Gary Johnson to run as Libertarian

clintl said:

Gary Johnson has dropped out of the Republican race to run as a Libertarian. Not really surprised, considering the way the party has treated him.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/21/9598987-gary-johnson-to-run-as-libertarian

Not sure it changes the race much, although it could be interesting if Paul decides he wants to run as a third party candidate, too.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see Johnson invite RP to join him on the ticket if he fails in the Republican bid.

That leaves the Republican machine with two choices; nominate Paul or lose the election to Obama because the libertarian wing deserts the party.

It's basically the choice they face now, but that would formalize it and cram it down their throats where they couldn't ignore it.

The libertarian wing isn't going to decide the election, imo. If the GOP nominates Gingrich or Romney, for example, I do think they'll most likely lose to Obama, but it won't have anything to do with Ron Paul or Ron Paul supporters.

Michael Wolfe said:

The libertarian wing isn't going to decide the election, imo. If the GOP nominates Gingrich or Romney, for example, I do think they'll most likely lose to Obama, but it won't have anything to do with Ron Paul or Ron Paul supporters.

Click to expand...

Sure it does. See the clown thread. There's a large (and growing contingent) of RP supporters who have already pledged No One But Paul, because they consider Obama and the other Republican candidates fungible on the important issues -- civil liberties, empire, and sound money.

Now that that contingent has somewhere to go with their protest vote, that's a huge hunk of votes for the Republicans to lose.

Romney looks like he could possibly squeak by Obama if trends continue. Johnson's candidacy breaks the trend lines, though.

It's also worth noting that RP does better with independents and democrats than any of the other Republican candidates.

I don't disagree with any of that necessarily, but I don't see it as a big enough group to tip the scales one way or the other. Of course I could be wrong, certainly.

Michael Wolfe has the right of this one. LP voting trends suggest their hardcore supporters are less than 0.5% of the regular voting public. Even under ideal circumstances, such a microschism wouldn't rate a Nader-level spoiler, much less a Perot-level upset.

Michael Wolfe said:

I don't disagree with any of that necessarily, but I don't see it as a big enough group to tip the scales one way or the other. Of course I could be wrong, certainly.

Click to expand...

SPMiller said:

Michael Wolfe has the right of this one. LP voting trends suggest their hardcore supporters are less than 0.5% of the regular voting public. Even under ideal circumstances, such a microschism wouldn't rate a Nader-level spoiler, much less a Perot-level upset.

Click to expand...

Survey says...



I think 21% is big enough.

Don said:

Survey says...

I think 21% is big enough.

Click to expand...

I'm going on record as predicting that if Paul by some chance gets on the ballot in 50 states, he'll earn less than 0.5% of the popular vote.

Of course, Paul could also use that percentage, whatever it is, to negotiate during the convention, which is looking more and more like it may be brokered. He'll show up with a collection of delegates in the top two, more polled appeal among dems and indies, and enough general election votes to be a spoiler if he goes maverick -- a gambit that won't be available in Romney's book of plays. And it just may be the ace in the deck.

I'll go way out on a limb and predict the least-boring Republican convention of the century (so far).

It's possible, I suppose, that Ron Paul could play spoiler, but even the survey doesn't show that would necessarily happen. The survey shows that against Gingrich, Obama wins either way, and against Romney, Obama comes out tied at worst. Obviously we're not going to have a tied election, and I would give the nod to Obama to most likely win in a close one (if I had to predict).

I wish the libertarians would refer to themselves as minarchists or something similar. Using the term libertarian is simply a rhetorical trick to seize the high ground in a debate.

LOL. It would never occur to me to use the term libertarian as a rhetorical trick. Seems to me that from a rhetorical perspective, avoiding the term would normally be for the best.

Does depend on the audience, to some extent though.

Romantic Heretic said:

I wish the libertarians would refer to themselves as minarchists or something similar. Using the term libertarian is simply a rhetorical trick to seize the high ground in a debate.

Click to expand...

Which is best: democracy, liberty, or republicanism?

Romantic Heretic said:

I wish the libertarians would refer to themselves as minarchists or something similar. Using the term libertarian is simply a rhetorical trick to seize the high ground in a debate.

Click to expand...

But then again, so is the Democratic and Republican names.

Don said:

Of course, Paul could also use that percentage, whatever it is, to negotiate during the convention, which is looking more and more like it may be brokered. He'll show up with a collection of delegates in the top two, more polled appeal among dems and indies, and enough general election votes to be a spoiler if he goes maverick -- a gambit that won't be available in Romney's book of plays. And it just may be the ace in the deck.

I'll go way out on a limb and predict the least-boring Republican convention of the century (so far).

Click to expand...

A brokered convention is a possibility because none (or few) of the primaries are "winner-takes-all" - unlike previous years.
It might be really wild since more candidates would be brought into the mix -Christie, Ryan, Daniels, Palin and even Jeb Bush.
Its not probable, but more possible than in decades.

Gregg said:

A brokered convention is a possibility because none (or few) of the primaries are "winner-takes-all" - unlike previous years.
It might be really wild since more candidates would be brought into the mix -Christie, Ryan, Daniels, Palin and even Jeb Bush.
Its not probable, but more possible than in decades.

Click to expand...

I called it first -- on November second.

Of course, I was immediately assured that no such thing was possible. We'll see, won't we?

Don said:

Of course, Paul could also use that percentage, whatever it is, to negotiate during the convention, which is looking more and more like it may be brokered.

Click to expand...

I'll go on record here as predicting the Republican 2012 Convention will not be brokered. We haven't had a brokered convention in many decades, for either major party, and the long-season primary/caucus system that has evolved tends to anoint a front-runner early, who then steamrolls with increasing delegate counts to the convention. Hell, we haven't even had a convention with serious doubt about who would win the nomination in decades.

And the Republicans make that even less likely by the manner in which they apportion delegates on a winner-take-all system, by state. Romney or Gingrich might get 24% of the Iowa caucus votes, and that might be enough to win all that state's delegates, as just one example. Did John McCain actually get more than 50% of the votes in any Republican primary or caucus in 2008?

caw

Gregg said:

A brokered convention is a possibility because none (or few) of the primaries are "winner-takes-all" - unlike previous years.

Click to expand...

They're not? Have I missed this? If so, ignore my preceding post.

Except that I still don't think the convention will wind up "brokered".

caw

blacbird said:

They're not? Have I missed this? If so, ignore my preceding post.

Except that I still don't think the convention will wind up "brokered".

caw

Click to expand...

Wikipedia has a summary.

February 1 – March 5, 2012: Contests of traditional early states Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina
March 6 – March 31, 2012: Contests that proportionally allocate delegates
April 1, 2012 and onward: All other contests including winner-take-all elections

32 states are scheduled before April 1, so those will all be proportionally assigned. It's not until April 3, when Maryland, DC, Texas and Wisconsin hold their primaries, that enough delegates will have been contested for a winner to emerge. Since it's proportional until April 1, it's highly unlikely a winner will appear that early.

Unless the info I looked at is wrong, it looks like some states will remain winner take all, while other states will become proportional.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/12/new-rules-could-change-outcome-of-2012-gop-primary/

ETA: Looks like Don beat me to the punch.

Given how easily the Republican candidates destroyed themselves, just by being interviewed a few times with the media, and having the chance to speak their mind; I dare say if Ron Paul got as much air time he would achieve a similar result. Hell, I thought a few Republican candidates like Mitt Rommey could do alright... until they had talked in public a few times. Ron Paul is even worse on paper.

Besides, Republican party has basically been majority hawkish libertarians since Reagan... and the disciple of Ayn Rand's failed philosophy: Alan Greenspan, even influenced Clinton to do a U-turn on his entire government policy. Of course even Greenspan realised things were heading for oblivion a few years before the crisis, and no one wanted to take his warnings seriously. And now he's had to admit that his plans were wrong.

Michael Wolfe said:

Unless the info I looked at is wrong, it looks like some states will remain winner take all, while other states will become proportional.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/12/new-rules-could-change-outcome-of-2012-gop-primary/

ETA: Looks like Don beat me to the punch.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I thought more states were winner takes all. Still, the new system makes it harder for someone to wrap up the nomination early. While unlikely, a brokered convention is still possible.
I suspect Romney will win, not because he is the number one choice, but because he'll be the last one standing- by process of elimination.

Our nomination system is insane. For both parties. A few small states have huge influence. Perhaps less for actual delegates now, but huge for momentum.
I bet Tim Pawlenty is kicking himself because he dropped out after a poor showing in a straw poll in an early-primary state. He might have become the "flavor of the month" at just the right time.

Gregg said:

Our nomination system is insane. For both parties.

Click to expand...

On these particulars, I agree completely. I wish I knew what the solution would be, but I don't.

The idea of a "brokered" convention scares the crap out of me. Look back at the history of this nation, when "brokered" conventions were the norm, and try to tell me with a straight face that that situation was better than what we have now. That situation prevailed after the Civil War and assassination of Lincoln, and produced what is generally considered by historians to be the longest succession of just plain awful Presidents and Presidential candidates in the nation's history, culminating in Warren Harding. Teddy Roosevelt was an obvious exception, but he rose to the Presidency via being VP, and having his President (the forgettable McKinley) assassinated.

Still, this current Republican contest without question takes the prize as the most insane one, for either major party, that I've experienced, a stretch of time that dates back to Kennedy-Nixon in 1960. I remain just mystified at why, considering all the weaknesses attendant to Barack Obama's first term, the main opposition party has failed to produce a single candidate capable of impressing the public. Mitt Romney seems destined, in some horribly fatalistic way, to gain the nomination, but I don't have a clue what he actually stands for or intends to do if he becomes President.

caw