Is Gary Johnson the best Libertarian candidate in the party's history?

[Cliffy]

Go back and look at his record, he's not a libertarian by any means.  Terrible candidate for the libertarian party.

[Donerail]

Go back and look at his record, he's not a libertarian by any means.  Terrible candidate for the libertarian party.

He's far better than, say, Chuck Baldwin.

[Cliffy]

I've read quite a bit of denninger's (hard core libertarian) analysis of Johnson and would conclude he's a terrible candidate.

[angus]

No, and no.  Every once in a while you get an honest-to-god Libertarian running on the Libertarian ticket.  Johnson's not the one.

I agree that he's not as bad as Barr, though.  

[Frodo]

No, and no.  Every once in a while you get an honest-to-god Libertarian running on the Libertarian ticket.  Johnson's not the one.

Who would you consider as being your ideal Libertarian, if not Gary Johnson?

[angus]

Frodo,

I'm not prepared to make an endorsement in the PA senate race.  We have at least three fine candidates running for that office.  I'm leaning toward Rayburn Douglas Smith at the moment.  This guy's a real Libertarian.  Not that I'm a Libertarian, but I do know one when I see one. 

As for the ideal Libertarian, you should probably ask a Libertarian.  I liked Browne and Badnarik.  I actually voted on the far left in '00 and for Bush in '04, but I will say that I respected both of the aforementioned Libertarians. 

Johnson's a Republican, not a Libertarian.  Ron Paul is as well.  Never forget that.  Not that there's anything wrong with either of them (I voted for Paul in the Iowa caucus in January 2008 and again in January 2012), but they are not Libertarians, any more than Ralph Nader is a Green Party guy.  (Ralph Nader at least had the decency to make that clear when he accepted their nomination in 2000.  He said he'd run under their banner, but that he would never become a member, and he wanted to make that clear to all his voters.)

[White Cloud]

As far as electability, governing experience, and electoral success, Johnson will be the best presidential candidate that the Libertarian Party has fielded in its history. Check his poll numbers. He's polling at 5% in Ohio, according to a CNN poll released yesterday. Ohio is a battleground state where the election is tight, and he's still getting 5%. That's with a near-total media blackout on him and his campaign. The best that a Libertarian presidential candidate has ever done nationwide is 1.06%. Based on his nationwide and statewide polling numbers, Johnson appears poised to exceed that performance.

I know that this forum is filled with Obama and Romney partisans, and neither the Obama or Romney campaigns or their supporters want to discuss Gary Johnson, because Johnson is capable of drawing support from either of them, and thus acting as a "spoiler" for their campaigns. But people should be honest and recognize that Johnson is a factor in this race. If he ends up getting, say, 3% on election day (better than Nader's 2000 performance), and doing well in states like Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, and New Hampshire, it could be a major story in the post-election analysis and a decisive factor in whether Obama or Romney wins those states.

As far as whether Johnson is a "true libertarian", his positions are very consistent with traditional libertarian stances on the economy, defense, and social issues.

CNN poll: http://www.argojournal.com/2012/11/poll-watch-cnnorc-ohio-2012.html

[Donerail]

I've read quite a bit of denninger's (hard core libertarian) analysis of Johnson and would conclude he's a terrible candidate.

That's the point. He's not a hard-core libertarian; he can actually win, which makes him a good candidate.

And Johnson is a Libertarian; he held office as a Republican (Governor) but he was registered Libertarian the entire time he held office.

[SPC]

I've read quite a bit of denninger's (hard core libertarian) analysis of Johnson and would conclude he's a terrible candidate.

That's the point. He's not a hard-core libertarian; he can actually win, which makes him a good candidate.

And Johnson is a Libertarian; he held office as a Republican (Governor) but he was registered Libertarian the entire time he held office.

What?!

[Donerail]

I've read quite a bit of denninger's (hard core libertarian) analysis of Johnson and would conclude he's a terrible candidate.

That's the point. He's not a hard-core libertarian; he can actually win, which makes him a good candidate.

And Johnson is a Libertarian; he held office as a Republican (Governor) but he was registered Libertarian the entire time he held office.

What?!

He's actually a credible candidate who can win a larger portion of the popular vote than any LP candidate before him.

[milhouse24]

Smoke and Vote!

There are several Pot Legalization laws on election day.  Let's celebrate our freedom and liberty by smoking and voting! 

I think Gary Johnson can run again in 2016 and gain a greater following for pot legalization.

[angus]

I've read quite a bit of denninger's (hard core libertarian) analysis of Johnson and would conclude he's a terrible candidate.

That's the point. He's not a hard-core libertarian; he can actually win, which makes him a good candidate.

And Johnson is a Libertarian; he held office as a Republican (Governor) but he was registered Libertarian the entire time he held office.

What?!

He's actually a credible candidate who can win a larger portion of the popular vote than any LP candidate before him.

He's certainly ahead in PA in the mock election on this forum.  Gary has fourteen votes.  Barry and Willard each have ten. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While the OP said to ignore electability, Johnson managed the second best performance ever for a Libertarian, second best to only 1980 with a shade under 1% of the popular vote, and he likely would have had a shade over 1% if he'd been on the ballot in all 50 states + DC instead 48 states + DC.

[SPC]

While the OP said to ignore electability, Johnson managed the second best performance ever for a Libertarian, second best to only 1980 with a shade under 1% of the popular vote, and he likely would have had a shade over 1% if he'd been on the ballot in all 50 states + DC instead 48 states + DC.

I'm pleasantly surprised by this. Just out of curiousity, do you think Johnson's record performance has more to do with Ron Paul supporters jumping ship or Nader not running this year?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Stein was the principal beneficiary of Nader's decision to not run.  She got approximately 2.5x the vote McKinney got in 2008.  The Paulistas were more significant for Johnson than the Naderites, but Johnson probably benefited most from Romney being a lousy candidate.  That's certainly the reason I ended up voting for Johnson instead of the Republican nominee as had been my original intention.  (We need a period of non-gridlock in DC.)