PDA

View Full Version : Gary Johnson will not be at debates




RonPaulFanInGA
09-16-2016, 02:21 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/09/16/gary-johnson-won-t-be-on-debate-stage.html


Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein will not be on the presidential debate stage for the first contest sponsored by the Commission on President Debates. Johnson and Stein both fell short of the 15 percent polling threshold required to participate, the commission said in a statement, adding that Trump and Clinton will face off on September 26 and their running mates, Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, will debate on October 4. Johnson in particular was pushing hard for inclusion in the debates, as he’d polled in the double digits across several national surveys, and previously said he would only have a chance to win if he can debate Trump and Clinton.

jllundqu
09-16-2016, 02:45 PM
If Johnson were a Libertarian, who actually held libertarian principles and policy positions, he would be polling much much higher. But alas, he swung WAY left to try to appeal to Bernie supporters and be the "moderate voice of reason"...

Matt Collins
09-16-2016, 02:46 PM
Duh?


This was a foregone conclusion long before this election cycle began.

TheTexan
09-16-2016, 02:47 PM
Duh?


This was a foregone conclusion long before this election cycle began.

Collins, as usual, is correct on this

Danke
09-16-2016, 02:48 PM
Collins, as usual, is correct on this

He had inside sources.

eleganz
09-16-2016, 03:20 PM
If Johnson were a Libertarian, who actually held libertarian principles and policy positions, he would be polling much much higher.

Silliest statement ever.

In fact, it can be argued Gary Johnson's methods are the most effective since he is the most successful libertarian candidate in history. And that argument would be factual vs. your theory.

William Tell
09-16-2016, 03:26 PM
Silliest statement ever.

In fact, it can be argued Gary Johnson's methods are the most effective since he is the most successful libertarian candidate in history. And that argument would be factual vs. your theory.
No. Ron Paul was the most successful libertarian candidate in history.

Natural Citizen
09-16-2016, 03:30 PM
Silliest statement ever.

In fact, it can be argued Gary Johnson's methods are the most effective since he is the most successful libertarian candidate in history. And that argument would be factual vs. your theory.

The single-party that has traditionally functioned under the illusion of two parties just expanded to a single party functioning as three. The establishment is what was successful. This was predictable. After those monumental Independent and third party turnouts during the 2014 Mid-Term, the largest Independent and Third-Party turnout in modern history, there was no way the establishment didn't notice it and weren't going to do something about it.

And here we are.

Natural Citizen
09-16-2016, 03:32 PM
Seems like some friends are content to keep kicking the same old can down the road and blowing smoke up our rear ends like we're stupid or something. Heh.

r3volution 3.0
09-16-2016, 04:52 PM
he is the most successful libertarian candidate in history

Repeated for emphasis

The LP wouldn't be looking at 8% in the general right now if Gary had come out against the CRA, or died on some other such hill.

donnay
09-16-2016, 05:25 PM
Silliest statement ever.

In fact, it can be argued Gary Johnson's methods are the most effective since he is the most successful libertarian candidate in history. And that argument would be factual vs. your theory.

That would be true if he were a true libertarian, but he is not. Ron Paul did more for the Libertarian party. Johnson is a pretend libertarian.

RonPaulFanInGA
09-16-2016, 06:09 PM
Repeated for emphasis

The LP wouldn't be looking at 8% in the general right now if Gary had come out against the CRA, or died on some other such hill.

Not to be argumentative, but I will eat my hat if Gary Johnson even gets half that (4%) nationally.

First, his base of support in the polls consists of the most unreliable voters (18-29). Secondly, the Libertarian Party's high-water mark in presidential elections is the 1.06% Ed Clark received in 1980, and Johnson himself failed to get even a full 1% in 2012.

Yeah, yeah, the polls. Third party candidates are notorious for how they never live up to the media or polling hype. It's a quadrennial thing: "Oh, this is the year of the third party, so-and-so non-D/R candidate is polling 10% nationally in this poll!" Then it just collapses, because no one has the guts to "waste" their vote on someone they know won't win. In presidential elections especially.

Trump-Clinton reminds me of Angle-Reid in Nevada in 2010, where everyone acted like the two major party candidates were so terrible we were going to see this big third party support. Nevada even has a quirk where you're literally allowed to vote "none of these candidates", but it only mustered 2% that year. It just never happens, outside of crazy exceptions (like Ross Perot and his money).

euphemia
09-16-2016, 06:22 PM
I hope some of you die-hard Johnson people are paying attention. Here you have a group of very diverse liberty thinkers, and they all think Johnson is not a libertarian. Maybe it's time to accept the truth.

r3volution 3.0
09-16-2016, 06:39 PM
Yeah, yeah, the polls. Third party candidates are notorious for how they never live up to the media or polling hype. It's a quadrennial thing: "Oh, this is the year of the third party, so-and-so non-D/R candidate is polling 10% nationally in this poll!" Then it just collapses, because no one has the guts to "waste" their vote on someone they know won't win. In presidential elections especially.

You're right that 3rd party candidates tend to fade as the election approaches.

...the difference this time is that Gary Johnson Isn't Fading (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gary-johnson-isnt-fading/).


Gary Johnson doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. In recent elections, third-party candidates have tended to lose support (http://www.gallup.com/poll/2392/presidential-races-can-change-significantly-election-day-approaches.aspx) as Election Day approaches. But the Libertarian Party presidential nominee (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gary-johnson-is-here-to-tell-you-youre-a-libertarian/) and former New Mexico governor is holding steady in the polls, and we’ve reached a point in the race at which past third-party candidates had already started to see their support nose-dive

I expect he'll underperform his polls somewhat, but I'll eat my hat if he doesn't at least triple the LP's all time record.

I'd give him a 50:50 shot of quintupling it, which would mean the end of ballot access hell for the party.

69360
09-16-2016, 06:49 PM
If Johnson were a Libertarian, who actually held libertarian principles and policy positions, he would be polling much much higher. But alas, he swung WAY left to try to appeal to Bernie supporters and be the "moderate voice of reason"...

Um no. He does so well because he has centric cross over appeal. If he was a LP purist he would get the usual 1%.


Not to be argumentative, but I will eat my hat if Gary Johnson even gets half that (4%) nationally.

First, his base of support in the polls consists of the most unreliable voters (18-29). Secondly, the Libertarian Party's high-water mark in presidential elections is the 1.06% Ed Clark received in 1980, and Johnson himself failed to get even a full 1% in 2012.

Yeah, yeah, the polls. Third party candidates are notorious for how they never live up to the media or polling hype. It's a quadrennial thing: "Oh, this is the year of the third party, so-and-so non-D/R candidate is polling 10% nationally in this poll!" Then it just collapses, because no one has the guts to "waste" their vote on someone they know won't win. In presidential elections especially.

Trump-Clinton reminds me of Angle-Reid in Nevada in 2010, where everyone acted like the two major party candidates were so terrible we were going to see this big third party support. Nevada even has a quirk where you're literally allowed to vote "none of these candidates", but it only mustered 2% that year. It just never happens, outside of crazy exceptions (like Ross Perot and his money).

The polls are usually right. I think we will get the predicted 5-10%



This article is wrong by the way. Johnson won't be in this debate. He is not excluded from all the debates. If his numbers rise, he could get it. Granted it's a catch 22 and his exclusion probably precludes any rise in polling.

Natural Citizen
09-16-2016, 06:50 PM
I expect he'll underperform his polls...

2% max.

kpitcher
09-16-2016, 10:41 PM
I hope some of you die-hard Johnson people are paying attention. Here you have a group of very diverse liberty thinkers, and they all think Johnson is not a libertarian. Maybe it's time to accept the truth.

Judging from all the Trump supporters on the forums I'm not entirely sure what liberty minded people actually think nowadays.

eleganz
09-16-2016, 10:57 PM
No. Ron Paul was the most successful libertarian candidate in history.

Ok we all love Ron, every day doesn't need to be a competition about who thinks Ron is more badass, its getting super tiring after all these years.

Ron ran in the LP but his most successful stint was as a Republican and NOT a third party candidate. Let's just stick to the facts here.


End of the day, Gary has a pretty chance to get on the second debate. We all know he isn't the ideal reflection of Ron Paul but let's get real, he'll be the only voice up there saying what we've been saying for many years. If you want to give up the spotlight to say things like, "audit the fed", "abolish the IRS", "libertarians are non-interventionist not isolationist", and so on and so on, just because you want to be a purist. Fk, why are you even in electoral politics? Just move to NH already and chill out there.

William Tell
09-16-2016, 11:01 PM
Ok we all love Ron, every day doesn't need to be a competition about who thinks Ron is more badass, its getting super tiring after all these years.

Ron ran in the LP but his most successful stint was as a Republican and NOT a third party candidate. Let's just stick to the facts here.

Not to nitpick, but the post I responded to was one where you used the "small l". That's what I thought you meant. If you meant large L Libertarian, then it remains to be seen.

RJ Liberty
09-16-2016, 11:40 PM
I love Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the shit. But, for the record, Ron Paul's 1988 presidential campaign only garnered him 431,750 votes. Gary Johnson already beat that number, by a lot, back in 2012, when he received 1,275,951 votes (almost three times as many).

Champuckett
09-17-2016, 12:19 AM
Gary Johnson employed the Rand Paul strategy. Cozy up as much as possible to the Repubs and the Dems seeking out their vote, while doing your best to not piss off your base too much. Both failed as their respective bases saw what they were doing, emoted disappointment, and the lack of energy and passion probably ended up hurting both of them to some degree. And the gains made from the cozying aspect was not enough to account for the loss of the base of support.

Whether these strategies were intentional or just who these men are, I don't know for sure. I'm guessing Rand's strategy was more intentional, based on his behavior/interviews before he became a Senator, whereas GJ is exactly who we are seeing when he speaks. If you feel one of these things make either of these people a better man, more power to you.

It's obvious this is a response to watching Ron Paul run twice and lose twice as a genuinely principled man and knowing something different needed to be tried. Well, now that all of these failed strategies are out of the way.. what's next? Genuineness 2020? It could potentially be a great thing to have Rand run on the LP ticket in 2020, seeing as the LP made more headlines and got arguably much more coverage this time around, elevating the LP in general.

P3ter_Griffin
09-17-2016, 02:39 AM
Gary Johnson employed the Rand Paul strategy. Cozy up as much as possible to the Repubs and the Dems seeking out their vote, while doing your best to not piss off your base too much. Both failed as their respective bases saw what they were doing, emoted disappointment, and the lack of energy and passion probably ended up hurting both of them to some degree. And the gains made from the cozying aspect was not enough to account for the loss of the base of support.

Whether these strategies were intentional or just who these men are, I don't know for sure. I'm guessing Rand's strategy was more intentional, based on his behavior/interviews before he became a Senator, whereas GJ is exactly who we are seeing when he speaks. If you feel one of these things make either of these people a better man, more power to you.

It's obvious this is a response to watching Ron Paul run twice and lose twice as a genuinely principled man and knowing something different needed to be tried. Well, now that all of these failed strategies are out of the way.. what's next? Genuineness 2020? It could potentially be a great thing to have Rand run on the LP ticket in 2020, seeing as the LP made more headlines and got arguably much more coverage this time around, elevating the LP in general.

I think Rand has cozied up to the republican party a little to much at this point to run against them in a presidential election. He'd get painted as the spoiler candidate giving the election to the democrat and he'd receive so much hate even though it'd be no different than running any other principled libertarian candidate... wouldn't wish it on him for the world.

A lot can happen between now and then but it seems like Cruz will be getting the votes our desired candidate would go after in the GOP 2020 presidential primary. I think it would be nice to not have a GOP presidential candidate running in 2020. Influencing who the eventual nominee for the libertarian party is seems much more in reach. And winning the GOP presidential primary doesn't seem realistic. Unless someone from RPF decides to run I doubt we'll have a say in how the candidate will run (ex. genuine vs pragmatic) but I think it goes without saying we should support the most principled one in the primary and the candidate that will do the least harm in the general.

I'm making yard signs for Gary and making positive distinctions between him and HillTrump on the local newspaper website and in conversation but I don't expect that out of everyone. It would be really refreshing though if the focus of conversation was on how we progress forward and be influential in future elections. So I thank you for brining it up and I hope the future can get the attention it deserves.

JohnM
09-17-2016, 07:37 AM
The LP wouldn't be looking at 8% in the general right now if Gary had come out against the CRA, or died on some other such hill.

We simply don't know that. GJ enthusiasts can maintain that he is the best person the LP could have chosen, and that his strategy has been the best one for the circumstances. GJ detractors can maintain that the LP should have chosen someone else, and that GJ should have been much more hard core libertarian.

The fact is that we don't know which, if either of these assessments are correct. I know of no strong empirical evidence either way.

My own personal opinion is that it would not have done GJ any significant damage to have come out against the CRA, because most GJ voters are not voting for GJ, they are voting against HRC and Trump - and they reckon that a former state governor with a decent track record is a safer bet than Jill Stein.

In Gary's favor, it can be said that his polling numbers have held up, while Jill Stein's have dwindled: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html

On the other hand, with the very unimpressive performances of Trump and HRC over the past 3 months, one would have hoped that GJ's support would have increased more than it has.

LibertyEagle
09-17-2016, 07:41 AM
Gary Johnson employed the Rand Paul strategy. Cozy up as much as possible to the Repubs and the Dems seeking out their vote, while doing your best to not piss off your base too much. Both failed as their respective bases saw what they were doing, emoted disappointment, and the lack of energy and passion probably ended up hurting both of them to some degree. And the gains made from the cozying aspect was not enough to account for the loss of the base of support.

Whether these strategies were intentional or just who these men are, I don't know for sure. I'm guessing Rand's strategy was more intentional, based on his behavior/interviews before he became a Senator, whereas GJ is exactly who we are seeing when he speaks. If you feel one of these things make either of these people a better man, more power to you.

It's obvious this is a response to watching Ron Paul run twice and lose twice as a genuinely principled man and knowing something different needed to be tried. Well, now that all of these failed strategies are out of the way.. what's next? Genuineness 2020? It could potentially be a great thing to have Rand run on the LP ticket in 2020, seeing as the LP made more headlines and got arguably much more coverage this time around, elevating the LP in general.

Rand isn't a Libertarian.

RonPaulFanInGA
09-17-2016, 09:21 AM
The polls are usually right. I think we will get the predicted 5-10%

Not for third parties. Johnson was polling 9% early on in the 2012 race (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/romney-leads-obama.html
), and 5% in September.

How did he finish that year? <1%.

specsaregood
09-17-2016, 09:25 AM
Gary Johnson employed the Rand Paul strategy. Cozy up as much as possible to the Repubs and the Dems seeking out their vote, while doing your best to not piss off your base too much. Both failed as their respective bases saw what they were doing, emoted disappointment, and the lack of energy and passion probably ended up hurting both of them to some degree. And the gains made from the cozying aspect was not enough to account for the loss of the base of support.


One really big difference in strategies between the two is that Randal tried to bring in generally non-gop/lp groups using conservative principles. he made his case as to why freedom oriented governing would help them solve their root problems. Johnson has just gone at them with typical liberal principles, from what I've heard. big difference

Working Poor
09-17-2016, 10:29 AM
one would have hoped that GJ's support would have increased more than it has.

The brainwashed minions believe the media that's why.

Champuckett
09-17-2016, 11:41 AM
Rand isn't a Libertarian.

If you mean in name only, then as of 2016, you are correct.

If you mean in principles, I would check out some of the videos of him giving speeches before he ran for Senator, when he was helping his father campaign in 2007/2008. He seemed a lot more libertarian than he does now as a senator.

Champuckett
09-17-2016, 11:48 AM
One really big difference in strategies between the two is that Randal tried to bring in generally non-gop/lp groups using conservative principles. he made his case as to why freedom oriented governing would help them solve their root problems. Johnson has just gone at them with typical liberal principles, from what I've heard. big difference

Agreed for the most part. I think both had an outreach strategy, which unfortunately did not work in either case. Maybe it will work better in the future, who knows.

undergroundrr
09-17-2016, 12:16 PM
Nothing is going to work for a libertarian-ish presidential candidate, let alone a hardcore libertarian or ancap, unless an alternative means has been found to insert the candidate's name and face into the awareness of at least, say, 200 million Americans. MSM won't let it happen.

True_Libertarian
09-17-2016, 01:37 PM
No problem for me, Gary Johnson is not a true Libertarian.

undergroundrr
09-17-2016, 01:43 PM
No problem for me, Gary Johnson is not a true Libertarian.

Welcome to the forums!

69360
09-17-2016, 05:53 PM
No problem for me, Gary Johnson is not a true Libertarian.

You joined RPF in 2016 and have made posts bashing Johnson and promoting Trump.

Yeah that's real credible.

eleganz
09-18-2016, 12:21 AM
You joined RPF in 2016 and have made posts bashing Johnson and promoting Trump.

Yeah that's real credible.

Bro, he is a True_Libertarian. Do not question!

True_Libertarian
09-19-2016, 09:30 AM
You joined RPF in 2016 and have made posts bashing Johnson and promoting Trump.

Yeah that's real credible.

Johnson is no Ron Paul. I'm not feeling the Johnson.