Although Johnson initially ran in the Republican presidential primary, the GOP paid little attention and generally disregarded his extremist-leaning views on issues. However, Johnson came back as a Libertarian with Jim Gray as his running mate and continues to advocate for the legalization of marijuana, support of same-sex marriage and cuts in federal spending all around. With general election polls showing ties within the margin of error, the GOP is definitely concerned that Gary Johnson could become a figure comparable to Ralph Nader, where the Green Party garnered enough support to cause Gore to lose Ohio and Florida, and ultimately the presidency in the close race of 2000. Now, with Election Day merely a week away, and Johnson on forty-eight state ballots and D.C., there is a chance that the race could be thrown to one side or the other quite easily.
Is Gary Johnson a threat in this coming election? Or will his presence ultimately be negligible in the grand scheme of things?
5 comments:
Nader seems like he could potentially present a threat to Obama's reelection, especially among the more moderate liberals who may oppose Obama's economic plans. However, his prominence seems like it will only serve to harm his agenda, since it is extremely unlikely that he will actually win the presidency. At most, he will draw votes away from Obama, leaving Romney free to win election and prevent socially liberal policies from being implemented.
I don't think he is going to be a second Nader because he is going to pull votes from both sides not just from a single side; his libertarian stance definitely would pull some votes from Obama and his previous Republican status would pull some votes from the Republican party (Ron Paul). His presence would definitely not be negligible in the grand scheme; for instance, his pro-pot attitude would definitely help him gain a lot of votes in the more libertarian state of Colorado, an important swing state.
On the other hand, I am going to make a slightly discursive question here: can third-party candidates who obviously will have an influence on the outcome of the election help the two main parties secure their loyal supporters (for they would be more inclined to go to the pollster sensing that their candidates are in troubles) so the candidate of the main parties can focus on the independent voters in the middle?
I really don't think a libertarian candidate like Johnson would stand any chance in this election. Whereas some other successful third party candidates like Ross Perot had ideas that were pretty different from the parties, the Libertarian platform seems to have the radical aspects of both the Democratic and Republican parties. I feel like most Republicans and Democrats agree with what most of what their party says, and because of this I don't think that these voters would ever want to shift their party support to a party that only embraces half of their values while also embracing the extreme aspects of the other party. For example, a Republican might like the Libertarian economic policy but probably wouldn't agree with the Libertarian social policy. The opposite probably tends to be true with Democrats. Its just too difficult to support a party that is so extreme to both the right and the left. Most people aren't radical in both directions so its just easier to be slightly to the left of to the right.
I have serious doubts regarding Gary Johnson's potential impact on the election. Until today, I have heard nothing about his being a major impact in this election. I do not think he is comparable to Ralph Nader but I concede that he may take away some of Obama's votes, giving Romney an advantage, or vice versa. If voters support his liberal policies and feel he would be more competent than Obama as president, then Gary Johnson could get a decent chunk of the popular vote. However, I would bet good money that he would not get a single electoral vote. Third party candidates, as we have learned, do not usually have a dramatic change on the outcome of an election.
As Robert noted, it is difficult to choose a candidate who supports policies from both extremes. I personally would not choose such a candidate because he would have difficulties working with both parties in Congress, neither of which would be overwhelming supportive of him if he were president. As I said before, third parties do not get elected to the presidency. However, he does have his supporters, as this amusing article reveals.
From the recent TIME magazine I got in the mail, I have heard concerns that he is an extremist, someone not to be trusted. The article mentions that he is capable and that the GOP has taken notice of him. Notably, some politicians have questioned whether the signatures he collected for the ballot were authentic.
Overall, I would not give Gary Johnson so much consideration that I would lose three days worth of sleep. He could be an interesting person to research and investigate, if only for the purposes of hearing him rant against the current political system. Personally, his "waste your vote on me" attitude rubs me the wrong way and I would strongly recommend not voting for him. Though our two-party system is flawed, it still works and survives to this day. As Ronald Reagan once said: "Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?"
I'm not sure why you guys are all saying that Gary Johnson will be a threat to Obama. According to the article Alvin linked, the Republicans are the ones working really hard to keep Johnson down. So since it seems like Obama's still a bit ahead anyways, Johnson might just help him win by a bigger margin but wouldn't significantly impact the election. On a different note, the article also said he'd be drawing young voters because of his liberal marijuana position and I think that's pretty sad.
Post a Comment