Every election is “not normal”, at some point. This ones seems weirder than most, but until there’s steady polling that shows Johnson with a significant portion within a few months of the voting, then this is just more adaher wishful thinking masquerading as analysis.
We’ve haven’t had an election unusual in the sense that nobody liked the two candidates since 1992. We also haven’t had this qualified a third party ticket since 1968. That’s not wishful thinking, those conditions have produced significant third party candidacies 100% of the time those conditions existed: 1992, 1980, 1968, 1912
I’m most likely not voting or else writing in some foreign politician, because I think Trump and Clinton are both unacceptable. that said: what is Gary Johnson’s foreign policy?
No question that there are strong negative opinions … but let’s not get too hyperbolic. The reality is that 75% of voters do not dislike at least one of them. Most of those who support Clinton are solidly in her camp and Trump has a (somewhat smaller) core of solid support as well. Total of all “undecided/other/neither/third party” is high, maybe as much as 21% if you look at four-way polls, but believing that many more than the current numbers will choose Johnson as their final choice (rather than vote against the one they dislike more, or just stay home) is a speculation without basis.
Most do not perceive Johnson as very “qualified” … and his having been a governor does not change that perception.
Past third party candidates who got to double digits or at least polled there at some point? Perot ('92) entered at 24%. Anderson ('80) entered at 21% (albeit finished at 7%). Wallace ('68) was at 14% by May. None have moved from single digits at of June to finishing in double digits; single digits in June equals fringe status and stays single digits.
That worked so well for Kasich, didn’t it?
Perot? Qualified? Really?
Libertarians? Adults? Those are non-intersecting sets.
Adaher went through a pro-Carson stage. Just because Carson knew nothing about government, perhaps he could be taught. Which turned out to be a dead end.
He’s been trying to distract himself (and everybody else) from His Party’s Choice.
Here’s their campaign website:
https://johnsonweld.com/issues/
In other words, he has no clue what to do.
Well, that’s fine. I’d rather that, than a candidate who has good ideas about how to accomplish an agenda I disagree with.
Johnson seems to be a relatively consistent isolationist, which is more or less what I’d want to see, especially wrt Russia and the Middle East.
Aside from the utterly vapid content (which I suppose one would expect from most politicians trying to gain some traction), the coding on that page is genuinely fucked up. If you want me to try to read your pablum, at least make it not a struggle.
It actually did work for Ben Carson though, until he pissed it away. Johnson and Weld at least have the resumes to continue to be taken seriously.
I said no qualified candidate since 1968. Perot wasn’t qualified, but he did ride a large wave of voter discontent. Had he been a former governor or Senator and hadn’t dropped out like a flake, he would have won.
He is an isolationist who hates regime change. Except he wants to work with China to remove Kim Sung Un from North Korea and unify the peninsula under Seoul. He doesn’t think it will be too difficult with China as a partner.
They have no chance of winning as long as they give the mealy-mouthed responses that they do now. They are poor politicians. They are painfully local, they do not have the polish or the charisma necessary for a national campaign.
Johnson is the “adult” who admits to usually being a habitual user of “cannabis product”. He cannot give a straight answer.
Ron Paul would be crushing these two if he was on the LP ticket and he is a much purer libertarian that has a lot more 'splainin to do on a host of issues.
These two have done nothing to differentiate themselves from Clinton. They do not even attack her blatant corruption. They’d rather make fun of Donald Trump because they think it will ingratiate themselves with mainstream pundits and other assorted hacks. I am convinced that they are desperately trying to get David Brooks vote. Basically their target audience is emasculated “conservatives” afraid of confrontation.
Had he been a former member of the actual government he would have received a tenth of the support he did. You know, like Johnson and Weld are getting.
And I guess Anderson’s being in the House for 20 years, and being Chairman of the House Republican Conference for 10 years, did not count as “qualifications.”
You know, most of the country views the libertarians as rather wack. Not quite as goofy as sovcits or Bundistas, but the reality is that they are simply not realistic. And the reason we are less than keen on them is not because we need to listen carefully to their ideology: most of us who have studied libertarianism are just not impressed.
What I am saying is, a purist libertarian like Paul is going to alienate people with his dogmatic rants. Johnson and Weld may be bland and equivocating, but they might be able to make better gains for the LP that a strong ideologue like a Paul or a Paul. Because, you know, I learned a year or two ago that I am not going to get the government I want, so I support the people who will drag it in my preferred general direction. J&W are the kind of people the Ls ought to support if they want any hope of makes their own desired “progress”.
No one will be able to turn America into Libertopia in a decade, but they might be able to work in that direction gradually, if they just try some tact and patience instead of shouting at us fucking blind moroons.
8-10% is more than they’ve ever polled. NBC actually had a poll showing Johnson and Stein combining for 16% of the vote.
And you’re taking polls five months before the election seriously why?
How many rants on the subject do you need to hear before it sinks in?