Where is the Libertarian Party?

[pr0ner]

It doesn't inspire confidence, and suggests that he's not heavily looking at foreign issues when he should be (which would be troubling if he had a chance of winning), but I don't think it's a huge blunder. I'd consider something along the line's of Ford's "no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" or Trump's answer about the nuclear triad to be far (or some of Sander's more tenuous pivots to income inequality at the beginning of the Primary season) worse blunders, since that's about understanding the issue rather than recognizing a name.

Considering big L Libertarians are big into anti interventionism, is it really surprising that Johnson doesn't have the best answers for this question?

[Defiant]

I have to admit, some funny moments in this Libertarian Trek parody.

(I laughed out loud at the BLM moment)

[Moliere]

Decision 2016: Gary Johnson for president

We’ve surprised even ourselves with this endorsement, our first for a Libertarian for president. But the timing has never been better for this particular Libertarian, Gary Johnson of New Mexico. He is everything the presidential candidates for the two major parties are not, thank God.

Johnson and his running mate, William “Bill” Weld of Massachusetts, were both popular, effective Republican governors who worked well with Democrats. They are principled and honorable in a time when our country sorely needs such qualities.

For months, we here at the Journal editorial board wrestled with this endorsement. For most of that time, we looked at Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican candidate Donald Trump. But as the weekly revelations ripped away any hopes we held for finding the “better angels of their nature,” confirming our belief that neither is fit to be president of our still-great land of Lincoln, we began to look harder at Johnson. We refused to let the powerful party behind either Clinton or Trump push us into a bad choice simply because the parties could do no better.

[Moliere]

Gary Johnson goes on The View

Watch Gary deal with a non-stop hostile Joy Behar.

[Moliere]

Union Leader of New Hampshire Endorses Gary Johnson Over Donald Trump

For the first time in over 100 years, New Hampshire’s largest newspaper will not be endorsing the Republican nominee for president.

“The man is a liar, a bully, a buffoon,” wrote Joseph W. McQuaid, the Union Leader publisher, of Mr. Trump in a signed editorial. “He denigrates any individual or group that displeases him. He has dishonored military veterans and their families, made fun of the physically frail, and changed political views almost as often as he has changed wives.”

Rather than picking between what Mr. McQuaid termed “the lesser of two evils,” The Union Leader has bestowed its endorsement on Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for president.

[Moliere]

Clint Eastwood on Ellen talking about being a libertarian.

[Smoove_B]

Cutting into Clinton's lead?

She leads by five points among likely voters in a two-way national race, 48 percent to 43 percent. But when Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein are included, Clinton’s lead shrinks to two: she’s at 41 points, with Trump at 39, Johnson at 13, and Stein at 4. Democrats assume that all of Stein’s support comes from the Clinton column, meaning Johnson’s is split roughly evenly between Clinton and Trump.

That’s a break from the earlier Washington wisdom that Johnson’s inclusion on ballots was a clear benefit to Clinton as a go-to for conservatives uncomfortable with Trump. Instead, he has turned into a “None of These Candidates” option much like the one by that name that will also be printed on Nevada’s ballot.

[pr0ner]

I'm genuinely curious as to what would happen if Johnson were allowed in the debates.

Some polls I've seen, like CNN's most recent one, show a lot of voters still don't know who he is. If he's introduced to a larger audience via the debates, I think his numbers would rise even more, and he might become a legitimate threat to steal a state or two, particularly out west where his support seems strongest.

[Smoove_B]

I'm genuinely curious as to what would happen if Johnson were allowed in the debates.

I guess the fact that third party candidates aren't (unless they meet some arguably unreasonable polling level) tells you everything you need to know about what the Democrats and Republicans think would happen.

[Moliere]

Shocking no one, the Republican and Democrat controlled Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD") blocked Gary Johnson from the September 26 debate.

[Smutly]

Shocking no one, the Republican and Democrat controlled Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD") blocked Gary Johnson from the September 26 debate.

Yeah, this is bullshit.

[geezer]

Shocking no one, the Republican and Democrat controlled Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD") blocked Gary Johnson from the September 26 debate.

Yeah, this is bullshit.

Agreed.

[Defiant]

As much as I wish the election were be Clinton vs Johnson (with Trump out of the picture), 15% is not an unreasonable threshold to meet.

[Isgrimnur]

The criteria were announced 11 months ago. It's not like the rug was pulled out from under him unless every polls but the ones selected would have kept him under 15%.

[Smoove_B]

The criteria were announced 11 months ago. It's not like the rug was pulled out from under him unless every polls but the ones selected would have kept him under 15%.

It's a catch 22 though. They won't let a 3rd party in to the debate unless they're polling at 15% or greater. But there's not a set list of polls they use to determine the 15% threshold nor is there a requirement that the pollsters include 3rd party candidates as part of the data collection process. It's functioning exactly the way they want it to.

What needs to happen is the Libertarian party needs to fund the creation of another 501(c) 3 organization that maybe isn't co-run a former RNC Chair and DNC communications committee chair and invite whomever the hell they want to the debate.

[Defiant]

The criteria were announced 11 months ago. It's not like the rug was pulled out from under him unless every polls but the ones selected would have kept him under 15%.

It's a catch 22 though. They won't let a 3rd party in to the debate unless they're polling at 15% or greater. But there's not a set list of polls they use to determine the 15% threshold nor is there a requirement that the pollsters include 3rd party candidates as part of the data collection process.

This is incorrect

The polls to be used by the CPD in 2016 are:

ABC-Washington Post
CBS-New York Times
CNN-Opinion Research Corporation
Fox News
NBC-Wall Street Journal

All of which regularly conduct polls that include third party candidates.

[Smoove_B]

Is that a recent change, i.e. for the 2016 election? If not, I stand corrected.

[pr0ner]

I think in this situation, where polls have shown a majority of people want Johnson to debate, an exception should have been made to let Johnson and Weld debate, and then if he doesn't show any upward poll movement, don't invite him to the 2nd and 3rd. But since neither Clinton or Trump want Johnson on stage with them, well, this is what we're left with.

[El Guapo]

I think in this situation, where polls have shown a majority of people want Johnson to debate, an exception should have been made to let Johnson and Weld debate, and then if he doesn't show any upward poll movement, don't invite him to the 2nd and 3rd. But since neither Clinton or Trump want Johnson on stage with them, well, this is what we're left with.

So they should make up new debate admittance rules to match a favored rules?

[LordMortis]

The criteria were announced 11 months ago. It's not like the rug was pulled out from under him unless every polls but the ones selected would have kept him under 15%.

It's a catch 22 though. They won't let a 3rd party in to the debate unless they're polling at 15% or greater. But there's not a set list of polls they use to determine the 15% threshold nor is there a requirement that the pollsters include 3rd party candidates as part of the data collection process.

This is incorrect

The polls to be used by the CPD in 2016 are:

ABC-Washington Post
CBS-New York Times
CNN-Opinion Research Corporation
Fox News
NBC-Wall Street Journal

All of which regularly conduct polls that include third party candidates.

I nod my head in agreement to everything, including the exclusion of Johnson based on the criterion however, full disclosure from the site says those polls either weren't chosen or won't disclosed until the middle of last month, which still lends itself to smoove's assessment as well.

With respect to the third criterion, on August 15, 2016, CPD announced the five polls it would rely upon, which were selected with the professional advice of Dr. Frank Newport, Editor-in-Chief of Gallup. The polls were selected based on: the reliable frequency of polling and sample size used by the polling organization; the soundness of the survey methodology employed by the polling organization; and the longevity and reputation of the polling organization. The five selected polls are: ABC-Washington Post; CBS-New York Times; CNN-Opinion Research Corporation; Fox News; and NBC-Wall Street Journal.

[pr0ner]

I think in this situation, where polls have shown a majority of people want Johnson to debate, an exception should have been made to let Johnson and Weld debate, and then if he doesn't show any upward poll movement, don't invite him to the 2nd and 3rd. But since neither Clinton or Trump want Johnson on stage with them, well, this is what we're left with.

So they should make up new debate admittance rules to match a favored rules?

If a majority of people want to hear what he has to say on a national stage, why not?

[Smoove_B]

I nod my head in agreement to everything, including the exclusion of Johnson based on the criterion however, full disclosure from the site says those polls either weren't chosen or won't disclosed until the middle of last month, which still lends itself to smoove's assessment as well.

With respect to the third criterion, on August 15, 2016, CPD announced the five polls it would rely upon, which were selected with the professional advice of Dr. Frank Newport, Editor-in-Chief of Gallup. The polls were selected based on: the reliable frequency of polling and sample size used by the polling organization; the soundness of the survey methodology employed by the polling organization; and the longevity and reputation of the polling organization. The five selected polls are: ABC-Washington Post; CBS-New York Times; CNN-Opinion Research Corporation; Fox News; and NBC-Wall Street Journal.

Weird, right? They picked polls that favored the outcome they sought - and seemingly excluded the CNN poll that had Gary Johnson at 15% in the Midwest on 7/29-7/31 by deciding what to do on 8/15.

They have absolutely nothing to lose by allowing him to attend and participate in first debate...other than they don't want to risk anything jeopardizing what they want to be a two-player race.

This proves again that while Johnson looks small fry nationally, he's a bigger fish in statewide polling. The Republican and Democrats choice to ignore the Libertarians this election may cost it.

NOTE: I just randomly (and quickly) searched for any polls that had Johnson at 15% and that was the first one that came up. I have no idea if there are more.

[Captain Caveman]

I think in this situation, where polls have shown a majority of people want Johnson to debate, an exception should have been made to let Johnson and Weld debate, and then if he doesn't show any upward poll movement, don't invite him to the 2nd and 3rd. But since neither Clinton or Trump want Johnson on stage with them, well, this is what we're left with.

If Trump was a smart man (spoiler: he's not), he would have pushed for Johnson to be included in the debate. Polls show Johnson pulls more from Clinton than Trump, particularly for young people who Clinton need to turn out for her, and Johnson's criticisms of Clinton during the debate would likely be more credible to many non-committed voters than Trump's crazy insults. Further, having a third person on stage would reduce how much Trump would have to speak, which lowers his chances of him saying insane things that remind viewers of the risk giving him access to the nuclear codes. Seems like Johnson's presence would only help Trump.

[Defiant]

Weird, right? They picked polls that favored the outcome they sought - and seemingly excluded the CNN poll that had Gary Johnson at 15% in the Midwest on 7/29-7/31 by deciding what to do on 8/15.

The picked polls that are highly regarded

The pollsters that will determine who gets to be on stage come September and October are ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News/New York Times, CNN, Fox News and NBC News/Wall Street Journal. Seems about right, given that these outfits are well respected, the fab five of polling, if you will (and I will). All get solid grades in our pollster ratings. (In order to make the cut, the commission has stipulated that candidates must be polling at 15 percent.)

And they state that the 15% has to come from (an averaging of) the national polls.

[Holman]

If Trump was a smart man (spoiler: he's not), he would have pushed for Johnson to be included in the debate. Polls show Johnson pulls more from Clinton than Trump, particularly for young people who Clinton need to turn out for her, and Johnson's criticisms of Clinton during the debate would likely be more credible to many non-committed voters than Trump's crazy insults. Further, having a third person on stage would reduce how much Trump would have to speak, which lowers his chances of him saying insane things that remind viewers of the risk giving him access to the nuclear codes. Seems like Johnson's presence would only help Trump.

I fully expect him to make this play. About 48 hours before the debate he'll insist that he won't participate without Johnson on stage. He'll call on Clinton to agree.

If she agrees, Trump gains an additional voice attacking Clinton as the debate becomes two conservatives vs. one liberal. Trump looks strong (for bending the event to his will) and magnanimous (for inviting his opponent in), and he's protected from the one-on-one scenario where he's weakest.

If Clinton refuses, she looks like she's not playing "fair," and she provides Trump a way to skip the debate entirely if he wants to.

[Captain Caveman]

Holman just made me very scared. I hope Trump doesn't read OO.

[GreenGoo]

Clinton is strong enough to destroy both of them.

It's too bad the actual debating is secondary for many viewers.

I agree with Holman even if I think she could out debate both of them.

[Defiant]

Johnson is glad that nobody got hurt in New York and Minnesota (apart from the dozens of people that got hurt)

[malchior]

Yeah - he is not the greatest candidate. Clear he meant killed but just comes off as ... not all that self-aware about the words he is choosing and actually speaking.

[Kraken]

He should really let Weld run with the ball. Weld has a good instinct for tone.

[El Guapo]

I think in this situation, where polls have shown a majority of people want Johnson to debate, an exception should have been made to let Johnson and Weld debate, and then if he doesn't show any upward poll movement, don't invite him to the 2nd and 3rd. But since neither Clinton or Trump want Johnson on stage with them, well, this is what we're left with.

So they should make up new debate admittance rules to match a favored rules?

If a majority of people want to hear what he has to say on a national stage, why not?

What would your reaction be to the converse situation? I.e. the commission sets rules in advance as to how you qualify for the debate. Johnson meets those criterion, but the commission says "eh, there's a poll that says that most people don't want Johnson to participate, so we're going to exclude him even though he meets the preset criterion for doing so."

[pr0ner]

I think in this situation, where polls have shown a majority of people want Johnson to debate, an exception should have been made to let Johnson and Weld debate, and then if he doesn't show any upward poll movement, don't invite him to the 2nd and 3rd. But since neither Clinton or Trump want Johnson on stage with them, well, this is what we're left with.

So they should make up new debate admittance rules to match a favored rules?

If a majority of people want to hear what he has to say on a national stage, why not?

What would your reaction be to the converse situation? I.e. the commission sets rules in advance as to how you qualify for the debate. Johnson meets those criterion, but the commission says "eh, there's a poll that says that most people don't want Johnson to participate, so we're going to exclude him even though he meets the preset criterion for doing so."

I'd actually have to think about that, because it's not something I've thought about before.

[ImLawBoy]

My question is whether the Libertarians (or Greens, for that matter) had a meaningful seat at the table in setting the debate guidelines. I'd guess not, but I don't know for sure. If they don't have a say, then it still makes complete sense for them to complain about their exclusion from the debates for failing to meet the criteria.

The real Catch 22 here is that a third party likely needs the publicity from the debates to hit the 15% polling required to be included in the debates. With that in mind, my humble proposal would be to permit inclusion in the first debate from those candidates that meet the first two criteria ((1) are constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States; (2) have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election;), but then add on the 15% polling requirement to participate in further debates. In this case, Stein and Johnson would get to join the first debate, which would still be a manageable number of candidates. If they can't get enough people to back them after that, you can focus on the realistic candidates.

[Isgrimnur]

There's always the Ross Perot route. Money is speech. Until they have the coffers to spend their way in front of us with some prime time network coverage for their own, they're not going to get 15%.

[Defiant]

The real Catch 22 here is that a third party likely needs the publicity from the debates to hit the 15% polling required to be included in the debates.

Wallace, Anderson and Perot didn't all had polling above 15% before any debates.

[Moliere]

Gary Johnson Slightly Helps Hillary Clinton

In short: the Johnson-Weld campaign has emphasized all along that it draws from left and right alike. They’re right. Indeed, they’re so right that it does not seem like the Johnson-Weld campaign– even at high levels of support, like the 13% they had in Quinnipac, or the 10%+ they had in 42 states in WaPo/Survey Monkey– will tilt the presidential election one way or the other. (Remember, even at those levels of support there doesn’t seem to be even a single state that they’re flipping.) But the balance tilts a little bit toward “they’re taking votes from Trump,” for an overall result that’s something like a 2% net benefit to Clinton. If the race stays as close as it now looks– which I don’t expect– that could matter.

If I can do this math, so can the Johnson-Weld campaign– and so can the Clinton campaign. Stein is a real problem for Clinton. But the Johnson-Weld ticket is an opportunity. If I’m right that Trump’s support among Republicans remains fragile– if traditional Republicans are uneasy keeping company with neo-Nazis and the Klan, or worried on national security grounds about Trump’s ignorance and instability, or constitutionalist enough to dislike his embrace of authoritarians abroad and of strongman executive demagoguery at home– then increasing visibility for Johnson-Weld could well have a very asymmetrical effect.

[ImLawBoy]

The real Catch 22 here is that a third party likely needs the publicity from the debates to hit the 15% polling required to be included in the debates.

Wallace, Anderson and Perot didn't all had polling above 15% before any debates.

I don't think 3 examples necessarily negate my statement that they "likely" need the publicity, especially when you consider that they had more unusual paths to running independent/3rd party than a typical Libertarian or Green candidate.

[Moliere]

Clinton, Stein, and Trump have responded to a number of scientific topics. Not surprisingly, the differences between Clinton and Trump on global warming and biodiversity are especially striking.

Now with Gary Johnson's answers.

[Kraken]

Clinton, Stein, and Trump have responded to a number of scientific topics. Not surprisingly, the differences between Clinton and Trump on global warming and biodiversity are especially striking.

Now with Gary Johnson's answers.

tl;dr version: The free market will take care of everything when government gets out of the way.

[Zarathud]

Ponies, magic and unicorns.