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.