Is Gary Johnson Delusional or Insincere?

[Debater Slayer]

I came across this earlier:

Libertarian presidential hopeful Gary Johnson said Wednesday that he wouldn’t be in the 2016 race if there was no chance of victory, but said getting onto the presidential debate stage will be a crucial hurdle for him to clear.

“I wouldn’t be engaged in this right now if there weren’t the possibility of actually winning,” Mr. Johnson said on MSNBC when asked if he was concerned his candidacy will end up being a “spoiler.”

“But … the only chance a third-party candidate has of winning is to be in the presidential debates,” he said.

Source and full article.

Is he delusional, given that it was abundantly obvious a third-party candidate wouldn't win, or did he say that to save face instead of admitting he didn't stand a realistic chance to win?

Discuss.

 

[Revoltingest]

I came across this earlier:



Source and full article.

Is he delusional, given that it was abundantly obvious a third-party candidate wouldn't win, or did he say that to save face instead of admitting he didn't stand a realistic chance to win?

Discuss.

We Libertarians are delusional, believing that some day we'll actually win.
He actually did very well compared to other Libertarians.
And with competition like Hillary & Donald, one could see voters looking for an alternative.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He actually did very well compared to other Libertarians.

Maybe, but still crap next to Perot.

And with competition like Hillary & Donald, one could see voters looking for an alternative.

And yet the Capitalist voters didn't capitalize on it.

 

[suncowiam]

I came across this earlier:



Source and full article.

Is he delusional, given that it was abundantly obvious a third-party candidate wouldn't win, or did he say that to save face instead of admitting he didn't stand a realistic chance to win?

Discuss.

I agree with him that third parties have absolutely no chance if they're not included in the debates.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe, but still crap next to Perot.

He had an unfair advantage.....a more likable kind of crazy, & no discernable philosophy to scare anyone away.

And yet the Capitalist voters didn't capitalize on it.

Many capitalists are fans of conventional corrupt crony capitalism, keeping them in the fold (of the Big Two).

 

[Stevicus]

Is he delusional, given that it was abundantly obvious a third-party candidate wouldn't win, or did he say that to save face instead of admitting he didn't stand a realistic chance to win?

Discuss.

Third party candidates have no real chance of winning at the national level. Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't win in 1912 on a third-party ticket. A lot of it is related to the political culture in this country and how people feel that they're "wasting their vote" if they put it on someone who is seen as having no chance of winning.

But that doesn't mean that third parties should give it up or lament their plight. Third parties might do well to shoot for more realistic goals. They all want to become national parties and take on the major parties, but they might have better luck focusing on specific regions. They're trying to specialize and distinguish themselves on an ideological basis, such as with the Green Party or Libertarian Party. But they all end up looking like clones of national-level politicians.

But I wonder if regional parties might have more success. For example, if people from Rocky Mountain states wanted to form a Rocky Mountain Party, they could concentrate all their energy and resources on their own region, gaining city/county offices at first and forming a power base. It may not be enough to win the White House, but it might lead to a few Representatives in Congress to shake things up and make their voices heard.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He had an unfair advantage.....a more likable kind of crazy, & no discernable philosophy to scare anyone away.

He was against a serving incumbent and Bill Clinton, a charming speaker liked by the people. Johnson was against two people most Americans didn't even want. Perot had people thinking he might actually be able to pull it off. Widely and mostly people did not believe this about Johnson.

Many capitalists are fans of conventional corrupt crony capitalism, keeping them in the fold (of the Big Two).

Libertarians are the ones who tend to pump out pro-Capitalism books, come up with models for economic policy and functioning, and hold sway over fiscal policy within the Republican party. They could start highlighting their advantages, in that they lack the social baggage of the "model" Republican and focus on luring people in because they like business and gay marriage.

 

[Revoltingest]

Libertarians are the ones who tend to pump out pro-Capitalism books, come up with models for economic policy and functioning, and hold sway over fiscal policy within the Republican party. They could start highlighting their advantages, in that they lack the social baggage of the "model" Republican and focus on luring people in because they like business and gay marriage.

Highlighting our advantages is wonderful, but people are still scared of things like drug legalization.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Highlighting our advantages is wonderful, but people are still scared of things like drug legalization.

Support for legal pot has only gained support, and last I knew/checked a majority support medical and around half support recreational.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We Libertarians are delusional, believing that some day we'll actually win.
He actually did very well compared to other Libertarians.
And with competition like Hillary & Donald, one could see voters looking for an alternative.

If a third-party candidate is to win the presidential election, when do you think is the nearest time we will be able to see that happen?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I agree with him that third parties have absolutely no chance if they're not included in the debates.

With debates, do you think they have a chance that is beyond negligible to offset the two-party system?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Third party candidates have no real chance of winning at the national level. Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't win in 1912 on a third-party ticket. A lot of it is related to the political culture in this country and how people feel that they're "wasting their vote" if they put it on someone who is seen as having no chance of winning.

But that doesn't mean that third parties should give it up or lament their plight. Third parties might do well to shoot for more realistic goals. They all want to become national parties and take on the major parties, but they might have better luck focusing on specific regions. They're trying to specialize and distinguish themselves on an ideological basis, such as with the Green Party or Libertarian Party. But they all end up looking like clones of national-level politicians.

But I wonder if regional parties might have more success. For example, if people from Rocky Mountain states wanted to form a Rocky Mountain Party, they could concentrate all their energy and resources on their own region, gaining city/county offices at first and forming a power base. It may not be enough to win the White House, but it might lead to a few Representatives in Congress to shake things up and make their voices heard.

Interesting viewpoint. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Revoltingest]

If a third-party candidate is to win the presidential election, when do you think is the nearest time we will be able to see that happen?

Not in my lifetime.

 

[suncowiam]

With debates, do you think they have a chance that is beyond negligible to offset the two-party system?

The basic premise is being able to get his ideals out to the American people and also how it stacks to the other candidate. It's plain and simple marketing which requires money and organization.

Many people simply did not know of him or knew little of his ideals. I personally had to explicitly find information on him, however, what I found I did not like especially his cluelessness on foreign affairs. I don't have the time and energy to formally research all the candidates. There are key events that most Americans do prioritize to attend especially the debates.