Gary Johnson [Video] Gary Johnson wants troops in Uganda but not Libya

[matt0611]

Remember: Barr was polling at 7% in 2008 before he finished with 0.4% of the vote.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/20500.html

Polls of third party candidates are always grossly inflated. People desire to vote for them, but never actually do so. The Libertarian party's high-water mark in presidential elections is 1.1%, and that was over thirty years ago in 1980. Johnson won't tie or beat that, most likely.

Yup, I doubt Gary will break even 1% in the general election. People don't vote for third parties.

 

[JohnAshman]

Because being a triathelete makes you a complete boss at politics, right? And Why do you keep bringing up Rand? We're all individuals here, stop putting us into a single group who unanimously support Rand.

Nope. It's the fact that he built a 1000 person, multi-$million company out of nothing and ran a state for 8 years and put it into the black while vetoing 742 bills and increasing freedom. You know, all that stuff Ron Paul never did.

 

[matt0611]

It should be "vonMises.org" if anything. Yeah, someone should tell them so they and their followers don't look silly when they're telling everyone how much more they know than everyone else.

Nah, that would be lame. Mises.org sounds and looks much better. His own wife directed the thing until she passed away. I think she knows what her own name is.

 

[Respect38]

Yup, I doubt Gary will break even 1% in the general election. People don't vote for third parties.

Have you not ever heard of Ross Perot?

 

[JohnAshman]

Yup, I doubt Gary will break even 1% in the general election. People don't vote for third parties.

I think more people are willing to vote 3rd party now than at any time in history. Two complete duds in a row.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Have you not ever heard of Ross Perot?

Is Johnson planning to self-finance his campaign to compete with the big money of the two major political parties, as Perot did in 1992?

 

[cheapseats]

I think more people are willing to vote 3rd party now than at any time in history. Two complete duds in a row.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/u...ts-nonpartisan-primaries.html?pagewanted=all:

Nonpartisan Primaries Face Test in California
By JENNIFER MEDINA
Published: June 3, 2012

*

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/poll-more-americans-call-themselves-independents/:

Poll: More Americans call themselves “independents”
June 9
AP
THE KANSAS CITY STAR

*

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/polarization_06-06.html:

With Political Polarization at All-Time High, Americans Say 'Listen to Me'
ANALYSIS AIR DATE: June 6, 2012


*

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2018356621.html:

Poll: Partisan gap grows; party affiliation erodes
Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - Page updated at 06:00 a.m.
By Tribune Washington bureau and The Associated Press

*

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012...pendents-would-vote-for-paul-over-obama.html:

A Stunning 40% of Americans Are Now Independent. Ron Paul Polls Highest Among Independents, and Independents Would Vote for Paul Over Obama
Posted on January 11, 2012
by WashingtonsBlog


*

COULDA, SHOULDA.

 

[JohnAshman]

Is Johnson planning to self-finance his campaign to compete with the big money of the two major political parties, as Perot did in 1992?

We have the internet. It's a different ball game. Eventually, all the money in the world won't matter. It's a matter of time.

 

[matt0611]

Is Johnson planning to self-finance his campaign to compete with the big money of the two major political parties, as Perot did in 1992?

Yep. Perot was a billionaire and spent millions of his own money on his campaign.

In 2008 I think the entire Barr campaign spent a bit over 1 million.

 

[Respect38]

Is Johnson planning to self-finance his campaign to compete with the big money of the two major political parties, as Perot did in 1992?

Yep. Perot was a billionaire and spent millions of his own money on his campaign.

In 2008 I think the entire Barr campaign spent a bit over 1 million.

In 1992, Ross Perot had the money.

In 2012, Gary Johnson should have the internet, and the backing of the r3volution!

Either way, all we have to do is get to the debates, just get ~7% of the national polls, and we're in the debates. If the r3volution puts their efforts behind it, we've got it easily.

 

[TheTexan]

We have the internet. It's a different ball game. Eventually, all the money in the world won't matter. It's a matter of time.

The free internet is on borrowed time

 

[cheapseats]

Yep. Perot was a billionaire and spent millions of his own money on his campaign.

In 2008 I think the entire Barr campaign spent a bit over 1 million.

Yesteryear's campaign expenditures are QUAINT compared to today's.

Be sure to note the final sentence of the article.

Romney campaign spent $18.50 per vote

By Charles Riley @CNNMoney April 25, 2012: 5:21 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Well, it's over. Mitt Romney has amassed a nearly insurmountable delegate lead, and is on track to become his party's nominee for president.

The road to victory hasn't been easy for the former Massachusetts governor. The primary campaign stretched on for months, and at least 10 different candidates topped the national polls at some point.

So how much did victory cost?

Romney spent a total of $76.6 million, far more than any other campaign. That total is, for example, more than the combined spending of Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

Now, money isn't everything in politics -- but it sure doesn't hurt. And in this field, Romney dominated.

"The Romney team was putting a lot of money out there," one Santorum adviser told CNN when the former Pennsylvania senator called it quits earlier this month. "The budget was a factor."

More money, more votes: The billion dollar campaign

At the end of March, the Romney camp had captured 607 delegates and 4.1 million votes. That means the candidate, who has cultivated a reputation as a penny-pincher, spent $18.50 per vote, and $126,000 per delegate.

The money was used to cover various expenses like hotels, food, equipment, accounting services, rental cars, air travel, event consultants and online advertisers.
For instance, in March, the campaign spent $871 on Poland Spring water, $1,966 on office supplies from Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500), more than $50 at Applebee's, $48 at Arby's, $9.57 at Panda Express, $11,000 in payments to the Waldorf Astoria hotel and $70,165 at law and lobbying firm Patton Boggs.

But at least two of Romney's contenders had a better votes-to-expenditure ratio.

America's Choice 2012

Gingrich, for example, spent $21 million through the end of March, collecting 141 delegates and 2.2 million votes. That works out to just under $10 per vote and around $150,000 per delegate.

Santorum spent $18.7 million on 264 delegates and 2.9 million votes for a per-vote expenditure just north of $6.50 and a cost-per-delegate of about $71,000.

Paul, meanwhile, got the worst return on his money of the final contenders. The Texas congressman spent nearly $35 million, but received only around 1.1 million votes and 72 delegates. The math works out to $32.40 per vote and roughly $485,500 per delegate.


http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/25/news/economy/Romney-campaign-spending-vote/index.htm

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Paul, meanwhile, got the worst return on his money of the final contenders. The Texas congressman spent nearly $35 million, but received only around 1.1 million votes and 72 delegates. The math works out to $32.40 per vote and roughly $485,500 per delegate.

Will Rand Paul remember this in 2016, or will he just hire Benton and crew? Third time's a charm?

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Have you not ever heard of Ross Perot?

He was a billionaire that had the personal wealth to fight the system. He even bought a 30 min nation block of time, which had to cost a fortune.

 

[Respect38]

He was a billionaire that had the personal wealth to fight the system. He even bought a 30 min nation block of time, which had to cost a fortune.

And yet: he didn't have a concise way to get to the debates.

Gary Johnson does, and I think we can reach the requirements.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

And yet: he didn't have a concise way to get to the debates.

Gary Johnson does, and I think we can reach the requirements.

Perot was in the debate.

 

[Respect38]

Perot was in the debate.

I know... your point?

I believe that Perot just made enough noise to get himself there.

WE, on the other hand, have an exact route (as in, we're not saying "oh, if we just get enough people behind us") to the debates. He can keep track of our progress to that goal, which is something that Perot could not.

I guess my point is: his supporters could always say "well, maybe, even if we do get some support, they'll keep us out anyway".

We can't say that. We have a clear path and that is: grow support for Gary Johnson everywhere, which leads to greater success in the polls, which leads to a higher chance of reaching 15% in polls, which gets us to the debates, which spreads the ideals that Gary Johnson (which are share in a lot of ways with Ron Paul) supports out to America and to the world, get at least 5% (hopefully much, much more) of the vote, then gain a lot of money for the 2016 election to continue to spread the ideals of libertarianism to America by funding the next presidential election.

Correct me where I'm wrong here, but it looks right to me.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I know... your point?

I believe that Perot just made enough noise to get himself there.

WE, on the other hand, have an exact route (as in, we're not saying "oh, if we just get enough people behind us") to the debates. He can keep track of our progress to that goal, which is something that Perot could not.

I guess my point is: his supporters could always say "well, maybe, even if we do get some support, they'll keep us out anyway".

We can't say that. We have a clear path and that is: grow support for Gary Johnson everywhere, which leads to greater success in the polls, which leads to a higher chance of reaching 15% in polls, which gets us to the debates, which spreads the ideals that Gary Johnson (which are share in a lot of ways with Ron Paul) supports out to America and to the world, get at least 5% (hopefully much, much more) of the vote, then gain a lot of money for the 2016 election to continue to spread the ideals of libertarianism to America by funding the next presidential election.

Correct me where I'm wrong here, but it looks right to me.

Perot was leading in some polls between Bush and Clinton.

 

[Respect38]

Perot was leading in some polls between Bush and Clinton.

Until he dropped out of the race, that hurt his polls pretty bad, all the way down to where Gary Johnson is NOW in mid-June.

 

[JohnAshman]

Until he dropped out of the race, that hurt his polls pretty bad, all the way down to where Gary Johnson is NOW in mid-June.

And he still did pretty darned well as I recall. I was absolutely going to vote for him until he dropped out. He probably would have won if not for that.