Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson's Final Campaign Ad

Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson's final campaign ad implores voters to "cast a protest vote that counts."


ALBUQUERQUE—Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson's final campaign ad implores voters to "cast a protest vote that counts." The ad focuses around Johnson's goal of obtaining 5 percent of the popular vote so the Libertarian Party will have federal funds in 2016. The ad is running in New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Montana, Indiana, Idaho, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. Watch it below.


More of my coverage on Gary Johnson's 2012 campaign here

NEXT: Obama Congratulates Romney

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He’s really pushing that five percent number hard. So much so, in fact, I’m finding myself far too optimistic about his potential vote total. I think topping a million should be a done deal, just from a good chunk of Paul supporters at least. Anything else is icing.

  2. He summed up why he’s getting my vote.

  3. Admittedly, as a fully principled libertarian, his reasons for wanting 5% make me less than enthusiastic about helping him achieve as much.

    As I’ve always maintained: I am voting for the lesser of six evils.

    1. I thought the same thing.

    2. As a Machiavellian Libertarian, I voted for Johnson.

    3. Why? The money is already allocated and either going to be divided between the Democrats and Republicans, or it will be divided between the Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians. The fact that the LP is seeking it doesn’t mean that they support public funding of elections – just that the government is already giving preferential treatment to two parties and even get into the same ballpark, we need a more balanced playing field.

      It’s like gay marriage: we all agree the government shouldn’t be involved, but as long as it is and there are marriage-related laws on the federal books, it should be legal for all consenting American adult couples (and triples, etc.).

  4. I voted for Johnson and “No” a lot this morning, with the single exception of Amendment 64, because fuck those other two worthless pieces of shit. I don’t care how many other votes he gets.

    1. I voted Johnson, Amd 64 YES, Dan Ong Yes, and the rest were either incumbent out or straight Libertarian.

  5. Yeah, I’m all for getting Johnson votes, but not so more tax dollars can be funded to a party that… well… kinda sucks.

    1. As opposed to the same pot of already-allocated tax dollars being divvied up between two parties that suck far more?

  6. Doesn’t anyone see anything wrong in a Libertarian wanting to get federal funds?

    Non-libertarians have been gleefully pointing out the hypocrisy. At that debate, he undercut everything he said previously by begging people to vote for him to get to the 5% for the guvmint money.

    1. Taxpayers voluntarily chose to allocate money to public financing. That pot is already allocated and won’t be shifted to other functions, so why let the Republicans and Democrats keep it all?

      In my opinion, every American should be able to individually allocate their taxes to whatever government spending they prefer. So, I could allocate my taxes 100% to debt reduction. If people actually had to decide that their taxes funded, we might see some real changes at the federal level where departments and programs’ budgets constantly shift based upon taxpayer discretion.

  7. I wonder if the growth of internet communication among like-minded people via political blogs like this one since 2008 may have any impact on the LP vote total? You can’t, for example, think you’re the “only one” “throwing away” his vote when you find most Reason staffers are as well…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.