Libertarian Party ticket: two former GOP two-term Governors...

[BmorePat87]

Gary Johnson and his running mate William Weld will be the Libertarian Party ticket in 2016. Johnson was governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003. He switched to the Libertarian party in 2012. Weld was governor of Massachusetts from 1991-1997, having resigned during his 2nd term to focus on his nomination by Clinton to be Ambassador to Mexico (something that would never come up for a vote in the Senate as Senate Republicans did not like his support for gay rights, abortion, and medical marijuana).

Meanwhile the Republican ticket has a populist former Democrat with no political experience leading it.

Libertarian Party is looking to spoil somethings, get some much needed attention, and reach that 5% mark.

[*Nately120*]

[JustWinBaby]

(05-30-2016, 11:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Libertarian Party is looking to spoil somethings, get some much needed attention, and reach that 5% mark.

I think it's 15% now.  Apparently, the Repub and Dems are very concerned about letting a 3rd party on to the stage.

It would be huge if they can get on stage.  I'd guess about 95% of Americans don't know anything about the Libertarian party, but are going to like a lot of what they hear.

[BmorePat87]

(05-31-2016, 11:49 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I think it's 15% now.  Apparently, the Repub and Dems are very concerned about letting a 3rd party on to the stage.

It would be huge if they can get on stage.  I'd guess about 95% of Americans don't know anything about the Libertarian party, but are going to like a lot of what they hear.

If you have Gary Johnson on stage, who is very much "Libertarian Lite", you could have enough people warm up to him where he could get 20% or so. He's not too extreme on some things (like no taxes or social programs) as the Libertarian platform is. He even got heckled at their convention when he called for lower taxes instead of no taxes. He's for LGBT rights, abortion, and anti-discrimination protection. He gets crap from Libertarians for that one. He says Christians bakers need to bake gay wedding cakes and Jewish bakers need to bake cakes for neo-Nazi groups. Not very Libertarian, but he wants equality for all groups. 

On the issues, he's a nearly perfect independent. He doesn't call for these radical changes. He wants people to have access to their rights while cutting government waste. 

He just needs to get on stage. You're 100% correct on that. If polls keep including him and he's getting 10%, there's no reason not to let him on.

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2016, 12:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you have Gary Johnson on stage, who is very much "Libertarian Lite", you could have enough people warm up to him where he could get 20% or so. He's not too extreme on some things (like no taxes or social programs) as the Libertarian platform is. He even got heckled at their convention when he called for lower taxes instead of no taxes. He's for LGBT rights, abortion, and anti-discrimination protection. He gets crap from Libertarians for that one. He says Christians bakers need to bake gay wedding cakes and Jewish bakers need to bake cakes for neo-Nazi groups. Not very Libertarian, but he wants equality for all groups. 

On the issues, he's a nearly perfect independent. He doesn't call for these radical changes. He wants people to have access to their rights while cutting government waste. 

He just needs to get on stage. You're 100% correct on that. If polls keep including him and he's getting 10%, there's no reason not to let him on.

I see Johnson as more of a classic liberal, which is where my tendencies are. There are some differences, but that's a closer description of his positions than libertarian.

[*PhilHos*]

I think this would make an interesting election even MORE interesting. You've got the presumptive Republican nominee whom the Republican leadership doesn't want. You've got two Democratic nominees where the people and Democrat leadership disagree on who should run against Trump. Basically, we'll have 2 candidates that big chunks of both parties are OPENLY against. Throw in a 3rd candidate like Johnson and I think the Presidential debates will be THE most watched event outside the Super Bowl.

[*Nately120*]

(05-31-2016, 11:49 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I think it's 15% now.  Apparently, the Repub and Dems are very concerned about letting a 3rd party on to the stage.

It would be huge if they can get on stage.  I'd guess about 95% of Americans don't know anything about the Libertarian party, but are going to like a lot of what they hear.

People love to tell me how 3rd parties "can't win" and then I ask how a party that supports guns, weed, freedom, lower taxes, and less pointless war could possibly LOSE.  And the answer is...as long as it is presented to people as a hopeless cause.

The idea that 2016 forces this country to learn about Libertarianism is worth stomaching 4-8 years of the worst president ever.

(05-31-2016, 12:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you have Gary Johnson on stage, who is very much "Libertarian Lite", you could have enough people warm up to him where he could get 20% or so. He's not too extreme on some things (like no taxes or social programs) as the Libertarian platform is. He even got heckled at their convention when he called for lower taxes instead of no taxes. He's for LGBT rights, abortion, and anti-discrimination protection. He gets crap from Libertarians for that one. He says Christians bakers need to bake gay wedding cakes and Jewish bakers need to bake cakes for neo-Nazi groups. Not very Libertarian, but he wants equality for all groups. 

On the issues, he's a nearly perfect independent. He doesn't call for these radical changes. He wants people to have access to their rights while cutting government waste. 

He just needs to get on stage. You're 100% correct on that. If polls keep including him and he's getting 10%, there's no reason not to let him on.

Libertarian lite is probably best for a start (and maybe forever).  People hear that I'm a Libertarian and start assuming I want their children to carry assault rifles and do coke off a hooker's ass. Gary Johnson also has that classic politician look, so if that superficial crap gets a guy I like popular enough for change things, I'm all for it.

[BmorePat87]

(05-31-2016, 02:19 PM)Nately120 Wrote: People love to tell me how 3rd parties "can't win" and then I ask how a party that supports guns, weed, freedom, lower taxes, and less pointless war could possibly LOSE.  And the answer is...as long as it is presented to people as a hopeless cause.

The idea that 2016 forces this country to learn about Libertarianism is worth stomaching 4-8 years of the worst president ever.


Libertarian lite is probably best for a start (and maybe forever).  People hear that I'm a Libertarian and start assuming I want their children to carry assault rifles and do coke off a hooker's ass.  Gary Johnson also has that classic politician look, so if that superficial crap gets a guy I like popular enough for change things, I'm all for it.

I may say "libertarian", but I'll never be a party line guy. I think "libertarian leaning independent" is a better description. I like how Gary Johnson represents the ideology. Unfortunately, most people think about people like Austin Petersen when they think libertarian.

[*Nately120*]

(05-31-2016, 02:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I may say "libertarian", but I'll never be a party line guy. I think "libertarian leaning independent" is a better description. I like how Gary Johnson represents the ideology. Unfortunately, most people think about people like Austin Petersen when they think libertarian.

Well, it's the label I have and it is what aligns closest to my beliefs.  If someone asks about my political affiliation I warn them that they're in for an essay answer rather than a party line statement.

[BengalHawk62]

Damn it Libertarian Party.......you have a good thing going with Gary Johnson and you have to throw a wrench into things with Bill Weld?  Come on!

Just not a fan of the guy.

[Au165]

I think anyway to get more choices up on the stage is a good thing. People seem willing to accept that it's Trump or Clinton, but the reality is it doesn't have to be. You hear so many people say "I am voting for X, because it at least isn't Y". If this comes true it could get really interesting in this particular race.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-31-2016, 02:19 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The idea that 2016 forces this country to learn about Libertarianism is worth stomaching 4-8 years of the worst president ever.

I agree.  Both parties, along with their sycophant media cronies, clearly collude to maintain power.

It will be interesting to see how high the bar is raised to keep Gary Johnson out of the debates.  I thought it used to be 5% of the popular vote, but then they raised the hurdle to 15% (with other qualititative - read BS - criteria just to be safe) to keep Perot out of the '96 debates.  So in addition to the nearly insurmountable hurdle of 15%, they talk about "likelihood of winning a state or multiple states".

We'll see what happens and how he performs if given the chance.  But this is clearly an election where a Libertarian candidate could do real damage to both parties.

Granted, I see no evidence a three party system would be more effective than the 2 we have, but at least it's another choice.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

If a Libertarian can get into the debates, some people will like them, not all but some, and give money. By getting donations and more money, the Libertarian can start getting themselves out there...on tv, yard signs, fliers, radio spots(Where I would start), newspaper ads and be able to travel from state to state for rallies and whatnot. This will bring in even more money which will get more exposure and we may just get that third party candidate that we all want and need.

The Democrats and Republicans will lose their 40% stranglehold on the ends of the political spectrum, pull candidates to the middle where they need to be and maybe this country can finally go straight again rather than those huge swings from one extreme to the other that is coming in the near future, like 2020. The people have been over correcting when the swerve comes and it's just getting worse and worse.

EDIT: you want to read something crazy?
I would vote for Joe Biden over Trump, Clinton, Cruz, Rubio and Sanders. THAT'S HOW MESSED UP THIS ELECTION CYCLE IS!

[Aquapod770]

If people weren't stupid the libertarian ticket could get 30+% of the popular vote this year. Johnson is was way better choice than Trump or Hilldog.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-31-2016, 08:18 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: If people weren't stupid the libertarian ticket could get 30+% of the popular vote this year. Johnson is was way better choice than Trump or Hilldog.

I think if people opened their mind to a third party that's probably conservative - figure he gets a large majority of the 60%+ of people who would identify as "moderate".

But anything in the 30% range would mean he wins at least a few states....meaning no one gets to 270.  Then who does a Republican Congress choose?  Certainly not Hillary or he VP, but possibly not Trump, either.

[*bfine32*]

The Libertarian candidate would do nothing more than secure the nomination for Hillary. A portion of GOP voters may crossover because of their economic policies but there is noway the Democratic dominated poor would crossover.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-31-2016, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The Libertarian candidate would do nothing more than secure the nomination for Hillary. A portion of GOP voters may crossover because of their economic policies  but there is noway the Democratic dominated poor would crossover.

He's actually polling pretty equal shares of Dems and Repubs...

Recent poll shows 38(Clinton)-35(Trump)-10(Johnson), with 17% undecided...7% of Dems say they would vote for Johnson, while 6% of Repubs say so.  Johnson wins 18% of Independents (Clinton 19%, Trump 37%).

So a lot of room for Johnson to get to that magical 15% number, but he's going to need help.  And, of course, the major networks are talking very little about Johnson (if at all).

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2016, 09:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: He's actually polling pretty equal shares of Dems and Repubs...

Recent poll shows 38(Clinton)-35(Trump)-10(Johnson), with 17% undecided...7% of Dems say they would vote for Johnson, while 6% of Repubs say so.  Johnson wins 18% of Independents (Clinton 19%, Trump 37%).

So a lot of room for Johnson to get to that magical 15% number, but he's going to need help.  And, of course, the major networks are talking very little about Johnson (if at all).

Folks are just split right now because of their equal disdain for their current nominees. Once the Libertarian's economic policies (which i absolutely love) are made known; there will be a much greater disparity. The Libs (damn it we'll have to come up with a different nickname for Libertarian) are not fans of social programs.    

[JustWinBaby]

(05-31-2016, 09:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks are just split right now because of their equal disdain for their current nominees. Once the Libertarian's economic policies (which i absolutely love) are made known; there will be a much greater disparity. The Libs (damn it we'll have to come up with a different nickname for Libertarian) are not fans of social programs.    

But Sanders voters aren't going to easily jump on Hillary's bandwagon, and on many foreign policy and social issues, Johnson is a lot closer to Sanders than Hillary.

I don't know what kind of debater he is, or how well he communicates his ideas....but if he gets on the stage, there's the potential to do massive damage to both parties.

The wildcard is the Repub mega-donors.  They won't support Hillary, even though Trump might be worse for them.  But if Gary Johson's gets some momentum, the money might roll-in to make it a contest. Rumor a few months ago the Koch brothers pledged tens of millions to him....they denied it. Steve Wynn is also rumored to be onboard.

[*Nately120*]

(05-31-2016, 03:54 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Granted, I see no evidence a three party system would be more effective than the 2 we have, but at least it's another choice.

I think my issue with the 2 party system is that no matter how badly the D or R's do at putting a person in the White House, they are right back in power in 4-12 years.  A 3 party system wouldn't make it all so obvious.  

Without getting into the actual merits of Obama, wasn't it absolutely clear that a Democrat was going to win following 8 years of Bush?  Stuff like that limits accountability, and I honestly think having a 3rd party would make it less of a "Your turn, my turn" sort of cycle. I think an old case of this can be seen when Nixon won in a landslide over McGovern because LBJ's and Vietnam soured people on having a Democrat in the Whitehouse. So they elect a guy they didn't want 12 years earlier by a landslide because he and McGovern were both anti-Vietnam but a Democrat can't be trusted to get us out of there after what LBJ did. So on and so forth.

But I could be wrong. Actually, I'm not sure if I meant McGovern or the other guy who ran against Nixon. Anyways, my point remains.