Libertarian Party eyes spoiler role in 2012 race

[Warfish]

Libertarian Party eyes spoiler role in 2012 race

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz23uLqNWFU

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson almost certainly can't win the presidential election this year. But his supporters claim he could determine who does.

Johnson, the former New Mexico governor who briefly and unsuccessfully competed for the Republican presidential nomination before joining the Libertarians, is polling barely above 5 percent nationwide. Yet his numbers in key battleground states suggest he could make a difference in what is shaping up to be a tight contest between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

He was rating at 13 percent in New Mexico and 9 percent in Arizona in recent polling -- not enough to win, but certainly enough to disadvantage whichever major-party candidate he's drawing votes away from.

The Libertarian Party is now touting that possibility. An emailed statement from the organization earlier this week carried a rather sensational subject line: "Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson Could Deprive Mitt Romney of 5 battleground states, 74 Electoral Votes, 27% of the Electoral Votes needed to win in 2012."

Libertarians reasoned Johnson, then, "could determine the winner" of the election.

It's impossible to gauge at this point what effect Johnson could have, but of course it's not unprecedented for a third-party candidate to tilt the scales.

In 1992, third-party candidate Ross Perot won roughly 19 percent of the popular vote, which many people think cut into GOP incumbent George H.W. Bush's take and put Democratic candidate Bill Clinton in the Oval Office with just 43 percent of the vote.

Though Johnson is polling barely above 5 percent nationwide, Romney and Obama are separated by single digits in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia.

The Libertarian Party is pointing to those states as among the places where Johnson's presence could make a difference. All five states voted for Obama in 2008. But they largely voted Republican in prior modern-day elections, and could be a toss-up this year.

As for which candidate Johnson benefits, it's unclear. The Libertarians think he mostly takes away from Romney's numbers. And they say Johnson will likely have the biggest impact in Colorado, based on a recent statewide poll that shows him with 7 percent of the vote.

However, the Aug. 8 survey by the Democrat-leaning Public Policy Polling also suggests Johnson could in fact hurt Obama in Colorado. The survey found Obama leading Romney 49-43 percent, but his lead was cut to 46-42 when voters were given the Johnson choice.

"He's going to be a problem for somebody, somewhere," political strategist and Fox News contributor Joe Trippi wrote last month. "We don't yet know which candidate he might harm the most -- but both campaigns should be looking over their shoulders at that guy almost nobody is talking about."

Tom Jensen, PPP's president, said the firm has been including Johnson in statewide polls in New Mexico and surrounding states essentially because that is where he generates significant numbers. However, those surveyed early in an election cycle and who pledge their support to a third-party candidate have a tendency to vote Democrat or Republican by November.

Despite the spoiler-role speculation, Carla Howell, the Libertarian Party's executive director, defended Johnson as a serious candidate.

"This is an election between two very similar candidates. ... Gary Johnson is a real choice for what people really care about," she said.

Johnson is now on the November ballot in at least 48 states and is expected by Election Day to be on all 50 and on the District of Columbia's.

However, Johnson getting to 15 percent to get into the three scheduled presidential debates is unlikely.

"He's dreaming," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center For Politics. "The debate committee is run by the two (major) parties. They had to let in Perot because at one point he had 40 percent of the vote."

Johnson's supporters argue that he's not just a niche candidate. Howell noted Johnson's platform goes beyond decriminalizing marijuana and supporting same sex-marriage to include a balanced-budget plan.

"He stands for a lot of things that a lot of people want," she said.

Seemed relevant.

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

Great job, Gary... You're doing your country a great service by attempting to assist with 4 more years of Obama...

I'm sure you'll look back when his term is over and be extremely proud...

Sarcasm aside, I think something similar was posted a couple weeks ago...

[parafly]

When you put rhetoric aside, the reality is there is little discernible difference between the two parties and candidates. If your goal as a citizen of this nation is to initiate true reform within our government system, there is no better way than using the power of your vote as a voice of dissent against the established two party status quo.

In my mind, this should not be viewed as a waste or spoiler.

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

Originally Posted by parafly

When you put rhetoric aside, the reality is there is little discernible difference between the two parties and candidates. If your goal as a citizen of this nation is to initiate true reform within our government system, there is no better way than using the power of your vote as a voice of dissent against the established two party status quo.

In my mind, this should not be viewed as a waste or spoiler.

Unless to voice it at this time proves detrimental to the country...

[parafly]

Originally Posted by AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite

Unless to voice it at this time proves detrimental to the country...

Just my opinion, but continuing to enable and prop up the failing two party status quo is the detrimental action.

[southparkcpa]

I know someone VERY WELL who worked for the libertarian party in DC. they told me that the party sees itself as succesful IF they can garner 3 percent of the vote.

I am aligned with many of their values but I don't see them as a serious party , and they don't see it either. That is unfortunate.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

The last 4 years have shown conclusively that (D) = (R)

More like (D) = (L)

More moronic crypto-liberal nonsense - the same pukes hoped for a McCain defeat to "reform" the GOP
and made matters exponentially worse. So we got a TP leaning GOP, a candidate not running on social issues and a fiscally responsible VP candidate and it's still not good enough for these self-important navel gazers.

Newsflash theres already a Pro-Islam gay marrying disarmament legalize narcotics party and it's (D) - we dont need 2

[Soberphobia]

^ ^ we've had this same issue over here, except a "more left" party has been taking away votes from the nominal major left party (well, its not really a left party, just in name - more centre-right). So the "more left" party (which is in fact a true leftist party), the Greens (yes, an environmental group) has been taking those voters who now feel the "major left" party has drifted too far right and no longer represents them.

In actual fact its a major reason, if not the major reason, the major left has lost power across all states and is about to lose power Federally.

However, there are major differences in this country in our electoral system compared to the USA, and I think any impact of a minor party "stealing" votes from a major party will really come down to the type of electoral system.

Having said that I think most major political parties across the West are facing a widespread loss of support and cynicism about their motives - in fact many are questioning whether having a two-party system really is the best type of democracy - many say major parties have sold their souls to special interest groups and that the major parties contributed hugely to the Global Financial Crisis. Whether this leads more to an "Italian-style" type of political representation remains to be seen.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

The last 12 years of Bush/Obama have shown conclusively that (D) = (R)

Fixed your post.

(R) has no one but themselves, and their often rude and dismissive party-loyalist supporters, to blame.

You don't want us.

So be it.

We'll take out vote elsewhere.

After all, to us and our ideals, both parties are equally bad at many of the policies we tend to care about most.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Fixed your post.

(R) has no one but themselves, and their often rude and dismissive party-loyalist supporters, to blame.

You don't want us.

So be it.

We'll take out vote elsewhere.

After all, to us and our ideals, both parties are equally bad at many of the policies we tend to care about most.

No need to "fix" my posts. History has already shown B. Hussein to be an exponentially worse President than Bush, but apparently not in the limited view of (L) Paulbots/losers aka (D) enablers.

The GOP is not going to limit speech, blame America 1st, stop monitoring terrorists, legalize hallucinogens for OTC consumption or in general support a degenerate set of multi-culti ideals to suit Libertarians.

"You people" "specificly" demanded GOP candidates who ain't focused on social issues but on economic growth and fiscal "responsability". You got it. Now it ain't good enough.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

History has already shown B. Hussein to be an exponentially worse President than Bush, but apparently not in the limited view of (L) Paulbots/losers aka (D) enablers.

Clearly we see history through very different eyes. Especially since the election of Obama lies directly at the feet of Bush's incompetence.

The GOP is not going to limit speech, blame America 1st, stop monitoring terrorists, legalize hallucinogens for OTC consumption or in general support a degenerate set of multi-culti ideals to suit Libertarians.

I'd say that if the above listing represents a lack an understanding of what Libertarians support or wish for policy wise.

I'd also say that when you deride and dismiss your esrtwile political aliies as "degenerates", you may reap what you sow on election day.

"You people" "specificly" demanded GOP candidates who ain't focused on social issues but on economic growth and fiscal "responsability". You got it. Now it ain't good enough.

If the "you people" is the Tea Party, you might be right.

Libertarians =/= Tea Party Republicans, although there is some shared ideals.

Romney represents the (R) establishment. There is no reason to trust a word of his claims regarding fiscal accountabillity. Which is why he had to toss a bone in the form of Ryan to the TP base, instead of a VP nom. would could help him win the actual election, or even an actual state.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by Warfish

If the "you people" is the Tea Party, you might be right.

Libertarians =/= Tea Party Republicans, although there is some shared ideals.

Romney represents the (R) establishment. There is no reason to trust a word of his claims regarding fiscal accountabillity. Which is why he had to toss a bone in the form of Ryan to the TP base, instead of a VP nom. would could help him win the actual election, or even an actual state.

What the libertarians are for, hmm...looks like they stand for nothing...their symbol s/b the Ostrich

https://www.lp.org/files/LP%20Platform%202012.pdf


A "right to life" yet none for the unborn

Yup no reason to trust Romney at all...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...atrick-brennan

Just pull the lever for B. Hussein already...you know you want to

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

Just pull the lever for B. Hussein already...you know you want to

I want to pull the lever for someone other than (R) or (D), someone who shares more of my own beliefs.

Thats not Obama. And thats not Romney either.