“I don’t think either Obama or Romney are offering up solutions to the problems that the country faces,†Johnson said. “I think that the Libertarian Party really embraces the best of what we really care about. … I think the majority of Americans consider themselves fiscally responsible and socially tolerant. That’s the Libertarian Party and what they stand for.â€
Getting on the debate stage would also allow Johnson’s campaign to lure million of dollars in campaign contributions that will be needed to keep his campaign competitive, he said.
Johnson says at least one national poll reports his campaign winning support of about 8 percent of voters across the U.S., just over half the number required to appear in most of the national televised presidential debates.
- DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy
Join us on Pete's couch.
Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to: Recent Comments
on John Walters and William Barr linked to Nazis: “German author Norman Ohler’s newest book Tripped: Nazi Germany, the CIA, and the Dawn of the Psychedelic Age reveals the…” Apr 24, 22:44
on Petition for Correction under the ONDCP Information Quality Guidelines: “Dear Team at drugwarrant.com My name is Thomas and I am a volunteer with Hope For Ukraine Charity. I have…” Apr 24, 13:41
on CIA versus the DEA in Burma’s Narcotopia: “Hi there mates, how is everything, and what you desire to say on the topic of this article, in my…” Apr 24, 03:57
on John Walters and William Barr linked to Nazis: “More on opiate receptors. I had a physician who recommended Salvia Divinorum. He later asked me to keep his recommendation…” Apr 17, 11:40
.
.
You know, this is the first time I’ve ever known the names of both the LP POTUS and V-POTUS candidates before they announced as candidates for the position.
I cast my first vote in 1980 for Ed Clarke. I’d never voted for anyone other than a Libertarian until 2010 when I swore I’d never again vote Libertarian. Then again Mr. Johnson isn’t really a Libertarian, now is he? I guess that makes him a LINO. But that’s the theme of this year’s campaign. A DINO, a RINO and a LINO. I’ll speculate that means that Ms. Barr will get the Green Party nomination since we’ll need a GINO in that role.
I promise that whatever it takes, I’ll never vote for the winner in a political election unless the entire world goes nucking futz.
Hmmm, I don’t know Pete, first? 10th?
I was just quoting the article. It appears that they weren’t as aware as you of the other parties’ nominating procedures.
From that list, only the Constitution Party has a shot at being on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win. All the others won’t get on in more than 5 states. But your point remains….
I met Jerry White when the Democrats were kicking an SEP candidate off the ballot in the Champaign (U of Illinois) area a few years back. Joe Parnaruaskus (sp). The State Board of Elections blatantly ignored their own rules and kicked him off the ballot, only to have the courts scold the Democrats on the SBOE telling them to do their jobs and stop playing partisan politics with election laws. The Libertarians attorney helped them with that case. Jerry was a very decent guy. Wouldn’t vote for him for President, but good to see him still fighting.
.
.
The question marks in my post were genuinely meant as indications of uncertainty in my mind. The qualification I was thinking was getting on the ballot in all 50 States. but I like your “theoretically able to gain enough electors to win the election” as much more reasonable cut off point.
But there’s an ongoing sense of dissatisfaction among many of the regulars here that the MSM ignores alternative candidates relegating them to also ran status as a practical matter. Shit, who’da thunk that Roseanne Barr was running a serious campaign for the Green Party nomination? I know we’re far from members of the MSM here but I guess I think if you don’t like someone’s behavior you should make an effort to not engage in the same behavior. Disclaimer–not a criticism of Pete! I see us as being an interactive community.
BTW Pete, to be accurate I wasn’t even as aware of the other parties candidates or even how many there are that have tossed their hats in the ring until I read this post. I just have a habit of wondering “are you sure”, know how to use Google, and am blessed by the existence of Wikipedia.
In the meantime I’m actually still hoping that Dr. Paul will perform a miracle and get the nomination. More realistically I hope that he’ll endorse Mr. Johnson and Judge Gray and that we’ll actually see the Libertarians in double digits on Election Day.
When Ron Paul gets screwe d by the rnc, I will vote for Johnson. no wrongney,nobama.
Open primary states this year include Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. People in these states can vote for anyone in the primaries regardless of party affiliation.
Crossover voters would make the 2012 presidential debates very interesting indeed if they vote in sufficient numbers to include Governor Gary Johnson in the lineup of candidates.
See Gary run. See Gary talk. See Gary say ‘legalize’ marijuana. See Obama cringe. See Romney say “Huh? What’s industrial hemp?“
Illinois had/has an open primary. You can take any party ballot you want on election day, or a non-partisan ballot. I should say you can take a Republican or Democrat party ballot because they won’t let other parties play their election games in Illinois. But in Illinois, when you register to vote, you do not declare a party, or “register” with that party. On primary election day you can take whichever party ballot you want, which is an open primary as defined by courts and political scientists for 200 years. The party ballot you take is public information, however, which makes some people think we don’t have an open primary, but we do. Its not a private primary, but it is an open primary.
I’ll be happy to vote for Johnson. Voting for Obama changes nothing, obviously, and voting for Romney only changes who gets all the loot.
When it comes to the drug war, well, Obama has proven he is a drug warrior and will only escalate the war on drugs. Don’t fall for the line that this term will be different because he doesn’t need to run for election again. It won’t be. Clinton said the same thing.
I still hold out hope for Paul to embarrass the living Hell out of the RNC in Florida, if only by giving them all a speech to remember. That ought to liven up an otherwise dull presidential election fought by two bores who don’t mean or believe a single word that comes from their own mouths.
How about using his convention speech to announce his own surprise candidacy for President as an independent? (Or would that be bad form?)
At that point, it would be impossible for him to get on enough state ballots to win because of filing deadlines. In Illinois he’d have to file 25,000 valid signatures (50,000 raw) by the 3rd week of June to get on the ballot. Deadlines are all over the place in the states, and most deadlines would be passed by the time of the GOP convention.
Thanks for that info. I’d been wondering about that. Ok, how about using his convention speech to make a surprise endorsement of Gary Johnson?
Wouldn’t that be something to behold? It looks like there will be a LOT of Ron Paul supporters at the GOP convention. I’m looking forward to watching it to see what kind of mischief they can cause. It is encouraging to see that they have taken over the Alaska GOP and probably the Maine GOP. Two state GOPs that favor legalization, versus ZERO state DEM parties. The myth that Democrats are any better than the GOP is a hard argument to make these days. Of course, I still believe they are both bad and corrupt and need to go, but kudos to those trying to take over the GOP for the cause.
…did you mean “Bores” or “Whores”? ‘Cause ‘whores” works better for me.
BTW, it’s NEVER the incumbent who says “…this term will be different because he doesn’t need to run for election again.” It’s ALWAYS his supporters.
Right now, my vote is for Johnson.
Bizarre story from Minneapolis via Raw Story.
Sorry if this has already been covered here.
im amazed that no mainstream media seem to have covered this ready made story including video, with the pos exeption of huffpo. seems like a cover up to me.
I believe years ago the threshold for inclusion in debates was 5% of the vote. Note how the threshold has been raised? Could that be because a third party might have actually crossed it? Nah, my cynicism is just overcharged today. Or is it?
Yes it was 5%. Ross Perot pissed them off enough to give the Ds and Rs complete control of ALL Presidential debates and raise it to 15%.
The League of Women Voters in Illinois used to have a 5% threshold also. When Libertarian Cal Skinner was polling above 5% against Rod Blagojevich, they invited Skinner to their debate, but Blagojevich and Ryan refused to do a LWV debate for the first time since they started organizing debates in Illinois. The next election the LWV increased their polling requirement to 10% so they didn’t lose any more debates, which are a huge fundraising opportunity for them.
In 2004, Republican Alan Keyes held a press conference with Libertarian candidate Jerry Kohn questioning why Barack Obama refused to debate all the candidates on the ballot, and Obama’s campaign put some huge pressure on the League of Women Voters to decline to invite Jerry Kohn. Obama was a big ol’ arrogant chicken. Still is.
I know Keyes is a nut, but still, Obama agreed to debate him, so why not Kohn? Kohn actually beat Keyes for 2nd in Illinois students mock election that had 90,000 student voters across the state. That was a good sign for our future I thought.
Apparently I’ve added an E to Mr. Clark’s name above. Regardless, he put in the best performance of a Libertarian in a Presidential election with just barely over 1% of the vote in 1980. John Anderson got 6.61% of the vote that year. My, my, I had really forgotten how disgusted the American public was with Mr. Carter’s performance. I think we’re headed to a very similar election this year.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1980&minper=0&f=0&off=0&elect=0
The only Libertarian candidate to ever win an electoral vote was the very first, John Hospers in 1972.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1980&minper=0&f=0&off=0&elect=0
The best performance by a “third” party candidate (since 1960) was in 1992 by H. Ross Perot. He got almost 19% of the vote. Now there’s a case of a “third” party spoiler as it’s impossible to argue that without him, we would have had George the 41st for another term. Couldn’t one reasonably extrapolate that had daddy won in 1992 that Mr. Bush the lesser wouldn’t have won the election in 2000? Yeah, yeah, if things were different, they just wouldn’t be the same.
primus, I think the statistics support the assertion that your cynicism is just overcharged. Whether just for today or not really isn’t addressed.
Edit: I see that Jeff and I are on different pages on this particular controversy.
Are we Duncan? Perhaps I misunderstand. Perot was included in Presidential debates in 1992 when he got 19%. After that, the Ds and Rs formed a new debate group who changed the rules for inclusion in Presidential debates, raising the bar from 5% in national polling to 15% in national polling, I believe. Perot crossed the threshold and got into the debates in 92 so they changed the threshold to make it harder for a third party to get in future debates.
I’ve seen the same thing happen in Illinois. A third party candidate qualifies for a debate, so they change the rules making it harder for them to qualify in the future.
We were when I said that, but you’ve pretty much explained the point and now we’re not.
When the Johnson/Gray ticket gains support in unprecedented numbers,taking voters from both the Repubs and Dems,the news media point out the losses in their claims that the other side is losing more votes,depending on which broadcasting corporation your watching,,,just having them in the race running on a legalization of marijuana platform takes ignoring drug reform out of the options.
Actually, Virgil Goode is the first official presidential candidate in 2012 as the Constitution Party gave him the nomination at its convention in Nashville TN on Saturday 21 April. His website is http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com
What is Goode’s position on drug policy? He was a congressman and I don’t recall him having any involvement in drug policy reforms in Congress. I’m sure we would have heard about it if he did. Did he vote to lock up Tommy Chong like Joe Biden did?
Goode (pronounced “goo’d”) is retrograde in every respect. He’s the guy Tom Perriello unseated in an impossibly close race in Virginia in 2008.
Retrograde is way to generous, this guy is so far “right-out”, it’s more sickening than I would’ve thought possible…
Among other odious statements/claims – He’s calling for “an almost complete moratorium for green card admissions into this Country while our unemployment rate is so high.”
Yes, because we’re *so willing* & physically capable/equipped for things like harvesting various fruit and vegetable crops!
Apparently, he missed all the cases (particularly in Alabama) where farmers lost crops because they couldn’t find people to work their fields at harvest time.
Here’s a link to news story that went into the issue in depth:
Why Americans won’t do dirty jobs
Technically = some folks can do the work – but no one will for that little pay & no benefits.
Your article is inaccurate. Johnson is not The first official Presidential nominee in the 2012 race, Virgil Goode is the First Official Presidential Nominee for 2012! and he is Representing the Constitution Party. He was nominated in Nashville, Tennessee April 21st at the Constitution Party National Convention!