Libertarian ticket could spoil Clinton party

[Ikari]

Libertarian ticket could spoil Clinton party (Opinion) - CNN.com

With national polling numbers hovering around 12%, the Libertarian ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld has the potential to be a real spoiler in the presidential election. But whose candidacy are they most likely to spoil?Most people think of libertarianism as a kind of right-wing ideology, with its intellectual origins in the free-market economics of Milton Friedman and the unabashed egoism and anti-communism of Ayn Rand. And it's certainly true that for most of its existence, the Libertarian Party has drawn more heavily from the political right than from the political left.

But Gary Johnson is actually drawing just as much support from self-identified Democrats as he does from Republicans. And polls that include Johnson actuallyshow a slight decrease in Clinton's lead over Trump.

It's a little optimistic, I think, because I still doubt that Johnson will be allowed to participate in the debates. But he's polling around 12% and taking votes from both Hillary and Trump. If he were allowed to participate, I really do think that it would be a three-way race, he would be up there because in the end, no one really wants either Hillary or Trump.

At the same accord, he's the only realistic alternative to Hillary or Trump. I know we like the "throw away your vote" mantra, but that mantra is what has gotten us Trump v Clinton in the first place. The only way for third parties to win is to support the third parties. Johnson hasn't done a lot of exposure, he's not running ads all over the place, but he's polling at 12% regardless. That's also where we are at right now. And if he can get exposure, if the press will talk about him, if he's allowed to debate (yeah right), we'll see a lot higher than 12%.

In an election where the main party gave us a **** sandwich vs. a **** sandwich, I say vote for the turkey club with bacon, vote Johnson.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Libertarian ticket could spoil Clinton party (Opinion) - CNN.com



It's a little optimistic, I think, because I still doubt that Johnson will be allowed to participate in the debates. But he's polling around 12% and taking votes from both Hillary and Trump. If he were allowed to participate, I really do think that it would be a three-way race, he would be up there because in the end, no one really wants either Hillary or Trump.

At the same accord, he's the only realistic alternative to Hillary or Trump. I know we like the "throw away your vote" mantra, but that mantra is what has gotten us Trump v Clinton in the first place. The only way for third parties to win is to support the third parties. Johnson hasn't done a lot of exposure, he's not running ads all over the place, but he's polling at 12% regardless. That's also where we are at right now. And if he can get exposure, if the press will talk about him, if he's allowed to debate (yeah right), we'll see a lot higher than 12%.

In an election where the main party gave us a **** sandwich vs. a **** sandwich, I say vote for the turkey club with bacon, vote Johnson.

There is certainly a better chance of a Johnson Presidency than the MSM would like us to believe. Perhaps this is the beginning of the media turning on the Republocrats.

When the Clinton News Network includes "spoil Clinton party" in one of their headline links, you know its about to get bad for her.

Reallybad

 

[WCH]

If it meant no Hillary, I'm completely for it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Libertarian ticket could spoil Clinton party (Opinion) - CNN.com



It's a little optimistic, I think, because I still doubt that Johnson will be allowed to participate in the debates. But he's polling around 12% and taking votes from both Hillary and Trump. If he were allowed to participate, I really do think that it would be a three-way race, he would be up there because in the end, no one really wants either Hillary or Trump.

At the same accord, he's the only realistic alternative to Hillary or Trump. I know we like the "throw away your vote" mantra, but that mantra is what has gotten us Trump v Clinton in the first place. The only way for third parties to win is to support the third parties. Johnson hasn't done a lot of exposure, he's not running ads all over the place, but he's polling at 12% regardless. That's also where we are at right now. And if he can get exposure, if the press will talk about him, if he's allowed to debate (yeah right), we'll see a lot higher than 12%.

In an election where the main party gave us a **** sandwich vs. a **** sandwich, I say vote for the turkey club with bacon, vote Johnson.

Which state(s) could a Johnson/Weld ticket reasonably be expected to win? In 1992 Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote and still got no electoral votes at all because of the winner take all assignment of electors.

 

[joG]

Libertarian ticket could spoil Clinton party (Opinion) - CNN.com



It's a little optimistic, I think, because I still doubt that Johnson will be allowed to participate in the debates. But he's polling around 12% and taking votes from both Hillary and Trump. If he were allowed to participate, I really do think that it would be a three-way race, he would be up there because in the end, no one really wants either Hillary or Trump.

At the same accord, he's the only realistic alternative to Hillary or Trump. I know we like the "throw away your vote" mantra, but that mantra is what has gotten us Trump v Clinton in the first place. The only way for third parties to win is to support the third parties. Johnson hasn't done a lot of exposure, he's not running ads all over the place, but he's polling at 12% regardless. That's also where we are at right now. And if he can get exposure, if the press will talk about him, if he's allowed to debate (yeah right), we'll see a lot higher than 12%.

In an election where the main party gave us a **** sandwich vs. a **** sandwich, I say vote for the turkey club with bacon, vote Johnson.

Judging by his platform, he is the best choice. His only deficiency is foreign and security affairs. That is grave, however.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Judging by his platform, he is the best choice. His only deficiency is foreign and security affairs. That is grave, however.

Being against incessant interventionist foreign policy is a deficiency? Wat?

 

[joG]

There is certainly a better chance of a Johnson Presidency than the MSM would like us to believe. Perhaps this is the beginning of the media turning on the Republocrats.

When the Clinton News Network includes "spoil Clinton party" in one of their headline links, you know its about to get bad for her.

Reallybad

I am not sure if the parties were the direct culprits in this play and not much more the voters. Of course, the parties are responsible for much of the pending business that is causing the divisiveness, anger and hate driving the voters into the arms of the demagogues.

 

[joG]

Being against incessant interventionist foreign policy is a deficiency? Wat?

Being against does not qualify as experience. And as we now require is rather active and incessant leadership on the global stage. We just lost 8 years and time is getting a little short to mend what is getting dangerous.

 

[tres borrachos]

Libertarian ticket could spoil Clinton party (Opinion) - CNN.com



It's a little optimistic, I think, because I still doubt that Johnson will be allowed to participate in the debates. But he's polling around 12% and taking votes from both Hillary and Trump. If he were allowed to participate, I really do think that it would be a three-way race, he would be up there because in the end, no one really wants either Hillary or Trump.

At the same accord, he's the only realistic alternative to Hillary or Trump. I know we like the "throw away your vote" mantra, but that mantra is what has gotten us Trump v Clinton in the first place. The only way for third parties to win is to support the third parties. Johnson hasn't done a lot of exposure, he's not running ads all over the place, but he's polling at 12% regardless. That's also where we are at right now. And if he can get exposure, if the press will talk about him, if he's allowed to debate (yeah right), we'll see a lot higher than 12%.

In an election where the main party gave us a **** sandwich vs. a **** sandwich, I say vote for the turkey club with bacon, vote Johnson.

He already has my vote, and my husband's vote, and our eldest son's vote (his first time voting). I'll proudly support the Johnson-Weld ticket. My neighbors are going to be like "WTF" when they see the signs on our property. First time since 2000 we aren't advertising our support for the Republican ticket.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Being against does not qualify as experience. And as we now require is rather active and incessant leadership on the global stage. We just lost 8 years and time is getting a little short to mend what is getting dangerous.

It is already dangerous to displace millions of people and kill millions more and flood Europe and elsewhere with millions of refugees which is already destabilizing Europe. I'm not anti-immigration, but it is resoundingly known as "The Refugee Crisis" for a reason.

Need I even mention the ISIL recruitment ammunition?

It's like touching a hot stove eye...

...don't do it.

 

[Ikari]

There is certainly a better chance of a Johnson Presidency than the MSM would like us to believe. Perhaps this is the beginning of the media turning on the Republocrats.

When the Clinton News Network includes "spoil Clinton party" in one of their headline links, you know its about to get bad for her.

Reallybad

I'm a lot more bitter at the whole system. I don't think the Press will come along because the Press is part of the status-quo problem and really only promotes the Republocrat Party Members. We can see that in how hard they are going after Trump (though he makes it easy). But remember how toxic the press was to Ron Paul when he was running.

I would love it if the press were free and fair, but I think it’s mostly just part of the machine. Regardless, the Party put up candidates this go around that are just so unsavory, that no one likes, that a third party candidate without exposure is already getting 12%. I think that means:

a) He should be given larger coverage because his polling numbers are so high
b) He should be allowed into the debates (he won’t be)
c) That people are getting real fed up with the **** after **** after **** the Republocrats keep trying to shove down our throats

May this be the election that breaks the camel’s back, as it were.

 

[Ikari]

If it meant no Hillary, I'm completely for it.

Not only that, it would mean no Trillary.

 

[Ikari]

Which state(s) could a Johnson/Weld ticket reasonably be expected to win? In 1992 Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote and still got no electoral votes at all because of the winner take all assignment of electors.

He's polling at well over 20% in Utah.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I'm a lot more bitter at the whole system. I don't think the Press will come along because the Press is part of the status-quo problem and really only promotes the Republocrat Party Members. We can see that in how hard they are going after Trump (though he makes it easy). But remember how toxic the press was to Ron Paul when he was running.

I would love it if the press were free and fair, but I think it’s mostly just part of the machine. Regardless, the Party put up candidates this go around that are just so unsavory, that no one likes, that a third party candidate without exposure is already getting 12%. I think that means:

a) He should be given larger coverage because his polling numbers are so high
b) He should be allowed into the debates (he won’t be)
c) That people are getting real fed up with the **** after **** after **** the Republocrats keep trying to shove down our throats

May this be the election that breaks the camel’s back, as it were.

I choose to be cautiously optimistic. I will emphasize the 'cautiously' part of that - after watching the unapologetic abuse of Bernie and his 20-odd million-strong support base. I do believe, in some part, that their arrogance is going to be their downfall. If not in 2016, most certainly in 2020 - particularly if it allows Trump in office.

 

[Ikari]

Being against does not qualify as experience. And as we now require is rather active and incessant leadership on the global stage. We just lost 8 years and time is getting a little short to mend what is getting dangerous.

And what are the solutions to this "leadership on the global stage". We've seen Hillary, we know how that will go. What about the unqualified, inexperience, egomaniac? Is that a good choice?

Even here, Johnson beats both the Republocrat candidates.

 

[ttwtt78640]

He's polling at well over 20% in Utah.

20% (or even 30%) will not win Utah or any other state.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And what are the solutions to this "leadership on the global stage". We've seen Hillary, we know how that will go. What about the unqualified, inexperience, egomaniac? Is that a good choice?

Even here, Johnson beats both the Republocrat candidates.

Except in polls or elections.

 

[Ikari]

20% (or even 30%) will not win Utah or any other state.

that's with no coverage, no exposure. If he's allowed to compete, that all goes up.

He can't win if you don't vote for him.

 

[Ikari]

Except in polls or elections.

With no exposure, he's polling at about 12% nationally. If he were allowed into the debates, it would be much higher.

 

[ttwtt78640]

that's with no coverage, no exposure. If he's allowed to compete, that all goes up.

He can't win if you don't vote for him.

I live in Texas where neither Hillary nor Johnson has any chance to win.

 

[ttwtt78640]

With no exposure, he's polling at about 12% nationally. If he were allowed into the debates, it would be much higher.

Even at triple that (36%) he would lose - see Bernie Sanders.

 

[joG]

It is already dangerous to displace millions of people and kill millions more and flood Europe and elsewhere with millions of refugees which is already destabilizing Europe. I'm not anti-immigration, but it is resoundingly known as "The Refugee Crisis" for a reason.

Need I even mention the ISIL recruitment ammunition?

It's like touching a hot stove eye...

...don't do it.

The refugee crisis is really bad for Europe and could push some countries into much more autocratic systems than the present social democratic ones favored today. That would be very negative.

But in general, that is all of reasonably little danger on a global level. What we are seeing is a shift in relative wealth and so of the whole international structure of power. We are moving from Unipole to multipole and have been for some years. With this chnage the probability of major war increases slowly but dramatically to the point of near certainty. This will yet take a decade or so, but we need to address it now, if it is not to be too late. As a matter of fact, it might already be too late.

 

[VanceMack]

I think people are underestimating the combination of Johnsons appeal, Bernies betrayal, and just how unpopular Hillary Clinton is. There is a daily concerted media onslaught against Trump...yet at Trump venues they have to turn people away it is so crowded. Conversely...

 

[joG]

And what are the solutions to this "leadership on the global stage". We've seen Hillary, we know how that will go. What about the unqualified, inexperience, egomaniac? Is that a good choice?

Even here, Johnson beats both the Republocrat candidates.

Clinton is certainly a suboptimal choice, if her stint as SoS is anything to go by. She did warn of some dangers we are encountering before most others did. But she has not shown any indication of an understanding of the middle to long term existential danger that is developing. This is disturbing, because we are running out of time to innovate to a system less likely to end in a world war.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

The refugee crisis is really bad for Europe and could push some countries into much more autocratic systems than the present social democratic ones favored today. That would be very negative.

But in general, that is all of reasonably little danger on a global level. What we are seeing is a shift in relative wealth and so of the whole international structure of power. We are moving from Unipole to multipole and have been for some years. With this chnage the probability of major war increases slowly but dramatically to the point of near certainty. This will yet take a decade or so, but we need to address it now, if it is not to be too late. As a matter of fact, it might already be too late.

A unipolar sole superpower is not required to police the world. There is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution that says, "police the world".