• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why don't you hear news of public figures endorsing Johnson?

SDET

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
1,610
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Many people agree that both Clinton and Trump are utterly unqualified to be President. Why don't we see more public figures endorsing Johnson by default? Johnson ain't much but at least he's not a traitor nor a dangerous buffoon.
 
Many people agree that both Clinton and Trump are utterly unqualified to be President. Why don't we see more public figures endorsing Johnson by default? Johnson ain't much but at least he's not a traitor nor a dangerous buffoon.

Because unlike Clinton or Trump, Johnson is nota canididate of the two main Parties.
 
Many people agree that both Clinton and Trump are utterly unqualified to be President. Why don't we see more public figures endorsing Johnson by default? Johnson ain't much but at least he's not a traitor nor a dangerous buffoon.

https://alibertarianfuture.com/libe...tes-have-endorsed-gary-johnson-for-president/

The highest ranking on the list would be Senator Mark Madsen of Utah who previously endorsed Gary Johnson within the Libertarian Party primary. He made his endorsement for President official after the Republican National Convention. Also in the upper house is Dawson Hodgson of Rhode Island and Lisa Torraco from Gary Johnson’s home state of New Mexico. There’s also Senator Laura Ebke of Nebraska who serves in that state’s unicameral legislature. Following them are Rep. Max Abramson (NH), Rep. Basil Dannebohm (KS), Rep. Nicholas Schwaderer (MT), and Rep. Daniel Zolnikov (MT).

Half of these endorsements have happened just within the past week. Gary Johnson is clearly gaining momentum in several states that aren’t happy with the two parties’ nominees. States like Nevada, Utah, Montana, and New Mexico are are winnable states for Johnson. With more endorsements from local legislators on the way his chances continue to get better.
 
I think part of it is fear. It is easy, as an individual, to go into the voting booth and vote your conscience. You know your one vote isn't going to make or break anything. But if you are a public figure and endorse Johnson, or Stein, you could, theoretically, swing the election if it is very close. And the odds are more likely it would benefit one of the two evils rather than being enough for Johnson, or especially Stein, to win. So you would then feel more responsible for Trump or Hillary winning than the average third party voter would. They would get a lot of hate as a result.

That is just my guess. I'm probably just talking out of my ass.
 
Why don't you hear news of public figures endorsing Johnson?

because we have a duopoly, and it is producing piss poor choices. everyone else is automatically considered to be a fringe candidate. Perot came the closest in my lifetime so far, and even he didn't have much of a chance. well, i suppose you could argue that Sanders came a bit closer, but he also didn't have much of a chance, even though he ran as a Democrat.
 
because we have a duopoly, and it is producing piss poor choices. everyone else is automatically considered to be a fringe candidate. Perot came the closest in my lifetime so far, and even he didn't have much of a chance. well, i suppose you could argue that Sanders came a bit closer, but he also didn't have much of a chance, even though he ran as a Democrat.

Duvergers law is in effect.
 
I think part of it is fear. It is easy, as an individual, to go into the voting booth and vote your conscience. You know your one vote isn't going to make or break anything. But if you are a public figure and endorse Johnson, or Stein, you could, theoretically, swing the election if it is very close. And the odds are more likely it would benefit one of the two evils rather than being enough for Johnson, or especially Stein, to win. So you would then feel more responsible for Trump or Hillary winning than the average third party voter would. They would get a lot of hate as a result.

That is just my guess. I'm probably just talking out of my ass.

We were tired of the Dems talking Green and doing nothing. Bill and Gore did nothing. So, it was time they lost our vote. I know I, and all of my colleagues (Miami Dade county), were happy when our Green votes pushed Gore out of office. That Gore lost his mind and went ManBearPig was icing on the cake.
 
Many people agree that both Clinton and Trump are utterly unqualified to be President. Why don't we see more public figures endorsing Johnson by default? Johnson ain't much but at least he's not a traitor nor a dangerous buffoon.

First off, Hillary's neither a traitor nor a dangerous buffoon. You may not like her, you may even hate her, but unlike the other guy, she's a rational actor who knows more about the job she's about to take than any other first-term president I can think of. That, and she does have a guy beside her who took us through the best economic boom times since the 1950's, and who (along with LBJ) is one of the only two presidents who got us a budget surplus since Eisenhower. You can hate her all you like, but it's a big mistake to think that she can't do the job and do it well.

Second, Johnson's a libertarian...and libertarianism - like its polar opposite, communism - sounds really nice in theory, but simply doesn't work in the real world. That's why ALL the first-world democracies, the most successful governments in human history (in terms of standards of living, peace, and stability) work on precisely the kind of model that libertarians claim is doomed to the economic dustbin of history. If libertarianism was right, we wouldn't have been a first-world nation for the past eighty years since we went down the road of socialized democracy beginning with FDR.

THAT, sir, is why most high-information voters aren't considering Gary Johnson.
 
First off, Hillary's neither a traitor nor a dangerous buffoon. You may not like her, you may even hate her, but unlike the other guy, she's a rational actor who knows more about the job she's about to take than any other first-term president I can think of. That, and she does have a guy beside her who took us through the best economic boom times since the 1950's, and who (along with LBJ) is one of the only two presidents who got us a budget surplus since Eisenhower. You can hate her all you like, but it's a big mistake to think that she can't do the job and do it well.

Second, Johnson's a libertarian...and libertarianism - like its polar opposite, communism - sounds really nice in theory, but simply doesn't work in the real world. That's why ALL the first-world democracies, the most successful governments in human history (in terms of standards of living, peace, and stability) work on precisely the kind of model that libertarians claim is doomed to the economic dustbin of history. If libertarianism was right, we wouldn't have been a first-world nation for the past eighty years since we went down the road of socialized democracy beginning with FDR.

THAT, sir, is why most high-information voters aren't considering Gary Johnson.

That's rather cute and self-serving: Defining anyone who doesn't vote for Hillary Rotten as not high information.
 
I said 'most', not 'all'. Please read what's actually written before you start making assumptions that are easily proven wrong.

If you want to get technical: You're saying that someone who doesn't vote for Hillary Rotten is more likely than not a low information voter.
 
Many people agree that both Clinton and Trump are utterly unqualified to be President. Why don't we see more public figures endorsing Johnson by default? Johnson ain't much but at least he's not a traitor nor a dangerous buffoon.

Speaking of being unfit for office as the president recently called one of the candidates. According to one poll 48% of all Americans see Trump as unfit for the presidency, but and this you will not hear reported in the media, 37% of all Americans feel Hillary Clinton is unfit to be president. 12% of Americans say both Trump and Hillary are unfit for the office of the presidency.

If Trump’s ‘Unfit to Serve,’ What About Clinton? - Rasmussen Reports™

As for endorsements, Johnson belongs to the Libertarian Party, a political party that in its long history has never cracked even one percent of the vote in any presidential election. The fact that NBC poll has Johnson at 10% and IBD/TIPP poll has him at 12% is astounding. Johnson has no name recognition, no money for ads or to get his message out, no media coverage or attention, no one knows who he is, hardly anyone outside of the political junkies ever heard of the Libertarian Party. The only thing Johnson and for Jill Stein of the Green Party have going for them, their last name isn't Trump or Clinton.

People want a third choice, given some money, a bit of political advertisement. Just the ability to said to the nation, "Hi, I am Gary Johnson and I am running for president. If you do not like either Trump or Clinton, vote for me." I bet his numbers would double into the 20's. When 60% of American dislike one candidate and 55% of Americans dislike the other candidate, there is an yearning out there for someone different.

But our two party system is a monopoly. Republicans and Democrats write the election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. Both major parties have long ago sold their hearts and souls to corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests and mega money donors that they aren't free agents anymore. The two major parties have locked up all the big money. It is in the best interest of those moneyed people to keep it at two parties. It keeps their investments down, its cheaper to buy two political parties than three.
 
Last edited:
If you want to get technical: You're saying that someone who doesn't vote for Hillary Rotten is more likely than not a low information voter.

Actually, yeah, that IS what the polls show. When compared against Trump only, or against Trump and Johnson, the higher the education level, the more likely they are to vote for Clinton.

Sorry, but the more educated people are, the more likely they are to vote for someone with a brain...and for someone who is pragmatic. Johnson is not pragmatic - he's more of an ideologue - and Trump almost certainly wouldn't know the meaning of the word. Hillary, on the other hand, IS pragmatic and IS willing to make deals in order to make progress...which is precisely how our government was designed to function.
 
Speaking of being unfit for office as the president recently called one of the candidates. According to one poll 48% of all Americans see Trump as unfit for the presidency, but and this you will not hear reported in the media, 37% of all Americans feel Hillary Clinton is unfit to be president. 12% of Americans say both Trump and Hillary are unfit for the office of the presidency.

If Trump’s ‘Unfit to Serve,’ What About Clinton? - Rasmussen Reports™

As for endorsements, Johnson belongs to the Libertarian Party, a political party that in its long history has never cracked even one percent of the vote in any presidential election. The fact that NBC poll has Johnson at 10% and IBD/TIPP poll has him at 12% is astounding. Johnson has no name recognition, no money for ads or to get his message out, no media coverage or attention, no one knows who he is, hardly anyone outside of the political junkies ever heard of the Libertarian Party. The only thing Johnson and for Jill Stein of the Green Party have going for them, their last name isn't Trump or Clinton.

People want a third choice, given some money, a bit of political advertisement. Just the ability to said to the nation, "Hi, I am Gary Johnson and I am running for president. If you do not like either Trump or Clinton, vote for me." I bet his numbers would double into the 20's. When 60% of American dislike one candidate and 55% of Americans dislike the other candidate, there is an yearning out there for someone different.

But our two party system is a monopoly. Republicans and Democrats write the election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. Both major parties have long ago sold their hearts and souls to corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests and mega money donors that they aren't free agents anymore. The two major parties have locked up all the big money. It is in the best interest of those moneyed people to keep it at two parties. It keeps their investments down, its cheaper to buy two political parties than three.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

As Laurel said to Hardy, "Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten me into!" How sad for our country that this saying is proving to be true! :2mad: Anybody care to bet our taxes are not going to be raised?
 
Last edited:
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

As Laurel said to Hardy, "Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten me into!" How sad for our country that this saying is proving to be true! :2mad: Anybody care to bet our taxes are not going to be raised?

Howdy Pol, Laurel and Hardy, I used to watch them all the time as a kid. Them and the Three Stoogies along with Abbot and Costello. Red Skelton too. Yep, this is a fine mess. The majority of Americans want neither and yet one will end up being president.

In a way I am not sure it makes much difference. Trump and Clinton would be just the face to the public for all the big moneyed people behind them along with corporations, Wall Street, Lobbyist, special interests etc. Trump used to be one of the moneyed people who donated. When confronted last year for giving millions to Democrats, he simple replied, "I give, politicians give back." It's so simple isn't it. Yet so corrupt and the vast majority of Americans do not give a dang, they cheer the R and and D as they would their favorite sports team.

As long as they win, they don't care how or who they owe.
 
Speaking of being unfit for office as the president recently called one of the candidates. According to one poll 48% of all Americans see Trump as unfit for the presidency, but and this you will not hear reported in the media, 37% of all Americans feel Hillary Clinton is unfit to be president. 12% of Americans say both Trump and Hillary are unfit for the office of the presidency.

If Trump’s ‘Unfit to Serve,’ What About Clinton? - Rasmussen Reports™

As for endorsements, Johnson belongs to the Libertarian Party, a political party that in its long history has never cracked even one percent of the vote in any presidential election. The fact that NBC poll has Johnson at 10% and IBD/TIPP poll has him at 12% is astounding. Johnson has no name recognition, no money for ads or to get his message out, no media coverage or attention, no one knows who he is, hardly anyone outside of the political junkies ever heard of the Libertarian Party. The only thing Johnson and for Jill Stein of the Green Party have going for them, their last name isn't Trump or Clinton.

People want a third choice, given some money, a bit of political advertisement. Just the ability to said to the nation, "Hi, I am Gary Johnson and I am running for president. If you do not like either Trump or Clinton, vote for me." I bet his numbers would double into the 20's. When 60% of American dislike one candidate and 55% of Americans dislike the other candidate, there is an yearning out there for someone different.

But our two party system is a monopoly. Republicans and Democrats write the election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. Both major parties have long ago sold their hearts and souls to corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests and mega money donors that they aren't free agents anymore. The two major parties have locked up all the big money. It is in the best interest of those moneyed people to keep it at two parties. It keeps their investments down, its cheaper to buy two political parties than three.

Great post! If Gary Johnson qualifies to be included in the Presidential Debates he should do pretty well in the election. He will most certainly steal votes from Trump and Clinton, probably more from Clinton. Johnson comes across as level headed, affable, trustworthy and capable. Hillary will do everything possible to keep Johnson out of the debates.

Viva la Third Party!
 
Great post! If Gary Johnson qualifies to be included in the Presidential Debates he should do pretty well in the election. He will most certainly steal votes from Trump and Clinton, probably more from Clinton. Johnson comes across as level headed, affable, trustworthy and capable. Hillary will do everything possible to keep Johnson out of the debates.

Viva la Third Party!

Third parties will always be spoilers in U.S. Elections.

And democrats like myself don't see anything that gives the libertarian party any identity of their own.

They believe in limited government? Good for them, but the Republican Party also supports limited government.

The libertarian party does not have anything unique to bring to the table. "We are not republican or democrat" is not enough to win.
 
Great post! If Gary Johnson qualifies to be included in the Presidential Debates he should do pretty well in the election. He will most certainly steal votes from Trump and Clinton, probably more from Clinton. Johnson comes across as level headed, affable, trustworthy and capable. Hillary will do everything possible to keep Johnson out of the debates.

Viva la Third Party!

I wouldn't go that far, but our choices are so poor this year that at least Johnson isn't a confidence man (a little early 1900s lingo there) nor a traitor. That's a pretty low bar to clear.
 
I wouldn't go that far, but our choices are so poor this year that at least Johnson isn't a confidence man (a little early 1900s lingo there) nor a traitor. That's a pretty low bar to clear.

It's my fault for not being more succinct. I have no illusions about the next president coming from outside the two establishment corpgov parties. Johnson has little chance of winning. He does have a chance, however, of becoming more widely known. He has a fairly good chance at being able to participate in the debates. If Johnson does participate in the debates it is my opinion that overall Hillary will fare worse because of it.

And, yeah, the bar is so low that only slimy things have been able to slither under it. It's not good.
 
Great post! If Gary Johnson qualifies to be included in the Presidential Debates he should do pretty well in the election. He will most certainly steal votes from Trump and Clinton, probably more from Clinton. Johnson comes across as level headed, affable, trustworthy and capable. Hillary will do everything possible to keep Johnson out of the debates.

Viva la Third Party!

Exactly. Even if Johns somehow manages to reach the 15% threshold, the so called bipartisan debate committee would raise that threshold to 20%. The big reason the Republicans and Democrats took the debates away from the league of women's voters was the League had the gull to allow Ross Perot in the debates.

With the so called bipartisan debate commission they can control not who only gets in, but all aspects of the debates. When, where, subjects, who are the moderators etc. With the League in charge, the two major parties had little control. Control is what it is all about.
 
It's my fault for not being more succinct. I have no illusions about the next president coming from outside the two establishment corpgov parties. Johnson has little chance of winning. He does have a chance, however, of becoming more widely known. He has a fairly good chance at being able to participate in the debates. If Johnson does participate in the debates it is my opinion that overall Hillary will fare worse because of it.

And, yeah, the bar is so low that only slimy things have been able to slither under it. It's not good.

Johnson would probably get torn to pieces by trump, and aren't you underestimating hilliary Clinton's skills at debating?
 
Johnson would probably get torn to pieces by trump, and aren't you underestimating hilliary Clinton's skills at debating?

Trump is a buffoon and I believe he will come across that way when debating Johnson. As for Johnson and Hillary, I believe Johnson's successful strategy will be to remain truthful and to try to force Hillary to remain truthful and not divert to other topics as she frequently does when she is in a corner. Truth is not Hillary's friend.
 
Back
Top Bottom