

[Imperial]

I think most roads start with a Gary Johnson exploratory committee. If he got into a couple of debates and then dropped out, that would probably be best for the Paul campaign (as he would then likely endorse Dr. Paul).

So where would he go next. Three major directions, which would likely not be mutually exclusive in some cases.

1. Campaign with Ron Paul as a significant elected official with a national name.
2. Wait in the wings to be Dr. Paul's VP (delivering New Mexico to the Republicans and providing an executive for the ticket).
3. Run for Senate in New Mexico, giving us a liberty candidate with good funding and huge name recognition for an important position.

Number 3 is my personal favorite. I think there are better options for Dr. Paul in the VP department (I have stated many times I would love to see Mitch Daniels in that role, but there are others too).

[Matt Collins]

Yeah #3 is a good idea too. Many Senators used to be Governors prior to the 17th Amendment.

[MozoVote]

Running for President and then dropping out quickly just douses the flame thoroughly - it demonstrates weak fundraising, and such candidates are not taken seriously in the future. I don't think Gary should try it unless he can at least finish 3rd to set himself up for 2016.

Few people would take Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo seriously in 2012 for example. You need to do WELL in a prior cycle. They were 2008's "quick roadkill".

[K466]

Gary needs to run for the Senate out there in NM. What's President Paul going to do if he has no allies in congress?

[Ethek]

Gary would be useful in the debates. It would shift the center of debate dramatically towards a comprehensive liberty platform. I like Gary, I think I understand him. He is sincere and completely honest. He will come across as aloof, in your face frankness, a little awkward and maybe unsympathetic sometimes, but that is him being so sure that he will innately assume some things do not need to be explained. He wont win, but I think he can server a purpose to give ron the edge in the fight this time around. Gary will find a spot in that future but It wont be as president.

[Bergie Bergeron]

A Johnson aide said on this very board he wasn't going to run for Senate.

[Matt Collins]

Gary would be useful in the debates. It would shift the center of debate dramatically towards a comprehensive liberty platform. I like Gary, I think I understand him. He is sincere and completely honest. He will come across as aloof, in your face frankness, a little awkward and maybe unsympathetic sometimes, but that is him being so sure that he will innately assume some things do not need to be explained. He wont win, but I think he can server a purpose to give ron the edge in the fight this time around. Gary will find a spot in that future but It wont be as president.
But how will his presence relate to Ron's? :confused:

[angelatc]

Think Carter. (http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2010/09/think-carter.html)

[BenIsForRon]

I would like to see him as president, but he has too many aspects of his personality and personal life that would turn off Americans, because Americans are just weird like that.

Ron Paul was a obstetrician and has been married for 50 years. No one can say anything bad about this guy. So I'm really thinking Paul is just about our only option, his age being the only minor hurdle to acceptance.

So where does Gary fit in? Senate, VP, early presidential candidate that drops out... all sound good. The last option might be too expensive and distracting. You could always combine options two and three...

But all I know is he needs to get back in some sort of office. That's where I think he can do the most good.

[Elwar]

Johnson has said that he's in it for the long haul. Ron Paul has one last shot at being president and that's 2012. Johnson is the backup plan from there on.

Johnson should stay in through the summer and see how things go in Ames. If he's up there in the top 4, he should stick around through the fall debates. Otherwise, drop out and work on the Paul campaign early.

Politics aint beanbag so you never know if his message becomes the mainstream message of the day and all of the stars line up. He'll be propped up if the California marijuana bill passes...he'll get a lot of coverage as the marijuana legalization candidate. Who knows, that could become the main topic of the day. If he's out front and Ron Paul is back where he was in 2008, he might play it smart and drop out to give him his support if there's a chance of Johnson winning.

You can't speculate too much in politics. As of August 2007, John McCain was done. He was broke and the other candidates were praising him during the debates because they knew he didn't stand a chance.

[Nathan Hale]

Few people would take Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo seriously in 2012 for example. You need to do WELL in a prior cycle. They were 2008's "quick roadkill".

I don't consider Hunter or Tancredo analogous, because they stuck it out for the whole cycle and got trounced. Johnson, if he followed that plan, would stay in for a debate or two and drop out. He'd be more like Tommy Thompson or Sam Brownback. But, to the point, I don't think either would do better in the primary this time around either.

[Nathan Hale]

I personally support Johnson running in 2012 instead of Ron Paul, but it seems at this point like Paul is gearing up for another run. I just wish he'd moderate a little to capture more of the base.

[TheeJoeGlass]

I think most roads start with a Gary Johnson exploratory committee. If he got into a couple of debates and then dropped out, that would probably be best for the Paul campaign (as he would then likely endorse Dr. Paul).

So where would he go next. Three major directions, which would likely not be mutually exclusive in some cases.

1. Campaign with Ron Paul as a significant elected official with a national name.
2. Wait in the wings to be Dr. Paul's VP (delivering New Mexico to the Republicans and providing an executive for the ticket).
3. Run for Senate in New Mexico, giving us a liberty candidate with good funding and huge name recognition for an important position.

Number 3 is my personal favorite. I think there are better options for Dr. Paul in the VP department (I have stated many times I would love to see Mitch Daniels in that role, but there are others too).

Why Daniels?

[trey4sports]

WAY WAY WAYYYYY to much "what if's" here guys. I don't understand how you guys come on here trying to nitpick every little thing about Gary Johnson. With the exception of Ron Paul it's been a LONG time since we've had a credible "liberty" candidate running for president and now that we will most likely have 2! running for office you're going to bitch about it?

This isn't something that happens overnight, and we cannot simply shift public opinion in our favor in 4 years, or 8 years. We need to wholeheartedly support liberty candidates instead of bitching about them splitting the vote, or their speaking skills. Beggars can't be choosers

[Matt Collins]

Gary would be useful in the debates. It would shift the center of debate dramatically towards a comprehensive liberty platform. I like Gary, I think I understand him. He is sincere and completely honest. He will come across as aloof, in your face frankness, a little awkward and maybe unsympathetic sometimes, but that is him being so sure that he will innately assume some things do not need to be explained. He wont win, but I think he can server a purpose to give ron the edge in the fight this time around. Gary will find a spot in that future but It wont be as president.
You don't think he'll split Ron's support?

[Nathan Hale]

You don't think he'll split Ron's support?

Or will Ron split *his* support?

With the exception of "cult of personality" logic, Johnson is the stronger candidate.

[Bergie Bergeron]

Johnson will have to start from scratch, he's a no-name.

[Nathan Hale]

Johnson will have to start from scratch, he's a no-name.

Sometimes it's easier to start from scratch. Digging into Johnson's background will only reveal two very successful terms in office filled with great, moderate-yet-libertarian musings and issue positions.

[wormyguy]

One-term former Governor Jimmy Carter had 1% name recognition when he announced for President.

[phesoge]

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/12/gary-johnson-pushes-drug-legalization-at-912-march/


Looks like he is getting his name out

[thasre]

If I had to pick between Paul and Johnson I'd actually prefer Johnson to run and Paul sit it out. Partially because Ron Paul is getting a bit old, let's face it, and he deserves some rest in his age, and even more because Johnson doesn't have the baggage with Republican voters the way Paul does.

Unfortunately, voters often will never, never, never admit they were wrong about someone else being right. They'll turn on a candidate like Obama, loving him one minute then hating him the next, but it's extremely rare that they start out hating someone and then swallow their pride and admit that "he was right and I was wrong." Gary Johnson can talk about the same issues Ron talks about (and he has) and people won't instinctively dismiss him, which is what I'm afraid will happen to Dr. Paul.

That being said, I don't see at all why they can't both run. I know people say they'll split each other's vote, but there's a lot of campaigning that goes on even before votes started getting cast, and I think it's infinitely more important that our movement be able to say, "Look, perspective! Ron Paul isn't the only one saying these things! It's not just four people in their mothers' basements!"

After all, it's a lot easier to paint someone as "fringe" if not even one other candidate agrees with what he's saying. Like the war issue in 2008, when basically everyone in America could plainly see that the War in Iraq was a total failure, Dr. Paul was the one who looked "out of touch" when confronted with 8 or 9 other people who were ACTUALLY out of touch but in agreement with each other.

Gary Johnson can at least be someone who forces Republicans to admit that there's a real diversity of solutions in the Republican Party to our country's problems, not just a diversity of candidates all selling the same thing.

[Elwar]

Johnson and Paul agree on 98% of the issues. They would both make the right decisions as president.

But between here and there lies campaigning and image. That's where they differ. Just as long as one of their campaigns work and one ends up in the White House, then I'll stay in the US and help it to prosper.

[SueToMyLou]

I think Gary Johnson will have a huge effect on 2012. If he decides to run I don't think Ron Paul will. He has always cared more about the issues then the actual leadership position. If there is someone there to be the voice then I think, especially at his age, he will want to be in an endorsement roll, which would not be the worst thing in the world.

[MRoCkEd]

It has to be Ron.

Gary is starting off with no name recognition and he does not inspire the grassroots like Ron.

I support him campaigning on behalf of Ron, though.

[wormyguy]

Gary is much more electable than Ron in a general election though - he doesn't have all the newsletter and John Birch Society and neonazi baggage. While I'm perfectly willing to give Dr. Paul the benefit of the doubt on two of those three (he did in fact speak at the JBS' 50th anniversary dinner), most voters will not, and they will be pimped hard in a general election.

[Christianlibertarian]

Both Ron and Gary need to run. Gary needs to run an "educational campaign" to force issues such as the Fed, noninterventionism, drug war, etc into the debates and make Ron's positions look respectable. He also needs to attack the other neocon candidates and make them look like fools.

Then, he needs to drop out and endorse Ron and maybe take the VP spot...

[Nathan Hale]

It has to be Ron.

Gary is starting off with no name recognition and he does not inspire the grassroots like Ron.

I support him campaigning on behalf of Ron, though.

You can't really compare situations. If Gary Johnson were in the 2008 primary who knows what he could have started??? If anything, his moderation combined with his principles AND his track record of executive experience might have proved an even more effective attention-getter.

Gary is in the game now, when the movement is already in motion, so it's not analogous to look at what he's doing today and say that he doesn't inspire the grassroots like Ron. Gary inspired grassroots before any of us heard of the idea - he came to power in NM by taking out the GOP's chosen son, and then winning both his initial election and his re-election, in a blue state, by over 10%.

[wormyguy]

Yes - it must be noted that if Gov. Johnson had run instead of Rep. Paul he might well have accrued very much the same following and we might be discussing "How does Ron Paul fit into 2012?" on garyjohnsonforums.com.

[Nathan Hale]

To say nothing of the fact that this movement shouldn't be a cult of personality - it's what killed the Reform Party in the 90's and it's what will kill us if we're not careful. Paul himself warned against the movement uniting behind him rather than behind his message.

[Elwar]

Ron Paul will be able to inspire the grassroots. His views are extreme enough to inspire those who have been disenfranchised forever. Johnson has been going more for the mainstream Republicans who will not be as motivated outside of perhaps donations and voting.

[CatchMe]

I think Gary should be the one to run in 2012. He is incredibly electable and I don't know if Ron has the stamina to do another full fledged campaign. One thing is for sure. There is no way Gary Johnson could succeed in 2012 if it wasn't for what Ron Paul did in 2008. He really brought unheard issues to the forefront and made it possible for someone like Gary to succeed and be heard. Not to mention Gary has a killer record from being Governor of New Mexico that when people are skeptical of him as a newcomer he can point to and say "see I did great things".

Whichever way it goes as long as one of them runs and ESPECIALLY if they get elected I will be happy. I do feel like Gary has an overall better chance though.

[Elwar]

I think Gary should be the one to run in 2012. He is incredibly electable and I don't know if Ron has the stamina to do another full fledged campaign. One thing is for sure. There is no way Gary Johnson could succeed in 2012 if it wasn't for what Ron Paul did in 2008. He really brought unheard issues to the forefront and made it possible for someone like Gary to succeed and be heard. Not to mention Gary has a killer record from being Governor of New Mexico that when people are skeptical of him as a newcomer he can point to and say "see I did great things".

Whichever way it goes as long as one of them runs and ESPECIALLY if they get elected I will be happy. I do feel like Gary has an overall better chance though.

They both need to run. The neo-cons will be attacking them. If they pile on to one or the other it'll be overwhelming.

In 2008 they just tried to ignore Ron Paul. They won't be able to do that this time and will attack. Johnson will be able to back up Paul and Paul will be able to back up Johnson.

I bet they'll try to keep Johnson out of the debates though.

[wormyguy]

Motivation doesn't count. Votes do. Ron Paul probably has the most motivated group of volunteers of any US political candidate since just about ever, but that on its own will never win a single primary. The message needs to be effectively packaged and sold to white-bread middle-American Republicans.

[Nathan Hale]

Agreed. It doesn't matter how well you energize the core supporters, what matters is how well you can mobilize moderates. Ron Paul was excellent at organizing core support, the reason he lost was that he never managed to capture the moderates. Libertarianism can be sold to moderates, but RP was just too far out there. The problem was that we were so focused on having a revolution that we forgot that America wasn't (and still isn't) looking for a revolution, they're just looking for change.

[Elwar]

Well motivated core supporters makes campaign money go a lot further than unmotivated supporters.

Ron Paul will have a lot of volunteers. Johnson will have a lot of staff.

[Eric21ND]

Agreed. It doesn't matter how well you energize the core supporters, what matters is how well you can mobilize moderates. Ron Paul was excellent at organizing core support, the reason he lost was that he never managed to capture the moderates. Libertarianism can be sold to moderates, but RP was just too far out there. The problem was that we were so focused on having a revolution that we forgot that America wasn't (and still isn't) looking for a revolution, they're just looking for change.
I don't think it has anything to do with Ron being "too far out there", that implies people heard his message and rejected him. In my experience with the campaign in 2008, I'd say the major stumbling block was the average voter not knowing who he was or hearing his message. If they did hear anything it was a tiny snippet.

[wormyguy]

The big problem is that in '08 the "small snippets" people were hearing was generally him talking about eliminating the Federal Reserve. The main focus of Paul's 2012 campaign, if he wants to win over a plurality of primary voters, should be Afghanistan and attacking Romney on Romneycare, and those should be the soundbites played on CNN.

[Flash]

Let them both run. And the polls will determine who is more viable. Johnson could potentially bring the drug war issue to a national audience and pave the way for more prop 19s (http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMD_enUS392US392&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=prop+19+marijuana). But I'm also liking the Gary Johnson for Senate (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2889434#post2889434) idea.

[Nathan Hale]

Well motivated core supporters makes campaign money go a lot further than unmotivated supporters.

Ron Paul will have a lot of volunteers. Johnson will have a lot of staff.

You're assuming that Johnson won't have motivated supporters. There is a large Johnson following on these very boards. He has core support as well. my point was that his ability to talk "inside the box" to some extent allows him to reach out to moderates in ways that Paul couldn't.

[Nathan Hale]

I don't think it has anything to do with Ron being "too far out there", that implies people heard his message and rejected him. In my experience with the campaign in 2008, I'd say the major stumbling block was the average voter not knowing who he was or hearing his message. If they did hear anything it was a tiny snippet.

The problem is that candidates only get to communicate in snippets and sound bites during a primary run. That's why I said that Paul was "too far out there" - because his positions require prospective voters to practically read a white paper in order to be brought up to speed. Sorry, but we don't have that opportunity. We need a candidate who can articulate some form of the message in snippets and soundbites.

[Elwar]

You're assuming that Johnson won't have motivated supporters. There is a large Johnson following on these very boards. He has core support as well. my point was that his ability to talk "inside the box" to some extent allows him to reach out to moderates in ways that Paul couldn't.

I'm just going by what I've observed so far in his "campaign". He's taken a decidedly more mainstream approach.

Ron Paul was pushing for an end of the Income Tax. Johnson is pushing for smarter tax laws, perhaps the Fair Tax though he would support an end to the Income Tax.

Ron Paul wants to End the Fed. Johnson believes that the Federal Reserve needs to handle things more carefully and wants an audit and he would sign a bill if it showed up on his desk getting rid of the Fed.

Those are smart positions to take, but not positions that get your juices flowing and make you want to go stop strangers on the street and plead with them to go check him out.

He will have core supporters. Myself being one of them (check out garyjohnson2012.com (http://garyjohnson2012.com)). But I don't see people willing to sell their homes or plaster their cars with stickers or risk going to jail for his more mainstream stances.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I agree with that for sure,

If he ran on an economic/health plan he could have done great. I think his overall views were picked apart and made him look too far out there for sure. Its sad that "too far out there" is actually where we should be and sad to see how far we have come over the years to end up where we currently are and the state of our country and the world in general.

[Nathan Hale]

He will have core supporters. Myself being one of them (check out garyjohnson2012.com (http://garyjohnson2012.com)). But I don't see people willing to sell their homes or plaster their cars with stickers or risk going to jail for his more mainstream stances.

That's the thing - Gary Johnson doesn't need people willing to sell their homes and go to jail for him. That stuff makes for fine and dandy anecdotal shenanigans, but what does it actually do? Johnson needs a core support group willing to organize and work for the cause, and he's far enough outside the box to generate that level of enthusiasm.

[Megzabucks]

I think Gary Johnson has a lot of supporters and I think he has the potential to gain even more as he keeps moving around the country. I think if he keeps going at this pace he has a really good chance. I mean that guy has been everywhere! I personally hope he keeps up the stamina because I would love to see him run!