• 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

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.

While it's a good year for it, we don't have a 3rd party candidate who is capable of getting 15-20% of the vote. Perot did relatively well that year because of a cult of personality. Johnson and the libertarians never poll higher than 4-5%.
 
An endorsement of Stein by Bernie could really shake things up.

Sure, but the likelihood of that happening at this point is low, and Warren might kill him if he did that, given what she had to say about Drumpf yesterday. If Bernie endorsed Stein, that might hand the election to Drumpf.
 
Elizabeth Warren would verbally slit Bernie's throat. Perhaps literally too.
 
Austin Petersen is a wacko. He is not grounded by reality at all and just spouts off whatever the by the book Libertarian view is. He would stand no shot in a general election. Gary has the experience to know what will work and won't work, unlike Austin who is a purist/theorist. I will be extremely disappointed if Gary doesn't get the nod.
 
Elizabeth Warren would verbally slit Bernie's throat. Perhaps literally too.

If Bernie is for real about the #movement, then a verbal throat-slitting from an increasingly party-promoting Warren is part of the untethering of the progressive movement from the Democratic Party.
 
Austin Petersen is a wacko. He is not grounded by reality at all and just spouts off whatever the by the book Libertarian view is. He would stand no shot in a general election. Gary has the experience to know what will work and won't work, unlike Austin who is a purist/theorist. I will be extremely disappointed if Gary doesn't get the nod.

Well if there's anything we know about this election it's that the experienced former governor will win the nomination over the wacko.
 
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.

My "stupid rationale" is due to the fact that I've voted that way in the past and constantly felt like it was a waste of time, as that candidate has had zero chance of winning. I've been one of a handful of people to actually go this route, and - consistently after looking at results - I ask myself, "Why did I do that again?"

I agree with your second point that polling has a profound effect on the elections. Wish it wasn't so. Oh well.

After Hilary wins this election, the republican party will either split and/or Libertarians can gain some movement from the republicans who want to move on from the stone-age social platform they're holding on to.
 
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.

Good info - thanks.
 
I will look heavily into Gary Johnson as a potential vote. If nothing else I can pretty much guarantee that he is a more ethical choice then either of the two other candidates, and so atleast my conscience will feel good with putting down a vote for him.
 
From what I remember about Gary Johnson, I like him well enough. But voting for Gary Johnson in the general election is like rooting for Wake in the national championship game because you don't like UNC or Villanova.
 
From what I remember about Gary Johnson, I like him well enough. But voting for Gary Johnson in the general election is like rooting for Wake in the national championship game because you don't like UNC or Duke.

Made it a more accurate analogy. And in that instance I have no problem rooting for Wake in that game.
 
Duke wasn't in the national championship game.
 
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.

Yep, that's where somebody like Perot with his own money to burn would've come in handy. These rinky dink candidates with their rinky dink parties have no ground game and no organization to get the ball rolling early. Jim Webb might've been able to pull it off. Not that he's loaded with money, but he had people behind him. Shit, if he had stuck around I might've voted for him.
 
Yep, that's where somebody like Perot with his own money to burn would've come in handy. These rinky dink candidates with their rinky dink parties have no ground game and no organization to get the ball rolling early. Jim Webb might've been able to pull it off. Not that he's loaded with money, but he had people behind him. Shit, if he had stuck around I might've voted for him.

Yep. Trump basically ran the ideal third party campaign but within the party structure. A viable third party candidate would basically need to run side by side the parties and poll high enough to make the actual elections look like they're missing something.
 
Duke wasn't in the national championship game.

Yeah, I know that, just trying to pick a matchup in which both teams are generally despised by everyone other than their own subset of fans, especially on this board. It is acceptable to give a wtf root for Villanova, it is not acceptable to give one for either UNC or Duke. Similar to Hillary and Trump.
 
Bloomberg was the only viable third party option this election. A shame that Hillary didn't get indicted - he would have been in. He would have had an excellent chance - should have announced as soon as Bernie won New Hampshire big. Clinton was very vulnerable then, and a Bloomberg announcement might have allowed Bernie to win in Nevada as well, and if that had happened, he very well could have buried Hillary. Bloomberg would be the only "reasonable" choice in a Trump/Bernie/Bloomberg race, and could have even possibly won a House vote if the EC had been split.

That being said, I will definitely vote for Johnson. Romney should have backed him immediately when he came out with his anti-Trump speech, and basically turned the Republican Party into the Libertarian Party. Romney wanted to somehow run himself, though, which was just a huge mistake.
 
LOL. Never change Libertarians.

The Libertarian Party holds its nominating convention Memorial Day Weekend in Orlando, Florida. While Johnson is favored to win, it is expected to be a close race.
John McAfee, 70-year old cyber entrepreneur who was also being sought by police in Belize for a murder, is also running and has attracted support.
 
Back
Top