• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Failed Third Party Candidate Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson

Absolutely. In an election between Hillary and Trump he has as good a chance as any third party candidate has had. He needs to get into the debates to have a chance though. I just wish he was a better speaker and wasn't so goofy sometimes. Makes him seem a little less presidential. But considering Trump is a nominee that shouldn't be held against him too much.
 
To the "presidential" comment, one of the nominees is Donald Trump, and the other could be indicted for overseas affairs. That's probably the least of his worries.
 
What's the threshold for getting into the debates? Polling at 10%?

I do think polls should start including Johnson on them. I imagine he can siphon off 5-7% of the overall vote.
 
He's easily the most likeable and presidential of the lot, and I'm no libertarian. And I think he'll get more protest votes from each side this year than he got the last time around. I'm guessing he tops 5% this time. But no, probably not voting for him.
 
What is the threshold for getting into the polls? They'd have to include Jill Stein and whoever else as well.
 
PhDeac said:
What is the threshold for getting into the polls? They'd have to include Jill Stein and whoever else as well.
Click to expand...

Johnson still polls over 1%. Stein and whoever else will be polling < 1%.
 
Looks like 15%:

"Federal Election Commission ("FEC") regulations require a debate sponsor to make its candidate selection decisions on the basis of "pre-established, objective" criteria. After a thorough and wide-ranging review of alternative approaches to determining who is invited to participate in the general election debates it will sponsor, the CPD adopted on October 28, 2015 its 2016 Non-Partisan Candidate Selection Criteria. Under the 2016 Criteria, in addition to being Constitutionally eligible, candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination. The polls to be relied upon will be selected based on the quality of the methodology employed, the reputation of the polling organizations and the frequency of the polling conducted. CPD will identify the selected polling organizations well in advance of the time the criteria are applied."
 
When they learn you will hold your nose and vote, they give you more candidates that make you hold your nose.

I'll vote Johnson for the same reason I voted Bernie in the NC primary: he's the best human being. That has to be considered more than supposed policies and promises that are inevitably broken.
 
Would vote for Johnson in a heartbeat if I thought he had a chance. Like others have said, needs to be mentioned in polls and possibly get into the debates.

There's a scenario where he can win his home state of New Mexico (big if) and disrupt the electoral college system keeping Donald and Hilary from getting to 270.

Would a GOP controlled house favor Trump or Johnson?
 
StrickDeac said:
Would vote for Johnson in a heartbeat if I thought he had a chance. Like others have said, needs to be mentioned in polls and possibly get into the debates.

There's a scenario where he can win his home state of New Mexico (big if) and disrupt the electoral college system keeping Donald and Hilary from getting to 270.

Would a GOP controlled house favor Trump or Johnson?
Click to expand...

It is stupid rationale like this why I have maintained on here for years that polling should be illegal. Polling has more effects on elections than the money actually spent by the candidates.
 
I agree that it is self-serving and a vicious cycle to rely on polling for stuff like that.
 
I will be voting for him, I know he's the Libertarian candidate and my personal politics tend to skew that way (fiscally conservative, socially moderate to liberal, or at least not socially conservative), but I don't know anything specific about him or his policies (other than they'd be generally libertarian). I know he has no chance of winning, but I think 3rd party candidates can be the cause of the most dramatic shifts in politics, not because they win, but because if they can garner enough of the vote (10% or so), one of the two main parties will absorb those ideals to attract those votes, thus effect real change. (FTR I don't think he'll get 10% or anything close to that, but that's how I justify what my mother calls "throwing my vote away"). If I had to vote for Trump or Hillary, I'd vote for Hillary (and I can't believe I'm saying that, because I loathe Hillary, but Trump's appeal and policies are dangerous, while Hillary is just an extremely unlikable person.)
 
Baconwfu said:
I will be voting for him, I know he's the Libertarian candidate and my personal politics tend to skew that way (fiscally conservative, socially moderate to liberal, or at least not socially conservative), but I don't know anything specific about him or his policies (other than they'd be generally libertarian). I know he has no chance of winning, but I think 3rd party candidates can be the cause of the most dramatic shifts in politics, not because they win, but because if they can garner enough of the vote (10% or so), one of the two main parties will absorb those ideals to attract those votes, thus effect real change. (FTR I don't think he'll get 10% or anything close to that, but that's how I justify what my mother calls "throwing my vote away"). If I had to vote for Trump or Hillary, I'd vote for Hillary (and I can't believe I'm saying that, because I loathe Hillary, but Trump's appeal and policies are dangerous, while Hillary is just an extremely unlikable person.)
Click to expand...

I think that's what it's going to come down to for a lot of people.
 
As far as I know he's only been included in one poll, which he got 11%. He pulled about the same amount of people from both sides which was good to see (they did 2 polls - one as Hillary vs Trump and the other Hillary vs Trump vs Johnson). As people learn he's a third option that number should go up even more.
 
This is the best year for a third-party candidate since 1992 for sure. The logistics for succeeding as a third-party candidate, however, are severely cumbersome when it comes to getting on state ballots and, as others have mentioned, getting into the debates.

A viable candidate would've needed to lay the ground work months ago and have already been actively campaigning. At this point, it's probably too late for any serious contender to emerge.
 
Gary Johnson still isn't the official nominee of the party (although he will win I imagine when the convention comes around next month) and the Libertarian selection process isn't covered by the media or anything. Johnson is the presumptive nominee but I don't think he was going to go out and campaign for president before he locked up the nomination.

The Libertarian Party should be positioned well to get on most state ballots with an existing party structure. Johnson actually only led Austin Petersen by one percent in the last poll (taken in April)
 
StrickDeac said:
Would vote for Johnson in a heartbeat if I thought he had a chance. Like others have said, needs to be mentioned in polls and possibly get into the debates.

There's a scenario where he can win his home state of New Mexico (big if) and disrupt the electoral college system keeping Donald and Hilary from getting to 270.

Would a GOP controlled house favor Trump or Johnson?
Click to expand...

Neither, really. They might like Johnson from a fiscal perspective (although he might not cut taxes as much as they'd like, but I think he'd want to cut into the deficit), but would hate him from a foreign policy perspective and wouldn't care for his social agenda. They'll hate Drumpf from a budgetary perspective, especially the tea baggers, because his proposals don't come close to paying what he says he'll pay. They'll probably like Drumpf more socially because I'm betting he'll appoint more socially conservative judges than Johnson would, and while they won't like his foreign policy, he's less an isolationist than Johnson is. The House will generally despise whichever of the 3 is elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top