Election 2012

Gary Johnson Gains Support And May Take Ohio Out of Play for Romney

|

Gary Johnson

The usual wisdom is that, as election day grows closer, support for third-party candidates tends to shrivel as the voting public heeds the tribal war drums and comes home to Team Red or Team Blue in a ritualistic display of political masochism that could be topped only by the sight of actual hair-shirted flagellants lined up to enter the polling booths. That third-party shrinkage may not be happening this year, though — or not yet, at least. A new poll from Ohio shows Gary Johnson gaining support, even as press reports emphasize the hold-your-nose-quality in which both major-party candidates marinate, and which may have voters looking elsewhere for options.

Conducted September 21-22, a Gravis Marketing/Capitol Correspondent poll first asked the usual Obama or Romney question, which revealed a tight race. (The full results are here.)

  • Obama/Biden: 45.2%
  • Other/Unsure: 10.4%
  • Romney/Ryan: 44.3%

Then, Gary Johnson was added.

  • Johnson: 10.6%
  • Obama/Biden: 44.5%
  • Other/Unsure: 7.1%
  • Romney/Ryan: 37.8%

Not so tight, anymore. And Johnson's numbers are up from September 7-8, when he pulled 4.5% in Ohio.

If this is a break from the usual all-power-to-the-institutional-parties phenomenon, why would that happen? Well, note that, in Ohio, both Romney and Obama have higher unfavorables than favorables. When asked about Obama's job performance, 46.4 percent disapprove, and 45.3 percent approve (8.3 percent are unsure). When asked their opinions of Romney, 44.4% are unfavorable and 41.1 percent are favorable (14.6 percent are, somehow, still unsure).

The recent nation-wide Reason-Rupe Poll (PDF) also found both Obama and Romney upside down in terms of public opinion, with 50 percent disapproving of the president's performance on the economy* compared to 47 percent approval, and 49 percent holding an unfavorable opinion of Romney compared to 41 percent favoring him. That poll found national support for Johnson at six percent.

This wide-ranging dislike for what the major political parties have coughed up as their team leaders this year squares very strongly with a recent Bloomberg Businessweek article pointing out:

Never have American voters re-elected a president whose work they disapprove of as much as Barack Obama's. Not that Mitt Romney can take much comfort — they've never elected a challenger they view so negatively, either.

Unless things change dramatically, this Election Day will mark a first, no matter who wins. The victor will be a sitting president with a slow economy, 8 percent-plus unemployment and an average Gallup job-approval rating below 50 percent. Or he'll be a challenger who isn't liked personally by a majority of the public and faces notable discord within his own party.

Of course, third-party support could still shrivel by election day. But it's interesting to see Johnson's support apparently growing this close to America's regularly scheduled festival of political disappointment.

*Note: I originally pulled numbers from the wrong line of the poll. Obama has overall favorables in the Reason-Rupe poll, but an unfavorable rating on his handling of the economy, which has shaped up as moderately important this year.

NEXT: Swiss Reject Burqa Ban

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.

  1. as the voting public heeds the tribal war drums and comes home to Team Red or Team Blue in a ritualistic display of political masochism

    Damn that’s beautiful.

    1. *does [RACIST!] “tomahawk chop” in response to [RACIST!] tribal drums*

      1. Hail to the Redskins!
        Hail Victory!
        Braves on the Warpath!
        Fight for old D.C.!

        1. My wife sings that sometimes when she wants to annoy me. She’s from Northern Virginia.

          I will say one thing good about the Redskins–the original Joe Gibbs teams is one of my favorite ever in style of play. “Lighten up, Sandy baby.”

          1. The Redskins stole our FSU chant too? I knew Deion Sanders brought it to Atlanta when he played for the Braves, but what the hell! Does every team with a Native American mascot copy our style now?

        2. BTW, what is the back story to this, if anyone has heard a sound rumor they feel comfortable sharing?

          The U.S. attorney’s office said Hurd, a former walk-on basketball player at the school where Griffin won the Heisman Trophy, contacted one of Griffin’s agents in June with a demand of $1 million in order not to release information that would damage the quarterback’s reputation.

          1. “a former walk-on basketball player at the school where Griffin won the Heisman Trophy”

            They couldn’t just say Baylor? I am going to speculate and say RGIII is not the choir boy nice guy the media wants him to be.

            1. Wasn’t the Baylor basketball team better paid than 4 or 5 NBA squads?

              1. If that was the case then how come their men’s team (probably) wouldn’t be able to beat their women’s team, much less an NBA team?

      2. As an FSU alumnus, I should Point out that it’s not racist when we do it ?.

    2. Of course, third-party support could still shrivel by election day.

      Doesn’t it always? What did third party support look like at the end of September the last few elections, compared to election day?

      1. Of course, third-party support could still shrivel by election day.

        Well, it gets cold by election day.

      2. I did a Google News search for stories about Bob Barr from late September of 2008, and it looks like his poll numbers were generally being reported at around 1-3%, so Johnson’s still doing better at this point in the campaign.

        My naively optimistic Libertarian phase ended sometime around November 2004, so yeah, I’ll be shocked if Johnson’s vote total even approaches some of these poll numbers, but I won’t be surprised at all if he has a better showing than any previous Libertarian.

      3. I’m not looking that hard, but I can’t even find any poll numbers for Michael Badnarik from September 2004. So…he wasn’t doing well, I’m guessing.

      4. Frankly I will be surprised if GJ breaks a half of a percent nationally. Not his fault or even the voters’ really–he won’t be included in the debates or 99.5% of the media coverage.

        I think he is on a college tour. Too bad college kids don’t vote overall. Maybe he should be touring retirement homes.

  2. Of course, third-party support could still shrivel by election day. But it’s interesting to see Johnson’s support apparently growing this close to America’s regularly scheduled festival of political disappointment.

    Have no fear; as they walk into the voting booth, most of those people will panic at the thought that the “wrong” plutocratic millionaire might win and vote for the second least unpopular plutocratic millionaire.

  3. The best possible thing that could happen in this election is a major shift to the LP. Even if that didn’t reach Reform or Bull Moose Party heights, it would be significant and would get serious attention.

    I’ll believe it when I see it, but if there were an election where it could happen, this is it. The LP has a non-embarrassment candidate who has some name recognition, and the disenchantment with the status quo is palpable.

    1. I don’t believe it’s at all likely. LP has had non-embarrassment candidates in the past, and you just don’t remember how high discontent with the status quo has appeared at those times too. I don’t believe this poll is predictive.

      Why would Gary Johnson do so much better in the general election than he had been doing in Republican primaries — either closed primaries where only Republicans could vote, or open primaries where all those registered to vote could vote? It doesn’t make sense that Romney could so thoroughly cream Johnson then and not do so again just months later.

      1. I’m not saying it will work out that way; I’m just saying it’s possible.

        We haven’t had this sort of economic distress since the late 70s/early 80s, so this is different.

        I also think GJ has credibility lacking in really any previous LP candidate, simply because he was a governor.

      2. Ron Paul was an option in those primaries. He got two million votes in a pretty limited pool. Without him on the ballot, I think Johnson can grab a decent chunk of those people.

        1. pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-open borders…. I don’t think GJ is getting much of the conservative RP voters.

          1. Nobody but you and SIV will care.

          2. Hasn’t Romney at some point or another been all of those things?

      3. Ron Paul
        Non-Inclusion in debates
        Non-Inclusion in polls

        The saddest thing isn’t that the last two are still a problem for Johnson…the saddest thing is that the first is still a problem for Johnson.

        1. Gary Johnson has a right to all libertarians’ votes? Wow.

          1. Fuck off, Tulpa. You can come back after the election.

          2. No one has a right to anyone’s vote.

            Paultards trying to start a movement to write-in the name of a guy no longer running, and constantly lying about the views of Johnson to confuse other Paultards in service of this destructive idea, IS problematic, though.

            But I’ve seen you lie about Johnson several times, so I know where you fall on that one.

            1. Where have I lied?

              Is he not in favor of abortion being legal?

              Is he not in favor of open borders?

              Is he not in favor of unleashing gay marriage?

              1. And what is wrong with any of the above?

              2. You’ve lied about Gary Johnson in this thread.

                “Unleashing gay marriage”? Jesus. How long until hordes of pink mobs run our streetz?!

                Like I said, no one owns anyone else’s vote. If some section of the Paul vote thinks that hanging on to incursions against personal freedom in the name of their personal morality is more important than ending the military adventurism and economic bukkake, more power to them.

                But Gary Johnson’s campaign unquestionably suffers from that large group of cult members who think that Ron Paul invented this ideology, that he is the only candidate committed to it, that any other politican is a neocon who will sell out the movement, and that it’s ok to spread disinformation if it keeps the spotlight on your not-even-running-anymore octagenarian. They’re fucking nut jobs, every bit as deluded by their tunnel-vision fealty to their messiah as the worst Obamaphant or GOP boot licker.

      4. The Republican Primary had an unusually large number of candidates and Gary Johnson simply got edged out. In retropect, much of that field of candidates were not qualified to serve as president. Gary Johnson is. If record means anything Obama is also unqualified.

        1. Aside from Herman Cain, who are you talking about?

      5. You are foolish. As a republican he had to go up against Ron Paul.

        Not sure there are very many Johnson supporters that favor him over Ron Paul.

        Get REal.

  4. Never have American voters re-elected a president whose work they disapprove of as much as Barack Obama’s. Not that Mitt Romney can take much comfort ? they’ve never elected a challenger they view so negatively, either.

    I looked this up the other day, but prior to the debates, you could have said the same thing about Reagan and Carter (or at least, pretty close).

    And then the debates happened.

    1. What suggests to you that Romney is even remotely capable of something approaching Reagan’s debate performance?

      1. I think Romney does have a chance if he gets under Obama’s skin.

        Obama falls apart when he is put on the spot. The right circumstances, i could see Obama looking childish while Romney looks presidential (whatever the fuck that means).

        But, to work, it will depend on the media framing the scenario as I have described. Wich ain’t going to happen. See the whole Benghazi thing, were Romney’s criticism of Obama was the gaffe, while Obama’s team shitting themselves in public was presidential (again whatever the fuck that means).

        1. Obama gets mad, Romney get deer in the headlighted. I remember when Newt made romney stutter repeatedly in the south carolina debates. Granted, Newtie was spouting absolute nonsense, but I thought romney’s circuits were about to melt. So did Newt from the smirks he was giving romney…

          1. Obama has “don’t talk too much” and “stay cool” burned into his brain. Can’t report on Romney’s debate prep, but I would say the best he can do is to stick to talking points as much as possible. His major problem is his party’s policy platform is completely indefensible. He’ll probably try to stay on the attack.

            The expectations-setting remarks of the campaigns that came out today are quite amusing. Obama’s and Romney’s teams effusively praising each other as godlike debating geniuses.

            1. Oh look, some doorbell ringer for the Obama campaign is talking like an insider.

              1. For him, being a fluffer is like being an insider.

                1. For him, being a fluffer is like being an insider.

                  Well something’s definitely “inside”.

            2. Obama has “don’t talk too much” and “stay cool” burned into his brain.

              Hence the tweet of the back of his chair the morning after the Eastwood speech?

              1. Could have been a staffer. It won’t be a staffer at the debates.

            3. The expectations-setting remarks of the campaigns that came out today are quite amusing. Obama’s and Romney’s teams effusively praising each other as godlike debating geniuses.

              I’ll give you that point. I noticed that as well. Who would fall for such blatent … oh crap.

            4. Obama has “don’t talk too much” and “stay cool” burned into his brain.

              Hahaha, that’s rich. This is the president who has to comment on every single issue that comes up, whether it’s related to politics or not.

              1. If Obama had had a son, it would look like the guy who intercepted the ball in the Packers’ end-zone.

            5. His major problem is his party’s policy platform is completely indefensible.

              You said “completely indefensible”, but I think you meant to say “largely indistinguishable from the Democrats'”.

        2. Romney is too nice to do what he needs to do to win. Which is precisely why the RNC propped him up.

          1. He has to channel his inner teenage bully. Just visualize giving the half-breed an atomic wedgie. That should give him the edge.

        3. Obama will say two contradictory things in the same sentence and the media will eat it up. Example in one of his state of the union addresses when talking about republicans he said “I’m willing to listen, but the time to talk is over” So how do you listen if we can’t talk.

        4. Obama falls apart when he is put on the spot. The right circumstances, i could see Obama looking childish while Romney looks presidential (whatever the fuck that means).

          The right circumstances being Walter Williams taking Romney’s place.

          1. So long as Williams doesn’t have his mind geared for a rant.

            I’ve read some Lew Rockwell doozies where he is coming from left field and makes the ‘back in my day’ bs complaints.

            Otherwise I think Walter is a very very bright liberty-centric mind.

            He’s no ‘THE JUDGE’ though.

        5. But, to work, it will depend on the media framing the scenario as I have described.

          so …. it can’t happen.

        6. “Whatever the fuck that means” pretty much applies to your whole post…

      2. What suggests to you that Romney is even remotely capable of something approaching Reagan’s debate performance?

        Nothing. Just pointing out the similarity of the dynamics. Although the Obama team seems to be worried about Romney’s debate performance.

        And everyone knows Obama is going to say absolutely nothing new. He’ll prattle on about shared sacrifice, economic patriotism, “having the wealthy pay just a little bit more”, nurses, teachers, and firefighters blah blah fuckity blah.

        1. Romney doesn’t have to anything amazing. He just needs to stand up for himself, call Obama on his lies, and lay out a vision for smaller government.

          1. That’s like saying all I have to do is grow adamantium claws and give myself regeneration powers.

          2. but instead of smaller government Romney will probably be making pledges to help more people. In other words lets spend and that always requires more buracracy.

          3. The only problem is Romney is the king of liars…now Ron Paul could have scored major points against Obama…but Romney? not likely…

        2. Romney should just study the full writings of Mussolini and the Italian fascist party, and find something similar sounding for every semi-honest statement Il Douchey makes. For the lies and evasions, just point to his record or make the subtext explicit or point out the logical flaws.

      3. It depends on how he decides to act during the debates. If he decides to answer questions as best he can, he’ll smoke Obama because he’s much more intelligent. If he decides to answer questions based on what he thinks people most want to hear, the debates will be a wash, because Romney actually isn’t all that good at pandering.

        1. Romney much more intelligent? WHere is the evidence for that? This is the fucking idiot who wonder why he can’t roll the window down on his plane and ties his dog to the top of his car…intelligent? Jesus Christ!!!!

          1. The evidence is everything he accomplished in his life, beginning with graduating with honors from Harvards’ business law schools.

            As opposed to Obama, who has failed at literally everything to which he has put his hand.

  5. a ritualistic display of political masochism that could be topped only by the sight of actual hair-shirted flagellants lined up to enter the polling booths

    I’d show up at the polls to watch that, I have to admit.

  6. 10.6%? How much does a candidate have to have in order to be “in the debates”? Obviously they will change the rules, but humor me.

    1. 15% average, nationally.

      But seriously, that’s really impressive? I know LP candidates have polled 4-5% before, but have the ever broken 10% in multiple states?

    2. It’s 15%.

      1. And if a libertarian or Green gets to 15%, they’ll probably raise it to 20%.

        1. They won’t have to, they get to select the polls from which they draw data. And nothing says any third party candidates even have to be included on those polls.

  7. Hmmm. Maybe I’ll vote for Gary Johnson instead of for myself.

    Naaaaah – fuck all of ’em

    Almanian – 2012
    We’re Ridin’ This Ship All The Way To Davey Jones’ Locker!

  8. One day, in the distant future, perhaps the Libertarian Party can find itself an impure, compromised, lesser-of-two-evils, unacceptable statist regime, that is to say, win some elections.

    1. And maybe one day you’ll get married, laffo.

    2. perhaps the Libertarian Party can find itself an impure, compromised, lesser-of-two-evils, unacceptable statist regime, that is to say, win some elections.

      Please try entering your comment in English next time.

      1. He’s saying the only way to win elections is to compromise. He’s right.

        1. He’s saying the only way to win elections is to compromise. He’s right

          Which is why the Federal Government of the United States is utterly doomed. 🙂

          Go Democrats! Run it into the ground faster!

        2. So let’s drone some brown kids and throw some more potheads in prison — FTW!
          Come, on — totally worth it!
          Jesus, after the past four years, I now hate hypocritical Ds more than I hate mouth-breathing Rs. I really do.

          1. I now hate hypocritical Ds more than I hate mouth-breathing Rs. I really do.

            We can’t be surprised when their 2012 platform removed all of that talk about indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, torture, etc.

            They aren’t hypocrites. By their own terms, they don’t give a fuck about this stuff.

            1. Obama did end torture. Romney’s advisers want to bring it back.

              But I suppose all that matters is other people’s hypocrisy.

              1. Obama did end torture

                I’ll bet you $100 Tony that within 30 years documentation will come out that the fed gove continued to torture with Obama admin acceptance, either directly or indirectly through the use of extraordinary renditions.

                1. Why wait?

                  “‘The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday.” (August 24, 2009).'”

              2. Obama did not end sending people to other countries which means their being tortured.

              3. Yup, he did that right after he closed Guantanamo…

            2. But free condoms. So there ya go.

            3. Obama ended our use of torture, and Romney says he will reinstate it.

              http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09……html?_r=0

              1. Wow. It’s like you guys get the same newsletter or something.

              2. Despite Obama’s executive order banning torture, Americans who allege they have been detained abroad by foreign governments at the United States’ request say they have been abused while in custody. It does not appear as though anyone will face charges over the Bush administration’s torture program, including those who went beyond its legal guidelines.

                1. MoJo on warrantless wiretapping:

                  2012: The platform is silent on this issue. This isn’t surprising since, at the urging of the Obama administration, congressional Democrats passed up the opportunity to reform the PATRIOT Act when they had a majority in both houses of Congress.

                  The Democrats are fucking scum and a joke. Seriously, man up and die, the both of you.

                  1. You expect the republicans to be better on that issue?

                    Good luck with that.

                    1. You expect the republicans to be better on that issue?

                      Jesus. You really are dim, no?

                    2. You expect the republicans to be better on that issue?

                      No. That would be why I am not voting Republican. So what the hell is your excuse?

                      MoJo on Obama Budget: Grow Prisons and Keep Gitmo

                    3. OK, well given that there is a zero percent chance of Johnson winning, by supporting Obama over Romney I support the best possible option.

                    4. OK, well given that there is a zero percent chance of Johnson winning, by supporting Obama over Romney I support the best possible option.

                      Right, so in other words, you support someone who expanded the drone wars, conducted an illegal war, endorses warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention, and signed the 2011 NDAA…and executed an American citizen without due process.

                      Because he’s “better”.

                      You. Are. Scum.

                    5. Puting “better” in scare quotes does not make it less true. He is better.

                    6. You’re right he is “BETTER” (ooh more scare quotes)!

                      But so is Randian….you are scum!

                    7. You think Romney is going to scale back drone usage, wait for congressional approval to attack Iran, stop warrantless wiretapping, or reintroduce due process for military detainees?

                    8. To the Hitandrunpublicans who justify supporting Romney because he’s “better” and the “lesser of evils,” you sound just like Derider

                    9. The Derider| 9.28.12 @ 11:09AM |#
                      “OK, well given that there is a zero percent chance of Johnson winning, by supporting Obama over Romney I support the best possible option.”

                      Oh, goody! Propaganda from deidiot!

                    10. If you’re so sure Gary Johnson will lose, why not vote for him?

                    11. No, you support a horrible, evil option. If Hitler is running to unseat Mussolini, the ethical thing to do is not vote. You can’t stop them from gaining power, but that doesn’t obligate you to help.

                    12. You expect the republicans to be better on that issue?

                      I love it! Joe’s reduced to whining that as bad as the Democrats are, the Republicans aren’t going to be better!

                      Joe, your mendacity actually gives me pleasure. The more you post, the more you show what a pethetic loser you become, and the more pleasure I derive from it.

                    13. That’s been the truth of American electoral politics since they started.

                      Third parties just don’t work.

                    14. The Republican Party used to be a third party…

                    15. tarran…only pathetic losers talk like you.

                    16. You expect the republicans to be better on that issue?

                      No, but they won’t be any worse and are far better on other issues. I can’t think of a single relevant issue on which BO is better than MR from a liberty perspective.

                    17. It’s not that Republicans will be better, it’s that the mainstream media doesn’t cheerlead for Republicans, so their abuses get more publicity.

              3. Aww, twins!

                1. Aww, twins!

                  Damn peopel for refuting you andf Tony’s talking points with those pesky facts! Damn them to hell!

                  1. Nobody refuted what Tony and I wrote.

                    We no longer torture people in US custody. Romney would bring it back.

                    1. You willing to bet $100 dollars, bet to be settled in 30 years?

                    2. You should lock that shit up tighter — if we’re sending people to be tortured in other countries, for example, that should still count.

                    3. Make the bet, Derider. I’ll bet you $200.

                    4. Alright, so we supposedly don’t torture people. So great we moved on to the enlightened practice of locking them up indefinitely with no due process. And that’s when we don’t just drone strike them to death first

                    5. The Derider| 9.28.12 @ 11:00AM |#

                      Obama ended our use of torture, and Romney says he will reinstate it.

                      The Derider| 9.28.12 @ 11:08AM |#

                      Nobody refuted what Tony and I wrote.

                      We no longer torture people in US custody. Romney would bring it back.

                      Warning: goal posts may suddenly and without warning be moved.

              4. Bradley Manning. That is all.

          2. The other day Tony said he thinks less medicare spending is worse than drone striking innocent people.

            The compromise there is, he gets old people while we get dead people. Or something.

          3. So let’s drone some brown kids and throw some more potheads in prison — FTW!

            Well that’s the compromise. We didn’t kill all of them.

      2. Them libertarians, if they ever won one’a them e-lections, they might have to make some’a them de-cisions and compermises ‘n shit.

        1. Ah, lie and pass out free shit.

        2. Ah, no, Tony, please read your comment again and try not to be a condescending douchebag this time:

          One day, in the distant future, perhaps the Libertarian Party can find itself an impure, compromised, lesser-of-two-evils, unacceptable statist regime,

          How does one ‘find a regime’, exactly?

          1. It will “find itself to be an…” Understood “to be.”

            1. Ha ha, dipshit. Like I said, next time try not to be condescending when you are obviously unable to communicate properly.

              1. What he posted is grammatically correct.

                1. I can guarantee you it ain’t.

                2. What he posted is grammatically correct.

                  How does one find a regime?

                  1. How does one find a regime?

                    You buy a plane ticket to Washington National Airport, then take the Metro to the White House. It’s not hard!

                    /rimshot.

                  2. Like he said, the “to be” is implicit and understood.

                    1. Like he said, the “to be” is implicit and understood

                      No, it is not. What he said was grammatically incorrect and you are both making up grammar rules to try to look smart. There are a few instances where the “to be” verb is implied, but omitting it from the middle of the sentence is not one of those times.

                      So (implied you) fuck off.

                    2. Someday you will find yourself reading the newspaper.

                      The “to be” is implicit and understood. Otherwise the sentence means you will find yourself by reading the newspaper.

                    3. If Tony had used “will”–as you did here–it would have been clearer. Try using “can” in your sentence.

                    4. Of course that can be read either way, but I’m fond of ambiguity.

                    5. Of course that can be read either way, but I’m fond of ambiguity.

                      Yes we know. Ambiguity on rights, ambiguity on war, ambiguity on torture. Why be flip flop Romney when you can be drunk haze Obama.

          2. I think Tony’s right. OR at least not wrong. Just slightly ambiguous.

    3. At which point they’ll be libertarian in name only. In other words it will be pointless. Participating in this corrupt game you fuckers are running is a losing proposition, period.

      Go find somebody else to play your little three-card monte.

      1. Liberals already ruined what it meant to be ‘liberal’. That’s why we invented the word ‘libertarian’ in the first place. So I guess the same thing could happen to the new word as well.

        What word will we use next after the Statists co-opt ‘libertarian’?

        1. “What word will we use next after the Statists co-opt ‘libertarian’?”

          Ever read John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”? His whole “do what you like without harming others” philosophy jives well with libertarians, maybe we can call ourselves “Millists”.

      2. If those who favor liberty refuse to govern, those who govern will not favor liberty.

    4. I think what he’s saying is that if the LP ever wins any elections, The commentariot will hold that the party is now impure, compromised, etc. In other words, he’s saying HityRunners are political hipster douchebags.

      1. “I was a libertarian before it was cool just another statist party.”

        1. I think most libertarians wouldn’t be against abolishing political parties.

  9. Of course, third-party support could still shrivel by election day.

    Oh, it will. But it would be nice to throw some legit small government scare into the Republican establishment before then. (The Democrats don’t care.)

    1. I prefer them ignoring us, rather than pretending that they’re not ignoring us.

  10. I demand sweet yummy republican tears. and wailing…with gnashing of teeth.

    1. Maybe you didn’t notice they haven’t been the party in charge the last four years. And they didn’t pass nationalized health care.

      I am voting Libertarian, but the only other rational course of action is to, to paraphrase 2008 Ron Bailey, punish the Democrats and punish them hard.

      1. maybe you haven’t noticed how much they tried to grind ron paul and his gang into the ground for the last 4 years and pretend like their party hasn’t been a complete and utter failure…and then decide more of the same is the cure for their disease?

        1. You want a guess at how the Dems would treat Ron Paul and his supporters if he tried to alter their platform or take their nomination?

          1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
            Just say it Tulpa. Libertarians aren’t welcome to provide opinions in the Republican party. We knew that, so just admit it.

            1. I thought the GOP establishment’s treatment of the Paul people was terrible. However:

              1. It’s not like Paul was going to win and they stole the nomination. He didn’t win the popular vote in a single state. Paul’s team tried to use technicalities to make up for this fact, but live by the technicality, die by the technicality.

              2. Handing the country over to BO and his lackeys is wildly disproportionate in response to this.

              1. do nothing is a disproportionate response to be told to sit down and shut up….i’ll remember that.

        2. Another four years of Obama will soothe your butthurt about Ron Paul.

  11. Johnson’s pulling .7% from Obama and 6.5% from Romney.

    A strong libertarian party is a guarantee of Democratic electoral success. Godspeed!

    1. Yep, republicans have always needed libertarians, but continue to treat us like shit. Be seeing you.

      1. This is like a girl doing a triple penetration with three strangers and filming it for her boyfriend because he didn’t text her often enough. Will you be happy when Obama’s replacements for Scalia and Thomas overturn Heller and Citizens United?

        1. That analogy is kinky and odd. Do you have a newsletter with more of these I can subscribe to?

        2. Are those guys retiring? And I guess we’re supposed to be thrilled when Romney nominates the next John Roberts? The conservative justices still suck, that’s not a legitimate argument in favor of Romney

          1. Despite his Obamacare ruling, John Roberts is still infinity billion times better than Kagan or Sotomayor. And that’s rounding down.

            1. Don’t get me wrong, the liberal justices suck, but I think the conservative justices get way too much of a pass for their terrible decisions, especially regarding civil liberties.

            2. Sotomayor hasn’t sucked nearly as bad as I was expecting (and she wasn’t around for CU or Heller, so maybe she’d surprise).

              But, I wouldn’t want to take the chance.

        3. Yes, I will!

        4. Libertarians won’t be happy until the GOP completely implodes and the Democrats use their ensuing multi-generational dominance of the federal government to reinstate New Deal-style price controls, quotas, and rationing.

          Because if there’s one thing libertarians like less than living under full-blown totalitarian socialism, it’s bumbling conservatives.

          1. yep, i fully expect to be living in concentration camps by the end of obama’s 2nd term….

            …the fainting going on in neocon and socon circles is enough to make me give even less of a shit what they think. go crawl back in your cave.

            1. It pleases me.

        5. Or she’s just leaving him because he’s a rapist. Can you just leave until after the election? You’re brain is clearly on auto-TEAM pilot here.

  12. So with Ohio no longer in play, why waste your vote on Romney? Or on Obama?
    At the bar last night with some other reporters, one announced that because Obama has turned out to be such a lying bastard, he’s voting Johnson.
    I didn’t buy him a beer, but I thought about it.

    1. My pal must be Derider’s .7%

    2. I guess it’s good that some Obama supporters are coming around, but why did anyone over the age of 5 trust him in the first place? “shoot, I really thought the waters were going to recede and he was going to heal everybody!”

    3. People say lots of things at bars.

      And you’re playing right into the poll-industrial complex’s agenda of demoralizing Romney supportes.

      1. Oh my God how pathetic. Get it through your head: Romney’s a loser. A lost puppy. A wasted vote.

  13. I’m surprised that Derider is admitting that most Dems are such hypocritical douches. Good for you, D!

    1. Most dems understand that voting for a third party is a good way to lose.

      We learned that with Nader in 2000.

      1. In a safe state, what does it matter?

        1. I agree.

          Ohio isn’t a safe state, though. It’s a must win for Romney.

          1. Word is it’s in the bag for Obama now. So why waste your vote?

            1. I think it’s premature to say Obama has a lock on Ohio, although it is starting to look that way.

              But given that Johnson is drawing 80% of his support from Romney there, I guess it’s a no loss proposition for me.

              1. It’s starting to look that way, or so goes the narrative.

                1. If by narrative you mean polling data, yes.

                  1. No, I mean the stories from the news that are written by Obama fluffers like you, joe.

                    1. Oh, Okay, I thought you were talking about the polling this blog post was about, joe.

                    2. That’s about the SIZE of it, joe.

      2. We already knew that you all were hypocrites and liars. You don’t have to repeat yourself, joe.

        1. Voting strategically =/= hypocrisy, joe.

          1. Trying to convince Randian or yourself?

          2. MoJo on indefinite detention:

            The Obama administration has maintained the practice of indefinitely detaining certain suspected terrorists. It has also made use of “proxy detention,” by which foreign countries detain US citizens under questionable conditions, although the administration did do away with the Bush-era “black sites.”

            1. So you mean Obama’s policies are demonstrably better than Bush’s, or what Romney is offering?

              I am shocked to read that!

              1. So you mean Obama’s policies are demonstrably better than Bush’s

                It’s a wash. To my knowledge, Bush never executed an American citizen without due process.

                1. What difference does citizenship make?

                  1. None to Obama, apparently.

                  2. What difference does citizenship make?

                    And here we see your true colors.

                    1. That I don’t think an american citizen’s life is worth any more or less than another human being’s life?

                      What an asshole I am!

                    2. You’re a real citizen of the world, Derriere. Say, what do you think about outsourcing and moving manufacturing jobs to other countries?

                    3. I support free trade and oppose tariffs.

                    4. And yet you will vote for Obama.

                      So, really, like, what the fuck ever, I guess?

              2. Sure, there are some areas where one candidates are marginally better than the other. The Romney-Ryan budget is ever-so-marginally better than Obama’s, but driving off the cliff at 80 MPH instead of 85 MPH is just prolonging the inevitable. Likewise, Obama may be marginally better on torture and not starting full-scale wars than Romney, but our foreign policy is as rephrensible and brutish as ever. If Romney continues down the NDAA citizen-assassination path, you can thank your guy for setting that up.

                1. So if Romney wins, we can expect 4 years of blaming Obama?

                  And Bush disappears down the memory hole.

                  1. If Romney wins, things will be MUCH worse than anyone* expected when he gets inaugurated.

                    * excluding students of Austrian economics

                2. driving off the cliff at 80 MPH instead of 85 MPH is just prolonging the inevitable

                  What do you think the whole field of medicine is about? Just because they don’t become immortal doesn’t mean people don’t want to live a little longer. Or postpone becoming crippled from an inevitable chronic disease.

              3. Well, you don’t have to torture them if you drone them to death.

      3. Lose what, joe? It’s not a team sport.

        1. It really is a team sport, joe.

          1. So Joe Boyle of Lowell Mass,

            How’s the telecom business treating you these days?

          2. This is your new tactic, then, is it, joe? Fuck. You really PWND us this time.

            1. You really PWND us this time.

              He’s probably squirming in delight in his tiny little chair.

            2. See, PWND was me, but I don’t have any idea who joe is. Other than that he apparently lived in Lowell and worked in the telecom industry. And was short. Get it, joe?

              1. See, PWND was me, but I don’t have any idea who joe is.

                Dude, you gave yourself away weeks ago with your writing style, and by running away everytime Episiarch outed you.

                It’s too late. Everyone knows who you are.

                1. You’re a spectacular pussy, joe. It’s amazing that a grown man could be this much of a coward. But then, you’re not really a man, are you?

                2. That’s your high standard of evidence?

                  Pretty weak, joe.

      4. Sell your soul to the devil you know. His unions will run the greens into the ground in any case.

  14. “The R3OLUTION just whipped out its:”

    Hadn’t seen that before. THAT’s awesome.

    1. Johnson trying pathetically to ride Ron Paul’s coattails is awesome?

      The guy can’t win any votes presenting himself so he tries to pose as the cool guy’s friend.

      1. Yeah, Tulpa. I’m sure Johnson authorized it. Hell, he probably photoshopped it himself.
        Is it too late to get MNG back to play this part?

        1. He didn’t make the image, but he is pushing the same line that RP voters must vote for him rather than write in Ron Paul.

          1. I know everyone wants to make and deride the “wasted vote” argument, but most write in’s literally end up in the trash can. State law, and all that.

  15. “Shrivel”… “Johnson”… I get it!

  16. The recent nation-wide Reason-Rupe Poll (PDF) also found both Obama and Romney upside down in terms of public opinion, with 50 percent disapproving of the president’s performance compared to 47 percent approval.

    Are we reading the same report?

    Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president? Likely Voters
    Approve 51%
    Disapprove 46%

    1. Thanks for noticing!

  17. That picture wins the Internets. Damn.

  18. Since I don’t follow it, what’s the general consensus in Paul-land? Are most voting for Johnson, writing in Paul or going Romney or Obama?

    1. I think most mainstream Paul fans, like most here, are going to vote for Johnson. Naturally, some of the full-bore Paultards are going to write-in Ron Paul, and when you call them retarded for doing so, they accuse Johnson fans of “alienating Ron Paul supporters”, because they’re Paultards and that’s what they do.

      1. Ron Paul has just as much chance of winning as Gary Johnson, so how the hell is it retarded to write him in? And if you’re making a protest vote or punishing the GOP or whatever, a vote for Paul has the same frigging effect.

        It amazes to see Johnson supporters pulling out the “don’t waste your vote” argument against Ron Paul supporters.

        1. Tulpa’s a Paultard? Sweet.

          1. Hardly, though I did vote Paul in 08 and 12 in the primaries. I’m voting for MR in the general, of course.

            Just flabbergasted at people who deny the “wasted vote” argument in one case and embrace it in another.

            1. Tulpa you live in Pennsylvania correct? Romney is not winning. Period. And that’s ignoring the fact that even in a battleground state your vote will never be the deciding one

            2. So voting for a guy who isn’t even on the ballot, (a vote that in many jurisdictions won’t even be counted) isn’t more of a wasted vote than voting for a guy who is?
              My head is spinning, indeed.

              1. Johnson’s vote counts will be ignored by and unknown to anyone other than libertarians by Nov. 8. Quick, how many votes did Barr get in 2008? (don’t look it up, I’m seeing if you know off the top of your head)

                  1. Wow. Actually 523,000. That’s much higher than I thought (obviously).
                    So 1 – 2 M certainly isn’t out of the question for Johnson. Sweet.

                1. Hey Tulpa can I get an answer to my question?

                    1. Why am I not surprised? I destroyed your logic for why you’re violating your principles, and you can’t face it

        2. I think a vote for Johnson probably is more noticeable. Just because we might actually see some vote totals for him. So probably more effective as middle finger to the GOP. If you still just want to write in Paul, cause Fuck You that’s why, I don’t really have a problem with that though.

        3. First, I don’t think it’s retarded to write in Ron Paul, although I know there are multiple states that simply don’t count write-ins. But the question is whether writing in Ron Paul is the best way to use your vote to advance libertarian principles. Since the sum total of votes for Ron Paul won’t likely be published, it doesn’t send any particular message to the GOP, unlike the number of votes for Johnson.

          For Paul fans, this is especially important: if Johnson gets 5-10% of the vote and Romney loses, that really puts Rand Paul in the best position to be the nominee in 2016, since the Republicans will want to avoid another spoiler and will have to address the unhappy libertarian wing that “abandoned” them.

          1. Since the sum total of votes for Ron Paul won’t likely be published, it doesn’t send any particular message to the GOP, unlike the number of votes for Johnson.

            Oh please. No one is going to care what Johnson’s vote totals are.

            The message a vote for GJ sends to the GOP is that your vote is impossible to get. So they’ll play more to the sociocons and the neocons, who are also more numerous than libertarians.

            1. If he gets anywhere close to double digits and is perceived by polls as the Romney spoiler who took all the disenfranchised Paul fans from the GOP, they certainly will. This race is likely going to be decided by fewer points than Johnson will likely win. Every time that happens, you have the (admittedly fallacious) spoiler debate.

            2. If Johson vote is more than Abs(Romney vote – Obama vote) in any state, they will care.

              Otherwise you are right, no body in the two private clubs which have conspired to take over our government from the inside will care.

        4. Ron Paul has just as much chance of winning as Gary Johnson

          Well, yeah, you know, except that Johnson is in the running for twice the required number of electors of 270, while Ron Paul is eligible for 0. Other than that, same same.

  19. Look what happened to the Dems after the Greens “cost” them Bush/Gore. They went whole hog to coopt the Greens number one issue, global warming, even though it meant they had to fuck the unions to do so.

    If Johnson somehow “costs” the Repubs this election, maybe we can finally get some leverage.

    1. and the greens are back in the fold. except for the full fanatic freaks.

    2. Yes, because Al Gore didn’t believe in global warming in 2000.

      1. Gotta agree with Derriere here.

        1. ~2% of the vote nationwide for Green in 2000 tells me that it wasn’t one of Gore or the party’s primary issues back then. The party started moving that direction after the 2000 election.

          It wasn’t even until 2006 that Gore’s “documentary” was released.

          1. He was an envirowhacko long before that. He wrote “Earth In the Balance” back in the late 80s.

    3. If Johnson somehow “costs” the Repubs this election, maybe we can finally get some leverage.

      Not going to happen!

      Look, the Green policies gave room for the Democrats to enrich themselves by ripping off the middle class. There was plenty of opportunity for coroporate welfare there.

      There is no plunder in libertarian policies. The Republicans will pay lip service to being libertarian while continuing their economic policies that lie between mercantilism and fascism. They won’t give up the gravy train and will copilot the Fed gov in its controlled flight into the terrain along with the Democrats.

      1. Good point, tarran. The Greens were easy to coopt because they are Total Statists just like the Dems. Not a fundamental conflict, even though they set up a nice little factional conflict with the unions.

        But, hey, those kind of intramural squabbles are made to be papered over with other people’s money, right?

        1. But, hey, those kind of intramural squabbles are made to be papered over with other people’s money, right?

          Of course! Subsidies for windfarms + requirement that thye be built with AFL-CIO labor would work perfectly!

        2. I would argue the Greens are less total statists than the Dems overall. Both want universal healthcare, but the Greens at least are generally civil libertarians and want to crush the military industrial complex.

          1. Yeah, I’ve noticed that. They tend to take civil liberties seriously and don’t make up intelligence insulting excuses at the drop of the hat like Dhimmicrats.

            I don’t even have close Dhimmi friends any longer but still have two who are Green and another whom I suspect to be so.

            1. They tend to take civil liberties seriously

              I honestly hadn’t noticed. Perhaps a link to the Greens bashing Dems on this point? Greens bashing Repubs is just the usual partisan/tribal pissing, but Greens bashing Dems might at least show they are serious.

              1. “They tend to take civil liberties seriously”

                then why is it that the greens are always claiming that those who speak out against global warming should be arrested just for speaking their opinion.

                1. Are you asking me to defend greens? Lower case greens at that? I’m not going to do that. I’m relating from my experience of who they tend to be. The GP types I know are not even aware of the eliminationist in their midst. I’m working on potential converts here. Would prefer to ease them into awareness and find common ground than hit them over the heads with the evil their creed is deducible too until properly prepared.

                  1. Yeah, I came to libertarianism from the Green Party, so it’s not like it’s impossible.

          2. really? they wail on about corporations, but put them in charge of a bureaucracy and they’ll be happy to put the thumb down on the first person that gets in their way. They’re statists to the core. They just don’t like it when others are in charge.

            1. Yes, really. They parse between economic liberties which they’ll totally put your ass in jail for not OBEYING the regulators, but will not do so over pot smoking, paying for the services of a prostitute, or even most free speech matters that are not campaign finance related.

            2. The Democrats do as well, but see no limits whatsoever on foreign policy or civil liberties violations, unlike the Green Party. My point was not that they aren’t statist – they are – but that they are technically somewhat less statist than the major parties.

              1. different type of statists. They’d be likely to place a limit on how long i can drive my car and how my farmer raises his cows and appeal the thumb of government to anyone who speaks against those policies.

      2. I don’t know, I think there’s plenty of opportunity for plunder in repealing MJ legislation.

        However, that would take effort, rather than just continuing to get slightly less plunder from the anti-MJ stuff already in place.

      3. The Republicans will pay lip service to being libertarian while continuing their economic policies that lie between mercantilism and fascism.

        Until we seize control.

  20. All the Dems got is — Obama will eat fewer babies than Romney! Maybe! Plus free condoms!

    So why the hell wouldn’t you vote Obama?

  21. I live in California where my vote never counts, due to the electoral college. So I will be voting for Gary Johnson since it’s pretty clear that Romney is just in it because thats the next step in his life, not because he will really be do anything to improve our country.I honestly believe once in, if he wins, he will claim Obama care is settled law and there is nothing he can do, several republicans have already said such.

    1. There’s nothing they can do because they won’t have a 60 vote majority in the Senate.

      1. neither did the democrats when they passed obamacare, but they found a way to procedural it through. The republicans will do the same.

        1. “The republicans will do the same.”
          they could but they won’t.

          1. what, are you thinking there are more ethics in the republican party? if so, you are sad, mistaken little man.

        2. The Senate passed Obamacare with 60 votes, before Brown was elected.

          The “rammed through” version after Brown’s election was the conference committee report reconciled with the House version.

    2. Nah, he’ll find a way to repeal the mandate/tax, but leave the rest of the unfunded in place. and when the hospitals balk, he’ll find a way to give them money so they’ll shut up. i see no reason why our deficit would shrink under romney. He has made no such promises to do so.

    3. I think you are right. He’ll do something symbolic, and that is all. It doesn’t matter much about Republican backstabbing on Obamacare because noncompliance is going to kill it.

      1. noncompliance only matters for the mandate. it will go on, just without funding until romney decides to increase the deficit to fund it.

        1. It also matters in that it will bankrupt private insurers when all the mandate-scoffers buy insurance the day they find out they need surgery.

          1. The insurers will threaten to use all of their remaining assets to teach the public how Congress is the reason none of them have health insurance anymore, and Congress will bail out the insurers. If they don’t, the Fed will.

      2. Romney actually has a real window of opportunity to gut OCare from the Oval Office.

        Aside from the fact that OCare depends entirely on agencies, which will be under Romney’s control, doing everything, of course.

        The IRS in particular has put out a rule that violates the terms of the statute by extending subsidies to individuals, and penalties to employers, in states that don’t have their own health insurance exchange.

        Have the IRS (which answers to Romney) pass a rule that mirrors the statute, and you have blown a gaping hole in OCare. One consistent, even, with a federalist “let the states experiment” approach.

  22. Look, you know babies are gonna be eaten. So don’t throw your vote away on some pie-in-the sky dream of a world where baby devouring is a thing of the past. Vote for the guy who’ll eat the fewest babies!

    1. I would. No matter how much you revile baby eating, or whatever, if you want to have some actual effect on the practice, you work realistically on reducing it, not shooting for abolition and winding up getting nowhere. If you insist on absolutely no baby eating, why should those who love baby eating take a single step in your direction?

      Baby eating is an extreme example, of course, but in your life in dealing with anyone over anything — family, business, etc. — you must have seen that adamancy gets you nowhere. Why would it be any different in politics?

  23. Obama has overall favorables in the Reason-Rupe poll, but an unfavorable rating on his handling of the economy

    It must be his expert handling of foreign policy that pulls up his overall rating.

  24. Obama has “don’t talk too much” and “stay cool” burned into his brain.

    Like he’ll stick to that plan.

    My prediction is he’ll put on his “Harvard Lecturer” hat, and give Mittens a stern scolding. If Mitt can just get under his skin a little bit (preferably by calling him out on some flagrant lie) he’ll expose himself as the petulant footstamping little tinpot authoritarian he really is.

    1. It’s just that Obama has so much more material to work with. Everything that comes out of Mitt’s mouth is a contradiction of something he said before, and Obama’s been studying up.

    2. I’ve heard somewhere that he killed Osama bin Laden with his bare hands.

      1. Nope. Fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

  25. Vote for the guy who’ll eat the fewest babies!

    How could you possibly vote for the sort of monster who would eat a baby in marinara sauce (with pasta)?

    Every rightthinking American knows babies are best eaten with a rich brown gravy, and the freshest of tiny red skinned potatoes!

  26. Obama has so much more material to work with.

    By all means, 0, run on your record!

    1. This poll has his job approval ratings above 50%, so that strategy could work.

      1. “The economy sucks ballz, the debt cannot even be counted it is so high, I golf instead of going to intel briefings, foreigners hate us and rape and kill our people…but I have a 50% poll rating!”

        Yeah, that would any debate, hands down.

  27. Four more years of Obama is not a good thing. I really like Gary Johnson and wish he were our front runner but Obama is the worst. His plans for this country are dangerous…especially with this latest speech to the UN…we better be careful.

  28. Enjoy life without the Second or First Amendments (and probably some others we haven’t thought of), Johnson voters.

    1. we’ll enjoy it as much as you do, 🙂

      1. So Tulpa is John? My head is spinning.

    2. With you voting for Romney that means there is more breathing room for me to vote for Johnson and keep my integrity and not compromise my principles. Otherwise, I would have to carry the burden and be the rat fink who betrayed his libertarianish soul and voted Romney to keep out the greater evil. Thanks for carrying my water for me, Tulpa. You’re a swell guy!

      That is how you see it, right?

      1. So if I buy toilet paper from a company that supports Sierra Club rather than one that supports PETA, have I compromised my integrity?

        1. Bad analogy, you are not buying anything, they are buying you.

    3. Our candidate is the one with the best stances on the 1st and 2nd amendment.

      So enjoy life without 1st or 2nd amendment, big government voters.

      1. Condoms for all! Condoms for none!
        Those are the only serious choices.

    4. How is Romney any better on either first of second ammendment issues? Romney is in favor of the AWB and Magazine capacity laws. He wants to start a war on porn. I also wouldn’t be suprised if Romney ends up pushing for limits on speech that’s offensive to religious people.

  29. Fuck. Just how many abortions does your typical Obamagal plan on having in a year that it would cost this much?

    Obama eCard for Women: ‘Can I Borrow $18,000 to Help Pay for My Birth Control?’

    Obama wins, put me down for stock in that industry.

    1. Latex allergies?

      1. I was thinking abortion mills but that might be worth considering too.

        1. We could save money by setting up a pennyroyal tea cafe in most major cities.

          1. Placed in the retail space between my monocle vendor and my tobacconist. Yes. Yes, indeed.

            1. In for a pipe and monocle. When Team Blue starts going full retard, I can post snarky images.

    2. I’m just waiting for the wailing and gnashing of teeth when “if we’re paying for your healthcare, your lifestyle choices are our business” eventually gets applied to sex. Instead of abstinence education, we’ll just have abstinence mandates. Birth control is, after all, thousands of dollars a year, but not fucking is free.

    3. Damn! This is impressive. $18000 a year? That’s $1500 a month. The average abortion costs $600. So that’s 2.5 abortions per month? Considering it’s anatomically impossible to get pregnant twice in a month, that’s pretty fucking impressive.

  30. Enjoy life without the Second or First Amendments (and probably some others we haven’t thought of), Johnson voters.

    [citation needed]

    1. That needs as much of a citation as the statement that cats have two ears.

    2. So Tulpa really is the new red T o n y.
      Color me not surprised.
      “Romney will eat fewer babies! HE’LL EAT FEWER BABIES!”

      1. So if you’re a superhero and there are two mass killings taking place at the same time, one with a machete and the other with a machine gun, which one do you go to?

        1. See. “He’ll eat fewer babies” is the ONLY thing Team Red and Team Blue have got.

        2. So, which side would you have joined if America had stayed out of WW2? The Nazis, or the Communists?

    3. [citation needed]
      Uh, that’s Tulpa. Why bother with facts when hyperbole will suffice?

  31. The more people learn about Gary Johnson, the more they like him. He has precious little time left to get into the debates and we should rally behind him to make it so. America deserves to hear what Gary Johnson has to say. As our liberties our diminished on a daily basis and our government plunges into an unrecoverable debt, we need a man with a track record like Governor Gary Johnson’s to get America on the right path.

    1. Tra la la! Tra la la! Tra la la la la!
      (Sound of the choir being sung to.)

    2. The more people learn about Gary Johnson, the more they like him.

      It’s more likely people are just frustrated with BO and MR. You could poll Herman Goering as the third candidate and he’d get 5%.

      1. It’s a combination of both.

      2. Wait. I thought your beef was that GJ was siphoning off votes from YOUR candidate, Tulpa. If the candidate doesn’t matter, why would that be?

  32. That needs as much of a citation as the statement that cats have two ears.

    Meaning what, exactly?

    “If you WASTE your vote on Johnson, Obama will be re-elected and then he will revoke the Constitution, send the Congress home and impose martial law!”

    You sound just as retarded as the fucking morons who say Mitt Romney will abolish the safety net and turn the country over to teh Kochtopus.

    1. Mitt Romney will abolish the safety net and turn the country over to teh Kochtopus.

      Be still, my heart.

      Well, if I had a heart. You know what I mean.

  33. This is great news for the U.S. economy. Obama winning Ohio leads to a bright future for America. Yay, more rich government workers for D.C.

  34. dear gary,
    please campaign some more in CO, NM, WA, and OR. since you can’t win the white house, i would prefer to have someone who will sign rand paul’s bills. thanks!

    1. Texas would be Gary friendly country too! Since its not in competition, more votes will be open for him.

  35. In response to those who are advocating voting Red or Blue to make sure their team wins:

    Remember, when you’re bent over with the chains of sycophancy holding your neck to the floor and your nose in the plate of pigshit that used to be your rights; as the Democrats plunge the baton of government wisdom up your torn and abused rectum, you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that you’re on the winning team.

    As your tears sting and the bankers sink their cigar tips into your ample and soft butt cheeks, you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that your masters are winners.

    And as the cronyism cattle prod is jabbed repeatedly into the tender knot of veins that used to be your genitals, comfort yourself with the thought that YOU, somehow, are a winner too.

    1. This was originally meant for just Derider, hence the reference to Democrats that I forgot to change.

    2. If Obama wins the election the cattle prod will be as far up your ass as it can be.

      You’re never going to be able to suck your own dick dude… just get over it.

      1. That prod’s going deep whether it’s Obama or Romney.

        1. No shit, the Federal government will still exist after the election.

          There is no hope of fixing the deficit or any other fiscal matter under Obama though.

          1. And there’s also no hope under Romney either. The fact that you buy the Republicans’ bullshit after all these years is pathetic

            1. No, there’s actually hope under the Republicans. Rand Paul is a Republican Senator.

              Paul Ryan has a plan, it’s not good enough, but it’s a plan and he’s not even in the Tea Party.

              There is jack all hope with Gary Johnson as nice as he is.

    3. And when the one Team that is somehow immune to the trappings of power, Libertarians, take over, grandma and grandpa can take comfort that their shrinking, starving bodies are, “in a sense,” free.

      1. It’s a shame that you’d let your grandparents live that way Tony. Not all of us would

        1. The conversation really isn’t about those of us who can afford to take care of multiple generations of family.

          1. Afford? Some of the groups most likely to take care of their elders are some of the poorest.

    4. The only problem is the TEAM tardos actually believe that the only people who will end up getting forcibly sodomized and tortured as you described are the other TEAM’s tardos. I honestly believe that most of these assholes would be perfectly happy to see anyone who disagrees with them shipped off to concentration re-education happy fun time camps.

      1. I’m intrigued…… tell me more about these Happy Fun Time Camps.

  36. People are going to vote team red or team blue because those two parties, good or bad, have produced presidents and passed legislation.

    I smell a whiff of inferiority complex every time some libertarian complains about the two party duopoly or how the Republican “establishment” ignores them. Elections aren’t unlike the private sector. People like winners. Your mom and pop store might make some dang good burgers, but unless you expand or something, Mcdonalds will outsell them everyday. The two parties are kinda like Mcdonalds, they’re not great, but people come back to them because they’ve been part of their lives and tradition.

    Libertarians lose because nobody knows them. I could probably grab some random Mexican and ask him to to define that term and draw a blank. Make an effort to sell your brand and tailor your message. In movies you can win on principle alone, not in real life.

    1. Why was it necessary to say you’d grab a random Mexican? Like there aren’t tons of white people who don’t know what the term means?

      1. What term, “libertarian”? Have you done any actual polling on that? I have. I started in 1987, repeated in 1989, again in 1991, and finally in 1994. In 1987 only about a third of people knew, but by 1991 it was 2/3 and by 1994, virtually everyone.

        People have at least as much, probably more, awareness of what “libertarian” means as they do of “liberal” or “conservative”. Duh, it’s because “libertarian” comes from “liberty”. People who’ve never heard the word before instantly figure that out. It’s hard for anyone to give a good account of what “liberal” or “conservative” means. The problem is not in the understanding of the words.

  37. I voted absentee today. I despise Obama , but could not bring myself to vote for Romney . I voted Johnson.

  38. Ohio for Gary Johnson! Great to see this news. Would not have seen this article anywhere else, thank you Reason. Go Gary 🙂

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.