Gary Johnson

Canadians Get Interested in Gary Johnson

More media attention after official nomination.

|

CTV

It's not just Americans who are disgusted by the choice of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in this year's presidential election. This morning, I appeared on Canada AM, the morning show of the broadcast network CTV, to talk about Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico and the newly-minted presidential nominee of the Libertarian party, the largest of America's third parties and the only one on pace to have its nominee appear on the ballot of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

As I explained on CTV, in 2012 Gary Johnson received more than a million votes, or about one percent of the total, the best showing for a Libertarian presidential candidate since 1980. This year, the former two-term Republican governor of a Democratic state is joined on the ticket by William Weld, another former two-term Republican governor of a Democratic state. Between their credentials and the historically high unfavorability ratings of the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Libertarians have a major opportunity to do far better this election cycle than ever before.

In polls where Johnson has appeared as a choice, he's hit about 10 percent. If Johnson can hit 15 percent in five polls, he will be invited to the presidential debates run by the Commission on Presidential Debates. If he hits five percent in the November election, the Libertarian party will qualify for federal matching funds in the 2020 cycle.

As I mentioned in the CTV interview, Libertarians also have a unique opportunity to actually become a major party, especially if the Republican collapse continues long past the Trump nomination. The Libertarian party has already seen its membership double and its revenue quadruple in the Age of Trump. The Libertarian National Committee's chair, Nicholas Sarwark, believes the LP could become a major party. "The ideal is that we use [the 2016 election] as a springboard to mass defections and the destruction of at least one of the old parties," he explained. "It's time for the Republican Party to fall apart and go away," he added. "Or the Democratic party. I don't really care which." Watch Reason TV's interview of Sarwark here and CTV's interview of me below:

Advertisement

NEXT: How the Weld Was Won

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. If Johnson can hit 15 percent in five polls, he will be invited to the presidential debates run by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

    I hope that’s written down somewhere, eh.

  2. No embedded video?

    from the pic, i just want to say that your jacket-tie/beardness combo transcends mere Jesse Walker “roll-out-of-bed frumpiness” and Matt Welch’s “genetic problem with color-coordination” into an entirely new level of Zero Fucks Given Attiring. It wins.

    1. + Thrift Shop song

  3. “Fighting and defeating ISIS wherever they are is not “intervention”. It is stopping violent jihadists whose stated objectives are to kill Americans, wipe Israel off the map and destroy the very freedoms ? including religious ones ? upon which our nation is founded. It is protecting us from those who would and are doing us harm.” ?Gov. Gary Johnson

    http://ouramericainitiative.tu…..zi-fascism

    1. Needs that money

    2. “Fighting and defeating ISIS wherever they are is not “intervention”.

      Sure it is. Just because there may be good reasons for it, doesn’t mean it isn’t intervention.

  4. If Johnson can hit 15 percent in five polls, he will be invited to the presidential debates run by the Commission on Presidential Debates. If he hits five percent in the November election, the Libertarian party will qualify for federal matching funds in the 2020 cycle.

    That’s so cute. If he gets the votes, they’ll just change the rules.

    1. Well good, if they change the Fed matching funds rule. I don’t know why I have to pay for assholes to run for office.

    2. Yes, then they can court big donors, promise lobbyist’s bosses stuff, make deals that will get them more money.

      “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

  5. So the LP doesn’t understanding they are running for President in America not Canada and it doesn’t matter what Canadians think? Well, that certainly explains a lot.

    1. The LP are so hard up for media exposure, they’ll go wherever there’s a camera and microphone. Or even just a microphone.

    2. No all the candidates are running for president of Israel. Yeah, I know insert joooos here. But come debate time each and every one will pledge allegiance and it will be vomit inducing. I gaurentee that there are plenty of jews who agree with that.

    3. Well, they have to care what somebody thinks? they’re just happy somebody is paying them any attention.

    4. you sure there’s no such thing as peak derp?

    5. Canada’s gotta be prepared if millions of Dems move north.

  6. As I explained on CTV, in 2012 Gary Johnson received more than a million votes, or about one percent of the total, the best showing for a Libertarian presidential candidate since 1980.

    It’s possible that a libertarian could get much higher percentage of the vote if they didn’t explicitly run as a libertarian, but as a generic independent. Ross Perot garnered 17-19% of the popular vote in ’92– which was unheard of beyond old timey 19th century politics. Ross Perot was seen as a kind of libertarian-ish candidate who ran a campaign whose main theme was to restore a certain amount of accountability and fiscal sanity back into the federal government. Many explicit libertarians and proto-libertarians voted for Perot in ’92.

    1. They voted Perot and got Clinton for eight years. Not sure that was what they thought would happen.

      1. As someone who was very young and voted for Perot, I think we didn’t care. We were voting our conscience and if a major party got punished in the process, that was part of the deal.

        Two-party, winner-take-all systems are always going to have this feature.

        What’s interesting in the current GayJay situation is, I can’t find any clear reading of who GayJay is stealing votes from. In 1992 it was pretty clear that Perot was stealing votes from Bush.

        1. In 1992 it was pretty clear that Perot was stealing votes from Bush.

          Oh. I stand corrected, then.

      2. I’m not sure that’s 100% confirmed. I recall reading exit poll data (or something similar) where Perot voters were pulled from Clinton and Bush roughly equally.

        1. I don’t recall this, but now I’m going to look it up. I seem to remember that everyone informally agreed that erstwhile Bush voters and disaffected Reaganites were swinging Perot.

          1. It was pretty clear to me that the Perot voters were taking votes from Bush. I’m shocked that it’s actually murkier, although Perot had some protectionist policies and I guess I could see some union stalwarts bailing on Clinton over trade.

            What was odd at the time, and the subject of many college dorm late night debates, was that the Perot supporters seemed to think he could actually win. They would have ranked the candidates Perot, Bush, any non-commie independent, Clinton, commie independents.

            In 92 I pulled the lever for Bush since I believed Bill Clinton to be a man of lower moral character, and thought Perot would be ineffective in DC.

            It was the last time I voted for Team Red or Blue for President.

        2. Huh, well, according to Wiki-*Eric is a fag*-Pedia, it’s a pretty murky picture. By “murky” I mean it ISN’T clear that he was primarily a spoiler for the Bush campaign. So I may stand corrected on that. Thanks.

          1. Huh, well, according to Wiki-*Eric is a fag*-Pedia, it’s a pretty murky picture. By “murky” I mean it ISN’T clear that he was primarily a spoiler for the Bush campaign. So I may stand corrected on that. Thanks.

            Ah. I wasn’t going by any Wiki site; it was something I recall reading in a political novel about the historical influence of third party candidacies.

            The more I think about it, it does seem like Bush Sr. would have had more to lose than Clinton.

            Thanks for your input, too.

    2. I voted Perot! Ross 4 Boss ’92

  7. And Canadians looked on in bemused puzzlement.

    1. In Canada, that’s called Wednesday.

      1. Whensday?

  8. Well, all I can say is keep the exposure coming. Canadians are too insecure to come up with their own ideas unless validated by Americans.

    1. Except for comedy. There they seem to be confident.

      1. They meaning ‘we’.

        F __k.

        1. You’re a Quebecois. It’s a natural mistake to make.

          1. I’m not considered, when push comes to shove, ‘pure laine’ (pure stock) by nationalist nincompoops.

            And that’s fine by me.

        2. Are you really Doug Stanhope?

  9. especially if the Republican collapse continues

    I miss something??

    1. Only fever dreams.

  10. Ed, you’re gonna start getting the Matt treatment where attire is concerned if you keep making appearances.

    Be forewarned.

    1. He is not wearing a cyan tie, so I think he is okay.

    2. Maybe a Canadian tuxedo would play better?

      1. Maybe a Canadian tuxedo would play better?

        Is that the one with Poutine stains on the tie?

  11. You and Gilmore should go full Mitchell & Webb.

    1. ^ response to Rufus above.

    2. I WILL NOT BE BRITAINIZED!

      Yeah, but whatever.

    3. [What happened to the pleasant and accommodating fashion people?]

      “They’ve all been driven out! and the burning remains of their tawdry rags cast after them! And we’re back. The incredibly intimidating and aristocratic people who still unaccountably sell clothes. And i’m afraid we don’t like being talked to by people with their hands in their pockets. I’m trying to help you! Trying to help you have standards. I’m trying to make you to know that the world isn’t pleased to see you; that you aren’t needed, or included, you aren’t loved; you’re ugly, superfluous and ignorant, and you should be frightened and meek and grateful.”

      My god, its like the were *channeling* me.

        1. If you guys like that, there’s the almost identical sketch called Evil Vicar. To which I say, if CoE had priests like this, you bet pews would be full. Hell, I’m an atheist and I’d go!

  12. OT, kind of: The Sadies are Canada’s greatest contribution to American music. Thank you for The Sadies, Canada.

    1. Are they anything like Alanis Morisette?

  13. Canadians Juiced Up for Johnson

    Canadians Develop a Taste for Johnson

    Canadians Wide Open for Johnson

    Canadians Hankering for Johnson

    no, we get “Get Interested”. how….uninteresting.

    1. Canadians Gobble Up Johnson

      ‘s platform positions.

    2. Canadians swallow everything Johnson feeds them.

      1. *bzzt*

        The response we were looking for was:

        Canadians swallow Johnson’s huge load … of baloney

        Thank you for playing, don’t forget your gift bag on the way out.

    3. Thanks, wylie. I was going to make a similar, but yours is better.

  14. RE: Canadians Get Interested in Gary Johnson
    More media attention after official nomination.

    The Canucks cannot allow to have Libertarian thought disseminated through out their country polluting the little peoples’ minds with nefarious and false concepts of the out-dated concepts of capitalism and self-determination.
    The Canadian’s wise and perfect system of socialism is not compatible to logic, freedom and having people thinking politically incorrect thoughts.
    Thankfully, it is only a matter of time before the benevolent and prudent Canadian censors start harassing those foolish enough to read Libertarian ideals.
    You must believe, oh ye of little faith.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.