Johnson, Stein fail to qualify for first debate

[reinoe]

It won't happen. If it was going to happen, he'd have 15% in the polls. If he can't even get into the debates, he sure won't get any votes. And the crazy libertarians will just make excuses for it, like they always do.

Yep. Most Americans agree that illegal immigrants are just that illegal immigrants. What to do about it is where the major disagreements are. However Johnson feels that the phrase "illegal immigrant" is some how an insult and so that puts him out of touch with the American people.

Most Americans are absolutely opposed to the TPP precisely because it's not free trade. Johnson ignorantly supports it under the guise of "free trade" and thus once again proves that he's completely out of step with the American people.

The LP party shouldn't be surprised that he didn't make 15%. His "What is Aleppo" statement certainly didn't help. When you get a chance to make it to national airtime it's a good idea not to flub things that badly.

 

[AlbqOwl]

There's that 'big tent' attitude....Name calling never wins converts....

It doesn't win converts and it signals that the other person is unable to support his/her argument.

Johnson didn't fail to make the debates because he is a libertarian. Remember that the Republican Party was the obscure third party in 1860 when Lincoln won with 39.8% of the vote. George Wallace, independent segregationist, was a huge factor in 1968 though he ultimately only got 13.5% of the vote. Upstart Ross Perot and his Reform Party managed 18.6% of the vote in 1992 and was in double digits in 1996. I honestly believe if he hadn't wigged out at the last minute and exposed his crazy side, he very well could have won in 1992. George 41 and Clinton the 1st both had major baggage. Clinton ultimately won with 43% of the vote. Bush only managed 38%.

If somebody is charismatic enough or has a message compelling enough, he or she can make a huge difference. Johnson failed to make the debates because he simply was unable to be persuasive and make his case, plus he shot himself in the foot three or four times in a row that was a huge turn off to many who might have otherwise been more interested. An open border, drug legalization, and anti-religion approach is not going to be all that appealing at this time.

 

[jonny5]

It just doesn't have plenty of support, which we see every single election. It isn't getting any better either.

Because its largely unknown. Not because its crazy, as you said.

 

[j-mac]

It doesn't win converts and it signals that the other person is unable to support his/her argument.

Johnson didn't fail to make the debates because he is a libertarian. Remember that the Republican Party was the obscure third party in 1860 when Lincoln won with 39.8% of the vote. George Wallace, independent segregationist, was a huge factor in 1968 though he ultimately only got 13.5% of the vote. Upstart Ross Perot and his Reform Party managed 18.6% of the vote in 1992 and was in double digits in 1996. I honestly believe if he hadn't wigged out at the last minute and exposed his crazy side, he very well could have won in 1992. George 41 and Clinton the 1st both had major baggage. Clinton ultimately won with 43% of the vote. Bush only managed 38%.

If somebody is charismatic enough or has a message compelling enough, he or she can make a huge difference. Johnson failed to make the debates because he simply was unable to be persuasive and make his case, plus he shot himself in the foot three or four times in a row that was a huge turn off to many who might have otherwise been more interested. An open border, drug legalization, and anti-religion approach is not going to be all that appealing at this time.

Let's hope those policies are never that appealing....I pretty much agree that Johnson was the wrong candidate at this time, what get's me, is that it is crystal clear that he was the wrong candidate, but say that and the smug Libertarian's come out of the woodwork to show you just how superior they think they are.....That's more a turn off, that and trying to hit the home run without securing the fundamentals of the game first...

 

[JasperL]

Also shows that the fear strat both main parties use "if you vote 3rd party you'll get the enemy elected" works all too well.

The problem is that's built into the system, which all but guarantees no more than two major parties in any given region. And if people don't like the two major parties as is, the way to change them is from within, not running hopeless third party campaigns, especially in national elections.

I don't care who people vote for - their choice, obviously - but we know Hillary or Trump will win. If you have a preference between which one WILL win, and are in a competitive state, then voting third party is IMO stupid because it has the same effect as not voting. Pointing that out isn't a 'fear' strategy, just a statement of fact.

 

[JasperL]

This forum needs an "+agree" button. :/

I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, but cannot +like it.

I will be voting for Stein, regardless. I am more than fed up with the mob majority asserting I am "throwing my vote away" by voting for the candidate I find most inline with my views and having the least quibbles over their integrity, or that instead of being responsible for voting for whom I actually vote for, I am actually responsible for someone else potentially getting an office when I did not vote for that person.

Both Trump and Clinton are natural-born citizens and both are at least 35 years of age. Legally, they're both qualified to run for president. But on integrity, both are completely unqualified to earn -my- vote.

I was a strong advocate for Sanders given his views were even closer at heart to me than Stein's, but long ago I realized choosing loyalty to people over loyalty to principles was a poor arrangement of priorities, so however fond I am of Sanders' political views and actions, and however admirative I've come to be of him personally, I will not heed his call to avoid 'the neighbor effect' and casting my vote for someone I cannot support to avoid letting someone 'worse' winning. I would no less be goaded into voting for Stalin as president of the U.S. if Hitler were the other guy because Stalin is less bad. Bad is bad, a worse wrong doesn't make a lesser wrong somehow 'right.'

I also voted for Sanders, but because I care about results possible with one of the two options who will win, I'll vote for Hillary and it's not close. She agrees with Sanders on a wide variety of topics, she will sign pretty much any progressive legislation to hit her desk, veto the worst at least that a GOP Congress will send her way, she'll appoint judges more in line with Sanders' views than the GOP, same with her hires in the executive branch. So if accomplishing the goals outlined by Sanders is important to me and it is, as is not seeing what few gains were possible under Obama dismantled in favor of tax cuts like Ryan's latest (which after just a few years pushes nearly 100% of the tax savings to the top 1%, literally 100%), then there is a clear choice in my view and it's not Stein who simply has a 0.00% chance of winning a state much less the POTUS.

And I also don't have a problem voting for the least bad candidate - 90% of my votes have been that. If it was an actual choice between Stalin and Hitler, different of course, but as for actual results I don't see life much different after 4 years of Clinton versus Sanders given legislative realities. With Trump IMO life could be (who the hell knows with him?) entirely different and far worse for many Americans. Point is I see Clinton's term as the 80-90% solution to Sanders. Not 100% but I can't expect or demand that to vote, or else I'd never bother.

Foreign policy is one area where Clinton might be different - she's mostly a neocon and a hawk - but I can't look at Trump and expect better on that score.

I'm not criticizing your choice, just disagreeing with it. It seems to me a lot of people who vote third party probably would stay home otherwise, so I try not to criticize that choice and don't actually have a problem with it.

 

[jonny5]

Let's hope those policies are never that appealing....I pretty much agree that Johnson was the wrong candidate at this time, what get's me, is that it is crystal clear that he was the wrong candidate, but say that and the smug Libertarian's come out of the woodwork to show you just how superior they think they are.....That's more a turn off, that and trying to hit the home run without securing the fundamentals of the game first...

The game is rigged. IMO, the libertarians shouldnt even be playing. They should focus on convincing people of their ideology first, and then changing local policies next. Trying to participate in the national system is pointless.

 

[jonny5]

The problem is that's built into the system, which all but guarantees no more than two major parties in any given region. And if people don't like the two major parties as is, the way to change them is from within, not running hopeless third party campaigns, especially in national elections.

I don't care who people vote for - their choice, obviously - but we know Hillary or Trump will win. If you have a preference between which one WILL win, and are in a competitive state, then voting third party is IMO stupid because it has the same effect as not voting. Pointing that out isn't a 'fear' strategy, just a statement of fact.

If voting third party has the same effect, then there is no harm. No matter how you vote, the result will be the same, turd sandwhich or giant douche will win.

 

[JasperL]

If voting third party has the same effect, then there is no harm. No matter how you vote, the result will be the same, turd sandwhich or giant douche will win.

Like I said, if you don't care whether Hillary or Trump wins, then 3rd party makes sense to me. As I see them there are BIG and important differences and it's hard to imagine being indifferent to which one wins, no matter where you stand ideologically, but not everyone sees the world as I do.

 

[The Mark]

The problem is that's built into the system, which all but guarantees no more than two major parties in any given region. And if people don't like the two major parties as is, the way to change them is from within, not running hopeless third party campaigns, especially in national elections.

I don't care who people vote for - their choice, obviously - but we know Hillary or Trump will win. If you have a preference between which one WILL win, and are in a competitive state, then voting third party is IMO stupid because it has the same effect as not voting. Pointing that out isn't a 'fear' strategy, just a statement of fact.

It's one part of the strat. The other is what you just pointed out.

For myself, I will probably vote 3rd party.
The level of change in behavior and plans that are required for Trump to get my vote make it nearly impossible.
The level of exposure and truth-telling required for Clinton to get my vote make THAT nearly impossible, although less impossible than voting for Trump is.

And I've decided that I do not accept the argument you make.

IMO, if the Repubs and Dems can only come up with the two current candidates to offer up, then **** the both of em.

Of the two, I'd prefer Clinton, but only because Trump is the other option.

 

[blackjack50]

I will only watch the debate if it is done with swords. And the winner is forced to climb 10,000 feet with a ball and chain in 30 degrees after.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

It's one part of the strat. The other is what you just pointed out.

For myself, I will probably vote 3rd party.
The level of change in behavior and plans that are required for Trump to get my vote make it nearly impossible.
The level of exposure and truth-telling required for Clinton to get my vote make THAT nearly impossible, although less impossible than voting for Trump is.

And I've decided that I do not accept the argument you make.

IMO, if the Repubs and Dems can only come up with the two current candidates to offer up, then **** the both of em.

Of the two, I'd prefer Clinton, but only because Trump is the other option.

Maybe it's the accountant in me, but I'm a practical person, and as much as I don't like Hillary, as a practical matter I think she'll get me some big part of the way (80% maybe) that ANY candidate would do, even my ideal candidate. Trump won't. He's either incoherent on the subject, nearly always aggressively ignorant of the issues, or I disagree on just about everything else, and he's a republican so will sign whatever the House GOP can manage to send his way. So I'll vote for HRC. Not happy about my choice, and I made another in the primary, but it's not a hard one for me.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Let's hope those policies are never that appealing....I pretty much agree that Johnson was the wrong candidate at this time, what get's me, is that it is crystal clear that he was the wrong candidate, but say that and the smug Libertarian's come out of the woodwork to show you just how superior they think they are.....That's more a turn off, that and trying to hit the home run without securing the fundamentals of the game first...

I hope we are moving away from fundamentalist ideology on all sides. I think whenever we stick with a pure ideology and refuse to consider the ultimate consequences, both intended and unintended of how that is interpreted, we are going to be disappointed in our choices every single time.

 

[jpn]

Any man this fundamentally stupid has no business even considering the presidency:

We shouldn't spend on climate change because one day the sun will "grow and encompass the earth"—Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in 2011

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/779003555067879424

 

[Dittohead not!]

Apparently not. And elections prove conclusively that nobody supports these ideas, as presented by the LP. Stop making excuses.

If no one is for individual liberty, then I suppose all conservatives may as well give it up.

 

[Cephus]

Yep. Most Americans agree that illegal immigrants are just that illegal immigrants. What to do about it is where the major disagreements are. However Johnson feels that the phrase "illegal immigrant" is some how an insult and so that puts him out of touch with the American people.

The vast majority do not want open borders, so long as that's part of the LP platform, they will lose. The vast majority do not want total drug legalization, so long as that's part of the LP platform, they will lose. And Johnson is just wrong, that's why he's losing.

Most Americans are absolutely opposed to the TPP precisely because it's not free trade. Johnson ignorantly supports it under the guise of "free trade" and thus once again proves that he's completely out of step with the American people.

The whole LP is completely out of step with the American people.

The LP party shouldn't be surprised that he didn't make 15%. His "What is Aleppo" statement certainly didn't help. When you get a chance to make it to national airtime it's a good idea not to flub things that badly.

I don't think most people cared about that. Heck, most Americans have no clue what Aleppo is. Even if he ran a perfect campaign, he wouldn't get many votes because it isn't Johnson that people hate, it's the libertarian platform.

 

[Cephus]

Because its largely unknown. Not because its crazy, as you said.

If they haven't become known in 45 years, it's time to pack it in.

 

[Cephus]

If no one is for individual liberty, then I suppose all conservatives may as well give it up.

There's a difference between virtual anarchy, which a lot of libertarians push, and individual liberty. Liberty has to be balanced with responsibility.

 

[Dittohead not!]

There's a difference between virtual anarchy, which a lot of libertarians push, and individual liberty. Liberty has to be balanced with responsibility.

Agreed. Neither license nor anarchy is liberty.

 

[Cephus]

Agreed. Neither license nor anarchy is liberty.

But lots of libertarians think they get to do what they want and have no responsibility to anyone else, period. It's just sad.

 

[jonny5]

If they haven't become known in 45 years, it's time to pack it in.

Maybe people just disagree. Its a minority ideology. People want free stuff or they want govt to control morals. They dont want to be responsible for themselves or to have to accept people being free to have sex for money, etc.

 

[jonny5]

But lots of libertarians think they get to do what they want and have no responsibility to anyone else, period. It's just sad.

I dont know of a single one who thinks that. Prove it.

 

[Cephus]

I dont know of a single one who thinks that. Prove it.

You just have to look self-professed libertarians here to see that. There are tons who only care about themselves. They want personal freedom, they just don't want to have any responsibility to those around them. They don't care about the costs of that freedom on society. It's all "me! me! me!" and not "what about us as a cohesive society".

 

[jonny5]

You just have to look self-professed libertarians here to see that. There are tons who only care about themselves. They want personal freedom, they just don't want to have any responsibility to those around them. They don't care about the costs of that freedom on society. It's all "me! me! me!" and not "what about us as a cohesive society".

Ive never seen any say that. All of them respect other peoples freedom. Thats why they beleive in minimal govt, not no govt.

 

[Cephus]

Ive never seen any say that. All of them respect other peoples freedom. Thats why they beleive in minimal govt, not no govt.

I notice you keep saying freedom and I keep saying responsibility. Hmmm...