How does Gary Johnson fit into 2012?

[wormyguy]

One-term former Governor Jimmy Carter had 1% name recognition when he announced for President.

 

[phesoge]

He was talking about our insane drug policy today

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/12/gary-johnson-pushes-drug-legalization-at-912-march/


Looks like he is getting his name out

 

[thasre]

If I had to pick between Paul and Johnson I'd actually prefer Johnson to run and Paul sit it out. Partially because Ron Paul is getting a bit old, let's face it, and he deserves some rest in his age, and even more because Johnson doesn't have the baggage with Republican voters the way Paul does.

Unfortunately, voters often will never, never, never admit they were wrong about someone else being right. They'll turn on a candidate like Obama, loving him one minute then hating him the next, but it's extremely rare that they start out hating someone and then swallow their pride and admit that "he was right and I was wrong." Gary Johnson can talk about the same issues Ron talks about (and he has) and people won't instinctively dismiss him, which is what I'm afraid will happen to Dr. Paul.

That being said, I don't see at all why they can't both run. I know people say they'll split each other's vote, but there's a lot of campaigning that goes on even before votes started getting cast, and I think it's infinitely more important that our movement be able to say, "Look, perspective! Ron Paul isn't the only one saying these things! It's not just four people in their mothers' basements!"

After all, it's a lot easier to paint someone as "fringe" if not even one other candidate agrees with what he's saying. Like the war issue in 2008, when basically everyone in America could plainly see that the War in Iraq was a total failure, Dr. Paul was the one who looked "out of touch" when confronted with 8 or 9 other people who were ACTUALLY out of touch but in agreement with each other.

Gary Johnson can at least be someone who forces Republicans to admit that there's a real diversity of solutions in the Republican Party to our country's problems, not just a diversity of candidates all selling the same thing.

 

[Elwar]

Johnson and Paul agree on 98% of the issues. They would both make the right decisions as president.

But between here and there lies campaigning and image. That's where they differ. Just as long as one of their campaigns work and one ends up in the White House, then I'll stay in the US and help it to prosper.

 

[SueToMyLou]

I think Gary Johnson will have a huge effect on 2012. If he decides to run I don't think Ron Paul will. He has always cared more about the issues then the actual leadership position. If there is someone there to be the voice then I think, especially at his age, he will want to be in an endorsement roll, which would not be the worst thing in the world.

 

[MRoCkEd]

It has to be Ron.

Gary is starting off with no name recognition and he does not inspire the grassroots like Ron.

I support him campaigning on behalf of Ron, though.

 

[wormyguy]

Gary is much more electable than Ron in a general election though - he doesn't have all the newsletter and John Birch Society and neonazi baggage. While I'm perfectly willing to give Dr. Paul the benefit of the doubt on two of those three (he did in fact speak at the JBS' 50th anniversary dinner), most voters will not, and they will be pimped hard in a general election.

 

[Christianlibertarian]

Both Ron and Gary need to run. Gary needs to run an "educational campaign" to force issues such as the Fed, noninterventionism, drug war, etc into the debates and make Ron's positions look respectable. He also needs to attack the other neocon candidates and make them look like fools.

Then, he needs to drop out and endorse Ron and maybe take the VP spot...

 

[Nathan Hale]

It has to be Ron.

Gary is starting off with no name recognition and he does not inspire the grassroots like Ron.

I support him campaigning on behalf of Ron, though.

You can't really compare situations. If Gary Johnson were in the 2008 primary who knows what he could have started??? If anything, his moderation combined with his principles AND his track record of executive experience might have proved an even more effective attention-getter.

Gary is in the game now, when the movement is already in motion, so it's not analogous to look at what he's doing today and say that he doesn't inspire the grassroots like Ron. Gary inspired grassroots before any of us heard of the idea - he came to power in NM by taking out the GOP's chosen son, and then winning both his initial election and his re-election, in a blue state, by over 10%.

 

[wormyguy]

Yes - it must be noted that if Gov. Johnson had run instead of Rep. Paul he might well have accrued very much the same following and we might be discussing "How does Ron Paul fit into 2012?" on garyjohnsonforums.com.

 

[Nathan Hale]

To say nothing of the fact that this movement shouldn't be a cult of personality - it's what killed the Reform Party in the 90's and it's what will kill us if we're not careful. Paul himself warned against the movement uniting behind him rather than behind his message.

 

[Elwar]

Ron Paul will be able to inspire the grassroots. His views are extreme enough to inspire those who have been disenfranchised forever. Johnson has been going more for the mainstream Republicans who will not be as motivated outside of perhaps donations and voting.

 

[CatchMe]

I think Gary should be the one to run in 2012. He is incredibly electable and I don't know if Ron has the stamina to do another full fledged campaign. One thing is for sure. There is no way Gary Johnson could succeed in 2012 if it wasn't for what Ron Paul did in 2008. He really brought unheard issues to the forefront and made it possible for someone like Gary to succeed and be heard. Not to mention Gary has a killer record from being Governor of New Mexico that when people are skeptical of him as a newcomer he can point to and say "see I did great things".

Whichever way it goes as long as one of them runs and ESPECIALLY if they get elected I will be happy. I do feel like Gary has an overall better chance though.

 

[Elwar]

I think Gary should be the one to run in 2012. He is incredibly electable and I don't know if Ron has the stamina to do another full fledged campaign. One thing is for sure. There is no way Gary Johnson could succeed in 2012 if it wasn't for what Ron Paul did in 2008. He really brought unheard issues to the forefront and made it possible for someone like Gary to succeed and be heard. Not to mention Gary has a killer record from being Governor of New Mexico that when people are skeptical of him as a newcomer he can point to and say "see I did great things".

Whichever way it goes as long as one of them runs and ESPECIALLY if they get elected I will be happy. I do feel like Gary has an overall better chance though.

They both need to run. The neo-cons will be attacking them. If they pile on to one or the other it'll be overwhelming.

In 2008 they just tried to ignore Ron Paul. They won't be able to do that this time and will attack. Johnson will be able to back up Paul and Paul will be able to back up Johnson.

I bet they'll try to keep Johnson out of the debates though.

 

[wormyguy]

Motivation doesn't count. Votes do. Ron Paul probably has the most motivated group of volunteers of any US political candidate since just about ever, but that on its own will never win a single primary. The message needs to be effectively packaged and sold to white-bread middle-American Republicans.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Agreed. It doesn't matter how well you energize the core supporters, what matters is how well you can mobilize moderates. Ron Paul was excellent at organizing core support, the reason he lost was that he never managed to capture the moderates. Libertarianism can be sold to moderates, but RP was just too far out there. The problem was that we were so focused on having a revolution that we forgot that America wasn't (and still isn't) looking for a revolution, they're just looking for change.

 

[Elwar]

Well motivated core supporters makes campaign money go a lot further than unmotivated supporters.

Ron Paul will have a lot of volunteers. Johnson will have a lot of staff.

 

[Eric21ND]

Agreed. It doesn't matter how well you energize the core supporters, what matters is how well you can mobilize moderates. Ron Paul was excellent at organizing core support, the reason he lost was that he never managed to capture the moderates. Libertarianism can be sold to moderates, but RP was just too far out there. The problem was that we were so focused on having a revolution that we forgot that America wasn't (and still isn't) looking for a revolution, they're just looking for change.

I don't think it has anything to do with Ron being "too far out there", that implies people heard his message and rejected him. In my experience with the campaign in 2008, I'd say the major stumbling block was the average voter not knowing who he was or hearing his message. If they did hear anything it was a tiny snippet.

 

[wormyguy]

The big problem is that in '08 the "small snippets" people were hearing was generally him talking about eliminating the Federal Reserve. The main focus of Paul's 2012 campaign, if he wants to win over a plurality of primary voters, should be Afghanistan and attacking Romney on Romneycare, and those should be the soundbites played on CNN.

 

[Flash]

Let them both run. And the polls will determine who is more viable. Johnson could potentially bring the drug war issue to a national audience and pave the way for more prop 19s. But I'm also liking the Gary Johnson for Senate idea.