The General Election

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Anybody think it's a little silly that a third party candidate has to be polling above 15% before even being invited to debates?

What's more silly than that rule is that he isn't polling at 15% yet. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!

 

very true - need money and exposure - Maybe if he would say some real wacko bird things he'd get some free media time. Nah, I don't think any candidate would do something like that

 

You mean if he would act like a totally incompetent imbecile who is completely unqualified to be elected to the most powerful position in the world.....he may actually get elected?

 

America deserves everything it gets.

[BigRedBuster]

[Lil' Red]

Here we have someone who is one election away from being the President of the US and he is openly asking a foreign country to come spy on us? This is absolutely asinine. If this doesn't wake up his followers nothing will. They absolutely have to be so blind to this it's amazing.

 

I'm starting to believe that he was correct when he said he could shoot someone and not lose any voters.

[NM11046]

 

 

Anybody think it's a little silly that a third party candidate has to be polling above 15% before even being invited to debates?

What's more silly than that rule is that he isn't polling at 15% yet. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!

 

very true - need money and exposure - Maybe if he would say some real wacko bird things he'd get some free media time. Nah, I don't think any candidate would do something like that

 

Oh he's said them - just on small outlets. Samantha Bee had a good interview w/Johnson. Funny, but it didn't make me think he was a strong option. Edit: or at least not a strong option for me and the issues that are my hot buttons.

[zoogs]

I'd argue that what he needs is major political backing.

 

There's a good reason we don't simply vault guys out of nowhere to the presidency.

 

Johnson is a former Republican governor, and he's scored a couple of small GOP endorsements already. If you can't appeal to a significant body of the aghast legislators, powerbrokers and organizations in this climate, then you aren't a very serious candidate*. Johnson can't mount a populist revolt from the right, because one has already been marshaled and it's under DJT. And the leader of the one from the left has decided to unify in opposition.

 

*This is nothing against protest candidates, who I think at least serve a useful role.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I'd argue that what he needs is major political backing.

 

There's a good reason we don't simply vault guys out of nowhere to the presidency.

 

Johnson is a former Republican governor, and he's scored a couple of small GOP endorsements already. If you can't appeal to a significant body of the aghast legislators, powerbrokers and organizations in this climate, then you aren't a very serious candidate*. Johnson can't mount a populist revolt from the right, because one has already been marshaled and it's under DJT. And the leader of the one from the left has decided to unify in opposition.

 

*This is nothing against protest candidates, who I think at least serve a useful role.

 

Yes, you're not a very serious candidate if you can't appeal to the powerbrokers whom a majority of the population already feel don't represent them.

[zoogs]

Well, I mean, he could appeal directly to the people and lead a populist revolt that doesn't include the support of fellow lawmakers or a network of conservative advocacy groups.

 

But we know what that looks like.

 

And it looks like Donald Trump.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Well, I mean, he could appeal directly to the people and lead a populist revolt that doesn't include the support of fellow lawmakers or a network of conservative advocacy groups.

 

But we know what that looks like.

 

And it looks like Donald Trump.

 

I think we should be cautious to assume that people comprising populist revolts are like the people backing Donald Trump.

[zoogs]

To clarify: it's a damned shame, but guys like BRB aren't "the people" (if only, and I mean that). A real conservative has roughly no representation, which unfortunately seems about fair because there are apparently not very many of them.

 

If there were, Trump would be plummeting in the polls and Johnson would have a viable candidacy. But the popular movement we have is not that of conservatism, it's that of nativism. I'm holding out hope, but it's not what's happening now.

 

So conservatives don't have a people's movement. And they don't have an establishment movement, either. If they did, House speaker Paul Ryan would look at Trump and say well, f--- that. GOP lawmakers and GOP-aligned advocacy groups would rebel en masse. Libertarians ran GOP campaigns in '08, '12, and '16. Johnson and his VP are both GOP men, for goodness sake. Endorsing them should *not* be a problem if a conservative establishment exists.

 

But none of this is happening. All of these tides -- popular, elite, establishment -- have by and large decided to throw in for, or tolerate, Trump.

[BigRedBuster]

I'd argue that what he needs is major political backing.

 

There's a good reason we don't simply vault guys out of nowhere to the presidency.

 

Johnson is a former Republican governor, and he's scored a couple of small GOP endorsements already. If you can't appeal to a significant body of the aghast legislators, powerbrokers and organizations in this climate, then you aren't a very serious candidate*. Johnson can't mount a populist revolt from the right, because one has already been marshaled and it's under DJT. And the leader of the one from the left has decided to unify in opposition.

 

*This is nothing against protest candidates, who I think at least serve a useful role.

I think your last comment unknowingly points out a major problem.

 

Way too many people view anyone who is not an R or a D as nothing more than a "protest candidate" instead of an actual viable option.

[BigRedBuster]

To clarify: it's a damned shame, but guys like BRB aren't "the people" (if only, and I mean that). A real conservative has roughly no representation, which unfortunately seems about fair because there are apparently not very many of them.

 

If there were, Trump would be plummeting in the polls and Johnson would have a viable candidacy. But the popular movement we have is not that of conservatism, it's that of nativism. I'm holding out hope, but it's not what's happening now.

 

So conservatives don't have a people's movement. And they don't have an establishment movement, either. If they did, House speaker Paul Ryan would look at Trump and say well, f--- that. GOP lawmakers and GOP-aligned advocacy groups would rebel en masse. Libertarians ran GOP campaigns in '08, '12, and '16. Johnson and his VP are both GOP men, for goodness sake. Endorsing them should *not* be a problem if a conservative establishment exists.

 

But none of this is happening. All of these tides -- popular, elite, establishment -- have by and large decided to throw in for, or tolerate, Trump.

I'm having a hard time understanding your post.

 

The issue is that Trump is not conservative. And, he is not a Republican. He is a fake conservative that has absolutely fooled millions of people into thinking he is because he says outlandish things and has an R in front of his name.

 

If people would stop thinking only in terms of R and D and actually look at issues and candidates, these types of candidates would have a chance.

 

And, you talk about support from the power brokers and organizations. Those people have every vested interest known to man to not give Johnson a chance. Only ones who actually have a conscience are starting to jump ship. That's a very slow process. Too many people in congress don't want to be left holding their jock strap if Trump or Hillary get elected.

 

And NONE of that has to do with what is actually good for the country.

[BigRedBuster]

This conversation reminds me of the one I have with guys here at home. When I say I'm voting for Johnson, they just laugh and say...."he doesn't have a chance because he doesn't have enough support".

 

Well, if everyone sits around and says..."I'm not going to give him a chance because he doesn't have enough support" Well, then he isn't going to ever have enough support. It's a circular argument that doesn't make sense if you are going to actually try to make wise decisions.

[zoogs]

The guys who have an "L" to their names have zero seats in Congress, and 3 out of 7,383 seats in state houses. In what possible sense do they actually represent more than a very narrow slice of the American electorate? Even within the previously ostensibly conservative Republican Party, the libertarian wing never gained too much serious traction.

It may not be the future they want, but they are a minor party accountable only to a small cross-section of interests. They have run candidates out there for years and never in the hopes of actually winning an election; ergo, a protest against the 2-party establishment. I don't mean that derisively.

[NM11046]

This conversation reminds me of the one I have with guys here at home. When I say I'm voting for Johnson, they just laugh and say...."he doesn't have a chance because he doesn't have enough support".

 

Well, if everyone sits around and says..."I'm not going to give him a chance because he doesn't have enough support" Well, then he isn't going to ever have enough support. It's a circular argument that doesn't make sense if you are going to actually try to make wise decisions.

And yet, depending on where you are (state) for this election voting has to be more calculated than just supporting who you want. Wise decisions and right decisions aren't necessarily the same this go round.

 

It's like Survivor and making alliances and figuring out how to vote to make sure the right person survives in the long run.

[zoogs]

If people would stop thinking only in terms of R and D and actually look at issues and candidates, these types of candidates would have a chance.

No, if a lot more people agreed with you on the issues then these candidates would have a chance.

 

Or rather, the "R" would become an "L" and maybe, in this alter-world the "D" is an "S" -- but people will still fall into two camps, because those who oppose the socialist agenda aren't nitpicking wings of classical liberalism all the way to November.

 

But, demonstratively, not a lot of Americans are actually libertarian. And not a lot of Americans are, apparently, actually conservative. If either of these things were true, there's an extremely obvious place for those people to jump.

 

I do rather hope it'll happen, but it hasn't yet. If it doesn't materialize by November, I hope you guys will join us in voting for Hillary because you'll have a better time fighting for libertarianism in, well, a country that hasn't empowered Trump or his voter base.