Ron Paul Supporters Can Help Gary Johnson Become the Wild Card in 2012 Election

Socrtease

Verified User
http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...johnson-become-the-wild-card-in-2012-election

In six weeks, President Obama and most likely Mitt Romney will be the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees for president -- respectively. Whether Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson can poll 15%, in order to participate in the presidential debates and potentially become a wild card or spoiler, will depend on the millions of Ron Paul supporters -- if they decide to throw their support behind Johnson.

Ron Paul supporters have the media’s attention. For Gary Johnson to get the required 15% in the polls, his name needs to be given as another choice when polling for the voters' preference for president. “If the election were held today, would you vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?” will result in voters choosing one or the other -- or “undecided/other."

That is why the The polling question should be “If the election were held today, would you vote for Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Gary Johnson?” In polls where Johnson is given as a choice, he is currently pulling from 7% to 13%. If the millions of Ron Paul supporters assisted the Johnson campaign in pressuring polling organizations and the media to list Gary Johnson as a choice -- given the power of Ron Paul supporters -- I believe the pollsters would listen.

If we assume Ron Paul supporters take the advice of Aaron Biterman of Humblelibertarian.com and PolicyMic Pundit Christopher McDaniel and support Gary Johnson due to his similar positions on the issues; could Gary Johnson be a wild card that could win the presidency (or, at least, be a spoiler for either the president or Mitt Romney)?

Since 1972, only one Libertarian Party candidate for president received over 1% of the vote. None has received electoral votes. In 2008, Bob Barr received only four-tenths of 1%. Gary Johnson is already pulling more support. In 1992, Ross Perot received just fewer than 19% of the vote but no electoral votes. Neither Bob Barr’s or Ross Perot’s totals impacted the election. In 2000, Ralph Nader received 2.7% of the vote, but his totals in Florida made him a spoiler for Al Gore, giving the presidency to George Bush.

Will Gary Johnson be a wild card or spoiler? There is evidence he can appeal to Independents as well as Democrats and Republicans. His record as a two-term Governor of New Mexico highlights this appeal. An important piece of this also is his acceptance by the Latino community, which is over 46% of New Mexico’s population.

None of this is relevant unless Gary Johnson becomes part of the national debate, appearing side by side with President Obama and Mitt Romney in front of the American people. If this happens, Tuesday, November 6, 2012 could be very interesting and the headlines the morning of November 7th will tell if Gary Johnson, indeed, was a wild card or a spoiler.
 
Interesting. What exactly is a "wildcard," and how does it differ from "spoiler"?

If Johnson starts polling 15%, I will vote for him. Because at that point Romney is basically fucked anyway.
 
John Anderson and Ross Perot both had had considerably more support by this point in the election than Johnson has had. Johnson just doesn't have the momentum behind him that other successful third party candidates had. I would be surprised if it all of the sudden developed out of the blue.
 
John Anderson and Ross Perot both had had considerably more support by this point in the election than Johnson has had. Johnson just doesn't have the momentum behind him that other successful third party candidates had. I would be surprised if it all of the sudden developed out of the blue.

How do we define "successful"? Personally, I feel the only definition of success in an election is victory. For a third party, there isn't any difference between getting 0.01% of the vote and 20% of the vote. Either way, they lose.
 
I'm 100% for this. Go on, Ron Paul supporters! Vote for Gary Johnson!

This message paid for by Democrats for Gary Johnson

this Florida Democrat (registered as such anyways), won't vote for Obama again, he's shown nothing, doesn't campaign on his record.
He has nothing to campaign for.
He's does have Mitt the Nitwit for an opponent, and should easily win, but I'm not voting for a party, i'm voting for the best man, and that is Johnson (IMHO).

He's against endless wars ( which the Dems have self muted criticism thereof) including droning houses in Paki, the utter destructuion of Libya,
and various fuck ups, like the escalation of AfPak, when more Americans were killed under Obama then all years of Bush's war in AfPak.
No thank you, Johnson was a sucessful Gov. - worked tirelesly for NORML, and isn't doing this war either. :

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...arijuana-clubs-fold-in-federal-crackdown?lite
 
How do we define "successful"? Personally, I feel the only definition of success in an election is victory. For a third party, there isn't any difference between getting 0.01% of the vote and 20% of the vote. Either way, they lose.
Sucessful is substained growth of a 3rd party.
Americans are too stupid to realize the gridlock /obstructonism is a DIRECT function of the duopoly. The 'out' party always tries to obstruct, with various degress of sucess or not.
I doubt we'll see any substained 3rd party growth -too bad -what we have now is locked in minds, who thought process begins and ends with (R.) or (D.).

Then we wonder why DC is dysfunctional...and vote for the same bunch of professional politicians, which guarantees the same stalemate.
 
Sucessful is substained growth of a 3rd party.
Americans are too stupid to realize the gridlock /obstructonism is a DIRECT function of the duopoly. The 'out' party always tries to obstruct, with various degress of sucess or not.
I doubt we'll see any substained 3rd party growth -too bad -what we have now is locked in minds, who thought process begins and ends with (R.) or (D.).

Then we wonder why DC is dysfunctional...and vote for the same bunch of professional politicians, which guarantees the same stalemate.

So, in your view, having a Congress split between 4 or 5 parties would result in less gridlock than a two-party system? How would that work exactly?
 
So, in your view, having a Congress split between 4 or 5 parties would result in less gridlock than a two-party system? How would that work exactly?

Well, theoretically it would require cross party coalitions to accomplish anything. This is the way most other countries do things and it results in fairly fluid government. Of course those countries also have proportional representation, and they don't vote for individual candidates but rather parties. It's a different culture.
 
I saw Johnson on TV today and liked him.

If he can get into the national debates, I will vote for him. To that end, I will say that I'm voting for him if I'm selected for any polls.
 
Back
Top