PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson Video "Be the 5%"




ZakB
10-24-2012, 12:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS7vCRlDC6A&feature=colike

ninepointfive
10-24-2012, 12:56 PM
good video

Dick Chaney
10-24-2012, 01:07 PM
no.

CaptLouAlbano
10-24-2012, 02:07 PM
Gary Johnson has as much of a chance of getting 5% of the vote as the Chicago Cubs winning the Super Bowl. And yes, that is not a typo I realize the Cubs do not play football.

ninepointfive
10-24-2012, 03:10 PM
haters gonna hate

CaptLouAlbano
10-24-2012, 04:03 PM
haters gonna hate

I don't hate the man, I just think he and Goode are simply useful idiots for the establishment types in the GOP. I have been in politics for 50 years, and I have heard it from the proverbial "horse's mouth" many times. The moderates LOVE when conservative and libertarian activists spend their time and money tilting at windmills with third party candidates because that is less time and money spent challenging them.

tuggy24g
10-24-2012, 07:32 PM
I think it is possible to do. A lot of people are angry with the Two Party system that they want another choice. The last poll I have heard he is polling at 5% nationally. Will that stay I am not sure.

fr33
10-24-2012, 07:56 PM
Gary Johnson has as much of a chance of getting 5% of the vote as the Chicago Cubs winning the Super Bowl. And yes, that is not a typo I realize the Cubs do not play football.So what. Ron only got 10% in the primaries. I don't think anybody here votes just to be on a winning team.


I don't hate the man, I just think he and Goode are simply useful idiots for the establishment types in the GOP. I have been in politics for 50 years, and I have heard it from the proverbial "horse's mouth" many times. The moderates LOVE when conservative and libertarian activists spend their time and money tilting at windmills with third party candidates because that is less time and money spent challenging them.I don't see how they are useful to the GOP. They are spending time and money trying to keep Gary off the ballot in several states. They also keep dragging us Johnson supporters into arguments about "wasting our votes" in which we keep bringing up what a terrible politician Romney is.

GopBlackList
10-24-2012, 08:28 PM
I am actually considering voting for Gary Johnson.. after seeing that foregin policy debate between obama and romney, Gary Johnson is a welcomed choice for me.

Athena
10-24-2012, 09:03 PM
I like the video.

trey4sports
10-24-2012, 09:28 PM
Yeah bitch. Gary is the shit. Def has my vote. Just put my car magnet on tonight as well.

Miguel
10-24-2012, 09:40 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/gary-johnson-is-k-in-debt-138902.html

trey4sports
10-24-2012, 09:43 PM
Is it just me or did Gary KILL it last night?

CaptLouAlbano
10-24-2012, 10:53 PM
I don't see how they are useful to the GOP. They are spending time and money trying to keep Gary off the ballot in several states. They also keep dragging us Johnson supporters into arguments about "wasting our votes" in which we keep bringing up what a terrible politician Romney is.

They are useful idiots in that they pitch the third party nonsense, people drink the kool aid, and spend their time and money on those pointless ventures, instead of mounting credible challengers to the moderates and neo-cons within the party. Any conservative/libertarian activist that is sidetracked to the LP, CP or some other minor party is an activist that could have been working alongside other conservatives and libertarians within the GOP to unseat a moderate or neo-con.

fr33
10-24-2012, 11:09 PM
They are useful idiots in that they pitch the third party nonsense, people drink the kool aid, and spend their time and money on those pointless ventures, instead of mounting credible challengers to the moderates and neo-cons within the party. Any conservative/libertarian activist that is sidetracked to the LP, CP or some other minor party is an activist that could have been working alongside other conservatives and libertarians within the GOP to unseat a moderate or neo-con.I'll vote Republican when there's a good candidate on the ballot. On the presidential ballot there isn't so I choose the LP this time. The more votes Johnson gets, the more likely people will take notice. I'm not going to argue with people that are writing in Ron because I understand it and they have valid reasons. So anyways, it's not a bad thing for Johnson to get votes. I hope Romney loses by the same percentage that Johnson gets. The GOP needs such a wake up call.

CaptLouAlbano
10-25-2012, 06:31 AM
I hope Romney loses by the same percentage that Johnson gets. The GOP needs such a wake up call.

Voting is one thing, but being an activist for a third party is what I was referencing. A vote is just a vote, but dumping money and hundreds of hours of your personal time into a third party candidacy is a much different thing. In that respect, third parties are the useful idiots for the establishment.

With respect to your point, the only state that I have seen Johnson have any sort of significant polling numbers is in NM. Other than that, all the polls that I have seen the "some other candidate" total is collectively 2% or less, which is typical.

Nathan Hale
10-25-2012, 06:55 AM
Is it just me or did Gary KILL it last night?

He totally crushed it at that debate. I've always disliked his wishy-washy way of speaking, but he shrugged that right off and gave some pretty powerful responses.

Nathan Hale
10-25-2012, 06:59 AM
Gary always knew that his ticket to victory was access to the "real" debates. I hate even using the term b/c I hate the CPD, but it's the truth and Gary knows it.

It was a laudable goal to attempt for Gary to build on the libertarian groundswell to try and get his numbers up, but that didn't work out, so now the campaign has refocused on achieving a very beneficial goal.

If they hit 5%, the LP gains SO MUCH. It's not just about benefits in 2016, when I hope Gary runs again as the LP candidate, but about benefits in 2014 when the LP runs a slate of Senate, Gubernatorial, and House candidates, because those candidates, depending on Gary's performance in their state, will have access to the ballot without having to spend their entire war chest petitioning.

5% ads are a little disheartening to see, but strategically I know that they're for the best.

Czolgosz
10-25-2012, 07:27 AM
Blood is freedom's toll. Voting is for GJ, RP, or Daffy Duck is *your* middle finger to everybody else...just a gesture.

Todd
10-25-2012, 07:45 AM
I think it is possible to do. A lot of people are angry with the Two Party system that they want another choice. The last poll I have heard he is polling at 5% nationally. Will that stay I am not sure.

Many times before the election I've seen third party candidates carry higher percentages. It usually evaporates the closer to the reality of actually casting a vote you get.

jmdrake
10-25-2012, 07:49 AM
I don't hate the man, I just think he and Goode are simply useful idiots for the establishment types in the GOP. I have been in politics for 50 years, and I have heard it from the proverbial "horse's mouth" many times. The moderates LOVE when conservative and libertarian activists spend their time and money tilting at windmills with third party candidates because that is less time and money spent challenging them.

:rolleyes: The ad didn't say donate to Gary Johnson. It didn't say phonebank for Gary Johnson. It said vote for him. Now while I'm not voting for Gary Johnson, imet's no more a "waste of time and money" doing that than it is writing in Ron Paul. Besides, there are other local races on the ballot. If you're going to vote in one of them (where a few votes actually do make a difference) you are not losing any time or money casting a protest vote for Johnson, Goode, Paul or Winnie the Pooh.

CaptLouAlbano
10-25-2012, 08:38 AM
:rolleyes: The ad didn't say donate to Gary Johnson. It didn't say phonebank for Gary Johnson. It said vote for him. Now while I'm not voting for Gary Johnson, imet's no more a "waste of time and money" doing that than it is writing in Ron Paul. Besides, there are other local races on the ballot. If you're going to vote in one of them (where a few votes actually do make a difference) you are not losing any time or money casting a protest vote for Johnson, Goode, Paul or Winnie the Pooh.

Personally, I'd rather vote for Winnie the Pooh over Johnson or Goode. Any exposure either of these two get will draw some people into their ranks, they will drink the third party kool aid, and waste their time and money. It happens all the time, and the only one who benefits from are the moderates and neo-cons.

The LP and CP have done nothing over the course of their existence other than waste people's valuable time and money that could have been spent on more productive ventures.

Valli6
10-25-2012, 09:27 AM
Gary Johnson is $400K in debt
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-...bt-138902.html
Reaching that 5% threshold also qualifies Johnson for public funds towards this years campaign.

"ÖThird-party candidates could qualify for retroactive public funds if they receive 5% or more of the vote in the general election."
...and I don't hold taking public funds against Johnson in this case, since he's forced to work within the system we currently have. At least it's money the dems and repubs won't benefit from!

"The Presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant of $20,000,000 plus COLA (over 1974). For 2012, the grant is approximately $91,241,400 for each major party nominee." Read about public funding of presidential elections: http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml

Voting for Gary Johnson is absolutely the most productive choice this year because a high enough vote % gives the Libertarian party "major party" status. This would drastically alter the 2016 election. The greatest impact we can still have on the 2012 election, is to increase the competition to the duopoly - decreasing their control.

Ron Paul alluded to this in 2008. When asked about supporters writing in his name, he said:

"I donít think thatís very productive. Supporters can do it, of course, but in most of the states it wonít count. And if they can change the rules in a primary and not count all the votes, imagine what they could do with write-in votes!"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/21556.html

Remember: In September 2008 Ron Paul held a press conference encouraging us to vote 3rd party!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4SYfaNWvAU

Smart3
10-25-2012, 09:27 AM
I think it is possible to do. A lot of people are angry with the Two Party system that they want another choice. The last poll I have heard he is polling at 5% nationally. Will that stay I am not sure.
That was several months back from one of the worst (in terms of accuracy) pollsters - Zogby.

Johnson should receive 2.10-3.35% of the vote, if the state polls are to be believed. The RP write-ins are the number one reason why Johnson won't get 5%. (not that they make up the rest of the 5%, just that their money, activism, etc would push Johnson over the top)

Johnson is polling a bit like Nader, but Nader constantly got 8-10% in some states, and Johnson only has a few polls per state showing him getting 3%+. (for the record, if the highest state percentage he got was 3%, it would probably be 1.5% nationally)

FindLiberty
10-25-2012, 10:44 AM
I approve of those videos...

ninepointfive
10-25-2012, 10:55 AM
Personally, I'd rather vote for Winnie the Pooh over Johnson or Goode.

Then go and do it - it's not much different than NOBP at this point.


The LP and CP have done nothing over the course of their existence other than waste people's valuable time and money that could have been spent on more productive ventures.

Then stop wasting your time and ours, and go make a winnie the pooh forum for president. That would really make the most sense for a voter like yourself.

CaptLouAlbano
10-25-2012, 11:58 AM
Then go and do it - it's not much different than NOBP at this point.



Then stop wasting your time and ours, and go make a winnie the pooh forum for president. That would really make the most sense for a voter like yourself.

I've already stated elsewhere on here, I am running for office again next year, therefore I support the ticket.

ninepointfive
10-25-2012, 12:02 PM
I've already stated elsewhere on here, I am running for office again next year, therefore I support the ticket.

Which ticket are you supporting?

CaptLouAlbano
10-25-2012, 12:05 PM
Which ticket are you supporting?

I am running for our county GOP committee, so like every politician running for or holding elected office in the GOP, I am publicly supporting the GOP ticket.

ninepointfive
10-25-2012, 12:13 PM
I am running for our county GOP committee, so like every politician running for or holding elected office in the GOP, I am publicly supporting the GOP ticket.

I have no problems with that. You have a lot of thankless work on your hands. Thank you for injecting pro-liberty into your local GOP. I think it's a good idea.

CaptLouAlbano
10-25-2012, 12:20 PM
I have no problems with that. You have a lot of thankless work on your hands. Thank you for injecting pro-liberty into your local GOP. I think it's a good idea.

I am in Tom Davis' home county, so the hope is that if he does challenge Graham that he can secure the county endorsement which will then put the full effort and money of the county committee behind his campaign. Additionally, I have served as a asst county coordinator for state wide races in that past (1970's and 80's in NJ) so if needed I can assist in that regard.

My beef with the LP and CP, is that they take people who really care about things and sidetrack them into a direction that is pointless. If you have people here in my county spending their time and money with LP or CP ventures, those are bodies that we lose for the Davis effort. I cannot tell you how many times I have experienced this in my political life - it is quite frustrating. Activists are a rare breed of people, not many folks are willing to donate money, canvass, phone bank, table, etc...and when you have people volunteering their time for some obscure campaign that has ZERO chance of having any influence, it is incredibly frustrating, especially when we can use those people for productive work.

ninepointfive
10-25-2012, 01:10 PM
I am in Tom Davis' home county, so the hope is that if he does challenge Graham that he can secure the county endorsement which will then put the full effort and money of the county committee behind his campaign. Additionally, I have served as a asst county coordinator for state wide races in that past (1970's and 80's in NJ) so if needed I can assist in that regard.

My beef with the LP and CP, is that they take people who really care about things and sidetrack them into a direction that is pointless. If you have people here in my county spending their time and money with LP or CP ventures, those are bodies that we lose for the Davis effort. I cannot tell you how many times I have experienced this in my political life - it is quite frustrating. Activists are a rare breed of people, not many folks are willing to donate money, canvass, phone bank, table, etc...and when you have people volunteering their time for some obscure campaign that has ZERO chance of having any influence, it is incredibly frustrating, especially when we can use those people for productive work.

I know what you mean. I was helping with a local campaign in the GOP at the height of the Tea parties of 2010, and the LP people we met with weren't interested and were a bunch of haters. unprofessional - and the leader ran for office at one time in the past and was scared he was actually close to winning.

Now that the rules changed at the RNC, local races are the only avenue to shape the GOP, and even then it can be tricky.

As libertarians though, people should go and do whatever they think is best. I voted for Johnson because I want to see LP numbers rise nationally.

CaptLouAlbano
10-25-2012, 01:20 PM
Yeah I agree of course, people should vote for whomever they choose. However, I don't want to see the LP numbers rise. I want the sham of a party to fall apart so that the activists who have wasted so much time and effort can come back to the GOP and help those of us who have been carrying the load all these years.

You ever wonder why progressives have been so successful at implementing their agenda? It's because they don't shoot themselves in the foot like the right does. With the exception of the Greens (which is really a single issue party in large part), the left hasn't had a major minor party thwarting its efforts. While the right has had the LP for 40 years and the CP now - and I guess you can throw in the brief life of the Reform party too. The right has this tendency to split off, or sit on the sidelines, when they don't get their way.

ninepointfive
10-25-2012, 01:22 PM
Yeah I agree of course, people should vote for whomever they choose. However, I don't want to see the LP numbers rise. I want the sham of a party to fall apart so that the activists who have wasted so much time and effort can come back to the GOP and help those of us who have been carrying the load all these years.

You ever wonder why progressives have been so successful at implementing their agenda? It's because they don't shoot themselves in the foot like the right does. With the exception of the Greens (which is really a single issue party in large part), the left hasn't had a major minor party thwarting its efforts. While the right has had the LP for 40 years and the CP now - and I guess you can throw in the brief life of the Reform party too. The right has this tendency to split off, or sit on the sidelines, when they don't get their way.

Do you think politics is going to work in the long term to secure our liberty?

CaptLouAlbano
10-25-2012, 04:23 PM
Do you think politics is going to work in the long term to secure our liberty?

Well considering that we have 10's of thousands of elected government officials, the only practical and realistic means of rolling back the size of government is through the political process. Look at it this way, if the overwhelming percentage of Americans held to rock solid, libertarian/conservative principles, but the people elected into office were all socialists what kind of country do you think we would live in?

That is why we need to stay engaged and as many of us who are able to run, should run for office - even if it is something like school board, or township offices. If we do ever come to a point where we have a complete collapse, it won't be liberty that will come to the rescue, it will be the Marxists who come in to "fix things" and the people will embrace it. Just look at who is assuming power in Greece - the Nazis.

mad cow
10-25-2012, 06:40 PM
If Johnson reaches 5%,he will best the accumulative percent total by more than their average vote percentage total in the 41 year history of Libertarian Presidential elections.

I was a 20+ year card carrying,dues paying,NAP signing member of the Libertarian Party,so I state this with some sadness,but I came to the conclusion that it was the wrong path for electoral success.

Still an excellent idea for a protest vote,however.

Carehn
10-25-2012, 07:38 PM
5% id like to see 34%

DeMintConservative
10-26-2012, 04:38 PM
He'll be a lot closer to 0.5% than to 5%.

I don't think Johnson has showed any interest in maximizing the number of votes. This seems more of an ego trip for him, he looks more focused on becoming the next Nader and decide the election in a swing state - that would put his name in the news after November 6th quite a bit more than getting 1.2% instead of 0.7% of the PV.

Czolgosz
10-26-2012, 04:43 PM
I'll take the 3%.

Nathan Hale
10-27-2012, 03:21 AM
He'll be a lot closer to 0.5% than to 5%.

I don't think Johnson has showed any interest in maximizing the number of votes. This seems more of an ego trip for him, he looks more focused on becoming the next Nader and decide the election in a swing state - that would put his name in the news after November 6th quite a bit more than getting 1.2% instead of 0.7% of the PV.

I haven't agreed with much of Johnson's marketing campaign either, but I don't see cause to question the man's intent.

Smart3
10-27-2012, 06:31 AM
He'll be a lot closer to 0.5% than to 5%.

I don't think Johnson has showed any interest in maximizing the number of votes. This seems more of an ego trip for him, he looks more focused on becoming the next Nader and decide the election in a swing state - that would put his name in the news after November 6th quite a bit more than getting 1.2% instead of 0.7% of the PV.
Barr got more than 0.5% and didn't get more than 1% in any state. Johnson will definitely quadruple the numbers.

Carson
10-27-2012, 08:42 AM
I would think all Ron Paul would need at this point is about 32 percent...maybe 48 percent.

Realistically it could happen.

He's just that much better than the field.


Be Part of It!


Ron Paul

2012

CaptLouAlbano
10-27-2012, 08:58 AM
Barr got more than 0.5% and didn't get more than 1% in any state. Johnson will definitely quadruple the numbers.

Barr received 0.40% of the vote nationally, he got 1.06% in Indiana.

Johnson may do well in NM, but the turnout there is relatively low, so even if he does get 5% in NM, it won't do much to improve his national numbers. Johnson's biggest challenge is to beat Barr's numbers. In my personal opinion, if he cannot the LP should close up shop and stop bilking people out of their hard earned money.

HigherVision
10-27-2012, 04:15 PM
Do you think politics is going to work in the long term to secure our liberty?

You talk as if we have a choice in the matter. Are you planning a violent overthrow of the government or something, because that's our only other option.

Czolgosz
10-27-2012, 06:53 PM
You talk as if we have a choice in the matter. Are you planning a violent overthrow of the government or something, because that's our only other option.

Politics worked last time, may as well do it again.

DeMintConservative
10-30-2012, 04:31 PM
Barr got more than 0.5% and didn't get more than 1% in any state. Johnson will definitely quadruple the numbers.

Barr got less than 0.5%. I'm fairly sure your projection is dramatically wrong, but we'll see who's right in a week.


I haven't agreed with much of Johnson's marketing campaign either, but I don't see cause to question the man's intent.

You don't?

If Johnson had any interest whatsoever in maximizing the vote total, he'd be campaigning in the large states with huge number of voters (including many libertarian leaning ones: CA, TX and NY. One percent of the vote in those states is the equivalent of 4% in multiple smaller states). New Mexico too, for obvious reasons. In those states he wouldn't even have to compete with the big dogs campaigns for oxygen. Instead, he's spent time in swing states. His goal is obvious: gain notoriety a la Nader'00.

He cares so much about the LP and the 2-party system that just a few months ago he was running for the nomination of a major party.

acptulsa
10-30-2012, 04:38 PM
He cares so much about the LP and the 2-party system that just a few months ago he was running for the nomination of a major party.

How else is he supposed to get heard in a debate?

DeMintConservative
10-30-2012, 05:04 PM
Obama supporters have some really funny ideas.

Now we're supposed to believe that had Johnson got the GOP nomination, he'd decline it and say "Thanks but no thanks folks. I was running just to be heard in a debate. You can pick the guy who came in second, I'll be running on the Libertarian Party line, haha".

I suppose the next step is making "being heard in a presidential debate" a constitutional right. It's somewhere in the "penumbra", with the right to abortion.

Nathan Hale
10-30-2012, 08:50 PM
If Johnson had any interest whatsoever in maximizing the vote total, he'd be campaigning in the large states with huge number of voters (including many libertarian leaning ones: CA, TX and NY. One percent of the vote in those states is the equivalent of 4% in multiple smaller states). New Mexico too, for obvious reasons. In those states he wouldn't even have to compete with the big dogs campaigns for oxygen. Instead, he's spent time in swing states. His goal is obvious: gain notoriety a la Nader'00.

Not notoriety. Attention. Getting attention while at the same time pursuing record-breaking vote totals.


He cares so much about the LP and the 2-party system that just a few months ago he was running for the nomination of a major party.

You're right, he doesn't really care. His view of the system is the same as Ron Paul's view of the system - something to be gamed.

Nathan Hale
10-30-2012, 08:55 PM
Obama supporters have some really funny ideas.

Lemme guess, you're a Romney guy?


Now we're supposed to believe that had Johnson got the GOP nomination, he'd decline it and say "Thanks but no thanks folks. I was running just to be heard in a debate. You can pick the guy who came in second, I'll be running on the Libertarian Party line, haha".

You ARE a Romney guy.


I suppose the next step is making "being heard in a presidential debate" a constitutional right. It's somewhere in the "penumbra", with the right to abortion.

No, it shouldn't be a constitutional right, but it should be accessible to legitimate campaigns.

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 05:14 AM
No, it shouldn't be a constitutional right, but it should be accessible to legitimate campaigns.

Based on that statement there is no reason that Johnson should have been included. He is in single digits at best in polling, his party has no representation in Congress and has not elected someone to any state legislature seat (on the LP ticket solely) since the early 80's.

Nathan Hale
11-01-2012, 07:08 AM
Based on that statement there is no reason that Johnson should have been included. He is in single digits at best in polling, his party has no representation in Congress and has not elected someone to any state legislature seat (on the LP ticket solely) since the early 80's.

That says nothing about legitimacy of the candidate. You can bash the party, and the LP deserves bashing, but that doesn't speak to the individual running. Right now the CPD's bar is 15%. That's essentially impossible for an independent candidate to reach absent a huge degree of fame and/or fortune. Gary polling in the mid to high single digits is legitimate enough in my eyes - I've long since been an advocate of killing the CPD and creating a debate system where 2% in the polls gets you access. To even reach that level of support weeds out all the riff-raff. Hell, to have the support necessary to get on the ballot in enough states to statistically win weeds out the riff-raff.

CaptLouAlbano
11-01-2012, 07:10 AM
That says nothing about legitimacy of the candidate. You can bash the party, and the LP deserves bashing, but that doesn't speak to the individual running. Right now the CPD's bar is 15%. That's essentially impossible for an independent candidate to reach absent a huge degree of fame and/or fortune. Gary polling in the mid to high single digits is legitimate enough in my eyes - I've long since been an advocate of killing the CPD and creating a debate system where 2% in the polls gets you access. To even reach that level of support weeds out all the riff-raff. Hell, to have the support necessary to get on the ballot in enough states to statistically win weeds out the riff-raff.

But he doesn't have 2% in any national poll that I have seen. I think Johnson's biggest struggle is going to be surpassing Barr's numbers. If I was a betting man, I'd bet the under on it.

Nathan Hale
11-01-2012, 10:29 AM
But he doesn't have 2% in any national poll that I have seen.

A CNN poll in Oct had him at 4%, a Reason/Rupe poll from Sept had him at 6%. Those are quite frankly the only two national polls I could find that actually included him.


I think Johnson's biggest struggle is going to be surpassing Barr's numbers. If I was a betting man, I'd bet the under on it.

I disagree, but luckily we'll have our answer in less than a week.

CaptLouAlbano
11-01-2012, 10:39 AM
A CNN poll in Oct had him at 4%, a Reason/Rupe poll from Sept had him at 6%. Those are quite frankly the only two national polls I could find that actually included him.

I found the Reason/Rupe poll, could not find the CNN one. All other polling though shows "someone else" at around 1-2% which is typical. I think in 08 all of the "others" totaled to 2-3%, which is standard.

Johnson's problem is the same problem that every other LP candidate has had, and will have for the foreseeable future. They are not a legitimate party in that they hold no elected offices outside of local officials. Maybe if they had a handful of seats in Congress, had seats in a handful of state legislatures, they would be considered more of a serious party. But until they do so, the LP is going to keep spending money every four years for the sole result of raising their candidate's public profile among a very small subset of the population. In the end Johnson's benefit from this all was that he got to run for President for the last year or so on someone else's dime, and moving forward he can sell more books and charge more for speaking engagements as a "former LP candidate for President".

ninepointfive
11-01-2012, 10:46 AM
Maybe if they had a handful of seats in Congress, had seats in a handful of state legislatures, they would be considered more of a serious party.

All those who donated to the LP did so of their own free will - not to mention, it's an uphill battle for the LP. The Dems and Reps start at the top of the hill from the beginning.

DeMintConservative
11-01-2012, 02:07 PM
Not notoriety. Attention. Getting attention while at the same time pursuing record-breaking vote totals.

You're right, he doesn't really care. His view of the system is the same as Ron Paul's view of the system - something to be gamed.


Lemme guess, you're a Romney guy?



You ARE a Romney guy.

No, it shouldn't be a constitutional right, but it should be accessible to legitimate campaigns.

1. I'm not a Romney guy, I support him as the lesser evil. I've been saying this since the end of the primary...

2. What does "accessible to legitimate campaigns" mean? It's a private enterprise. The idea that networks should be forced to broadcast debates that they dont' want to broadcast really creeps me out. It sounds like something straight out of Soviet Union. Seeing Johnson and so many of his supporters supporting this view only strengthens my suspicions he's too much of an authoritarian liberal. Political debates are accessible: just organize one. Wasn't that what some online channel did? There should be no federal law wrt televised political debates. Those who defend that are totalitarian by hearts.

3. To be gamed in his favor. By "not caring", he's not caring about the future of the Libertarian Party, its ideas and its ballot access. If he did, he'd be campaigning in the big states where he could pump his voting total. He's going for the headlines and talk-show interviews.

4. If he was pursuing record-breaking voting totals, he'd be campaigning non-stop in Texas, California, New York, New Mexico, maybe New Jersey. He couldn't care less.

CPUd
11-03-2012, 03:34 AM
LOL this guy has some things to say, makes some good points:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SammOxW_4w0

ronpaulfollower999
11-03-2012, 08:26 AM
Gary Johnson is a terrible candidate. Maybe not as bad as Barr, but bad enough. I get the feeling that people only support him because he is in the Libertarian Party this is worse than people who support Romney because he is in the Republican Party. I don't vote party line. The LP has lost its way. Caring too much about trying to become a legitimate party by nominating candidates like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson, instead of people like Michael Badnarik, Harry Browne, or Ron Paul (before he became famous).

IMO, if somehow the LP breaks through and becomes a player in politics, it won't be long until it becomes a party like the Democratic or Republican parties. If it is not already. Look how the party big wigs pushed Johnson over Lee Wrights.

Nathan Hale
11-03-2012, 01:00 PM
I found the Reason/Rupe poll, could not find the CNN one. All other polling though shows "someone else" at around 1-2% which is typical. I think in 08 all of the "others" totaled to 2-3%, which is standard.

Yeah, but you can't say "Johnson has 2% support" because "someone else" or "other" got 2% in a poll. In truth, there's no way to gauge Johnson's true level of support unless he's treated identically to the two legacy candidates, and that will never happen. Even when Johnson (or any third party candidate) does do well, the talking heads attribute it to "noise" (i.e. dissatisfaction with the two legacy candidates) and not genuine support for the third party candidate. I like to point out the 3,000,000+ data points on the isidewith.com poll, which has biases all its own, but which shows a vastly different alignment of voters than polling that has to contend with the MSM electoral paradigm.


Johnson's problem is the same problem that every other LP candidate has had, and will have for the foreseeable future. They are not a legitimate party in that they hold no elected offices outside of local officials. Maybe if they had a handful of seats in Congress, had seats in a handful of state legislatures, they would be considered more of a serious party.

I agree with you on this. I was a part of the LP for years, campaigning to end to "build a house from the roof down" approach of the LP. They really need to focus on the local level and build from the ground up. However, I can see the attraction to a candidate, as the LP has a great ballot access and state party infrastructure to use.


But until they do so, the LP is going to keep spending money every four years for the sole result of raising their candidate's public profile among a very small subset of the population. In the end Johnson's benefit from this all was that he got to run for President for the last year or so on someone else's dime, and moving forward he can sell more books and charge more for speaking engagements as a "former LP candidate for President".

Johnson's hope is to get the LP greater access at the state level. In NH, for instance, 4% gets the party into the big leagues for any race in which they run a candidate. That's HUGE. Benefits vary from state to state, but if I'm not mistaken as little as 1% can have an impact on the LP's future in a few states. Of course I totally disagree with your contention that Gary sees this as some opportunity for personal aggrandizement, if anything he'll be on the ballot again (a'la Ron Paul in 08 and 12) and wants to build his brand now for a future run.

supermario21
11-03-2012, 01:11 PM
If anything, Johnson should be running in New England and California. There are many independent thinkers there who were once Republicans now disenchanted with an aggressive foreign policy and lack of respect for civil liberties. If you want to prove legitimacy and send a message to the Republicans, campaign in those 2 areas and get 5-10% of the vote. You'd probably get not only libertarian support, but a lot of soft R support because they know their vote doesn't really matter in terms of affecting the outcome. If Gary polled 5-10% in CA and MA, RI, CT, etc it would probably send a message to how the Republican party should conduct itself and construct a platform.

Nathan Hale
11-03-2012, 01:23 PM
1. I'm not a Romney guy, I support him as the lesser evil. I've been saying this since the end of the primary...

That's fine and dandy. You prefer red curtains in the burning building. That's fine.


2. What does "accessible to legitimate campaigns" mean? It's a private enterprise.

No it isn't. These are two entities that control power in this country colluding to exclude independent voices and squash any chance for real change.


The idea that networks should be forced to broadcast debates that they dont' want to broadcast really creeps me out.

Ironic, considering that the CPD essentially holds networks hostage by restricting the debate schedule and disallowing their candidates to take part in independent debates. But I digress, because neither the Johnson campaign nor I am talking about forcing networks to broadcast a debate. We're talking about overthrowing the CPD.


It sounds like something straight out of Soviet Union.

So does a two party duopoly. If this system requires only two candidates whose differences of opinion amount to bickering over the ideal arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic, then it is as tyrannical as a system that allows for only one candidate.


Seeing Johnson and so many of his supporters supporting this view only strengthens my suspicions he's too much of an authoritarian liberal. Political debates are accessible: just organize one.

Yea, just organize one. It's that easy.


Wasn't that what some online channel did? There should be no federal law wrt televised political debates. Those who defend that are totalitarian by hearts.

No, there isn't a federal law. Nor should there be. All I'm saying is that the two organizations who write all the federal law are purposefully restricting access to the mainstream in the presidential debate.


3. To be gamed in his favor.

Per Ron Paul. Exactly. We're in this to advance the cause of liberty and use the system that exists to do so.


By "not caring", he's not caring about the future of the Libertarian Party, its ideas and its ballot access. If he did, he'd be campaigning in the big states where he could pump his voting total. He's going for the headlines and talk-show interviews.

Headlines and talk-show interviews pump vote totals more efficiently for a small campaign than a bus tour in a specific state. Plus, you gotta follow the cameras to get the attention, and this campaign is as much (per my prior post) about attention and base-building as it is about vote totals. To say nothing of the fact that being seen as a spoiler attracts a lot of attention that otherwise wouldn't be there. Don't hate the player, hate the game.