Gary Johnson Threatens Third-Party Run

[Yelnoc]

Posted without comment.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69110.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I posted a thread a few months ago about the rumors that they had offered him the nomination. I guess it was true. Unlike Paul, Bachmann or Trump, a Johnson campaign would hurt Obama more then it would the Republicans.

[Minnesota Mike]

I posted a thread a few months ago about the rumors that they had offered him the nomination. I guess it was true. Unlike Paul, Bachmann or Trump, a Johnson campaign would hurt Obama more then it would the Republicans.

I'm not so sure about a Johnson candidacy hurting Obama more, IMO 3rd party candidates tend to split the anti incumbent vote. I don't think it will matter unless some state is Florida 2000 close though because I can't see Johnson getting more than 1% of the vote (which would be a record for a Libertarian).

[Bull Moose Base]

It's been the obvious outcome for a while.  Hard to predict his effect but I think he could be strong enough to shake things up a bit.  Probably Ron Paul would endorse him and that would help him some.

[Stardust]

I really hope he does. I need someone I'm able to vote for with a clear conscience.

[The Mikado]

Yeah, Johnson will be lucky to break .5% of the vote.  I don't think either side's too concerned with him or think he'll be a factor in any state other than New Mexico, where he might break 5% in a general if he's lucky.

[Mechaman]

He'd be infinitely preferable to the miserable fail ticket we had three years ago.

[Free Palestine]

I'd support a third party run by him.  Since it would have the potentially to totally f-ck sh-t up for the Republicrat regime.

[Pingvin]

I'd support a third party run by him.  Since it would have the potentially to totally f-ck sh-t up for the Republicrat regime.

[Meeker]

He would do about as well as the last Libertarian nominee.

[izixs]

I support Johnson running as a Libertarian so that all the no-nothing Randian hyper-capitalist libertarians I know will have someone to vote for instead of ruining politics for the rest of us. I like living in a reality based universe thank you very much.

[courts]

I'd support a third party run by him.  Since it would have the potentially to totally f-ck sh-t up for the Republicrat regime.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yeah, Johnson will be lucky to break .5% of the vote.  I don't think either side's too concerned with him or think he'll be a factor in any state other than New Mexico, where he might break 5% in a general if he's lucky.

Well, it depends upon the Republican nominee.

If its Romney or Gingrich, he'll get at least two per cent of the vote, and probably a lot more.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The discontent with both parties makes a third-party run plausible, but the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties are all fourth-parties with no chance of having an impact on the election.

[GLPman]

The discontent with both parties makes a third-party run plausible, but the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties are all fourth-parties with no chance of having an impact on the election.

^This.

[Napoleon]

He would do about as well as the last Libertarian nominee.

Made the difference in NC.

[Fritz]

He could go with Americans Elect, he would probably find a lot of support there.

[Meeker]

He would do about as well as the last Libertarian nominee.

Made the difference in NC.

Doubtful.

[Stranger in a strange land]

He'll get all of 0.5%.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Hopelessness of his third-party run aside, it is kind of remarkable that a two-term governor from within the last ten years keeps not getting invited to all these debates. Even Mike Gravel got to participate in Dem debates around this time in 2007.

[Reluctant Republican]

I'm hard pressed to figure out where Johnson's support would come from. I know many Paul supporters that dislike him, for various reasons. And he's not going to get much of the audience that is very conservative and hates Romney. He'd probably get Paul's endorsement, which might be worth a little, but he's not going to be  a game changer. 

Would any Liberals go for him? I doubt it, maybe in safe states he'd get a few votes if the Greens don't run anyone, but he's not exactly compatible with liberals either. Shame. He could have been a senator, but I guess the job just doesn't appeal to him.

[Mr. Morden]

His support would mostly come from bona fide libertarians......who make up a vanishingly small segment of the electorate.

One thing I've wondered for the last few years: Is Paul-style paleocon/libertarian fusionism (that is, "libertarianism" that include conservative positions on numerous social issues, like abortion and immigration) intrinsically more popular than more pure libertarianism, or did Paul just get lucky and happen to excite a certain segment of the electorate at the right time.....who could have just as easily gone for a more pure libertarian under slightly different circumstances?

[Bull Moose Base]

I think Paul tapped into a libertarian movement waiting to happen but also helped grow it a lot and achieved enough cult status to influence it toward his own views on social issues (but I don't see them as that divergent from pure libertarianism except on abortion).  Isn't Paul for example for open borders and against government defining marriage?  Or am I mistaken?  My sense was there's few differences on policy between Paul and Johnson.

[Reluctant Republican]

Speaking as a Paul supporter, I think it's mostly the man. I agree fairly broadly with Paul's positions, though it's mainly the uncompromising anti war stance that brings me passion for him.

That's an interesting question though. Was it Paul that excited people, or were the positions what gained him a following? I was a fairly traditional Republican before I backed Paul in 2008, though I did have Libertarian leanings on social issues. I think Paul's managed to have some significant impacts on policy these last few years( you hear about the Fed more, for example, at least in the GOP debates) But I don't think there's really anyone around who can carry the mantel on the movement right after he's gone. For some reason, Paul's able to attract both paleoconservatives and more "pure" Libertarians. Gary Johnson offends the former group, which is one reason any campaign by him really won't go anywhere. Rand may be able to have some success, but even he's not as beloved as his father by his supporters. He won't be getting any 6 million dollar moneybombs.

I'm not sure where Paul's voters go, once he's done running for office. They do make up a not insignificant part of the party, even if elected office is still largely untouched by them. Maybe things will continue with a PAC. Or maybe they just stop voting. I do know of a few in office, so as they build their careers, perhaps we'll see someone new rise on the scene.

So I did not really answer the question, but hoped that helped.

[Mr. Morden]

I think Paul tapped into a libertarian movement waiting to happen but also helped grow it a lot and achieved enough cult status to influence it toward his own views on social issues (but I don't see them as that divergent from pure libertarianism except on abortion).  Isn't Paul for example for open borders and against government defining marriage?  Or am I mistaken?

You are mistaken.  Paul is at least as much paleocon as he is "libertarian".  Read the sections here on Paul's positions on immigration and same-sex marriage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

There's a sizable contingent of libertarians who view Paul-ites as nationalist rednecks who are way too sentimental about the United States, such that their nationalism makes them less concerned about individual liberty.  Will Wilkinson explains this, and why he doesn't like Paul-ism here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/400?in=00:37:02&out=00:38:57

and here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/400?&in=00:42:55&out=00:44:30

and here:

http://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertarian-ideology