If Gary Johnson is liberal enough to attract moderate Democrats and conservative enough to attract moderate Republicans, why does he lucky to break out of the single digits? Let me suggest an alternative explanation: Although Johnson arrives at views which are on the surface in agreement with various Democrats and various Republicans, depending on the issue, the underlying reasoning which informs his positions differs radically from the reasoning of both Democrats and Republicans. I think most Americans correctly view the Libertarian party's view of the world as incredibly naive and simplistic. It leads him to support such obviously bad ideas as private prisons and abolishing the department of education. Opinion polls put support for the latter at less than 20%.
You should go out and ask people if they'd consider voting for Gary Johnson, and why. I'd bet that your 2 biggest reasons are:
1. It's a wasted vote
2. Gary Who?
Neither of which indicate that they actually disagree with his policies.
BTW: Many people think Libertarianism is basically classical liberalism reincarnated.
Speaking as a classical liberal: no it's not.
Conway, David (2008). "Liberalism, Classical". In Hamowy, Ronald, ed. p. 296. "Depending on the context, libertarianism can be seen as either the contemporary name for classical liberalism, adopted to avoid confusion in those countries where liberalism is widely understood to denote advocacy of expansive government powers, or as a more radical version of classical liberalism."
Paul A. Cantor, The Invisible Hand in Popular Culture: Liberty Vs. Authority in American Film and TV "The roots of libertarianism lie in...the classical liberal tradition."
Just a few. It's kind of funny that classical liberalism is listed at least 31 times in the wiki article on Libertarianism. But, I guess you are the Grand Poobah of what is Classical Liberalism, I should shut up now before you start splitting hairs on what is Classical Liberalism and what is not.
Just a few. It's kind of funny that classical liberalism is listed at least 31 times in the wiki article on Libertarianism. But, I guess you are the Grand Poobah of what is Classical Liberalism, I should shut up now before you start splitting hairs on what is Classical Liberalism and what is not.
Yeah, the roots of libertarianism lie in the classical liberal tradition. The roots of communism lie in the classical liberal tradition too. That doesn't mean communism is classical liberalism (and yes, I have had communists try to argue that it was). Libertarianism is to classical liberalism what eugenics is to evolutionary biology: yes, it makes some of the same noises, but it loses nuance and context, turns a theory into a dogma, and takes it to really weird places (to wit: antisemitism).
As far as Mr. Johnson in particular stands, the hard truth is that if you don't want Clinton to win, you are better off voting for Trump, and if you don't want Trump to win, you are better off voting for Clinton. If you don't want either to win, well, tough, because one of them is going to (and I don't like it either). Johnson's not even going to get enough ballots to serve as a visible and viable protest vote. You might as well have just stayed home.
As far as Mr. Johnson in particular stands, the hard truth is that if you don't want Clinton to win, you are better off voting for Trump, and if you don't want Trump to win, you are better off voting for Clinton. If you don't want either to win, well, tough, because one of them is going to (and I don't like it either). Johnson's not even going to get enough ballots to serve as a visible and viable protest vote. You might as well have just stayed home.
Until electorate starts to actively reject this premise.
As far as classical liberalism. Reincarnation was purposeful word choice.
Reincarnation is the philosophical or religious concept that a living being starts a new life in a different physical body or form after each biological death
You should go out and ask people if they'd consider voting for Gary Johnson, and why. I'd bet that your 2 biggest reasons are:
1. It's a wasted vote
2. Gary Who?
Neither of which indicate that they actually disagree with his policies.
Yes, that's true. But I would say that the obstacle he faces in overcoming those problems is that very few people actually do agree with his policies beyond the superficial level. Both gaining name recognition and gaining an aura of viability/electability require building a critical mass of actual supporters on a policy level. That's how candidates like Bernie Sanders or like Donald Trump are able to transition from being unknowns perceived as being completely inviable to being competitive: when people hear what their policies and positions and philosophies are, they find that they agree. Johnson can't build that critical mass because the support for his positions simply doesn't exist in the population.
So yes, I agree that there are more immediate obstacles to Johnson's success, but that the fact that he is unable to overcome these obstacles is due to the phenomenon I mentioned.
Until electorate starts to actively reject this premise.
In theory? Yes. In practice? They won't.
Maybe not. I would've never guess I would not vote for one of the Major political parties candidates in my lifetime. I was not a supporter of Ron Paul and he is, in my view, a harder libertarian than G. Johnson.
Hey, if conservatives vote this guy in lieu of Trump, I'm all for him. His economics are weird, but at least he seems to have passed ninth grade english and doesn't sporadically act like a Nazi.
As far as Mr. Johnson in particular stands, the hard truth is that if you don't want Clinton to win, you are better off voting for Trump, and if you don't want Trump to win, you are better off voting for Clinton. If you don't want either to win, well, tough, because one of them is going to (and I don't like it either). Johnson's not even going to get enough ballots to serve as a visible and viable protest vote. You might as well have just stayed home.
As someone who spent the past three months studying the Green Party before settling on Clinton, I can say the following two statements:
1. This argument is currently true.
2. The bar for the argument to be proven false is much lower than the post implies.
We all know where this is going: Ralph Nadar was a spoiler in 2000. You just have to know where to look.
First, let's get the most obvious thing out of the way. Al Gore lost Florida by less than a thousand votes, leading to a final score of Bush 271 to Gore 266. However, Florida was a giant mess to begin with and to be honest, there's a much quieter example that I found just by chance: New Hampshire.
Here are the following relevant numbers:
Bush won New Hampshire by 1.27%. Bush had 273,559 votes. Gore had 266,348 votes. Nadar had 22,198 votes. The rest of the Northeast was blue. New Hampshire itself has been blue in every election since 1992 sans 2000, and it's not unrealistic to think that ~8,000 people would have opted for Al Gore instead of Nadar had he not made the ballot, which would have shifted the score to Gore 270 v. Bush 267, thus altering the course of history. (Source)
What this tells me is that first a protest vote may not make much of a difference nationally, but regionally it can create a cascading effect. Second, if your protest vote does become important enough to get noticed (Nadar's National Vote was just under 3%, so that threshold can be small depending on the circumstances), then also depending on the circumstances, no one may care because they're too busy freaking out the other guy just won.
We all know where this is going: Ralph Nadar was a spoiler in 2000. You just have to know where to look.
First, let's get the most obvious thing out of the way. Al Gore lost Florida by less than a thousand votes, leading to a final score of Bush 271 to Gore 266. However, Florida was a giant mess to begin with and to be honest, there's a much quieter example that I found just by chance: New Hampshire.
Here are the following relevant numbers:
Bush won New Hampshire by 1.27%. Bush had 273,559 votes. Gore had 266,348 votes. Nadar had 22,198 votes. The rest of the Northeast was blue. New Hampshire itself has been blue in every election since 1992 sans 2000, and it's not unrealistic to think that ~8,000 people would have opted for Al Gore instead of Nadar had he not made the ballot, which would have shifted the score to Gore 270 v. Bush 267, thus altering the course of history. (Source)
What this tells me is that first a protest vote may not make much of a difference nationally, but regionally it can create a cascading effect. Second, if your protest vote does become important enough to get noticed (Nadar's National Vote was just under 3%, so that threshold can be small depending on the circumstances), then also depending on the circumstances, no one may care because they're too busy freaking out the other guy just won.
Many people who believe Nader spoiled the election miss two critical factors that were beyond Nader's sphere of influence:
1. About 12% of Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. That is roughly equivalent to over 200,000 votes, FAR more than Nader's total in Florida. If even just 1% of that group votes for Gore, he wins Florida.
2. Al Gore failed to win his home state of Tennessee, which was won by Bill Clinton in the last two elections. If Gore won Tennessee, the election would be over right then and there.
Many people who believe Nader spoiled the election miss two critical factors that were beyond Nader's sphere of influence:
1. About 12% of Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. That is roughly equivalent to over 200,000 votes, FAR more than Nader's total in Florida. If even just 1% of that group votes for Gore, he wins Florida.
2. Al Gore failed to win his home state of Tennessee, which was won by Bill Clinton in the last two elections. If Gore won Tennessee, the election would be over right then and there.
New. Hampshire. Not. Florida. That's where Ralph Nadar's influence shows the most.
Al Gore was a weak candidate. Ralph Nadar would not have had nearly the influence he could have if Al Gore had been able to shore up the Democrat base away from the the Republicans and the Green Party. While there are many facets out of Ralph Nadar's campaign's control, there is at least one that wasn't. He shares the burden, not holds all the burden.
Al Gore was a weak candidate. Ralph Nadar would not have had nearly the influence he could have if Al Gore had been able to shore up the Democrat base away from the the Republicans and the Green Party. While there are many facets out of Ralph Nadar's campaign's control, there is at least one. He shares the burden, not holds all the burden.
So third party candidates matter a lot when the candidates of the two majority party are not well liked.
That's great.
Clinton is probably the least-liked Democratic Party nominee since Jimmy Carter (spit-balling here, but in all honesty I think she's less liked than Carter during his campaign against Reagan).
The Republican Party is pretty much united in the single premise that Clinton CANNOT become the President. This is such to the point that they actually went and accepted the nomination of someone who's not actually a Republican in ideology, simply because that man had the backing of the populist element of the Republican Party and they knew that doing anything would ensure CLinton's nomination.
So, there you have it. The Republicans will do everything to deny a Clinton victory. Clinton doesn't rile up the Democratic general support base, and likely the non-decided for that matter. In fact, many of the liberals commonly associated with the Democratic Party (and probably the people who pushed Obama to victory in 08) see Clinton as a morally bankrupt, plain corrupt individual who stole the election from the man who really should have been nominated.
Given all this, I think it would be fair to say that this would be a highly contested race. I think all this brouhaha about the polling is misleading and possibly downright dangerous. Remember that the Carter/Reagan contest was neck to neck up until the end, when Reagan won by a landslide.
Also remember that, at the start of this year, Trump was considered a joke candidate who may win a primary here and there, but would eventually be shut-out. When he started actually winning and Bush and others dropped out, people thought that the field would become consolidated and so the true Republican candidate (not Trump) would emerge victorious.
I think going with your conscience and voting for a third-party candidiate in this situation is nuts.
Al Gore was a weak candidate. Ralph Nadar would not have had nearly the influence he could have if Al Gore had been able to shore up the Democrat base away from the the Republicans and the Green Party. While there are many facets out of Ralph Nadar's campaign's control, there is at least one. He shares the burden, not holds all the burden.
So third party candidates matter a lot when the candidates of the two majority party are not well liked.
That's great.
Clinton is probably the least-liked Democratic Party nominee since Jimmy Carter (spit-balling here, but in all honesty I think she's less liked than Carter during his campaign against Reagan).
The Republican Party is pretty much united in the single premise that Clinton CANNOT become the President. This is such to the point that they actually went and accepted the nomination of someone who's not actually a Republican in ideology, simply because that man had the backing of the populist element of the Republican Party and they knew that doing anything would ensure CLinton's nomination.
So, there you have it. The Republicans will do everything to deny a Clinton victory. Clinton doesn't rile up the Democratic general support base, and likely the non-decided for that matter. In fact, many of the liberals commonly associated with the Democratic Party (and probably the people who pushed Obama to victory in 08) see Clinton as a morally bankrupt, plain corrupt individual who stole the election from the man who really should have been nominated.
Given all this, I think it would be fair to say that this would be a highly contested race. I think all this brouhaha about the polling is misleading and possibly downright dangerous. Remember that the Carter/Reagan contest was neck to neck up until the end, when Reagan won by a landslide.
Also remember that, at the start of this year, Trump was considered a joke candidate who may win a primary here and there, but would eventually be shut-out. When he started actually winning and Bush and others dropped out, people thought that the field would become consolidated and so the true Republican candidate (not Trump) would emerge victorious.
I think going with your conscience and voting for a third-party candidiate in this situation is nuts.
Except the GOP is anything *but* united. TIME actually had a very good article a few days ago showing just how much Trump has pissed off the GOP because he can't stop making gaffes and shutting up since the conventions ended. (If it weren't under a paywall I would link it) He is majorly behind in a lot of national polls that have been released and he is causing normally red states like Georgia, Arizona, and even South Carolina to be in danger of being won by Clinton. Even Utah isn't safe. There was an internal poll that was released a few weeks ago showing that Gary Johnson is at 26% in Utah, mere percentage points from Trump who only had 29% (and Clinton with 27%). For a state that should be a very easy win for any GOP candidate, that is an unmitigated disaster. To make matters even worse, there is a good chance that Mitt Romney will endorse Gary Johnson soon (he and Bill Weld are huge friends and has said he is looking into supporting the ticket). Given that he's highly respected in Utah, if Romney endorses Johnson, Trump is done in Utah.
It's gotten to the point where they are just about ready to pull the plug on Trump's campaign and focus on downticket races to preserve the House and Senate. Obviously the GOP does not want to see Hillary become president, but they can stonewall her into oblivion for 4 years and make it so that she cannot do anything at all. I don't really understand the Reagan comparisons because Reagan wasn't anything close to Trump in terms of his attitude and ability to get people behind him. If anything, Trump is going to go the route of Bob Dole, or, dare I say it... Barry Goldwater.
BTW: Many people think Libertarianism is basically classical liberalism reincarnated.
Speaking as a classical liberal: no it's not.
It's very broad, obviously. Would you consider Bastiat to be a classical liberal? Because I think it would be very fair to call him libertarian as well.
As far as Mr. Johnson in particular stands, the hard truth is that if you don't want Clinton to win, you are better off voting for Trump, and if you don't want Trump to win, you are better off voting for Clinton. If you don't want either to win, well, tough, because one of them is going to (and I don't like it either). Johnson's not even going to get enough ballots to serve as a visible and viable protest vote. You might as well have just stayed home.
I'm in New York. Hillary is taking New York. That's almost as certain as the fact that one of the two will win the overall election. So even if I thought that one was preferable to the other (I don't), what point would there be? If I dislike both candidates, what point would there be in voting for either of them?
In that context, it makes perfect sense for those of us who want to make this statement (and don't live in swing states) to do so.
You say that Johnson is not going to get enough ballots to serve as a visible and viable protest vote. He's currently polling above 10%+. If he gets anywhere near 10% that is far, far more than enough to make it worthwhile, IMO.
Heck, the Republican party is falling to pieces. We're probably going to see a lot of re-organization in the future. If there was ever a time to cast a Libertarian vote, now would be the time as we may be able to influence which direction they take in the future.
Except the GOP is anything *but* united. TIME actually had a very good article a few days ago showing just how much Trump has pissed off the GOP because he can't stop making gaffes and shutting up since the conventions ended. (If it weren't under a paywall I would link it) He is majorly behind in a lot of national polls that have been released and he is causing normally red states like Georgia, Arizona, and even South Carolina to be in danger of being won by Clinton. Even Utah isn't safe. There was an internal poll that was released a few weeks ago showing that Gary Johnson is at 26% in Utah, mere percentage points from Trump who only had 29% (and Clinton with 27%). For a state that should be a very easy win for any GOP candidate, that is an unmitigated disaster. To make matters even worse, there is a good chance that Mitt Romney will endorse Gary Johnson soon (he and Bill Weld are huge friends and has said he is looking into supporting the ticket). Given that he's highly respected in Utah, if Romney endorses Johnson, Trump is done in Utah.
I meant they're united against Clinton.
I also don't put much stock in polls this far out. It seems too risky to believe that Trump is guaranteed to lose.
It's gotten to the point where they are just about ready to pull the plug on Trump's campaign and focus on downticket races to preserve the House and Senate. Obviously the GOP does not want to see Hillary become president, but they can stonewall her into oblivion for 4 years and make it so that she cannot do anything at all. I don't really understand the Reagan comparisons because Reagan wasn't anything close to Trump in terms of his attitude and ability to get people behind him. If anything, Trump is going to go the route of Bob Dole, or, dare I say it... Barry Goldwater.
I brought up Reagan simply to showcase the possibility of what happens when you place too much trust in polling and not the actual election result.
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Seems kind of stupid, as I doubt half the people mocking him on social media knew what was going on or where Aleppo is. Hell, the first several links if you google "Aleppo" mention Gary Johnson in the description :p. There are plenty of actual things to mock about Johnson.
Seems kind of stupid, as I doubt half the people mocking him on social media knew what was going on or where Aleppo is. Hell, the first several links if you google "Aleppo" mention Gary Johnson in the description :p. There are plenty of actual things to mock about Johnson.
I would not necessarily expect a presidential candidate to know what Aleppo is, though it would be interesting if he personal knowledge in the area (visited there, was an ambassador to Syria...ect.)
The actual president unlikely would know about Aleppo until their advisors bring it up. Then the president would ask where is Aleppo, what is the situation, and then figure out ways to handle it.
Johnson made the mistake of acting like a human being, which is what presidents do behind doors. Asking a question to increase his knowledge. Too often we are used to politicians getting fed pre-determined questions, or giving vague answers to avoid discussion.
I am not exactly the biggest fan of Johnson, but he have seen some of his interviews and has a lot of interesting points on multiple issues. The grievance here isnt that he didnt know what Aleppo is, its that the entertainment television (called news in America) finds a needle in a haystack, and declares the barn should be burned. I mean how is he supposed to know what Aleppo is when ironically the media focuses on stories like this!
Johnson asking what is Aleppo is the most honest thing I have heard a candidate say so far this election.
Seems kind of stupid, as I doubt half the people mocking him on social media knew what was going on or where Aleppo is. Hell, the first several links if you google "Aleppo" mention Gary Johnson in the description :p. There are plenty of actual things to mock about Johnson.
I would not necessarily expect a presidential candidate to know what Aleppo is, though it would be interesting if he personal knowledge in the area (visited there, was an ambassador to Syria...ect.)
The actual president unlikely would know about Aleppo until their advisors bring it up. Then the president would ask where is Aleppo, what is the situation, and then figure out ways to handle it.
Johnson made the mistake of acting like a human being, which is what presidents do behind doors. Asking a question to increase his knowledge. Too often we are used to politicians getting fed pre-determined questions, or giving vague answers to avoid discussion.
I am not exactly the biggest fan of Johnson, but he have seen some of his interviews and has a lot of interesting points on multiple issues. The grievance here isnt that he didnt know what Aleppo is, its that the entertainment television (called news in America) finds a needle in a haystack, and declares the barn should be burned. I mean how is he supposed to know what Aleppo is when ironically the media focuses on stories like this!
Johnson asking what is Aleppo is the most honest thing I have heard a candidate say so far this election.
I liked his response to the "controversy." If a politican makes a mistake, this is the kind of response I want to hear, not Trump's doubling down or Clinton's lawyerism. He lost a few points in knowledge and foreign policy, but gained a few points in character. At the least, he didn't double down or deny he said it, so this should blow over in a week. Of course, with the debates this month, that might not be enough time.
Seems kind of stupid, as I doubt half the people mocking him on social media knew what was going on or where Aleppo is.
I would expect a presidential candidate to be smarter than half the people on social media.
Though that expectation has lead to a great deal of disappointment this election.
I don't disagree, but I for instance never knew anything about it. Apart from most media focusing on a person not standing during the National Anthem, has Aleppo even been under the focus of the election? Like, if we are seeing which potential candidate did the dumbest *****, I don't even know how this makes the radar.
If you want to hit Johnson hard and show what a crackpot party the Libertarians are, all you have to do is show that clip of Johnson getting booed for supporting drivers licenses: a ridiculous issue that was mainstream enough in the Libertarian Party it made the debates. It would as ridiculous as if the Democratic party had a debate talking point of "should we allow people to shop online."
Seems kind of stupid, as I doubt half the people mocking him on social media knew what was going on or where Aleppo is.
I would expect a presidential candidate to be smarter than half the people on social media.
Though that expectation has lead to a great deal of disappointment this election.
Agreed!
But, I don't see how it's any different than not knowing what signifies confidential in e-mails for a Secretary of State. Or not knowing what "wiping a server" means (like with a cloth?). Etc. And, at least he didn't double down on it, or claim he never said it despite recordings of him saying it unlike Trump.
All thing's considered, this isn't any worse than what any other candidates have done this cycle, and his follow up was a great deal better. Too bad he's not going to be given the opportunity to debate [I know it's not official, but at this point every force seems to be acting against his participation in the debates].
Yeah, Johnson got screwed here. The odds Donald J. Trump knew where Aleppo was (before all this) are approximately zero percent, but instead Matt Lauer asks him if he's "ready to be President".
Still, politics are unfair. At the end of the day what matters is that this is the first time Johnson has gotten real mainstream media coverage, so a fair number of voters have been introduced to him as Mr. What's-Aleppo Guy. Bye-bye Johnson.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yeah, Johnson got screwed here. The odds Donald J. Trump knew where Aleppo was (before all this) are approximately zero percent, but instead Matt Lauer asks him if he's "ready to be President".
Still, politics are unfair. At the end of the day what matters is that this is the first time Johnson has gotten real mainstream media coverage, so a fair number of voters have been introduced to him as Mr. What's-Aleppo Guy. Bye-bye Johnson.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You should go out and ask people if they'd consider voting for Gary Johnson, and why. I'd bet that your 2 biggest reasons are:
1. It's a wasted vote
2. Gary Who?
Neither of which indicate that they actually disagree with his policies.
Just a few. It's kind of funny that classical liberalism is listed at least 31 times in the wiki article on Libertarianism. But, I guess you are the Grand Poobah of what is Classical Liberalism, I should shut up now before you start splitting hairs on what is Classical Liberalism and what is not.
As far as Mr. Johnson in particular stands, the hard truth is that if you don't want Clinton to win, you are better off voting for Trump, and if you don't want Trump to win, you are better off voting for Clinton. If you don't want either to win, well, tough, because one of them is going to (and I don't like it either). Johnson's not even going to get enough ballots to serve as a visible and viable protest vote. You might as well have just stayed home.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Until electorate starts to actively reject this premise.
As far as classical liberalism. Reincarnation was purposeful word choice.
Yes, that's true. But I would say that the obstacle he faces in overcoming those problems is that very few people actually do agree with his policies beyond the superficial level. Both gaining name recognition and gaining an aura of viability/electability require building a critical mass of actual supporters on a policy level. That's how candidates like Bernie Sanders or like Donald Trump are able to transition from being unknowns perceived as being completely inviable to being competitive: when people hear what their policies and positions and philosophies are, they find that they agree. Johnson can't build that critical mass because the support for his positions simply doesn't exist in the population.
So yes, I agree that there are more immediate obstacles to Johnson's success, but that the fact that he is unable to overcome these obstacles is due to the phenomenon I mentioned.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Maybe not. I would've never guess I would not vote for one of the Major political parties candidates in my lifetime. I was not a supporter of Ron Paul and he is, in my view, a harder libertarian than G. Johnson.
As someone who spent the past three months studying the Green Party before settling on Clinton, I can say the following two statements:
1. This argument is currently true.
2. The bar for the argument to be proven false is much lower than the post implies.
We all know where this is going: Ralph Nadar was a spoiler in 2000. You just have to know where to look.
First, let's get the most obvious thing out of the way. Al Gore lost Florida by less than a thousand votes, leading to a final score of Bush 271 to Gore 266. However, Florida was a giant mess to begin with and to be honest, there's a much quieter example that I found just by chance: New Hampshire.
Here are the following relevant numbers:
Bush won New Hampshire by 1.27%. Bush had 273,559 votes. Gore had 266,348 votes. Nadar had 22,198 votes. The rest of the Northeast was blue. New Hampshire itself has been blue in every election since 1992 sans 2000, and it's not unrealistic to think that ~8,000 people would have opted for Al Gore instead of Nadar had he not made the ballot, which would have shifted the score to Gore 270 v. Bush 267, thus altering the course of history. (Source)
What this tells me is that first a protest vote may not make much of a difference nationally, but regionally it can create a cascading effect. Second, if your protest vote does become important enough to get noticed (Nadar's National Vote was just under 3%, so that threshold can be small depending on the circumstances), then also depending on the circumstances, no one may care because they're too busy freaking out the other guy just won.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Many people who believe Nader spoiled the election miss two critical factors that were beyond Nader's sphere of influence:
1. About 12% of Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. That is roughly equivalent to over 200,000 votes, FAR more than Nader's total in Florida. If even just 1% of that group votes for Gore, he wins Florida.
2. Al Gore failed to win his home state of Tennessee, which was won by Bill Clinton in the last two elections. If Gore won Tennessee, the election would be over right then and there.
New. Hampshire. Not. Florida. That's where Ralph Nadar's influence shows the most.
Al Gore was a weak candidate. Ralph Nadar would not have had nearly the influence he could have if Al Gore had been able to shore up the Democrat base away from the the Republicans and the Green Party. While there are many facets out of Ralph Nadar's campaign's control, there is at least one that wasn't. He shares the burden, not holds all the burden.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
So third party candidates matter a lot when the candidates of the two majority party are not well liked.
That's great.
Clinton is probably the least-liked Democratic Party nominee since Jimmy Carter (spit-balling here, but in all honesty I think she's less liked than Carter during his campaign against Reagan).
The Republican Party is pretty much united in the single premise that Clinton CANNOT become the President. This is such to the point that they actually went and accepted the nomination of someone who's not actually a Republican in ideology, simply because that man had the backing of the populist element of the Republican Party and they knew that doing anything would ensure CLinton's nomination.
So, there you have it. The Republicans will do everything to deny a Clinton victory. Clinton doesn't rile up the Democratic general support base, and likely the non-decided for that matter. In fact, many of the liberals commonly associated with the Democratic Party (and probably the people who pushed Obama to victory in 08) see Clinton as a morally bankrupt, plain corrupt individual who stole the election from the man who really should have been nominated.
Given all this, I think it would be fair to say that this would be a highly contested race. I think all this brouhaha about the polling is misleading and possibly downright dangerous. Remember that the Carter/Reagan contest was neck to neck up until the end, when Reagan won by a landslide.
Also remember that, at the start of this year, Trump was considered a joke candidate who may win a primary here and there, but would eventually be shut-out. When he started actually winning and Bush and others dropped out, people thought that the field would become consolidated and so the true Republican candidate (not Trump) would emerge victorious.
I think going with your conscience and voting for a third-party candidiate in this situation is nuts.
Except the GOP is anything *but* united. TIME actually had a very good article a few days ago showing just how much Trump has pissed off the GOP because he can't stop making gaffes and shutting up since the conventions ended. (If it weren't under a paywall I would link it) He is majorly behind in a lot of national polls that have been released and he is causing normally red states like Georgia, Arizona, and even South Carolina to be in danger of being won by Clinton. Even Utah isn't safe. There was an internal poll that was released a few weeks ago showing that Gary Johnson is at 26% in Utah, mere percentage points from Trump who only had 29% (and Clinton with 27%). For a state that should be a very easy win for any GOP candidate, that is an unmitigated disaster. To make matters even worse, there is a good chance that Mitt Romney will endorse Gary Johnson soon (he and Bill Weld are huge friends and has said he is looking into supporting the ticket). Given that he's highly respected in Utah, if Romney endorses Johnson, Trump is done in Utah.
It's gotten to the point where they are just about ready to pull the plug on Trump's campaign and focus on downticket races to preserve the House and Senate. Obviously the GOP does not want to see Hillary become president, but they can stonewall her into oblivion for 4 years and make it so that she cannot do anything at all. I don't really understand the Reagan comparisons because Reagan wasn't anything close to Trump in terms of his attitude and ability to get people behind him. If anything, Trump is going to go the route of Bob Dole, or, dare I say it... Barry Goldwater.
It's very broad, obviously. Would you consider Bastiat to be a classical liberal? Because I think it would be very fair to call him libertarian as well.
I'm in New York. Hillary is taking New York. That's almost as certain as the fact that one of the two will win the overall election. So even if I thought that one was preferable to the other (I don't), what point would there be? If I dislike both candidates, what point would there be in voting for either of them?
In that context, it makes perfect sense for those of us who want to make this statement (and don't live in swing states) to do so.
You say that Johnson is not going to get enough ballots to serve as a visible and viable protest vote. He's currently polling above 10%+. If he gets anywhere near 10% that is far, far more than enough to make it worthwhile, IMO.
Heck, the Republican party is falling to pieces. We're probably going to see a lot of re-organization in the future. If there was ever a time to cast a Libertarian vote, now would be the time as we may be able to influence which direction they take in the future.
I meant they're united against Clinton.
I also don't put much stock in polls this far out. It seems too risky to believe that Trump is guaranteed to lose.
I brought up Reagan simply to showcase the possibility of what happens when you place too much trust in polling and not the actual election result.
On phasing:
Seems kind of stupid, as I doubt half the people mocking him on social media knew what was going on or where Aleppo is. Hell, the first several links if you google "Aleppo" mention Gary Johnson in the description :p. There are plenty of actual things to mock about Johnson.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Though that expectation has lead to a great deal of disappointment this election.
I would not necessarily expect a presidential candidate to know what Aleppo is, though it would be interesting if he personal knowledge in the area (visited there, was an ambassador to Syria...ect.)
The actual president unlikely would know about Aleppo until their advisors bring it up. Then the president would ask where is Aleppo, what is the situation, and then figure out ways to handle it.
Johnson made the mistake of acting like a human being, which is what presidents do behind doors. Asking a question to increase his knowledge. Too often we are used to politicians getting fed pre-determined questions, or giving vague answers to avoid discussion.
I am not exactly the biggest fan of Johnson, but he have seen some of his interviews and has a lot of interesting points on multiple issues. The grievance here isnt that he didnt know what Aleppo is, its that the entertainment television (called news in America) finds a needle in a haystack, and declares the barn should be burned. I mean how is he supposed to know what Aleppo is when ironically the media focuses on stories like this!
Johnson asking what is Aleppo is the most honest thing I have heard a candidate say so far this election.
I liked his response to the "controversy." If a politican makes a mistake, this is the kind of response I want to hear, not Trump's doubling down or Clinton's lawyerism. He lost a few points in knowledge and foreign policy, but gained a few points in character. At the least, he didn't double down or deny he said it, so this should blow over in a week. Of course, with the debates this month, that might not be enough time.
I don't disagree, but I for instance never knew anything about it. Apart from most media focusing on a person not standing during the National Anthem, has Aleppo even been under the focus of the election? Like, if we are seeing which potential candidate did the dumbest *****, I don't even know how this makes the radar.
If you want to hit Johnson hard and show what a crackpot party the Libertarians are, all you have to do is show that clip of Johnson getting booed for supporting drivers licenses: a ridiculous issue that was mainstream enough in the Libertarian Party it made the debates. It would as ridiculous as if the Democratic party had a debate talking point of "should we allow people to shop online."
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Agreed!
But, I don't see how it's any different than not knowing what signifies confidential in e-mails for a Secretary of State. Or not knowing what "wiping a server" means (like with a cloth?). Etc. And, at least he didn't double down on it, or claim he never said it despite recordings of him saying it unlike Trump.
All thing's considered, this isn't any worse than what any other candidates have done this cycle, and his follow up was a great deal better. Too bad he's not going to be given the opportunity to debate [I know it's not official, but at this point every force seems to be acting against his participation in the debates].
Still, politics are unfair. At the end of the day what matters is that this is the first time Johnson has gotten real mainstream media coverage, so a fair number of voters have been introduced to him as Mr. What's-Aleppo Guy. Bye-bye Johnson.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't see this ending his campaign by a longshot. In fact, I think he will be getting into the debates. Mitch Daniels (who is on the debate commission) is openly advocating for Johnson and Weld to be in the debates.