PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson breaks the record for most votes for a LP candidate?




ronpaulfollower999
11-06-2012, 11:21 PM
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

926,861 at the moment.

The 1980 ticket got 921,128 votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)#Presidential_can didate_performance

squarepusher
11-06-2012, 11:37 PM
you can put me on that list

dannno
11-06-2012, 11:38 PM
Good for him, no doubt Ron Paul got a lot of votes as well.

Not worthy of the msm.

iamse7en
11-06-2012, 11:46 PM
Gotta adjust for people inflation though. Gotta see the percentage number.

QWDC
11-06-2012, 11:53 PM
I would also like to congratulate Mr.Johnson for actually beating Obama in Wibaux County Montana.

zactidwell
11-07-2012, 01:08 AM
congrats to him, but disappointing nonetheless.

Badger Paul
11-07-2012, 02:19 AM
The LP had a very good night tonight. Most of their candidates ran well across the board and they've established a viability with right amount of work could threaten the GOP if the Republicans can't deal with the world as it exists.

HigherVision
11-07-2012, 02:26 AM
One thing that's important to point out is that Johnson spent almost no money. From the Ron Paul Supporters for Gary Johnson 2012 Facebook:

"For those of you disappointed in the results of the election - please remember that the R's and D's outspent the Libertarian campaign by at least a THOUSAND to ONE! So a single dollar given for the Libertarian campaign was around 20 times more effective in getting votes than what the two-party duopoly did. Imagine for a second what would have happened with a level playing field."

Forget a level playing field, imagine what could happen with an LP candidate who spent many times more as Gary Johnson did, as Ron Paul did in the primary. Thanks to the injection of libertarian ideas into public consciousness by Ron Paul's presidential campaigns for republican party the libertarian party may now actually have a shot. How great would it be if we got some principled Austrian economics influenced people to run in it. Like imagine if someone like Tom Woods were to run in 2016 in the LP with the same size support base as Ron Paul! Money bombs and the whole nine yards. And the vote would be split 3 ways instead of only just 2. So we'd only need a third or so to win.

liveandletlive
11-07-2012, 08:08 AM
lol with the population growth thats pretty pathetic....though he got my vote. Gary had his moment in the sun

BuddyRey
11-07-2012, 08:17 AM
Forget a level playing field, imagine what could happen with an LP candidate who spent many times more as Gary Johnson did, as Ron Paul did in the primary. Thanks to the injection of libertarian ideas into public consciousness by Ron Paul's presidential campaigns for republican party the libertarian party may now actually have a shot. How great would it be if we got some principled Austrian economics influenced people to run in it. Like imagine if someone like Tom Woods were to run in 2016 in the LP with the same size support base as Ron Paul! Money bombs and the whole nine yards. And the vote would be split 3 ways instead of only just 2. So we'd only need a third or so to win.

I hope you meant to say that a philosophically libertarian candidate running in the Republican Party may have a shot. I have nothing against the LP, but Ron Paul's success was almost completely predicated on the strategy of running in one of the two major parties so that he could have the floor at major-party debates. If Ron Paul had run LP in '08 and '12, he would have never had any of the epic "soundbyte moments" that helped him to break out. I'm guessing that, of his new (post-2007) supporters, 8 out of 10 of us probably would have never known he existed.

JohnM
11-07-2012, 09:14 AM
...If Ron Paul had run LP in '08 and '12, he would have never had any of the epic "soundbyte moments" that helped him to break out. I'm guessing that, of his new (post-2007) supporters, 8 out of 10 of us probably would have never known he existed.

Certainly true in my case.

I am pretty sure that if Ron Paul had not been a Republican hopeful in 2008 & 2012, not only would I never have heard of him, but my political views would have been somewhat different to what they are today.

And I certainly never would have voted for Gary Johnson.

JohnM
11-07-2012, 09:14 AM
(duplicate post)

HigherVision
11-07-2012, 12:01 PM
I hope you meant to say that a philosophically libertarian candidate running in the Republican Party may have a shot. I have nothing against the LP, but Ron Paul's success was almost completely predicated on the strategy of running in one of the two major parties so that he could have the floor at major-party debates. If Ron Paul had run LP in '08 and '12, he would have never had any of the epic "soundbyte moments" that helped him to break out. I'm guessing that, of his new (post-2007) supporters, 8 out of 10 of us probably would have never known he existed.

Yeah I realize that, but because Ron has already run in the republican primary those two times and spread libertarian ideas I think that the libertarian party has more of a shot now. We're in the age of the internet now, it's not 1988 where the mainstream media had full control over the flow of information.

James Otis, Jr.
11-07-2012, 12:52 PM
lol with the population growth thats pretty pathetic....though he got my vote. Gary had his moment in the sun

How so? Johnson tallied 1.1 M votes 1.0% of total votes. This basically equalled the previous LP highwater mark of Ed Clark in 1980 920k votes, 1.1% of total votes. This was done without the aid of a Ron Paul endorsement, which I think could of pushed up the numbers toward 2 M votes. The LP gained back some of the small amount of ground it had lost.

jllundqu
11-07-2012, 12:53 PM
This was a very poor showing for GJ. I was hoping for something in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 milliion voted (roughly 2-3% of total votes). I knew the 5% mark was a LOOOOOOONG-shot.

Oh well!

Keeping my head down and my powder dry! ;)

James Otis, Jr.
11-07-2012, 12:54 PM
Certainly true in my case.

I am pretty sure that if Ron Paul had not been a Republican hopeful in 2008 & 2012, not only would I never have heard of him, but my political views would have been somewhat different to what they are today....

In my case, I discovered Ron Paul through his run for president as a Libertarian in 1988...

HigherVision
11-07-2012, 03:43 PM
This was a very poor showing for GJ. I was hoping for something in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 milliion voted (roughly 2-3% of total votes). I knew the 5% mark was a LOOOOOOONG-shot.

Oh well!

Keeping my head down and my powder dry! ;)

Historically it wasn't a poor showing, despite the fact that we were hoping for better. As has already been discussed in this thread. So please stop exclaiming 'he did horrible!' when he got more votes than any libertarian party candidate has in it's 3 decades of existence. On a shoestring budget, and without any endorsement from Ron.

Southerner
11-07-2012, 03:45 PM
posted on November 7, 2012 by Michael Minkoff Filed Under 2012 Election, Politics
Divided GOP Resulted in Obama Victory


As we all know, Barack Obama has been re-elected for a second term. Right about now, Republicans need to ask themselves, “What went wrong?” How could Obama have won? His track record was abysmal. The economy is tanking, unemployment continues to rise, civil government debt has reached a level from which we will probably never be able to recover, foreign relations in the Middle East have only become more treacherous… On almost every issue upon which Obama campaigned, he has proven worse than his predecessor. Yet he has been elected for a second term. Why?

Let’s look at the numbers. The race was almost split 50/50. Obama got less than one percent of the votes more than Mitt Romney. Of interest, libertarian Gary Johnson got right at one percent. Gary who? Right. How did a guy with almost no presence during the primaries get one percent of the votes? The only other Libertarian to get this much traction was Ed Clark in 1980 with 1.1 percent. But this wasn’t so much a victory for the Libertarian Party as it was a loss for the GOP. How did Gary Johnson get so many votes? Ron Paul. Sorry, but that’s just the truth.

Most disillusioned Ron Paul supporters chose either to not vote, to vote for Gary Johnson, or to write in Ron Paul even though such a vote would be largely symbolic. But before you start talking about how lame Ron Paul fans are, let’s really assess this issue.

Tea Party candidates in the Senate lost big this election. Joe Walsh and Allen West lost their seats in the Senate. Akin and Mourdock, as expected (or ensured), also lost. Almost all the members of the GOP who operated on a principled conservative Republican “Tea Party” platform did poorly this election. Why? Because the party establishment abandoned them. The Tea Party didn’t cause the split. The Tea Party represents the majority of active grassroots Republicans. The GOP power brokers caused the split. And they added insult to injury by pretending like they didn’t need the Tea Partiers any more. Say what you will, but the GOP is going through a major identity crisis. And I think it’s choosing to become Mr. Hyde. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Consider that most of the people, if not all, who voted for Mitt Romney would have voted for whomever the GOP nominated. No matter what. Anyone but Obama, remember? These people voted pragmatically… er, not so pragmatically now that all is said and done. So most of the people, if not all, who voted for Romney would have voted for the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man if he had been on the ballot with an “R” next to his name. So they really don’t matter in the end. Despite all of the media drivel about electability, any Republican candidate would have gained at least the number of votes that Romney did. But I believe a few of the primary candidates could have gained more. The Republican Party was trying to get some extra votes from the middle, so they chose a big-government-lite candidate with largely liberal social policies that could appeal to “moderate” voters. Wrong plan of action. Moderate voters swung to Obama anyway. All the Republican Party did by putting all its eggs into the middle-of-the-road candidate was jettison the swing voters they should have been appealing to instead: the conservative idealists.

Consider it this way: liberal idealists love Obama. And moderate voters like him too. So Obama is the perfect candidate for the Democratic party. He consolidates the base while reaching beyond it. Conservative idealists (the ones who vote on principle alone—damn-the-torpedoes type people) hated Romney. Tea Party conservatives also disliked Romney. But the hold-your-nose-and-vote Republicans weren’t numerous enough to result in a Romney victory. They needed just one extra percent. Which they lost because they had ejected the grassroots core of their organization: the real idealists who would not vote for Romney on principle. And the answer is not to all rally around the jellyfish flip-flopping moderate. The answer is to rally around the people who stand firm like stone walls. (That sounds familiar somehow…)

The Republican Party may hate the conscientious and often contentious idealists at their base, but as this election proved, they cannot afford to ignore them. It is illogical to do so anyway. Let’s think about this. What if Ron Paul had been nominated? The hold-your-nose-and-vote Republicans would still have voted for him. And if they wouldn’t, they have no place whatsoever to criticize idealists who wouldn’t vote for Romney. If the GOP machine had gotten behind him like they did Romney, there’s no indication that Paul would have fared any different than Romney. At least as well, as I said. But on top of the hold-your-nosers, Ron Paul had a rabid base of extremely motivated supporters (at least a million, actually… just ask Gary Johnson) who certainly would have voted for him though they refused to support Romney. (Oh, if only we had fewer Americans with unshakeable convictions. They’re such a plague on this country. Yeah. Whatevuh.) He also attracted many moderate voters who liked his states-rights stance on illegal drugs and homosexual marriage. Colorado just voted to legalize marijuana, by the way… and it went to Obama this election… again. So, bottom line: if Ron Paul had been nominated, in all likelihood we would have a Republican President-elect right now. But he’s not electable… And Romney is? Hello!? Any of the candidates would have done at least as well as he did, and I think any of them would have actually done better. Romney wasn’t the voters’ first choice. He was the GOP establishment’s first choice. Let’s not kid ourselves on that one. And this is the same group that gave us McCain. Remember that guy? He was “electable” too. When will we ever learn?

Why was Romney crammed down our throats? The GOP establishment wanted him in. And they’re also the reason why so many Tea Party candidates suffered losses this election. They refuse to support conscientious Republicans with constitutional convictions because it seems they have an agenda to rewire and reform the Republican Party in their own image whether or not Republican voters agree with them. They are forcing the Republican Party to become something it never was before, and they are promoting their agenda with fear, force, and manipulation. They have commandeered the energy and resources of men of conviction while trampling those same convictions underfoot. They think we will go along with them no matter what because the alternative is so intolerable. And so far, they have been right. They have betrayed this party using our votes, our voice, our power.

Don’t blame the Paulbots or the independents for four more years of Obama’s national trainwreck. Blame the GOP establishment power brokers. Their stubborn unwillingness to listen to their constituency and their blatant disregard for the traditonal federal constitutionalism that once made the GOP “grand” has cost us yet another election cycle, perhaps the most critical to date. We can’t afford to place our trust in them anymore. Let them know loud and clear: “Give us candidates who fully support our values, not your agenda! And back these candidates with your full endorsement. We won’t be fooled again. We won’t accept another Romney, and if you give us one, we will not vote for him.” Do we have the courage to do this? We didn’t have that courage this election. We thought too much was at stake. Too much was at stake. And we lost it because of fear. If we don’t gain the courage necessary to stand on conviction, this country is most assuredly doomed.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/divided-gop-resulted-in-obama-victory/#ixzz2BZkp2o4y

kahless
11-07-2012, 04:13 PM
I suspect Johnson would have had more Ron Paul votes if he was pro-life. Those that this was an issue for either did not vote, wrote in Ron Paul or held their nose and voted for Romney.

I ended up writing in Ron Paul even though they do not break out the write-in candidates where I live because of it. I think it was the CNS interview on abortion where Gary just kept echoing his talking point on abortion rather than answer the question is what killed it for me.

HigherVision
11-07-2012, 05:01 PM
I suspect Johnson would have had more Ron Paul votes if he was pro-life. Those that this was an issue for either did not vote, wrote in Ron Paul or held their nose and voted for Romney.

I ended up writing in Ron Paul even though they do not break out the write-in candidates where I live because of it. I think it was the CNS interview on abortion where Gary just kept echoing his talking point on abortion rather than answer the question is what killed it for me.

It sucks that libertarians such as yourself aren't willing to compromise to any extent for the sake of making gains for liberty in general. It's not like Gary Johnson is that hardcore of an abortion advocate like the left is, he only favors it being legal in the earlier stages of pregnancy I believe. Next time around if a libertarian has say 10 percent of the vote and is poised to make a huge impact would you still not be willing to support them if they favored the government allowing some abortions in limited circumstances, like only in the earliest stages? Because meanwhile we have government debt in the tens of trillions, hundreds of military bases, the government consumes probably half of the wealth of the country if not more. Why let these wedge issues divide so much? Republicans for instance will still vote republicans who favor some abortions like Romney, even though they themselves are fully pro-life. Democrats who favor fully socialized healthcare and total bans on gun ownership like Lawrence O'Donnell still support Obama, who's only partially for these things. But with libertarians it's like well I agree 99 percent of what this person says but that 1 percent I disagree with, man I just can't compromise on that. And so we never get anywhere politically because we lack sophistication. I'm not saying completely compromise your principles, that would be supporting someone like Romney or Obama. I'm saying, if someone's on the ballot like Gary Johnson. And even though you may disagree with a policy or two, even if those issues are important to you, if electing this person would still mean very substantial gains for liberty like getting rid of most of the federal government, why not do it?

adisongrace
11-07-2012, 05:14 PM
It sucks that libertarians such as yourself aren't willing to compromise to any extent for the sake of making gains for liberty in general. It's not like Gary Johnson is that hardcore of an abortion advocate like the left is, he only favors it being legal in the earlier stages of pregnancy I believe. Next time around if a libertarian has say 10 percent of the vote and is poised to make a huge impact would you still not be willing to support them if they favored the government allowing some abortions in limited circumstances, like only in the earliest stages? Because meanwhile we have government debt in the tens of trillions, hundreds of military bases, the government consumes probably half of the wealth of the country if not more. Why let these wedge issues divide so much? Republicans for instance will still vote republicans who favor some abortions like Romney, even though they themselves are fully pro-life. Democrats who favor fully socialized healthcare and total bans on gun ownership like Lawrence O'Donnell still support Obama, who's only partially for these things. But with libertarians it's like well I agree 99 percent of what this person says but that 1 percent I disagree with, man I just can't compromise on that. And so we never get anywhere politically because we lack sophistication. I'm not saying completely compromise your principles, that would be supporting someone like Romney or Obama. I'm saying, if someone's on the ballot like Gary Johnson. And even though you may disagree with a policy or two, even if those issues are important to you, if electing this person would still mean very substantial gains for liberty like getting rid of most of the federal government, why not do it?

I agree. We have to make progress towards restoring Liberty. +REP

Paul4Prez
11-07-2012, 05:26 PM
This was a very poor showing for GJ. I was hoping for something in the neighborhood of 2.5-3 milliion voted (roughly 2-3% of total votes). I knew the 5% mark was a LOOOOOOONG-shot.

Oh well!

Keeping my head down and my powder dry! ;)

This was a very strong showing for Gary Johnson.
The last 7 LP candidates, including Ron Paul in 1988, averaged about half a million votes.
Johnson doubled that.

kahless
11-07-2012, 05:41 PM
It sucks that libertarians such as yourself aren't willing to compromise to any extent for the sake of making gains for liberty in general. It's not like Gary Johnson is that hardcore of an abortion advocate like the left is, he only favors it being legal in the earlier stages of pregnancy I believe. Next time around if a libertarian has say 10 percent of the vote and is poised to make a huge impact would you still not be willing to support them if they favored the government allowing some abortions in limited circumstances, like only in the earliest stages? Because meanwhile we have government debt in the tens of trillions, hundreds of military bases, the government consumes probably half of the wealth of the country if not more. Why let these wedge issues divide so much? Republicans for instance will still vote republicans who favor some abortions like Romney, even though they themselves are fully pro-life. Democrats who favor fully socialized healthcare and total bans on gun ownership like Lawrence O'Donnell still support Obama, who's only partially for these things. But with libertarians it's like well I agree 99 percent of what this person says but that 1 percent I disagree with, man I just can't compromise on that. And so we never get anywhere politically because we lack sophistication. I'm not saying completely compromise your principles, that would be supporting someone like Romney or Obama. I'm saying, if someone's on the ballot like Gary Johnson. And even though you may disagree with a policy or two, even if those issues are important to you, if electing this person would still mean very substantial gains for liberty like getting rid of most of the federal government, why not do it?

A true Libertarian supports liberty for ALL. To protect the life of the mother I can understand.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Kq4hbMtS0

adisongrace
11-07-2012, 05:47 PM
A true Libertarian supports liberty for ALL. To protect the life of the mother I can understand.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Kq4hbMtS0

I really don't think being a Pro-Life candidate is a prerequisite...

kahless
11-07-2012, 05:58 PM
I really don't think being a Pro-Life candidate is a prerequisite...

I disagree that there are exceptions to individual rights.

Gary's answers were flimsey. On one hand he is saying viability of the fetus and then he kept harping on it is a woman's decision.

jbauer
11-07-2012, 06:04 PM
of all of those votes how many can we assume were votes for the Ron Paul. surogate? Kinda hard to talk about how well you did when I would guess the vast majority were Ron Paulers not Gary Johnsoners. I could be wrong though

jbauer
11-07-2012, 06:11 PM
It sucks that libertarians such as yourself aren't willing to compromise to any extent for the sake of making gains for liberty in general. It's not like Gary Johnson is that hardcore of an abortion advocate like the left is, he only favors it being legal in the earlier stages of pregnancy I believe. Next time around if a libertarian has say 10 percent of the vote and is poised to make a huge impact would you still not be willing to support them if they favored the government allowing some abortions in limited circumstances, like only in the earliest stages? Because meanwhile we have government debt in the tens of trillions, hundreds of military bases, the government consumes probably half of the wealth of the country if not more. Why let these wedge issues divide so much? Republicans for instance will still vote republicans who favor some abortions like Romney, even though they themselves are fully pro-life. Democrats who favor fully socialized healthcare and total bans on gun ownership like Lawrence O'Donnell still support Obama, who's only partially for these things. But with libertarians it's like well I agree 99 percent of what this person says but that 1 percent I disagree with, man I just can't compromise on that. And so we never get anywhere politically because we lack sophistication. I'm not saying completely compromise your principles, that would be supporting someone like Romney or Obama. I'm saying, if someone's on the ballot like Gary Johnson. And even though you may disagree with a policy or two, even if those issues are important to you, if electing this person would still mean very substantial gains for liberty like getting rid of most of the federal government, why not do it?

For some Abortion is the only issue. I happen to beleive in liberty for all which includes the unborn but I still contened that if America is gone economically abortion isn't really even going to be a talking point when people are concerned where their own next meal is coming from.

adisongrace
11-07-2012, 06:14 PM
I disagree that there are exceptions to individual rights.

Gary's answers were flimsey. On one hand he is saying viability of the fetus and then he kept harping on it is a woman's decision.

I believe it's the woman's choice. If we are purely talking about the liberty aspect, not the moral one...women have the right to do as the please with their bodies.

kahless
11-07-2012, 08:31 PM
I believe it's the woman's choice. If we are purely talking about the liberty aspect, not the moral one...women have the right to do as the please with their bodies.

Yes, they do except when it infringes on the individual rights of another. What about the individual rights of the baby?

There is a comment on that video that says it best. "When you engage in the biological creation of life you consent to be a caretaker."

freedomsoundmoney
11-07-2012, 09:01 PM
In Gary's defense, he said any times during the campaign the only way he would have any sort of chance would be if he was in the national debates. It's a shame he wasn't. The commission on presidential debates is a sham. Also, most of news coverage never mentioned he was even running, he wasn't included in a choice in most polls conducted throughout the campaign, and i'd say even to this day the vast majority of Americans have no idea who Gary Johnson is.

adisongrace
11-07-2012, 10:27 PM
Yes, they do except when it infringes on the individual rights of another. What about the individual rights of the baby?

There is a comment on that video that says it best. "When you engage in the biological creation of life you consent to be a caretaker."

Like I stated based on the women's right to do what she sees fit with her body. She can end the pregnancy.
Purely only a defense of her rights, not putting any moral standpoint on it....

By law the fetus isn't a baby. Now if you are making a moral argument that is an entirely different discussion all together.

amy31416
11-07-2012, 10:35 PM
Abortion again???

The laws on abortion will not change significantly in any of our lifetimes. Get over it and save it for debate class. Yeah, it's immoral. Yeah, there are exceptions and issues. But there is no electable candidate who can or would do a damn thing about it--not even Ron Paul.

VRod
11-07-2012, 10:49 PM
Hi, everyone. I've been lurking for the past couple of days, and this is my first post.

I voted for Gary Johnson. Yes, he was a Ron Paul surrogate to me.

The night before the election, I was set on writing in Ron Paul. He got me in touch with my libertarian leanings, and his integrity is refreshing. I'm also a fan of Andrew Napolitano, so it seemed liked an easy decision.

The next morning, I thought about it again and remembered how unimpressed I was with how Ron Paul seemed to fizzle in both 2008 and 2012 once he was out of the race. He should have at least been more vocal about endorsing a particular candidate. His supporters would have appreciated that rudder. Contrast that with how strongly the Clintons endorsed Obama in 2008. At the last minute, I decided not to write him in.

I had no delusions about Gary Johnson being a blip on the radar come election day, but he was a libertarian and reflected my views more than any other candidate by a wide margin. Voting for him was no less symbolic than writing in Ron Paul. What tipped the tables toward Gary Johnson was my reluctance to have a write-in for Ron Paul interpreted as a point for the GOP in its current form.

Now I regret not writing in Ron Paul, because he was ultimately my first choice (and my state counts write-ins). This was a tough election though. Two establishment candidates whom I despised equally, my dream candidate who struck me as having fizzled, and a libertarian candidate who seemed good except for most voters having no idea who he was.

madfoot
11-09-2012, 04:10 AM
Yes, they do except when it infringes on the individual rights of another. What about the individual rights of the baby?

There is a comment on that video that says it best. "When you engage in the biological creation of life you consent to be a caretaker."
Castle doctrine.