The Gary Johnson thread

PurplePAC, a SuperPAC run by Cato Institute co-founder Edward Crane, will be launching a TV promoting the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson on Friday.

The ad is intended to air 25 times on CNN and 25 times on Fox, from this Friday until Monday.​

Click to expand...

selmaborntidefan said:

Johnson has no prayer at winning. If I DO pull the lever for him (it doesn't really matter here in Texas....well, maybe he gets enough votes to give Hillary the state, God forbid), it won't really make any difference.


Oh, and here's two other things really grinding my gears:


1) The ASSUMPTION that 15% of the vote mandates Johnson gets in the debates. That is NOT true!!! That is a MINIMUM THRESHOLD that MIGHT enable him to get into the debates IF the situation in #2 permits him. They don't have to let him debate - period.

2) The debates are overseen by the PARTISAN (as in BI) Commission on Presidential Debates. Oh, I know you've read numerous stories like this nonsense:


In a tweet on Friday night, Trump incorrectly said that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are "trying to rig the debates."
In fact, the fall debate schedule was determined almost a year ago by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, a private group made up of both Republicans and Democrats.


This is an AMUSING use of the word 'nonpartisan;' what it REALLY means is 'bipartisan' - but you can't have a group staging that under the banner of 'partisan' so they put out the lie they are 'nonpartisan' and the media agrees to call it 'nonpartisan' but it's about as ridiculous as citing the Southern Poverty Law Center or U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as actual objective authorities (they aren't).

Of course, the decision will be made based on...what is BEST for the parties. They sort of 'had' to let Perot debate in 1992 (the story is told in "Mad As Hell" by Jack Germond and Jules Witcover). They WANTED - both parties - to tell Perot to take a hike. Problem was that Perot had been in the news all year long and leading them in the earlier polls (unlike Johnson), had billions to run his own campaign (unlike Johnson), and neither the Rs nor the Ds wanted to be seen as obstructing the Perot vote they desperately wanted. (It could be argued that the Perot vote flipped Congress in 1994 and kept Clinton in office in 1996).


And as Jesse Ventura has noted - unless you can be in the debates, you have no chance whatsoever. Johnson would have to poll 25% or more (most likely) to get in and guess what? Much of that vote is more likely to come from Trump than from HRC. However, I CAN envision ONE scenario this happens: Hillary figures that Johnson being on stage hurts Trump with his base much more than it hurts her while Trump figures Johnson being there will let him hide like the little coward he did in the GOP debates (where with eight other folks on stage, he could say something outrageous and then let them all attack one another with it while he stood back and sneered like a punk).

Trump never did a one-on-one debate (that I know of) and there's a reason for that: the man is a spineless jellyfish in actual combat.

Click to expand...

selmaborntidefan said:

Johnson has no prayer at winning. If I DO pull the lever for him (it doesn't really matter here in Texas....well, maybe he gets enough votes to give Hillary the state, God forbid), it won't really make any difference.


Oh, and here's two other things really grinding my gears:


1) The ASSUMPTION that 15% of the vote mandates Johnson gets in the debates. That is NOT true!!! That is a MINIMUM THRESHOLD that MIGHT enable him to get into the debates IF the situation in #2 permits him. They don't have to let him debate - period.

2) The debates are overseen by the PARTISAN (as in BI) Commission on Presidential Debates. Oh, I know you've read numerous stories like this nonsense:


In a tweet on Friday night, Trump incorrectly said that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are "trying to rig the debates."
In fact, the fall debate schedule was determined almost a year ago by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, a private group made up of both Republicans and Democrats.


This is an AMUSING use of the word 'nonpartisan;' what it REALLY means is 'bipartisan' - but you can't have a group staging that under the banner of 'partisan' so they put out the lie they are 'nonpartisan' and the media agrees to call it 'nonpartisan' but it's about as ridiculous as citing the Southern Poverty Law Center or U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as actual objective authorities (they aren't).

Of course, the decision will be made based on...what is BEST for the parties. They sort of 'had' to let Perot debate in 1992 (the story is told in "Mad As Hell" by Jack Germond and Jules Witcover). They WANTED - both parties - to tell Perot to take a hike. Problem was that Perot had been in the news all year long and leading them in the earlier polls (unlike Johnson), had billions to run his own campaign (unlike Johnson), and neither the Rs nor the Ds wanted to be seen as obstructing the Perot vote they desperately wanted. (It could be argued that the Perot vote flipped Congress in 1994 and kept Clinton in office in 1996).


And as Jesse Ventura has noted - unless you can be in the debates, you have no chance whatsoever. Johnson would have to poll 25% or more (most likely) to get in and guess what? Much of that vote is more likely to come from Trump than from HRC. However, I CAN envision ONE scenario this happens: Hillary figures that Johnson being on stage hurts Trump with his base much more than it hurts her while Trump figures Johnson being there will let him hide like the little coward he did in the GOP debates (where with eight other folks on stage, he could say something outrageous and then let them all attack one another with it while he stood back and sneered like a punk).

Trump never did a one-on-one debate (that I know of) and there's a reason for that: the man is a spineless jellyfish in actual combat.

Click to expand...

selmaborntidefan said:

Johnson has no prayer at winning. If I DO pull the lever for him (it doesn't really matter here in Texas....well, maybe he gets enough votes to give Hillary the state, God forbid), it won't really make any difference.


Oh, and here's two other things really grinding my gears:


1) The ASSUMPTION that 15% of the vote mandates Johnson gets in the debates. That is NOT true!!! That is a MINIMUM THRESHOLD that MIGHT enable him to get into the debates IF the situation in #2 permits him. They don't have to let him debate - period.

2) The debates are overseen by the PARTISAN (as in BI) Commission on Presidential Debates. Oh, I know you've read numerous stories like this nonsense:


In a tweet on Friday night, Trump incorrectly said that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are "trying to rig the debates."
In fact, the fall debate schedule was determined almost a year ago by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, a private group made up of both Republicans and Democrats.


This is an AMUSING use of the word 'nonpartisan;' what it REALLY means is 'bipartisan' - but you can't have a group staging that under the banner of 'partisan' so they put out the lie they are 'nonpartisan' and the media agrees to call it 'nonpartisan' but it's about as ridiculous as citing the Southern Poverty Law Center or U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as actual objective authorities (they aren't).

Of course, the decision will be made based on...what is BEST for the parties. They sort of 'had' to let Perot debate in 1992 (the story is told in "Mad As Hell" by Jack Germond and Jules Witcover). They WANTED - both parties - to tell Perot to take a hike. Problem was that Perot had been in the news all year long and leading them in the earlier polls (unlike Johnson), had billions to run his own campaign (unlike Johnson), and neither the Rs nor the Ds wanted to be seen as obstructing the Perot vote they desperately wanted. (It could be argued that the Perot vote flipped Congress in 1994 and kept Clinton in office in 1996).


And as Jesse Ventura has noted - unless you can be in the debates, you have no chance whatsoever. Johnson would have to poll 25% or more (most likely) to get in and guess what? Much of that vote is more likely to come from Trump than from HRC. However, I CAN envision ONE scenario this happens: Hillary figures that Johnson being on stage hurts Trump with his base much more than it hurts her while Trump figures Johnson being there will let him hide like the little coward he did in the GOP debates (where with eight other folks on stage, he could say something outrageous and then let them all attack one another with it while he stood back and sneered like a punk).

Trump never did a one-on-one debate (that I know of) and there's a reason for that: the man is a spineless jellyfish in actual combat.

Click to expand...

Tidewater said:

Okay, so we can list you among the "cynical and more than a little angry" voters this morning?

Click to expand...

crimsonaudio said:

Once again...

Click to expand...

NationalTitles16 said:

https://reason.com/blog/2016/08/31/first-relevant-poll-in-nearly-a-month-is

Well, that's disappointing.

Click to expand...

In a striking coincidence, none of the five polls, until tonight, had issued a peep for the past three weeks, despite two of them (NBC News/Wall Street Journal and ABC News/Washington Post) previously averaging results every three weeks, and two others (CNN/ORC and CBS News) polling voters three times each in the admittedly convention-heavy month of July alone.

Click to expand...

Tide1986 said:

I wonder why.

Click to expand...

92tide said:

johnson's polling may be showing us that the libertarian party just doesn't have as much support as libertarians like to believe.

Click to expand...

crimsonaudio said:

Once again...

Click to expand...

Bamaro said:

Voters are obsessed with the "R" and the "D". It really is a 2 party system. Some will ONLY vote for the R, others ONLY for the D and most of the rest ONLY for a R OR a D. How anybody this time can vote for either is beyond me. Romney and McCain would be leading Clinton by a landslide. Kerry and Gore would be leading Trump by a landslide. Johnson is far from the perfect candidate but far superior to either the R or the D!

Click to expand...

TideEngineer08 said:

It is astonishing to think, as mediocre as Romney, McCain, Kerry, and Gore were that they would be running away with the election this year. As for Johnson and the viability of the Libertarian Party, #1 I get the impression that Johnson really has no desire to win. I understand calling it an uphill battle is a major understatement. But when I listen to him speak, I am so underwhelmed. I can't help but think others feel the same way. But then #2. I don't think most Americans have any desire to trim back the control the Federal Government enjoys today. Oh the Rs like to talk about social programs, and the Ds like to talk about the military, but ultimately BOTH sides want to grow the federal government. And most citizens fall right in line. Conservatives tend to be quite ok letting the Feds mettle in your personal lives. Liberals are completely ok with letting the Feds mettle in your financial lives. So the appetite for true Libertarian philosophy becoming policy is simply not there.

Click to expand...

CaliforniaTide said:

I think part of the problem is that voting populace don't fully understand the cause-and-effect of the government being as big as it is. They're personally not seeing direct effects on their lives, or they think "It's the other party's fault!!!".

Click to expand...