Gary Johnson Gary Johnson polls at 7 percent in Obama/Romney match up

speciallyblend said:
you are worse actually. we are making change while you bitch that change is not coming fast enough for you. what is your solution joining newt on the moon? bottom line is change is happening and has happened at the state level. I am talking the constitution here not resolutions. I am talking majority delegates. That is the change!
Click to expand...

THIS

And I will add that as a movement, libertarian-conservatives have been playing defense for many years now. For one, it wasn't until 94 that the GOP took over the House and we could even dream of having legislation we support move out of committee. As we continue to grow our movement, and thus our presence in the House and Senate we can see the pendulum swinging in our direction. Take a look at the Fed Audit bill that was DOA for many years, until recently it was brought to a vote and had strong support from across the GOP. While there are many in the GOP that I disagree with on a lot of issues, there are also issues where we find common ground.

Or you can choose to sit on the sidelines, bitch about how the system is corrupt and get together with the 6 people that agree with you for your quarterly Libertarian Party "meeting" at Denny's.
 
Lew Rockwell: Bob Barr Polling at 7%

Why, oh why do people always fall for this? Every presidential election cycle features a 'so-and-so third party candidate polling unexpectedly high' story around February-June, and then the actual voting takes place and they get around 0.4% of the vote.

The race between Obama-whomever hasn't even started yet. People always move away from third parties when the election gets competitive and they convince themselves not to waste their vote on a non-viable candidate. Perot was an anomaly because of his ability to self-finance sufficiently enough for a national election.
 
Last edited:
RonPaulFanInGA said:
Lew Rockwell: Bob Barr Polling at 7%

Why, oh why do people always fall for this? Every presidential election cycle features a 'so-and-so third party candidate polling unexpectedly high' story around February-June, and then the actual voting takes place and they get around 0.4% of the vote.

The race between Obama-whomever hasn't even started yet. People always move away from third parties when the election gets competitive and they convince themselves not to waste their vote on a non-viable candidate. Perot was an anomaly because of his ability to self-finance sufficiently enough for a national election.
Click to expand...

Valid point.

I'm awaiting the time for the wobblies around here to run for the high grass as well.

I'm not going anywhere:

To Hell With Them All - No One But Paul.
 
To clarify, or further muddy the waters:

Anti Federalist said:
Valid point.

I'm awaiting the time for the wobblies around here to run for the high grass as well.

I'm not going anywhere:

To Hell With Them All - No One But Paul.
Click to expand...


Pericles said:
Only way I'll vote Republican.
Click to expand...


NO ONE BUT PAUL implies NOT voting for a different Republican nominee. Got THAT. No lining up behind Romney, for "party unity".

But there is a quite different question under debate, and that is whether it is better for Ron Paul to LOSE AS A REPUBLICAN, AND FURTHER THE CAUSE BY HELPING OTHER REPUBLICANS WIN OTHER OFFICES...

OR

...whether it is better to JUMP THE REPUBLICAN SHIP at some point, with Ron Paul AND diverse Supporters having "nothing to lose and everything to gain" by scrambling madly as as a non-Republican...an unusual off-chance opportunity reportedly to be provided by BOTH the Libertarian Party and Americans Elect. But it's NOT "nothing to lose". OTHER Republicans running for OTHER offices will lose, according to GOP ONLY folk.
 
Last edited:
cheapseats said:
NO ONE BUT PAUL implies NOT voting for a different Republican nominee. Got THAT. No lining up behind Romney, for "party unity".

But there is a quite different question under debate, and that is whether it is better for Ron Paul to LOSE AS A REPUBLICAN, AND FURTHER THE CAUSE BY HELPING OTHER REPUBLICANS WIN OTHER OFFICES...

OR

...whether it is better to JUMP THE REPUBLICAN SHIP at some point, with Ron Paul AND diverse Supporters having "nothing to lose and everything to gain" by scrambling madly as as a non-Republican...an unusual off-chance opportunity theoretically provided by BOTH the Libertarian Party and Americans Elect. But it is NOT "nothing to lose". OTHER Republicans running for OTHER offices will lose, according to GOP ONLY folk.
Click to expand...

Is that really the choice? I can vote split party in TX, so party is no more than an artificial label.
 
Pericles said:
Is that really the choice? I can vote split party in TX, so party is no more than an artificial label.
Click to expand...


To my incredulity, there is also an assertion that if the Republican Party does NOT nominate Ron Paul, but the Libertarian Party DOES nominate Gary Johnson, Ron Paul Supporters should NOT vote for Gary Johnson because then "libertarian-leaning Republicans" will be blamed for the GOP's loss to Obama (tho I thought everyone agreed Romney would ALREADY lose to Obama)...and that Nader-esque blame will negatively impact libertarian-leaning Republicans aspiring to other offices.
 
Last edited:
cheapseats said:
To my incredulity, there is also an assertion that if the Republican Party does NOT nominate Ron Paul, but the Libertarian Party DOES nominate Gary Johnson, Ron Paul Supporters should NOT vote for Gary Johnson because then "libertarian-leaning Republicans" will be blamed for the GOP's loss to Obama (tho I thought everyone agreed Romney would ALREADY lose to Obama)...and that Nader-esque blame will negatively impact libertarian-leaning Republicans aspiring to other offices.
Click to expand...

The whole situation shows the stupidity of the Republican Party. Romney is winning "blue" states to gain the nomination, so he can lose those states in November. Romney is losing primaries in the states that vote Republican.
 
I don't know what you are all in a tither about, cheapseats. As far as I am concerned, I vote for the best person, regardless of political party.
 
Pericles said:
The whole situation shows the stupidity of the Republican Party. Romney is winning "blue" states to gain the nomination, so he can lose those states in November. Romney is losing primaries in the states that vote Republican.
Click to expand...

Very true. But the election will more than likely come down to a handful of swing states as it has the last several elections. The pundits are saying the states to watch this year will be IN, VA, PA, FL, OH, WI, NC, NV, CO, MI, IA, NH, and NM.
 
tbone717 said:
Very true. But the election will more than likely come down to a handful of swing states as it has the last several elections. The pundits are saying the states to watch this year will be IN, VA, PA, FL, OH, WI, NC, NV, CO, MI, IA, NH, and NM.
Click to expand...

In NC and IN, assuming that LP and CP votes would have gone to the GOP, the margin of loss was less than those vote totals.

NH will go to Romney.

Everywhere else, a toss up based on "minority" turnout and the economy.

It will be close enough that the couple of percent that the "hard core" RP base commands, will make or break this for the GOP.

Assuming our line holds, and people don't crimp and fold like too many did in 2008.

No One But Paul
 
LibertyEagle said:
I don't know what you are all in a tither about, cheapseats. As far as I am concerned, I vote for the best person, regardless of political party.
Click to expand...

I am not answering for cheapseats, but will share my observations on the line of thought.

Every so often you get a candidate that has a loyal following and the supporters think that through that person they are going to start a new third party movement under the assumption that the public is sick of the two main parties. The AIP in 68 with George Wallace is one example. In 80 when Anderson left the GOP to run as an Independent there was talk of a new "moderate" party. Perot we know formed the Reform party in in 95, and some of Buchanan's people thought they would be the folks to breath new life into it in 2000.

Of course, all these efforts were tried and failed. And when reminded of past failures the supporters at the time always would say how this time if going to be different because their guy is someone that people will rally around. Of course that didn't happen, and today we are hearing the same old song again. Paul can join the LP, CP or whatever and lead the charge and all these people are going to flock to him and we will break the two party stranglehold. Yeah....ok.
 
Anti Federalist said:
In NC and IN, assuming that LP and CP votes would have gone to the GOP, the margin of loss was less than those vote totals.

NH will go to Romney.

Everywhere else, a toss up based on "minority" turnout and the economy.

It will be close enough that the couple of percent that the "hard core" RP base commands, will make or break this for the GOP.

Assuming our line holds, and people don't crimp and fold like too many did in 2008.

No One But Paul
Click to expand...

Yeah the other states are going to be close. A lot of it depends at how poorly Obama is perceived going into November. He is a really unpopular incumbent, like Jimmy Carter unpopular. The problem is though Romney is no Reagan, so we cannot expect a repeat of 80, despite how unpopular Obama is.
 
Even if Ron doesn't win the nomination and did decide to run 3rd party (which I don't think he would), the media will manipulate the polls so he couldn't participate in the debates.

Could you imagine him going up against Obama and Romney? He would destroy them and expose their lies.

They, the globalists, won't have any of that.
 
No Free Beer said:
Even if Ron doesn't win the nomination and did decide to run 3rd party (which I don't think he would), the media will manipulate the polls so he couldn't participate in the debates.

Could you imagine him going up against Obama and Romney? He would destroy them and expose their lies.

They, the globalists, won't have any of that.
Click to expand...

I am thinking the ballot access issue would keep him below 15 points. As of today, the LP has access in 27 states, AE has access in 20 states, and I couldn't find the CP access list but I am going to assume it is somewhere around the same or less. So essentially, any national poll that is conducted, nearly half of the states polled won't have a third party candidate on their ballot and therefore cannot select him as a choice. I'm no math whiz, but I am guessing that would mean the candidate would need to have 30% or more support in the other states to balance out all the zeroes he would get elsewhere.
 
tbone717 said:
I am thinking the ballot access issue would keep him below 15 points. As of today, the LP has access in 27 states, AE has access in 20 states, and I couldn't find the CP access list but I am going to assume it is somewhere around the same or less. So essentially, any national poll that is conducted, nearly half of the states polled won't have a third party candidate on their ballot and therefore cannot select him as a choice. I'm no math whiz, but I am guessing that would mean the candidate would need to have 30% or more support in the other states to balance out all the zeroes he would get elsewhere.
Click to expand...

How does it work if he ran as an Independent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anti Federalist
Kamala Harris is Democratic front-runner for California governor in 2026: Poll
Replies
8
Views
552
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
jmdrake
New Poll Shows Harris Lead Cut From 10% to 5% In Tim Waltz State Of MN
Replies
2
Views
666
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Anti Federalist
Race and Gender Push Harris Above Trump Nationally Harris up 7 over Trump
Replies
16
Views
2K
Invisible Man
I
Snowball
Harris now leading Trump in polls
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Anti Federalist
New polling: Biden up two over Trump
Replies
1
Views
312
DamianTV
DamianTV
Back
Top