Johnson wins Libertarian nomination update 5/5

[Friday]

Former Gov. Gary Johnson is on the verge of winning the Libertarian Party's nomination for president, but he's reluctant to claim victory yet.

"I wouldn't take anything for granted yet," he said of the Libertarian nominating process, which takes place Saturday at the party's national convention in Las Vegas, Nev. But a moment later, he added, "It does look good."

Johnson has even chosen his preferred running mate -- Jim Gray, a retired California superior court judge, who, like Johnson, is a longtime opponent of marijuana laws. Gray is the only announced Libertarian candidate for vice president.

But even if Johnson wins the Libertarian nod this weekend, he acknowledged his path won't be easy. In an interview Wednesday, Johnson said any hope of being competitive with Democratic President Barack Obama and likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney in November depends on him being included in the presidential debates in October.

But because of the steep standards set by the organization that organizes the debates, that's not easy for any third-party candidate. The last to be included in the debates was Ross Perot in 1992.

Johnson said if he can get on the stage with Obama and Romney, he would have a shot at winning. But as Johnson himself said, "That's a big 'if.' "

The two-term governor, who had been a lifelong Republican, left the GOP early this year after months of being ignored and excluded during his frustrating campaign to win the Republican nomination.

He'd assumed that his reputation as a tight-fisted, small-government, small-taxes advocate who was not afraid to veto hundreds of bills would appeal to GOP primary voters.

However, his libertarian positions on gay marriage, abortion and drug-law reform didn't catch on with socially conservative Republicans. Plus, Ron Paul, himself a former Libertarian Party presidential nominee, announced his candidacy shortly after Johnson entered the Republican race. The better-known Paul was invited to all the GOP debates, while Johnson was only allowed to participate in two.

But -- assuming he's the Libertarian nominee -- being excluded from debates could become Johnson's biggest problem again.

According to the website of the Commission on Presidential Debates, candidates included "must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination."

Getting on state ballots shouldn't be a problem for Libertarians. Several times in the past they've been on the ballot in all 50 states. "West Virginia has the most impediments," Johnson said.

But the polling requirement is another story.

So far, the only national polling organization that has included Johnson as a third choice is Public Policy Polling, a North Carolina-based company affiliated with the Democratic Party. In late March, a nationwide Public Policy Polling survey found Johnson taking 7 percent of the vote, (with Obama at 46 percent and Romney at 39 percent).

Johnson said he believes that if he continues polling at least 6 percent or 7 percent in the Public Policy Polling surveys, other national polling organizations will begin including him. "If you're a reputable pollster, you couldn't ignore that," he said.

The former governor also said he could get a boost from those who supported Paul in the primaries when the Texas congressman ends his campaign. While Johnson said he does not expect to be endorsed by Paul himself, he said, "What happens to Ron Paul supporters? I believe they'll find me to be a very credible alternative."

But will Johnson be able to raise his poll numbers up to 15 percent? Public Policy Polling is doubtful. "I doubt Johnson will really get anywhere close to 7 percent in the general [election]," said the company's blog in March after publishing the poll showing Johnson at that level.

In its 40-year history, the Libertarian Party only once received more than 1 percent of the national popular vote. The party has never carried a state. The sole electoral vote it ever received was in 1972, when a dissident Richard Nixon elector from Virginia cast his ballot for Libertarian candidate John Hospers. (That elector, Roger McBride, was the Libertarian presidential candidate four years later.)

Lonna Atkeson, a political science professor at The University of New Mexico, said support for third parties typically dwindles the closer you get to Election Day. She expects the same thing to happen with Johnson. "I bet he doesn't get more than 5 percent of the vote [in New Mexico]," she said.

A late April Public Policy Polling survey of New Mexico voters found Johnson getting 15 percent of the vote in a three-way race. (Obama was supported by 48 percent of those polled, while Romney had 35 percent.) But Johnson's numbers have declined here in more recent polls. In December, 23 percent of New Mexico voters said they'd vote for Johnson for president.

Atkeson said third parties losing steam is mainly due to "institutional design," or the fact that in most states, including New Mexico, the Electoral College vote is winner-take-all. Many voters, therefore, are afraid that if they vote for a third-party candidate who is closest to them in ideology, it could damage the major-party candidate who's ideology is not quite as close to their own and help elect the candidate furthest away from their political leanings.

Also, people predominantly vote for a particular party, Atkeson said. Throughout the campaign, Democrats and Republicans constantly remind people why they are members of their party. "There's a lot of emphasis on partisanship," she said. "Campaigns remind people where their self-interest is."

Johnson said Wednesday he's not concerned about the fact his New Mexico number shrank in Public Policy Polling's latest poll. "Is that last poll correct? Or is a correction of the previous poll? I wouldn't lose any sleep over it at this point, just like I wouldn't party all night long if the number was bigger now."

Historically, third parties haven't played much of a role in New Mexico presidential politics. The best showing of a third-party candidate was in 1912 -- the first year New Mexico became a state. That year, Theodore Roosevelt, running on the Progressive or "Bull Moose" ticket, won 16.9 percent of the vote. That was well behind Roosevelt's national showing of 27 percent.

The Bull Moose vote in the state nearly was matched 80 years later when Reform Party candidate Perot won 16.1 percent of New Mexico's popular vote in 1992.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Johnson-likely-to-get-Libertarian-ticket

Gary Johnson Wins 2012 Libertarian Nomination

Source: huffingtonpost

LAS VEGAS -- Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is campaigning to win the White House as a Libertarian after receiving scant attention in the Republican presidential race.

Johnson easily became the party's presidential nominee at the Libertarian national convention in Las Vegas on Saturday. He hopes to appeal to voters fed up with the traditional two-party system this November.

Johnson was a longshot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination when he announced in December that he would instead pursue the Libertarian ticket.


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/05/gary-johnson-2012-libertarian-nomination_n_1485044.html

[sweet-a-kins]

If they get, I think , 5%...then they could get financing next time

For me, it comes down to chances...I don't think Johnson will get the 5%...if he had a shot, it wouldnt be "wasted" IMO

I don't think a Gore vote, or even a McCain vote was a waste because they had a chance

A third party candidate needs to have so much momentum coming in just to get that 5%...and ad of yet, I don't see that happening

I have said before, someone like Colin Powell could go Indy....and GET at least 5%

As of now..I don't see many other options

Quoting Friday:

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

He's not a good alternative if he's not going to win



I wish we had a stronger third party so it was at least an option, but at this point, IMO, it's a wasted vote

Quoting 1bluediamond:

Friday, Johnson seems to align best with your views. I hope he does get the Libertarian nomination so people don't feel like they have to chose between Obama or Romney. Johnson is a good alternative to the two.

I'm open to correction but seem to recall reading somewhere that, if a third party gets a certain percentage of the vote one year they are eligible for public financing, or something. IF that's the case then, while a 3rd party vote might not effect this election it can help pave the way in the future.

How can it be a waste if one is voting for the candidate that best represents their views? Because they don't win? Does that mean my vote for Gore was wasted?

[Friday]

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

If they get, I think , 5%...then they could get financing next time

For me, it comes down to chances...I don't think Johnson will get the 5%...if he had a shot, it wouldnt be "wasted" IMO

I don't think a Gore vote, or even a McCain vote was a waste because they had a chance

A third party candidate needs to have so much momentum coming in just to get that 5%...and ad of yet, I don't see that happening

I have said before, someone like Colin Powell could go Indy....and GET at least 5%

As of now..I don't see many other options

Quoting Friday:

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

He's not a good alternative if he's not going to win



I wish we had a stronger third party so it was at least an option, but at this point, IMO, it's a wasted vote

Quoting 1bluediamond:

Friday, Johnson seems to align best with your views. I hope he does get the Libertarian nomination so people don't feel like they have to chose between Obama or Romney. Johnson is a good alternative to the two.

I'm open to correction but seem to recall reading somewhere that, if a third party gets a certain percentage of the vote one year they are eligible for public financing, or something. IF that's the case then, while a 3rd party vote might not effect this election it can help pave the way in the future.

How can it be a waste if one is voting for the candidate that best represents their views? Because they don't win? Does that mean my vote for Gore was wasted?

I get your point but am tired of voting the lesser of evils. I might still vote for Obama, I don't know but I'm not happy with him.

[sweet-a-kins]

I don't hold out much hope that this Johnson fellow will be much different

I don't think of Obama or Romney As "evil"...which is somewhat a relief from 2008 as I feared a McCain/Palin administration

My issue is the people around them, who they choose to govern with them and what policies they will put in place to please their base

On that end, I don't want Romney..he himself is not a radical..his base has become a party of radical right wing nuts trying to out "right" themselves

Quoting Friday:

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

If they get, I think , 5%...then they could get financing next time



For me, it comes down to chances...I don't think Johnson will get the 5%...if he had a shot, it wouldnt be "wasted" IMO



I don't think a Gore vote, or even a McCain vote was a waste because they had a chance



A third party candidate needs to have so much momentum coming in just to get that 5%...and ad of yet, I don't see that happening



I have said before, someone like Colin Powell could go Indy....and GET at least 5%



As of now..I don't see many other options

Quoting Friday:

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

He's not a good alternative if he's not going to win





I wish we had a stronger third party so it was at least an option, but at this point, IMO, it's a wasted vote

Quoting 1bluediamond:

Friday, Johnson seems to align best with your views. I hope he does get the Libertarian nomination so people don't feel like they have to chose between Obama or Romney. Johnson is a good alternative to the two.

I'm open to correction but seem to recall reading somewhere that, if a third party gets a certain percentage of the vote one year they are eligible for public financing, or something. IF that's the case then, while a 3rd party vote might not effect this election it can help pave the way in the future.

How can it be a waste if one is voting for the candidate that best represents their views? Because they don't win? Does that mean my vote for Gore was wasted?

I get your point but am tired of voting the lesser of evils. I might still vote for Obama, I don't know but I'm not happy with him.

[Friday]

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

I don't hold out much hope that this Johnson fellow will be much different

I don't think of Obama or Romney As "evil"...which is somewhat a relief from 2008 as I feared a McCain/Palin administration

My issue is the people around them, who they choose to govern with them and what policies they will put in place to please their base

On that end, I don't want Romney..he himself is not a radical..his base has become a party of radical right wing nuts trying to out "right" themselves

Quoting Friday:

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

If they get, I think , 5%...then they could get financing next time



For me, it comes down to chances...I don't think Johnson will get the 5%...if he had a shot, it wouldnt be "wasted" IMO



I don't think a Gore vote, or even a McCain vote was a waste because they had a chance



A third party candidate needs to have so much momentum coming in just to get that 5%...and ad of yet, I don't see that happening



I have said before, someone like Colin Powell could go Indy....and GET at least 5%



As of now..I don't see many other options

Quoting Friday:

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

He's not a good alternative if he's not going to win





I wish we had a stronger third party so it was at least an option, but at this point, IMO, it's a wasted vote

Quoting 1bluediamond:

Friday, Johnson seems to align best with your views. I hope he does get the Libertarian nomination so people don't feel like they have to chose between Obama or Romney. Johnson is a good alternative to the two.

I'm open to correction but seem to recall reading somewhere that, if a third party gets a certain percentage of the vote one year they are eligible for public financing, or something. IF that's the case then, while a 3rd party vote might not effect this election it can help pave the way in the future.

How can it be a waste if one is voting for the candidate that best represents their views? Because they don't win? Does that mean my vote for Gore was wasted?

I get your point but am tired of voting the lesser of evils. I might still vote for Obama, I don't know but I'm not happy with him.

Not literally evil but not necessarily good either. If it comes to a close race I might lean towards Obama but I'm in Cali and we know he's going to take the state no matter how I vote.

We'll see.

[imamomzilla]

 Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.

I'm not wasting my vote on a long shot.

Quoting Friday:

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

If they get, I think , 5%...then they could get financing next time

For me, it comes down to chances...I don't think Johnson will get the 5%...if he had a shot, it wouldnt be "wasted" IMO

I don't think a Gore vote, or even a McCain vote was a waste because they had a chance

A third party candidate needs to have so much momentum coming in just to get that 5%...and ad of yet, I don't see that happening

I have said before, someone like Colin Powell could go Indy....and GET at least 5%

As of now..I don't see many other options

Quoting Friday:

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

He's not a good alternative if he's not going to win



I wish we had a stronger third party so it was at least an option, but at this point, IMO, it's a wasted vote

Quoting 1bluediamond:

Friday, Johnson seems to align best with your views. I hope he does get the Libertarian nomination so people don't feel like they have to chose between Obama or Romney. Johnson is a good alternative to the two.

I'm open to correction but seem to recall reading somewhere that, if a third party gets a certain percentage of the vote one year they are eligible for public financing, or something. IF that's the case then, while a 3rd party vote might not effect this election it can help pave the way in the future.

How can it be a waste if one is voting for the candidate that best represents their views? Because they don't win? Does that mean my vote for Gore was wasted?

I get your point but am tired of voting the lesser of evils. I might still vote for Obama, I don't know but I'm not happy with him.

 

[JakeandEmmasMom]

 I've heard good things about him. 

[asfriend]

[Friday]

Quoting imamomzilla:

 Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.

I'm not wasting my vote on a long shot.

Quoting Friday:

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

If they get, I think , 5%...then they could get financing next time

For me, it comes down to chances...I don't think Johnson will get the 5%...if he had a shot, it wouldnt be "wasted" IMO

I don't think a Gore vote, or even a McCain vote was a waste because they had a chance

A third party candidate needs to have so much momentum coming in just to get that 5%...and ad of yet, I don't see that happening

I have said before, someone like Colin Powell could go Indy....and GET at least 5%

As of now..I don't see many other options

Quoting Friday:

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

He's not a good alternative if he's not going to win



I wish we had a stronger third party so it was at least an option, but at this point, IMO, it's a wasted vote

Quoting 1bluediamond:

Friday, Johnson seems to align best with your views. I hope he does get the Libertarian nomination so people don't feel like they have to chose between Obama or Romney. Johnson is a good alternative to the two.

I'm open to correction but seem to recall reading somewhere that, if a third party gets a certain percentage of the vote one year they are eligible for public financing, or something. IF that's the case then, while a 3rd party vote might not effect this election it can help pave the way in the future.

How can it be a waste if one is voting for the candidate that best represents their views? Because they don't win? Does that mean my vote for Gore was wasted?

I get your point but am tired of voting the lesser of evils. I might still vote for Obama, I don't know but I'm not happy with him.

 

Exactly, why should I vote for 'evil'?

Are you saying I should hold my nose and vote for someone I don't care for or my vote is wasted?

It's very sad that our govt has come to this point.

[Friday]

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I've heard good things about him. 

Me too.

[rachelrothchild]

Sad.  He's definitely not my first choice.