The Gary Johnson thread

[ThisDinosaur]

@Brute
I have thought Bill Weld should have been the candidate and Johnson the running mate since this interview with Chris Matthews:

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/the ... 9163203571

Look at Gary's face around 4:42 after Weld says "George Wallace."

Seriously, is it too late for them to switch?

[bryan]

in that interview Weld certainly came across as being more well-spoken, tactical. I liked Ron Paul better than both of these guys but whatever, a Johnson in office is >> Hillary, Trump.

[BRUTE]

both Johnson/Weld come off less like crazy old men than Ron Paul. agreed on anyone who can spell "libertarian" over Hillary/Trump though..

[Chris]

@Brute
I have thought Bill Weld should have been the candidate and Johnson the running mate

Yeah, Weld would do better at running for president. He speaks more clearly, has a less-forgettable name, and is taller (yup, it matters). Also he's the more recognizable ex-governor (MA population is 3x NM).

But if you saw the Libertarian Party convention, you'd see a Weld-Johnson ticket wouldn't fly. There are LP purists who hate Johnson, and they super hate Weld. Their concern is that the LP ticket is being hijacked by "light libertarians". It took two ballots for Johnson to get nominated, and that's saying something, since his 2012 run was the party's most successful run ever.

[GandK]

Now that the chips are falling, I will admit it: this year, I felt the Johnson.

It felt bizarre voting for someone whom I knew could never possibly win, but voting for either of the two major candidates felt like a much dirtier thing to do.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I can't believe what's happening on multiple levels, but I particularly can't believe how low both third parties ended up polling. So much for 5%.

[IlliniDave]

I voted Johnson after having made up my mind months ago. I haven't seen any tallies but about all I hoped to accomplish was to help him get to 5% and take a little money away from the morons in red and blue.

[Riggerjack]

Yeah, I'm amazed at how low the Johnson vote was. If libertarians can't pull 5% from Tweedledee and Tweedledum, well, maybe there is no fix.

My prediction is no "signature legislation", as Trump is just so unpopular right out of the gate, Dems picking up the Senate in the midterms, and the White House in 4 years.

In the mean time, nothing much accomplished.

[BRUTE]

Johnson had a long string of terrible onscreen moments that just made him look like an idiot. Aleppo, not being able to name a foreign leader, whatever that thing with his tongue hanging out was..

also, Trump kind of came around on the "being presidential" thing these last few weeks.

brute has to give it to Scott Adams, that guy saw it coming miles away.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I would say calculated lack of exposure in the media--that is, total black-out of anything that isn't a gaffe--played a part for both third parties. Ironically, I suspect more Americans now associate "Aleppo" with Gary Johnson than with Syria. The tongue thing was just... what was that?

You would think with how low the Greens* ended up polling, we wouldn't have to listen to the angry Democrats vote shaming us as with Nader, and yet it's already begun in spades. If anything it seems to me Johnson took more votes from Trump than from Clinton, and Jill had no meaningful mathematical impact in any state from what I can tell (or rather what data has been angrily hurled at me). It MIGHT have made a difference in WI or MI, but those wouldn't be enough electoral votes. This was a landslide.

*Really, both third parties, although together they did pull more than Nader's 3%.

I have to be honest, with ranked choice voting, it would've been Stein > Johnson > Vermin Supreme > abstain from voting (unless gun to head)> Trump > Clinton, for me. I simply did not "cost" her a vote; she never had it.

What do you think, was Clinton the second choice for any of you Johnson voters?

[jennypenny]

An article on where the third party candidates were the strongest and how it may have affected the outcome.