Gary Johnson

[throatcutter]

AFAIK, Johnson is seeking the presidential nomination by the Libertarian Party.
Does that mean he is not a member of the GOP anymore?
If so, could he still be chosen as VP by the Republican presidential candidate?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

He could, but he never was going to be considered as Republican running mate.  Nor do I think the Libertarian Party will turn to him.  If they do, they give up any claim to being more than a joke party.  Not that they aren't a joke party, but I doubt they want to admit it.

Besides, Johnson could cause the Libertarians some ballot issues they likely don't want.  Johnson appeared on the GOP ballot here in South Carolina (losing to Cain Colbert among others) and we have a sore loser law that keeps the loser of one party's primary from appearing on the general election ballot, even as the nominee of another party.  Not certain if that law applies to Presidential candidates, but if it did, the Libertarians would have to place another name in place of his here.

[Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.]

I believe that Johnson is now a member of the Libertarian Party. I remember when Jimmy McMillan had to switch his voter registration from Dem to Republican in order to run for the GOP nod (btw, is he even still running?), so I think that in order for Johnson to run for the LP nod he would have to change his voter registration from GOP to LP. That said, his chances of being selected as the GOP veep are at absolute zero. They were at absolute zero even when he was still a Republican. I doubt Ron Paul would even consider him for the job.

He could, but he never was going to be considered as Republican running mate.  Nor do I think the Libertarian Party will turn to him.  If they do, they give up any claim to being more than a joke party.  Not that they aren't a joke party, but I doubt they want to admit it.

I don't think the LP would look like a joke party by nominating Johnson. After all, he was a two term governor of New Mexico and is apparently still popular to get, like, 23% in a poll with Romney, who is perceived as the strongest possible GOP nominee. Even if he were somehow a "joke", he's definitely less of a joke then certain previous nominees (Borat costar Bob Barr, anyone?).

And sore loser laws are ridiculous. But that's besides the point.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If Johnson had started out running as a Libertarian, I'd agree he wouldn't tarnish the Libertarians if he were their nominee.  As a failed nominee of another party, he does.

[Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.]

If Johnson had started out running as a Libertarian, I'd agree he wouldn't tarnish the Libertarians if he were their nominee.  As a failed nominee of another party, he does.

Did Ron Paul, a then-former Republican who had lost three separate races for the House as well as a Senate primary, tarnish the Libertarian Party in 1988? Not really. He got half a percent of the vote, which was more than David Bergland's total in 1984 and Andre Marrou's in 1992 (both with a third of a percent). Since then, Paul's total has only been matched once, by Harry Browne in 1996.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If Johnson had started out running as a Libertarian, I'd agree he wouldn't tarnish the Libertarians if he were their nominee.  As a failed nominee of another party, he does.

Did Ron Paul, a then-former Republican who had lost three separate races for the House as well as a Senate primary, tarnish the Libertarian Party in 1988? Not really. He got half a percent of the vote, which was more than David Bergland's total in 1984 and Andre Marrou's in 1992 (both with a third of a percent). Since then, Paul's total has only been matched once, by Harry Browne in 1996.

Paul did not attempt to get the Republican nomination in 1988, which is a crucial difference.  He started off that campaign cycle running as a Libertarian.  He didn't switch after losing the nomination of his first choice party.

[SteveRogers]

Johnson appeared on the GOP ballot here in South Carolina (losing to Cain Colbert among others) and we have a sore loser law that keeps the loser of one party's primary from appearing on the general election ballot, even as the nominee of another party.  Not certain if that law applies to Presidential candidates, but if it did, the Libertarians would have to place another name in place of his here.

Sore loser laws typically do not apply to presidential candidates, so that concern, at least, is probably irrelevant.

This is mostly true, but there still at least a couple of states whose sore loser laws as written seem to apply to presidential candidates. There's good precedent to indicate that such laws wouldn't hold up if challenged in court, but that would require money that the Libertarian party probably doesn't have.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Gary Johnson hasn't lost the GOP Prymary, he did not even run it seriously and he has dropped out before Iowa so he didn't really campaigned for the Republican Nomination. There is a strong possibility of a Libertarian Nomination for him and he is going to split some Romney Voters, specially in the South...

[ask_not]

If Johnson had started out running as a Libertarian, I'd agree he wouldn't tarnish the Libertarians if he were their nominee.  As a failed nominee of another party, he does.

I wish the libertarians could win.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Johnson appeared on the GOP ballot here in South Carolina (losing to Cain Colbert among others) and we have a sore loser law that keeps the loser of one party's primary from appearing on the general election ballot, even as the nominee of another party.  Not certain if that law applies to Presidential candidates, but if it did, the Libertarians would have to place another name in place of his here.

Sore loser laws typically do not apply to presidential candidates, so that concern, at least, is probably irrelevant.

This is mostly true, but there still at least a couple of states whose sore loser laws as written seem to apply to presidential candidates. There's good precedent to indicate that such laws wouldn't hold up if challenged in court, but that would require money that the Libertarian party probably doesn't have.

While it hasn't been done to him in South Carolina (that I know of), the Michigan Secretary of State has refused to put him on the ballot and the Libertarians are suing to get him on.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Johnson appeared on the GOP ballot here in South Carolina (losing to Cain Colbert among others) and we have a sore loser law that keeps the loser of one party's primary from appearing on the general election ballot, even as the nominee of another party.  Not certain if that law applies to Presidential candidates, but if it did, the Libertarians would have to place another name in place of his here.

Sore loser laws typically do not apply to presidential candidates, so that concern, at least, is probably irrelevant.

This is mostly true, but there still at least a couple of states whose sore loser laws as written seem to apply to presidential candidates. There's good precedent to indicate that such laws wouldn't hold up if challenged in court, but that would require money that the Libertarian party probably doesn't have.

While it hasn't been done to him in South Carolina (that I know of), the Michigan Secretary of State has refused to put him on the ballot and the Libertarians are suing to get him on.

They have a differant Gary E. Johnson on the ballot there

[Grumpier Than Thou]

If Johnson had started out running as a Libertarian, I'd agree he wouldn't tarnish the Libertarians if he were their nominee.  As a failed nominee of another party, he does.

I wish the libertarians could win.

I do too, but it won't happen. At least not for a very long time.

[minionofmidas]

Johnson appeared on the GOP ballot here in South Carolina (losing to Cain Colbert among others) and we have a sore loser law that keeps the loser of one party's primary from appearing on the general election ballot, even as the nominee of another party.  Not certain if that law applies to Presidential candidates, but if it did, the Libertarians would have to place another name in place of his here.

Sore loser laws typically do not apply to presidential candidates, so that concern, at least, is probably irrelevant.

This is mostly true, but there still at least a couple of states whose sore loser laws as written seem to apply to presidential candidates. There's good precedent to indicate that such laws wouldn't hold up if challenged in court, but that would require money that the Libertarian party probably doesn't have.

While it hasn't been done to him in South Carolina (that I know of), the Michigan Secretary of State has refused to put him on the ballot and the Libertarians are suing to get him on.

They have a differant Gary E. Johnson on the ballot there

Seriously!? That's hilarious.

[Donerail]

Johnson appeared on the GOP ballot here in South Carolina (losing to Cain Colbert among others) and we have a sore loser law that keeps the loser of one party's primary from appearing on the general election ballot, even as the nominee of another party.  Not certain if that law applies to Presidential candidates, but if it did, the Libertarians would have to place another name in place of his here.

Sore loser laws typically do not apply to presidential candidates, so that concern, at least, is probably irrelevant.

This is mostly true, but there still at least a couple of states whose sore loser laws as written seem to apply to presidential candidates. There's good precedent to indicate that such laws wouldn't hold up if challenged in court, but that would require money that the Libertarian party probably doesn't have.

While it hasn't been done to him in South Carolina (that I know of), the Michigan Secretary of State has refused to put him on the ballot and the Libertarians are suing to get him on.

They have a differant Gary E. Johnson on the ballot there

Seriously!? That's hilarious.

Gary E. Johnson of Austin, Texas, is a Libertarian Party higher-up and has consented to be the nominee of the Libertarian Party for President of the United States of Michigan if a lawsuit doesn't work (which it will, since the law hasn't changed from 1980, when the Michigan SoS said their sore loser law didn't apply to Presidential primaries and allowed Anderson to go on the ballot).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Johnson appeared on the GOP ballot here in South Carolina (losing to Cain Colbert among others) and we have a sore loser law that keeps the loser of one party's primary from appearing on the general election ballot, even as the nominee of another party.  Not certain if that law applies to Presidential candidates, but if it did, the Libertarians would have to place another name in place of his here.

Sore loser laws typically do not apply to presidential candidates, so that concern, at least, is probably irrelevant.

This is mostly true, but there still at least a couple of states whose sore loser laws as written seem to apply to presidential candidates. There's good precedent to indicate that such laws wouldn't hold up if challenged in court, but that would require money that the Libertarian party probably doesn't have.

While it hasn't been done to him in South Carolina (that I know of), the Michigan Secretary of State has refused to put him on the ballot and the Libertarians are suing to get him on.

They have a different Gary E. Johnson on the ballot there

Seriously!? That's hilarious.

Gary E. Johnson of Austin, Texas, is a Libertarian Party higher-up and has consented to be the nominee of the Libertarian Party for President of the United States of Michigan if a lawsuit doesn't work (which it will, since the law hasn't changed from 1980, when the Michigan SoS said their sore loser law didn't apply to Presidential primaries and allowed Anderson to go on the ballot).

Except ballot access lawsuits often don't get settled until after the election.