He needs to create a bigger agenda based on what’s on voters’ minds. That means focusing on Libertarian solutions for core economic, social, and national security issues—not just bloodless opinions on them when queried, which is what he’s been doing. He has to offer Libertarianism not as an ideology but as a solution.
I disagree. The only realistic scenario by which Johnson wins is one in which both leading Democrats and Republicans start talking him up between now and November, so that the election gets thrown into the House and he emerges as the compromise candidate.
I think that as long as Mrs. Clinton is heavily favored to win, the Democrats will not budge in their support for her. However, suppose that Mr. Trump moves up in the polls, perhaps because of some exogenous event. Once Democrats become frightened that Mr. Trump could win, they may be willing to deal with Johnson. And if they signal such a willingness, that could in turn convince some #neverTrump Republicans to endorse Johnson. Perhaps he could win enough states to throw the election into the House.
At that point, even if Republicans have a majority in the House, I do not think that they would unite behind Johnson. Instead, he would have to promise enough to Democrats (say, no Supreme Court nominees that lack bipartisan support) and enough to Republicans (say, that he won’t single-handedly abolish the NSA) to convince a bipartisan coalition to elect him President.
No, I did not say that this is realistic enough to bet on, even at generous odds.
On a related note, Jennifer Rubin suggests questions for reporters to ask Johnson.
How much government do we need? Can we afford? In contrast with the presumptive GOP nominee, they may have something enlightening to say.
Given Johnson scenarios are little bizarre and the House picks Paul Ryan, I would recommend Johnson really needs to win some states in 2016 and increase the position of the Libertarian Party. There are a variety of mostly red Mountain/Midwest states (ID, UT, Blue NM, MT, ND, SD, CO, KS) that Trump does not play well and HRC is not focusing on. Maybe Johnson can get a Koch funded Superpac going and advertise there. And with some momentum and the panic of 2019, the Libertarian Party can make more impact. (Who knows with more experience, Rand Paul might be better in 2020 and Johnson or Paul might come around on the Iran deal. Like it or not, Paul and Johnson lost a lot of potential Brogressive voters going against the deal.)
Otherwise, Gary Johnson still comes off a little too goofy to be President.
Rubin cracks me up. She snuggles her war questions in the middle of her list, when that’s all she’s really interested in.
I agree with Collin. 3rd party candidates tend to struggle in close elections. Gary Johnson is better off if Trump implodes so that the party can start to be considered as a viable alternative to eventually overtake the Republicans.
Let’s be serious here. Back in the 1840’s, 1850’s when political parties were far less established than today, the Whigs and Know Nothings fell apart, and this thing called the Republican Party got off the ground. Likely it would have stalled out too, except that in 1860 the Democrats split in two over the slavery issue. The upshot was Abe Lincoln got into the White House, thus provoking a civil war, and with only the northern branch of the Democrats to oppose them, Republicans had a free reign in politics until the late 1870’s and have been around ever since.
Slavery, party division, civil war. That’s what it took to get a new political party into power in the 240 years of American history. You think the Libertarians are going to establish themselves with something less? I don’t.
I would like to see him promise out of the middle-east and out of the war on drugs.