Gary Johnson Wins Libertarian Party Nomination

Las Vegas – For the second consecutive election cycle the Libertarian Party has nominated a prominent ex-Republican politician as their presidential nominee. Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, won the party’s nomination on the first ballot. Johnson's opponents, including his debate partner Lee Wrights, trailed far behind. 

Johnson is the first former state executive to run for president on the Libertarian line and, arguably, provides the LP with their highest profile candidate since Ron Paul in 1988. Johnson has stated that his goal, short of winning, is to reach 15 percent in the polls to qualify for the national debates and to pick up at least 5 percent of the vote in November order to secure public funding for the party in 2016. 

Voting for the vice presidential nominee will take place next. Jim Gray and Lee Wrights are the two candidates seeking the VP slot.

Gary Johnson 70.420%

Lee Wrights 25.546

Jim Burns 2.017%

Write-Ins 1.008%

Carl Person .5%

None of the above .5%

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BrooklynChick||

    I lost respect for the Libertarian Party last time when they picked neo-con-man Bob Barr. I'm glad they've come to their senses. If Paul doesn't get the nomination, I'm going with Johnson.

  • SIV||

    For the second consecutive election cycle the Libertarian Party has nominated a prominent ex-Republican politician as their presidential nominee

    TEAM RED FTW (in the LP anyways). How's that leftwing "liberaltarian fusionism" thing working again?

  • Proprietist||

    Sorry, I think a pro-choice, pro-MJ, vocally pro-gay marriage, open borders candidate doesn't really have much Team Red appeal, as proven by his utter failure in that arena. Ron Paul is at least anti-abortion, wanted to build a fence on the border and "personally opposed to gay marriage".

  • Jingles||

    Johnson has stated that his goal, short of winning, is to reach 15 percent in the polls to qualify for the national debates and to pick up at least 5 percent of the vote in November order to secure public funding for the party in 2016.

    Oh, yes, the rest of the LP would just LOVE that.

  • SIV||

    The "fair tax" and public campaign funding. This is YOUR LP.

  • Randian||

    It must be really, really tiring to be this negative all the time.

  • DEA||

    It is. But SIV probably doesn't know how to walk away.

  • mr simple||

    What's the point I winning if you've compromised all your goals away?

  • Randian||

    Who's compromising "all of their goals"?

  • mr simple||

    "All of" was a bit hyperbolic (which is a valid rhetorical device), but SIV has a point about the LP adopting public funds and the fair tax. I don't know much about SIV's stances on issues, if that is what you're commenting on. My point was about the LP using compromised Repubs just to try to get votes. Johnson is still the best of the (prospective) nominees and will get my vote, but I don't like any income tax or public funding.

  • sloopyinca||

    The LP wants to get access to the public funding so they can compete with the two major parties. Once they are on a level playing field, they can win elections and abolish the systems that are in place. Why wouldn't they accept the funding if it's the funding that is keeping the two party bullshit system in place.

  • ||

    access

    There's that word "access" again. Is this meant in a Sandra (appropriately named) Fluke sort of way? I'm not being a dick; I would like some clarification here, however.

  • sloopyinca||

    Sandra Fluke wants access to something that does not exist. She wants others to pay for her lifestyle. The access the LP wants is access that is selectively granted by and to the two parties that run the show. They just want to be on an even playing field. Sandra Fluke wants others forced to subsidize her lifestyle.

  • tarran||

    I strongly disagree with the argument I'm going to make, but want to throw it out there so people get a sense of the alien mind-sets out there.

    Sandra Fluke would argue that she is trying to level the playing field: a man can get a girl pregnant, but doesn't have to take the hit on his career from taking time off to give birth. He can pay her support and continue working late while she has to be out of work at a certain time because the kids have to be picked up before after-school closes etc.

    It's the "life is like kindergarten" paradigm, where everybody who is good and well-behaved are given the same rewards by the teacher, who helps the kids who have trouble, teaches the kids who are better at things not to lord it over their less capable compatriots, and as long as you put in effort you get rewarded.

  • ||

    but want to throw it out there so people get a sense of the alien mind-sets out there.

    It's like your channeling Julia, tarran. You must know quite a few "Julias". I certainly know too many.

    Sandra Fluke wants access to something that does not exist. She wants others to pay for her lifestyle.

    This is ultimately true (any, and I mean any person who believes this also believes "medical care ia a "right"), but to be fair, that was not the argument she presented, and goes towards a larger point that I did not see reconciled beyond sound bites, which is medical care.

    Wrights has the correct argument for private medical, but omitted specifics. Johnson, while less "pure" offered a more practical approach and specified CMS (Medicare/Caid) as the cost sinks that they are.

    Fluke argued her "friend" (we still don't know who this "friend" is) didn't have "access" to TX for complicationw R/T an ovarian cyst. The "access" argument is bogus (all sorts of avenues for obtaining care are available. Why her "friend" didn't avail herself of them still remains a mystery); however, she argued that insurance companies should be mandated to pay for TX, regardless of lifestyle decisions. She also argued private entities should be mandated to carry such insurance, regardless of any objections they might have.

  • BMFPitt||

    Why wouldn't they accept the funding if it's the funding that is keeping the two party bullshit system in place.

    Accept it because it's there.

    But the 2 party system was in place long, long before public financing. Our electoral system makes it inevitable.

    There are lots of other things that keep the current 2 parties in position that should be abolished along with public financing, of course.

  • ||

    Yes! Where are the true Scotsman?

  • Brandon||

    You're voting for Romney, you have absolutely no room to talk about liberty.

  • SIV||

    Who's voting for Romney? Randian? Jingles?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Not that I'd vote for Romney, but we'd be only slightly worse-off with him than we would with another four years of Barry, whom I will not vote for either.

  • Sudden||

    I'd say it the other way around, slightly worse off with Obama than Mittens. That said, I wouldn't cast a vote for either.

  • Eaglewing||

    I don't get the hate of the fair tax. Tax is theft, no doubt, but they aren't going away... ever. So why not abolish the IRS? 4th Amendment, anyone?

  • Proprietist||

    Uhh... public funding is paid for with voluntary funds from dumbasses who check the box on their taxes to contribute a few dollars. It is not paid for by mandatory taxes. I don't see how seeking those funds is anti-libertarian.

    LP getting public funding means less pie for the establishment parties. Why let them have tools we don't have?

    And even if it were paid for via taxes, we pay taxes too. Should all libertarians reject all government programs that they were forced to pay for?

  • ||

    If people want to fund the LP, they can and should do it directly.

  • SIV||

    Ron Paul's inroads into the GOP is infinitely more consequential than the former-NM Governor furthering his vanity campaign for president.

  • Brandon||

    Tell us how much better Romney is going to be than Obama again, SIV.

  • SIV||

    Again?

    Romney won't have a fawning and complicit legacy media and his party's base still doesn't trust him.

    I can't think of much else other than h is not the incumbent.

  • Randian||

    The strong irony of a Hit & Runpublican telling the rest of us how "unpure" the Libertarian candidate is just delicious.

  • SIV||

    So which is it? Am I a nihilist anarchist or a TEAM RED shill? You can't have it both ways dipshit.

  • Randian||

    You're so all over the map it's hard to tell. One minute it's "I'll vote for Gary Johnson", then it's "Principled non-voting for me!" then it's "Yay Bachmann!" and then "Yay Romney".

    So who knows? If people are confused, it's your own fault.

  • SIV||

    The only positive thing I've ever written about Romney (here or anywhere else) is the above comment. Do you disagree with it?

    I've never said I'd vote for Gary Johnson for anything unless I was a New Mexico resident.

    You're the on who is confused trying to pigeonhole everyone into a few defined narrow categories.

  • Randian||

    You're right, you didn't say for sure you would:

    SIV|4.6.12 @ 9:15PM|#
    Gary Johnson is a bad candidate.I don't mean "the issues" he is just a lousy, terrible politician. He is a poor fit for the LP too. Hell, Chuck Baldwin is more libertarian than Gary Johnson.

    That said, if he gets the LP nom I'll probably vote for him unless there is a mor appealing candidate on the GA ballot.

    you have pretty much parroted Tulpa and the other Hit and Runpublicans in the past and said that a vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama. Do you deny that? Because it isn't just me who has that impression, and I could probably find evidence if I was really pressed.

    Again, if you have the reputation as a Romney cheerleader, you have no one to blame but yourself.

  • SIV||

    You can't fucking cite me saying anything about voting for Romney or McCain or Bush or any other "mainstream" Republican candidate.

    I could probably find evidence if I was really pressed

    Consider yourself pressed, pussy.
    The "republican shill" thing comes from joe, MNG,Episiarch (who once said, if he voted, he might vote for Obama) and your little Obamatarian friends who mostly abandoned H&R , along with joe, right after their savior was elected.

  • ||

    Episiarch (who once said, if he voted, he might vote for Obama)

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Man, you must be desperate to lie so blatantly...and stupidly. But stupid is one of your hallmarks, HitAndRunpublican.

  • SIV||

    Here you go TEAM BLUE-boy

    If he can clarify this position to my satisfaction, he would get my vote (amongst the major candidates) except that I don't vote.

  • SIV||

    Bonus flashback comments: SugarFree promising to vote for Obama over McCain or Romney and joe calling out the above TEAM BLUE-boy for anti-Asian chick racism or sexism or something.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    A quote from January 2008? This is hilarious. What part of "I don't vote" can't you understand?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Please, bring more, HitAndRunpublican extraordinaire. Please, tell me I'm TEAM BLUE some more.

  • SIV||

    The ONLY reason I considered voting for Johnson is for ballot access for the LP. Every time their convention rolls around I have to wonder what was I thinking?

  • Randian||

    Very convenient you went from this:

    I've never said I'd vote for Gary Johnson for anything unless I was a New Mexico resident.

    to ignoring the proof you said something differently.

    Oh, and here's your proof that you acted like Tulpa in another thread:

    General Butt Naked|5.1.12 @ 8:19AM|#

    Ron Paul is one freakin' guy and he gets shit on by republican establishment all the goddamn time.

    Sorry, but presently republican thought is represented by Romney. Republican voters had a choice this year and they chose Romney as their representative.

    And you wrote:

    SIV|5.1.12 @ 8:58AM|#

    You're rooting for an Obama reelection.
    So who's the Team Player General?

    Therefore, because GBN said he hated Romney, you said that was a "rooting for an Obama reelection"

    So suck it, bitch.

  • SIV||

    Nice demonstration of your illiteracy Nancy.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I sent him a Bourbon basket with my condolences.

  • db||

    As far as the public funding goes, I waver between seeing the poetic justice in using the incumbets' own dirty tools against them and to advertise the cause of liberty; and seeing it as a hypocrital move that will be used against a LP candidate if he gets too close to picking up a significant fraction of votes. You could easily see Romney trying to clobber Johnson with it if GJ was taking too many GOP votes from Romney.

    I think it would be nice to qualify for the funding, use it, and have the LP donate the matching amount to charity.

  • Proprietist||

    Public funding is voluntarily paid for by dumbasses who are convinced it will bring purity to elections. Considering there's no coercion involved, even principled libertarians should support seeking those funds.

  • Adamson||

    Wrong. The money is voluntarily given but it's facilitated by the government and there are probably a number of federal employees who have jobs just in order to distribute this "free" money. If you want Gary Johnson to have your money (and I certainly won't give him any), then give it directly to him - don't funnel it through Uncle Middle Man.

  • Proprietist||

    I have no idea but it seems possible the administrators are also funded by this voluntary money. Even if not, it's still a very different degree of coercion from redistributing tax dollars.

    There are also government administrators administering elections. Therefore all good libertarians should not participate in elections.

  • mr simple||

    Johnson might have better name recognition and even a better understanding of being an executive leader, so I'm not that disappointed, but Wrights was definitely better on the issues. I guess that doesn't matter if no one hears you. I probably would have voted LP no matter who won as Romney is the likely nominee for Team Red.

  • Randian||

    People like Wrights have their place in the Party; it just isn't as the LP's nominee.

    if I were God-king of the LP, there would be a Philosophy or Platform Council whose job it would be to puzzle through the issues where libertarians differ and ensure that the party remain more pure than not (determining that is not a mathematical problem, of course), and someone like Lee Wrights would be on said Council. But bombastic ideologues are a dime-a-dozen; I'd wager that Wrights has just as much undetrsanding of the "issues" as we all do here, but that doesn't mean an H&R commenter should be the face of the party, either.

  • mr simple||

    You're right, and if I thought the LP had a chance of winning I'd be more worried about actual governing ability. But then we'd probably get nominees who had both purity and leadership.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But if they agreed to nominate an H&R commenter, which one would it be?

  • sloopyinca||

    A Warty/NutraSweet 2016 ticket is just what this party, nay this country needs.

  • ||

    A Warty/NutraSweet 2016 ticket is just what this party, nay this country cuntry needs.

    FTFY. :-)

  • sloopyinca||

    Doc, you magnificent bastard!

    How long can we cuntinue doing this?

  • ||

    How long can we cuntinue doing this?

    Depends on how prolific one's cuntrariansim is. Endurance and tenacity are noted cuntrarian traits.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Where does STEVE SMITH fit into a Warty/NutraSweet ticket? Secretary of Rape?

  • sloopyinca||

    I figured Warty would leave Napolitano in charge of the TSA, so I'd wager on HHS.

  • Nephilium||

    Come on you two, you cunt be serious.

  • ||

  • PantsFan||

    Vote for Warty and there would horrors men had never dreamed of.

  • ||

    Needz moar juice. The precious juice.

  • ||

    Whore-ers of whore-ers!

  • ||

    FEAR IS HIS ALLY

  • Virginian||

    Morons. The prophecy tells us that the first child born of two Hit and Run denizens shall be The Stallion Who Mounts The World. This discussion is moot.

    If I were you, I'd start buying Buckeyes gear.

  • Randian||

    I nominate Fluffy.

  • ||

    Speaking of, where has the Fluffster been of late?

  • Adamson||

    So you'd rather have as the face of the party a man who just a couple months ago was running for the nomination of another party, to compete against the LP's nominee? Sounds like Gary Johnson qualifies to be the two-faced nominee.

  • Randian||

    *yawn* again, yo. Most libertarians come to us via the Republican party. We're just lucky to have someone this "prominent". Suck it up and deal.

  • Adamson||

    Most Libertarians spend some time working in the party structure, getting to know the party, before waking up one morning and deciding to assume the highest post the party can offer, that of the Presidential Nominee. We now see how wonderful Bob Barr was for us - I suspect we'll be having the same buyers' remorse in four years about Mr. Johnson.

  • db||

    I think I'll be donating to both Johnson's and Paul's campaigns this year. The more exposure libertarian views can get, the better.

  • Thorbie||

    I'm glad Johnson's finally getting some recognition with a crowd that appreciates him. With Johnson on the ballot, I can vote knowing I'm picking a candidate with the best track record and policies to turn this country around.

  • jzthestampede||

    NOTA is always an option.

  • BMFPitt||

    If he's on the ballot in NJ, I might just vote for him. He'd be the first Presidential candidate on the ballot I'll ever vote for, if so.

  • Captain Freedom||

    He has my vote, even if he can't get support of the Paultards. A much better choice than Bob Barr.

  • PantsFan||

    Riggs just gave a twitter shout out to Banjo and Sloopy

  • sloopyinca||

    Serious question: Banjos just called the Garmin a cunt. Would the people in the back seat stop taking libertarians seriously because I have the voice setting on Female English (American)? Would we lose credibility if I had said it instead of her?*

    *There are no people in the back seat. The fuckers ran away.

  • db||

    Do you mean your GPS? I hope that's not some sort of nickname for Mr. Johnson.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Banjos can do whatever Banjos wants.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, she was talking to the GPS. It gave us the wrong directions to our hotel as well. It must have felt othered.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Microaggressed microprocessors?

  • Mike Laursen||

    Great! This is the first time in years they'll be a Presidential candidate on my ballot that I want to vote for!

  • Ray||

    The first LP nominee ever *not* to support cutting taxes - at all! I guess he needs to pay for invading Uganda. It'll all be worth it; he'll "challenge Congress on marriage equality," as he said in his passionless platitude-filled focus-grouped speech in which he didn't take a single position that would be out of place in The New Republic.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    But he is talking about balancing the budget and cutting spending by 43%. That's huge. If he can achieve the spending cuts, that clears the way for tax cuts. In the meantime, if we can transition to a simple consumption tax -- which will be in everyone's face all the time but allow for elimination of the IRS, that will be an improvement right there, and we can soon turn our attention to lowering the rate of that tax as the realities of a slimmed-down government permit. Johnson articulates a path to a future that libertarians want, but he is wisely not promising to give it to us all at once. If he is to be honest with us, he CANNOT make such promises, because only certain things will be under Presidential control. But he asserts, and I agree, that much can be done with the veto power. Frankly, I'd like to see him get the chance to demonstrate that for us.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Johnson said several times this weekend, in so many words, that 1) the Fair Tax would be better than what we have now; 2) He would, in office, campaign to eliminate even that. From any other politician, I would perhaps suspect cynical pandering, or at least naive grandstanding. But as NM governor, Johnson did veto tax/fee increases at an amazing rate, while striving to make the State government live within its means. He joked that, because of his efforts, the people of his state wave at him with all five fingers, instead of just one. Johnson also pointed to his excellent record on civil liberties. Finally, he said that he had always been a libertarian, and tried to behave as one in office. His record is at least consistent with that assertion. All of this (including the nomination of Judge Jim Gray for VP candidate), leaves me very optimistic for the LP campaign this year.

  • Ray||

    "2) He would, in office, campaign to eliminate even that."

    Really? Do you have a quote for that?

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Go to http://www.c-span.org/Events/L.....37430422/. This is the candidate debate from Friday night. Start watching at 1:15:53, to get context. The quote you seek is at 1:16:42.

  • sloopyinca||

    One day, I will run for President. And my platform will be that if Congress does not abolish the income tax, I will pardon every person who gets prosecuted for it. And I'll either abolish or revoke the ability of the Fed to print notes.

    Hell, that might even placate the 99%er assholes that just want free shit.

  • Thomas O.||

    I think it's quite possible to make a serious dent in the Romnama/Obamney contest. What we need is some generous donors and a comprehensive, elaborate, attention-getting media campaign that hits at the heart of the faults in both parties.

    Oh yeah, and let's vet this Gray guy as soon as possible... because you know Team Obama and Team Romney will stock up on their bomb ammunition if Johnson/Gray grab some serious percentages in the polls.

  • zamoracarl711||

    what Peter implied I'm blown away that some one able to get paid $8171 in 4 weeks on the computer. did you look at this website makecash16.cøm

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement