Libertarian Party

It's Happening! Gary Johnson Running for Senate

"It's moving forward" says the former Libertarian Party presidential candidate's longtime political advisor

|

Never learn not to love. ||| Reddit
Reddit

Gary Johnson last night this morning added his name to the New Mexico Secretary of State's list of candidates running in the 2018 general election. "It's moving forward," Johnson 2016 campaign manager and current head of a Johnson-supporting SuperPAC Ron Nielson told me this afternoon. "He's begun the process of filing."

Though all the bureaucratic hoops will likely take another day or so to jump through, incumbent Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich, who until now has been the prohibitive favorite, wasted no time fundraising off the news:

Republican nominee Mick Rich, who, like Johnson, is a self-made construction entrepreneur who made a mid-life switch to statewide Republican politics, has shown zero sign of wanting to give the Libertarian a clear path at turning a blue state gold.

"He sounds like a really good guy, and everything I've heard about him has been very positive," Nielson said. "Obviously if he was not in this race, this race would be significantly different."

Johnson's surprise re-entry into politics—as recently as five months ago he told Nick Gillespie "I'm done with elected political office"—came about when the original Libertarian Party nominee for Senate, New Mexico State Land Commissioner Aubrey Dunn (who is the first-ever Libertarian to hold statewide partisan elected office), decided to step aside after seeing strong polling support for the two-time former governor. The party then gave Johnson until Aug. 18 to pull the trigger.

Nielson says that early fundraising prospects have looked good. "There's a lot of interest in Gary," he said. "He had a broad sector of support from Libertarians and from interested parties nationwide, but in New Mexico he's getting a lot of support from people. So we're hoping that we can raise substantial sums, millions of dollars, here in the not-too-distant future."

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.

221 responses to “It's Happening! Gary Johnson Running for Senate

  1. I wish Gary the best of luck.
    It would be a real game changer if he could be the deciding vote in a closely divided Senate.

    1. A Libertarian vote that is needed would really get the Libertarian cause out there into the public eye.

      1. A libertarian opposes most of what you support and supports most of what you oppose. The last thing you want to see is a libertarian in an influential position.

    2. Other potential Libertarian candidates should pay close attention to this campaign rollout:

      A PAC is already set up and accepting donations

      The social media channels have been fed with stuff they can run with (eg a video, etc)

      The announcement is being reported in local media outlets so someone has done their public relations work

      Can’t see an even barebones campaign website up yet. That’s a bit of a prob

      Presumably (hopefully) grassroots/precinct/rolodex contacts are being made and the campaign is listening to what they need to get their own word out.

      This is the sweating-the-details part of how political campaigns actually get steam and can win

  2. Might be the first Libertarian in the US Senate.

    He better learn where Aleppo is.

    1. Aleppo is nothing but a bit of Gallup surrounded by a bit of Amarillo.

    2. Drumpf had no idea what the nuclear triad was and look what happened so anything is possible I guess.

      1. Trump doesn’t know a lot of things. Johnson is not as stupid as him. The whole “Aleppo thing” was stupid. He was caught off guard with a bizarrely succinct question that wasn’t on topic.

        There are a lot of things to criticize Johnson about, but the “Aleppo thing” is not one of them

        1. There are a lot of things to criticize Johnson about, but the “Aleppo thing” is not one of them

          ^ This.

          When I hear “that guy doesn’t even know where Aleppo is,” what I hear is “I don’t know anything about him other than what was spoon-fed to me by mass media.”

          1. Considering how most Americans are geographically illiterate, I dont know what the big deal was. I mocked him for it, but it really shouldn’t be what defines him

            1. Technically, it was “What is an Aleppo?” which was even funnier/cringeworthy. Like he’s never learned about updog either.

          2. When I talk to people that say “He doesn’t even know where Aleppo is!” I immediately shoot back “Okay then, tell me where Aleppo is”. 9 times out 10, they can’t.

            1. If anyone ever asks Gary if he learned where Aleppo is, he should answer back with the exact GPS coordinates of Aleppo. Then he can add, in a deadpan voice, “Now I know how to bomb it. That’s what you really wanted, isn’t it?”

              1. If you cannot even guess that aleppo is ‘in the middle east’ and your running to be in charge of the US military currently invovled in military action in syria, you are a weak sauce candidate.

                I voted for GJ but he was weak sauce. I wanted to make the LP brand stronger by voting for him.

                Weld was a horrible VP and GJ wanting to force bakers to bake a cake was bad.

                Gary johnson is dragging the LP down which is why Welch, Gillespie, etc love him. New blood is needed and they need to be actual Libertarians who try and win elections.

                1. Actual libertarians oppose bigoted, authoritarian immigration policies, reject government management of wombs, find the Republican Party platform abhorrent, dislike state micromanagement of abortion clinics, mock white nationalism, detest Trump, oppose tariffs and protectionism, and object to government gay-bashing.

            2. Exactly. Out of the people you know, what percentage can point to Aleppo on a map? What percentage give a damn what is going on there?

              I can, but admittedly I played way too much EU3 & 4 in times past

              1. Paradox interactive! Great strategic war game company.

          3. Yeah, personally I’d say a half-measure of libertarianism in GJ is probably the most palatable brand which, perversely, means that he’s destined for most libertarians to reject him.

            It’s the ironic core of the libertarian party, and why expecting them to ever get anywhere is pretty amusing (and a bit sad too.)

            1. GJ is better than his opponents, and that is all that really should matter when the choices are already set.

        2. The USA was being pushed into Syria by Hillary and Obama around election 2016.

          Aleppo was the most populous city in Syria and was in the news all time as there mass evacuations and bombings.

          If you dont know where damascus and aleppo where with some region awareness and youre in politics, youre a moron.

          I bet GayJay would know what a rim job was though.

      2. Do YOU know what the nuclear triad is?

    3. He better learn where Aleppo is.

      I think running for office again is a worse blunder. It’s like Michael Jordan coming out of retirement… if Michael Jordan had never scored more than 5% of the points in a championship game.

      1. In fairness to Johnson, he did win two elections as governor.

        1. In fairness to Johnson, he did win two elections as governor.

          I don’t and can’t disagree with facts. I’m just saying that if you didn’t already know who he was as a former governor, you’re going to recognize him as a twice-failed LP candidate for Pres. And if you do recognize him as a former governor, you’re also going to recognize him as a twice-failed LP candidate for Pres.

          I think it would be nice if he wins I just don’t think it likely to happen.

          1. I agree with that, but I figure most people in New Mexico remember he was governor even if many nationally don’t.

          2. If you did disagree with facts, you would be a democrat, not a libertarian.

          3. I don’t think name recognition will be an issue for him in New Mexico.

      2. I’m worried what is going to happen if he just gets crushed in the general election. Definitely won’t be good for optics.

        1. I’m more positive about GJ than many here (though I recognize his flaws), but IMO to even have a shot at winning in a 3 way race, he’d need it to be an open seat (so no opponent has an incumbency advantage) in an unfavorable midterm year for the Democrats (as New Mexico has a blue tilt). Even in a 2-way race I don’t think he can win this year given the favorable environment for the Democrats and Heinrich being an incumbent.

          1. I think you are right about that. My father lives in New Mexico and I go out there and see him a lot. Gary Johnson is not nearly as popular there as Libertarians like to think. The problem he has is that the Hispanics that like his open border stuff are nearly all going to vote Democrat. The Hispanics that don’t, and there are more of those than you think, are going to vote Republican. So that leaves the white community who are generally either Berkley transplants who would never vote Libertarian or redneck republicans. He was elected governor as a Republican. I don’t see how he has much of a base of support as a Libertarian.

            1. You’re probably not wrong generally speaking. Probably not a base big enough to win on a third party ticket, at least under these circumstances.

              That said, Johnson did, according to the exit polls, get 11% of the non-white vote in New Mexico in 2016 compared to 8% of the white vote. Obviously there’s margin for error so that difference might not be statistically significant, but I think it does show his appeal isn’t there as monoracial as some might think.

              https://tinyurl.com/ya3q6ljm

              1. That does not surprise me. People loathed Hillary. If he could get 11% in a race where the public didn’t hate the Democrat is another question.

    4. I suspect he’s learned something since then. Or at least has better managers. Senate seems like a better thing to try for him than president. I could actually imagine a Libertarian elected to the Senate. For all his flaws, Johnson would be good to have in the Senate.

      1. I am willing to over look his aleppo and ‘bake the cake muther fucker’ flaws if he would act like he wants Libertarians to rock in politics.

        He seems luke warm about it.

    5. He can join Rand Paul and libertarian leaning senator Mike Lee. Need more of those libertarian leaning politicians in office.

  3. Maybe Bill Weld will endorse his Democratic opponent?

    1. LOL!

  4. “Republican nominee Mick Rich, who, like Johnson, is a self-made construction entrepreneur who made a mid-life switch to statewide Republican politics, has shown zero sign of wanting to give the Libertarian a clear path at turning a blue state gold.”

    This is quite the irony, since every time a Republican claims that Libertarians cost them the election the Libertarian Party screams ‘those people weren’t going to vote for you- those votes don’t belong to you’, but now the LP is basically saying ‘hey, come on, stop stealing our voters’.

    1. Except of course that the LP is saying no such thing. You just pulled that strawman out of your ass

      1. “has shown zero sign of wanting to give the Libertarian a clear path at turning a blue state gold.”

        What does that mean, then? Are you saying that’s just Welch’s take?

        1. Pretty obviously I’d say. Otherwise, Welch would presumably quote someone else

          1. “We can win this if it’s a three way race. We can win this if it’s a ten way race,” a post on the Gary Johnson for Senate Facebook page read. “However, we can more easily bring the ideals of growth, freedom and peace to the senate (sic) if it’s a two way race.”

            Just and FYI

            1. Well the second sentence is just a statement of the obvious. Gary Johnson obviously thinks he can win regardless – and is quite obviously not whining.

              Whining about owning voters and being entitled to win elections is what the duops do.

            2. That’s also a quote from a page started by a fan of Gov. Johnson’s. It’s not an official page of the campaign. The idea was to turn the page over to the campaign if he decided to run. But as yet, that has not happened.

              1. You should read Jerryskids article. Sounds exactly like what Republicans say when Libertarians join a race for Senate.

        2. It not Johnson’s take, it barely sounds like Rich’s take. What are you taking?

            1. “We can win this if it’s a three way race. We can win this if it’s a ten way race,” a post on the Gary Johnson for Senate Facebook page read. “However, we can more easily bring the ideals of growth, freedom and peace to the senate (sic) if it’s a two way race.”

              So the LP is asking for the Republican to drop out.

              1. “…We can win this if it’s a 420-way race…”

                You missed your cue Gary! A leppo could’ve done better.

              2. The LP is not asking the Republican to drop out. That’s a quote from a page started by a fan of Gov. Johnson’s. It’s not an official page of the campaign. The idea was to turn the page over to the campaign if he decided to run. But as yet, that has not happened.

              3. >i?So the LP is asking for the Republican to drop out.

                Might as well give it a try. I suspect that the intention is just to turn around the whole “spoiler” accusation on the major party to try to make some kind of point.

    2. Ah good point. It’s very Sad! when vanity political operations show (as they shockingly often do) that they cannot even muster up the one thing that is expected of them–namely being principled idealists–and come out of left field acting surprisingly like normal politicians. It’s like when Dennis Kucinich (otherwise, to his credit, still probably the most principled and least opportunistic man in national politics) bizarrely flipped 180 on abortion before running for president. It’s like, Denny…come on man.

      1. Within the Democratic Party there are A LOT of politicians that flipped on abortion: Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson to name a few.

        Kucinich was and is a good guy, though.

        1. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman (twice!)… Basically every Democrat you’ve ever heard of who’s been around for long enough who didn’t represent the Upper West Side or some shit. Usually when they shifted their attention to playing in a forum where they needed to do so to advance.

          My point was that Kucinich flipped when he did so exactly like everyone else. That is precisely my point. He flipped shamelessly to run for POTUS, having held out as a solid and safe prolifer decades after basically everyone else to a man had flipped; he did it just like that, just as though he was a perfectly normal presidential candidate making a perfectly normal opportunistic move to make himself viable. And it was just very amusing to behold, that’s all. It’s like if Vermin Supreme flew to Des Moines and stood there with his boot on his head and announced that of late he’d been soberly rethinking his position on ethanol.

          1. As long as Vermin Supreme does not flip on mandatory toothbrushing and a pony for everyone, he’s got my vote.

        2. Kucinich is a socialist nut job.

      2. It was probably his hot young wife that flipped him on abortion.

    3. Saying it’s easier to win a two-way race isn’t the same thing as saying your votes are being stolen.

    4. That was kind of a weird thing to say. But the whole “stealing votes” argument is silly. They are all legitimate candidates and they get to run however and for whatever reasons they want and own the votes they get.

  5. Gary, give it up. You have either been in, or trying to be in, the public sector for too long.

    Just. Go. Away.

    1. Why? You’d rather he didn’t even try because you want a Dem or GOP to win?

      Fuck off, slaver.

  6. He had a broad sector of support from Libertarians and from interested parties nationwide, but in New Mexico he’s getting a lot of support from people

    Libertarians aren’t people too?

    1. You ever had lunch with a Libertarian?

      1. Yellow Tony has had lunch with a libertarian. A hot lunch.

    2. Yes, but people just are not the biggest voting bloc in New Mexico.

      1. The cockroaches from Trinity site really have us beat, honestly.

  7. As popular as GayJay is in his home state, I doubt he can win.

    1. Considering that GayJay got just over 9% of the votes in NM when running against Trump and Clinton, I would be surprised if he gets into the teens percentagewise, or even second place.

      1. He got 9% in a presidential race where 80%+ of the voters thought only one of the two major party candidates would bring total, irrevocable disaster and had to be stopped at any cost. I’d call that a pretty strong showing.

  8. Oh course I would support a Libertarian candidate if only that candidate would not get in the way of the implementation of the libertarian agenda of the Republican Party. So, alas, i’m A no. Sorry, Gary.

      1. Your parody is more ridiculous than OBL. Who in their right mind would think the Republican nominee for Senate in NM would be more libertarian than Johnson? I know Johnson is a low bar to clear, but that’s just illogical

        1. Who in their right libertarian mind even thinks that Johnson is a small-L libertarian? Or is the new motto of libertarianism now, “liberty, unless it makes the urban coastals feel icky”.

      2. Haha?

    1. Dude is getting better at his schtick. Very nice. Now duke it out with OBL like you are destined to do.

      1. He better be getting better as OBL has nailed it today.

        1. This is its first good post. Its others are utterly cringeworthy.
          It’s nowhere near OBL’s league yet.
          And it did go up against OBL at least once.
          It was ugly.

      2. I like that OBL actually does his research and presents links and hashtags. This guy barely makes an effort.

  9. It’s going to be exciting when Johnson and Warren co-sponsor the “Bake the Cake, Bigot Act of 2019”.

    1. You voted for GayJay for pres, right Say’n? I don’t recall.

      1. I voted Green Party

        1. Gary Johnson had a more aggressive foreign policy than Trump, but less than Clinton. He opposed religious liberty (like Trump and Clinton) and had Bill Weld as a running mate.

          At least Jill Stein had a restrained foreign policy.

          1. http://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mc…..tarian-war

            The LP hasn’t nominated a non-interventionist since Harry Browne

            1. I miss Harry Browne. The LP never made fools of themselves when he was the head of the party. They’ve done nothing else since.

              1. It was Harry Browne’s presidential campaign website that actually got me to think Libertarians had more than platitudes and wishful thinking. He had an article on every issue of the day, that generally said “Look, both sides have deep passionate feelings about this, but one thing I can tell you is the Government is incapable of making this better.”

                For example, on the environment, he pointed out how Governments typically have the worst environmental record whether it is the Soviet Union or the US Government. He showed how the US mint and DOE were horrible polluters, and how the US Forestry service essentially sold off entire swaths of the northwest for clear cutting.

                If it weren’t for him, likely tens of people like me would still be lost today.

                1. Literally dozens of the several gross of libertarians today were brought to it by Browne.

              2. That’s kind of amusing, in that Harry Browne was part of why I left the LP. (Jon Coon’s disastrous state Rep campaign was the bigger part.)

                Campaigned hard for him in his first run. I was considered one of the party’s larger donors at the time. (Which I personally found kind of depressing!)

                But there was a bit of a scandal about how he got the nomination the second time. And I did not get the impression the first time around that he was efficiently deploying his resources. He was, however, living nicely while on the campaign trail. Which, ironically, was consistent with his writings…

                Still, not to speak ill of the dead, it was nice to have a candidate who actually was a libertarian. The LP should probably try that again some time.

          2. I can’t believe how anyone did or does buy that line about Trump’s foreign policy. The guy has continued every conflict we were fighting under Obama and with less restraint. But because he sometimes says some vaguely anti-war things (when he’s not promising to rain down death and destruction) and pisses off NATO, he’s clearly better than Johnson because of that one time Johnson said he might be open to a humanitarian intervention. Clearly that outweighs all of Trump’s actions continuing real, unnecessary wars.

            1. He ended the CIA-funding of the Syrian opposition and has begun direct talks with the Taliban to end the War in Afghanistan. He’s moderately better than his predecessors, so far. But, very modestly better.

              But, regardless, I’m saying during the campaign Johnson, especially with Bill Weld as VP, was far from an alternative of the two major party’s positions on foreign policies.

              1. We’re still funding parts of the Syrian opposition via the Pentagon, and until they lead to substantive changes I don’t put a whole lot of stock into “talks.” Better than nothing, but not big steps forward, and IMO don’t make up for the uptick in civilian casualties, continuing support for the Saudis in Yemen, etc.

                I don’t have a problem with critiquing Johnson’s foreign policy, but I think that to say it’s worse than Trump’s or as bad as the major two parties is more than a stretch.

                1. I didn’t vote for Trump as I said. If you think he was more aggressive than Johnson during the campaign, that’s a fair argument. I’m just telling you how I viewed it. My complaint with Trump was about trade and the Muslim ban

              2. during the campaign Johnson, especially with Bill Weld as VP, was far from an alternative of the two major party’s positions on foreign policies

                Neither was Trump. I think you’re applying an “I expect you to be perfect in every way” standard to Johnson, and applying a “you’re not literally eating live puppies on television” standard to Trump.

                Johnson campaigned on intense skepticism of foreign intervention. Maybe he was lying, maybe not, but Trump only campaigned on “when I start wars, they won’t be stupid, they’ll be the most awesome wars you’ve ever seen.”

                I doubt Trump is attempting to negotiate any of these “peace deals” for any reason other than to serve his ego.

              3. Yeah, ending the CIA funding of Syrian rebels, and not actually invading Syria are big pros in my book. Bombing the Syrians because it pleases the Israelis is a big negative.

                I actually think he might have gotten us out of Afghanistan if we hadn’t announced that we’d found the second largest supply of Rare Earth Minerals shortly after he took office.

                1. ending the CIA funding of Syrian rebels, and not actually invading Syria

                  And these are huge pluses over HRC, who vowed to continue funding to the rebels and to actually invade.

                  I actually think he might have gotten us out of Afghanistan

                  I have my doubts there. He seems pretty on board with going to war with Iran, which is why we have troops in Afghanistan. The “foreign policy establishment” could give two fucks whether Afghanistan “evolves into a modern democracy.”

            2. But because he sometimes says some vaguely anti-war things

              Now now, you know the rules. Trump’s words may only be held against him when the Trumpists decide they may.

              1. You really need to learn how to read. In what world did anything I say come of as pro-Trump?

                1. You’re suffering from a severe case of TDS chemjeff. To the point where you’re just raging any time someone takes a measured opinion on him beyond just rage

                2. In what world did anything I say come of as pro-Trump?

                  I think it’s the one where you consistently heap vituperative condemnation on Gary Johnson’s foreign policy while defending Trump’s.

                  1. Like I said, I didn’t vote Trump. But, he has taken some foreign policy actions that justifies Walter Block’s argument. Johnson never ran as a non-interventionist. He made a concerted effort to run as a mushy moderate.

                    I didn’t vote against because of foreign policy only, though. I can’t believe people still defend Gary.

          3. At least Jill Stein had a restrained foreign policy.

            Not sure how sarcastic you’re being, but Jill Stein doesn’t have a “foreign policy” beyond “people should be nice to one another.”

            1. I never said she had any rational understanding of a foreign policy

              1. I think she would have been an absolute disaster on foreign policy. I actually think GJ having been willing to step up and say “I’m not ready to declare that I would never use the military for any reason whatsoever” to be a considerably more reassuring and intelligent position than Stein’s blind “pacifism.”

                The US military shouldn’t be everywhere in the world, but they are, and “we need to pull out of everywhere right now consequences be damned” is not a foreign policy. It’s empty virtue-signalling.

            2. Perhaps not. I’m sure she was not Say’n’s Weird Science wet dream candidate. But he is a very committed dove even by our standards. Does not “people should be nice to one another,” even if uttered in the most childish manner by the most cloying hippie, have at least some appeal to it over the sorts of foreign policies backed by the standard “serious” people in recent times?

              1. Does not “people should be nice to one another,” even if uttered in the most childish manner by the most cloying hippie, have at least some appeal to it over the sorts of foreign policies backed by the standard “serious” people in recent times?

                It does. But there also comes a time where “nice,” as appealing a sentiment as it is, isn’t really how the world works.

                It has always seemed to me like Stein ascribes to a certain type of left-wing pacifism that sees all conflict in the world as being unilateral and caused by the US such that all we have to do to bring about World Peace is to restrain the US military. I wish the world were that simple, but I suspect it isn’t.

                1. If we did restraining our actions overseas the world would be more peaceful. But, I understand what you’re saying in your criticism.

                  1. If we did restraining our actions overseas the world would be more peaceful.

                    In sum total, I agree. But consider, as an example, what would happen in the near term if we decided, right now today, to withdraw all of our troops from Japan, South Korea and the Philipines and told them all “go ahead and start building your own militaries – you’re going to need them!” as we sail away.

                    Now I don’t claim that we’re primarily responsible for making sure Japan and China play nice with one another (and their various satellites), but our decision to withdraw from that situation would not result in “peace” – not for them, anyway.

                  2. And don’t take me the wrong way – I challenge you sometimes because I think you’re one of the smarter people here, but you suffer from purism on certain things ; )

          4. At least Jill Stein had a restrained foreign policy.

            Shame she advocated war on her fellow citizens via the IRS and the regulatory state.

            1. So did Trump, Clinton, and Johnson. We need to stop pretending as if Johnson embodied the entire platform of the LP. The man was hot garbage, but no more garbage than all the previous nominees since Browne

              1. I’m not pretending anything about Johnson. I think he’s a poor candidate.

                But you need to stop pretending Stein is some paragon of live-and-let-live. At least Trump has deregulated and cut taxes. Is that what Stein would have done? Not on your life. She advocated increasing all manner of regulations. Free this, free that. Tax, tax, tax. With her you were guaranteed to see more tax and regulatory violence against American citizens.

                There’s no morality in pulling back overseas while holding a gun to the heads of your fellow citizens. It’s hypocrisy for the consumption of those who equate “peace” simply with an absence of war.

          5. Just Say’n always votes with his dick.

            1. Would Jill Stein

              1. She and GJ did provide constant visual reminders of what unhealthy lifestyles both Clinton and Trump lead. I sometimes wonder whether that wasn’t the main reason they weren’t allowed to share the debate stage.

                Could you imagine how their protestations of being the healthiest people ever to walk the planet would sound standing next to two people who are the same age but look twenty years younger?

              2. A little bit of Jill by your side….

        2. I voted Green Party

          So you voted “Bake the Cake, Bigot’ anyway.

          There was only one candidate in the last election who wasn’t running on making bakers slaves.

          1. I’m aware of that. I expect bullshit from commies. No libertarians.

            Green or LP is a protest vote. No one expects them to win. I could not see myself voting for Gary with Weld on the ticket. It wasn’t a single thing that turned me off from Gary, but the move away from non-interventionism from the LP over the last three election cycles really pisses me off.

            Maybe I listen to too much Scott Horton

            1. Yeah. I couldn’t vote Gary either–though I managed to get quite a few die-hard dems to do so.

              I voted for the only candidate who was openly against forced labor, who had some libertarian goals among his campaign promises, and who I think is a raging asshole.

  10. Watched the Hudson kids debate yesterday; when kid porn was asked, your compatriots missed the answer; such teachings and supervision is the responsibility of parents. Adult supervision with clarity. Kid porn is a bad idea.

    1. Wtf are you twaddling on about?

  11. To state the obvious

  12. New Mexico is like the Massachusetts of the West.

    1. Ouch! Never heard that one before–or remotely imagined how it might be true–but not sure who should be more insulted.

      1. Los Nuevos Mexicanos.

    2. No. That’s Colorado.

  13. Nielson said, “Obviously if he was not in this race, this race would be significantly different.”

    LOL how, exactly? That Nielson would finish a humiliatingly distant second place, instead of third?

  14. Johnson’s surprise re-entry into politics?as recently as five months ago he told Nick Gillespie “I’m done with elected political office”

    “You just can’t trust Gary Johnson”

    1. Flip flopper.

  15. Johnson’s surprise re-entry into politics?as recently as five months ago he told Nick Gillespie “I’m done with elected political office”
    Not a flip-flop. He is done because he knows he won’t win. Hate to be cynical, but this campaign is just another way for someone to pull down a paycheck from the campaign contributions.

    1. and ensure that NM stays blue.

      1. That too. Gary takes care of Gary. I am amazed at how easily some people are taken in.

        1. If the Republican stood a Chinaman’s chance I’d condemn him as loudly as you do. And I agree that yes, he probably would run anyway. So he’s a narcissist; what else is new for politicians? The point is here in the world of actuality he is spoiling no one. At least acknowledge that, even if you do not agree with everyone else’s assessment that he actually has a better shot than the Republican!

          1. He doesn’t have a better shot than the Republican. I see no reason to think that. His positions are closer to the Democrats than they are to the Republicans. Open borders and gay wedding cakes are Democratic issues. That is his right of course, but I see no reason why the people who care about those issues would not just vote for the Democrat.

            1. Unlike the actual Republican candidate, Gary Johnson has actually received votes from Republicans before.

              1. Gary is definitely better than a generic Republican from NM. I’ll grant you that.

                And he probably has a better chance at winn8

          2. There is no way that Johnson will end up with more votes than the Republican candidate. You can tag this post and feel free to rub my nose in it if it turns out otherwise.

            1. If the Republican were to drop out, I bet he has a better chance at winning than a generic Republican

      2. Right… because those votes belong to the Republican Party, and they’re stealing them. Everyone knows that.

        1. Actually, no.

          It’s because, given the choice of an LP candidate to vote for, a lot of libertarians who vote R when there’s nothing else because it’s as close as they’re gonna get, will vote LP

          People own their votes.

          Telling people what could happen if they vote a certain way isn’t accusing them of ‘stealing’–it’s letting them know that the consequences might be more dire than they think.

          In the next election, Democrats need to be crushed. They need to be destroyed and their faces rubbed in the rubble. Why?

          Because Democratic lawmakers have been pressuring social media to silence their opposition–and social media is complying.

          The Democrats need to have that tool taken from them. With extreme prejudice.

          And the only way to do that is to show them it doesn’t matter if they coerce compliance from social media companies. It has no effect.

          Because if their gambit works, and they get control, they will, most assuredly, use government to formalize what they’ve done.

      3. It was already an absolute, stone-cold, dead certainty that Heinrich would crush Rich in November. Only an absolute twit could possibly consider Johnson’s entry an improvement for the Democrats’ chance of keeping the seat, which has been Democratic since the 1982 election. The question is whether Republicans in New Mexico have enough sense to prefer half-a-loaf to none, and abandon Rich for Johnson.

        If they do, well, “Johnson + Trump” beat Clinton in 2016 in New Mexico, and “Republican + Independent” came reasonably close to Heinrich in this seat in 2012. It would at least force the Democrats to spend resources in the state, drawing them away from other Senate races.

    2. Could he really not win heads-up against the Democrat? Isn’t he something like the most popular guy in NM? Why would they vote for the Dem for this office? (They re-elected a shitty Republican governor after all. BTW just found out she backs the one form of death penalty reinstitution even I consider worse than nothing–cop killers only!)

      1. Brand matters. If he is not running as one of the two main parties, he loses the votes of people who vote for him because they like the brand.

        1. Senator Ned Lamont would surely concur.

          1. One example out of hundreds totally proves your point. Johnson is going to lose his ass. Wishful thinking isn’t going to change that. And Liberman was an incumbent Senator. Is Johnson?

            1. John, I am constantly saying the Democrats will finally get their Emerging Majority sometime soon; and I freak out at the drop of a hat over every development in the news and have to be calmed down by everyone here. And here I’m predicting the Democrat is going to win. You’re probably the first to accuse me of being in thrall to wishful thinking. (And besides I don’t like the LP–I’ve said I don’t know if its success is a particularly good thing for the liberty-minded Right even where it can get it–and don’t like Johnson so I’m unsure how I’m even wishing for my predicted result in the first place.)

              Lisa Murkowski and Joe Lieberman were all incumbents. Strom Thurmond and Lowell Weicker were not. Neither were Angus King or Bernie Sanders. These are just off the top of my head. I am saying observe the specific circumstances under which third party candidates can win statewide (and again, this is not even counting when they have come in second which is all I am predicting) and observe how they may be relevant here. You by contrast are apparently encouraging me to just total up all the third party candidacies indiscriminately and use it as a denominator and be intimidated by the statistics. I am saying that is perhaps not the finest instrument to be used for thought here. You cannot throw up an inappropriately wide net and accuse the other guy of cherry picking when he wants to focus on a narrower set of distinguishing factors.

              1. For what it’s worth you may be right in your prediction; I wouldn’t be shocked. But I am saying Rich was a long shot at winning anyway, and I think Johnson will do better than you are predicting and has a better shot of coming in second than you are saying. My point overall is that some of the things you were saying don’t go through as easily as you’re making them out to.

                It doesn’t make sense to fret about this race because Heinrich will almost certainly walk away with it. Fretting about this race reminds me of all that fretting about this year’s Virginia U.S. Senate race, and how extremely important it was that the establishment Republican win the nomination instead of the “extreme” guy or whatever.

  16. Who is going to vote for Johnson? People who want open borders? Those people can vote Democrat. He won’t get 10%.

    1. What? Come on, no part of that makes any sense.

      1. John and the rest of the Reason Republicans are just acting the part of Tokyo Rose on behalf of Team Red.

        1. Fuck off. Come back when you have something intelligent to say.

          1. Truth hurts, Rosie.

            1. That you are stupid and never have anything interesting to say? It should but honestly, I don’t think you are ashamed of being stupid. So it likely doesn’t.

              1. Oh Rosie Rosie Rosie. Your propaganda is just not that clever anymore.

                1. That is because you are an idiot Jeff and never understand what anyone is saying. None of it is clever to you. You would have to be smart enough to understand what is going on for it to be clever to you.

                  1. “You won’t win, and you’re stupid too! Just vote for Team Red like good little citizens, the way God and nature intended you to do! Resistance is futile!” — Tokyo John

                    1. Bwahahahahaha….truth’s a bitch.

      2. It makes perfect sense. What does Johson offer that you can’t get from one of the two major parties? Nothing. You can’t get that combination of things from either one of them, but so what? People vote on a few important issues. They may say they support some issue but that doesn’t mean they vote on it. This is why third party candidates never get any traction. Because one of the two major parties cover pretty much every position on any issue, they can’t offer people a reason to change their vote. If open borders are your big issue, you can vote Democrat and get that. If closing the borders or national defense is your issue, you can vote Republican and get that and so forth.

        1. The two tribes frame the debate on major issues in ways that benefits the partisans on their teams. When it comes to spending, the framing is always between “spend money on those noble patriots in the military” or “spend money on those poor single mothers”. There is almost no one advocating the position of “hey, let’s not spend the money at all”.

          It’s the same with immigration. The framing is between “kick those shithole people back over the border” and “welcome them all with a welfare check”. Frankly I like the Austin Peterson position as a reasonable libertarian-ish compromise, which is basically: border security, but reform the legal immigration system, and treat immigrants justly, fairly and humanely. Nobody with any prominence is advocating for this point of view among the two tribes.

          Third parties expand and reframe the conversation. That is what I hope candidates like Gary Johnson can do.

          1. First, you are a member of one of those tribes. You are a Democrat and you are not fooling anyone when you pretend otherwise. Second, if there were these centerish positions that are so easy and popular, both of the parties would have adopted them. The parties want to win. If Libertarian positions were popular, there would be no need for an LP because one of the major parties would effectively be the LP.

            Third parties are doomed because they either fail or the succeed only to see their positions coopted by one of the major parties thus destroying their reason to exist.

            1. First, you are a member of one of those tribes.

              Whatever, Rosie. If I’m a Democrat, then I’m the world’s worst Democrat who wants to end the welfare state and slash taxes.

              Second, if there were these centerish positions that are so easy and popular, both of the parties would have adopted them.

              The partisans on either side won’t allow it. Look at the Missouri Democrats & abortion controversy article from earlier today. Even when some want to be just a little bit welcoming to pro-lifers, the radicals immediately put a stop to it.

              And libertarianism is not “centerish”. It is its own brand.

              1. Whatever, Rosie. If I’m a Democrat, then I’m the world’s worst Democrat who wants to end the welfare state and slash taxes.

                Again, you are fooling no one. The more you deny it, the more obvious it is.

                The partisans on either side won’t allow it.

                That is because they disagree. Libertarians won’t allow drug warriors to be in their party. It is almost like the parties are created to cater to a certain set of ideas or something.

                And Libertarian are their own brand. And it is a very unpopular brand. Stop pretending you care about that and are not just here trolling for Team Blue. Again, you are not fooling anyone.

                1. No, Rosie, I am not trolling for Team Blue. I have not once defended Team Blue at all in this discussion. You, however, have gone out of your way to try to demoralize us all on behalf of Team Red. But that is your schtick, when the going gets tough, just throw out the insults. “lol you stupid lol huh huh huh”

                  Libertarians won’t allow drug warriors to be in their party. It is almost like the parties are created to cater to a certain set of ideas or something.

                  Why, you’re right! And because the universe of possible ideas consists of more than just two points of view, the ideas encapsulated by the two tribes don’t represent what the populace, broadly speaking, actually want. Healthy conversations are not bipolar, they are multipolar. We don’t have a healthy political discourse in this country.

                  1. ^this. Team red and blue can suck a dick.

                    1. Ass to ass?

                2. Again, you are fooling no one. The more you deny it, the more obvious it is.

                  This place is hilarious. LC1789 insists sarcasmic is an anarchist, which he denies; John insists Jeff is a Dem, when he’s actually an anarchist. *facepalm*

                  1. And the trolls deny being trolls.

                    Its in their comments.

                    Sarcasmic is a minarchist which is anarchist.

                    Sarcasmic is NOT a Libertarian. Which who cares what you are, just own it and stop trying to undermine Libertarian positions with nonsense. If you do expect to get blasted for it.

                    Sarcasmic is a chump with multiple socks. Anarchists cant stand on their positions so they hide like pussies. Zeb at least admits hes an anarchist and does not seem to undermine libertarian positions with nonsense.

                    1. Besides, it is very likely that reason staff have sock accounts and troll to get web traffic. Maybe its just interns thta do the grunt work.

                      Then you have non-Libertarians trolling this website to tear down any Libertarianism they find. Lefties cannot stand Libertarians so we’re on the list.

                      Nature of the beast that Libertarians learn to handle. We have to own our positions and fight off Lefties, anarchists, and Republicans.

                    2. Hahaha…this is new level of paranoia, even for this place. The only new trolls here are all the republicans masquerading as libertarians and trying to claim the mantle of classical liberalism. It was better when the trolls were hihn and tony (bless them). At least they weren’t as smug and self-righteous. I only find the extreme right slightly less abhorent than the extreme left. If you disagree with >80% of the articles published here, maybe you really should be at the federalist or breitbart. Disclaimer, I am in now way affiliated with Reason magazine nor am I sock puppet.

        2. Yes but in this comment you put borders as one of several major issues, which is correct; whereas in the one above you boldly and explicitly presume that it is the issue. This is so far from true according to national polls that I doubt it is true even in border states. Third party candidates can and have won statewide elections. Usually it is under very specific circumstances. The candidate already has very strong statewide name recognition, stature, and popularity, usually with a major party. And–with causation going both ways here–usually the major-party candidate “on his side” is quite weak. Both are the case here.

          I can’t believe I’m defending GayJay, but I can’t see anything not to like about this particular move.

          1. I don’t know what the issue is or if there even is one. The point is whatever your issue is, it is likely covered by one of the two major parties.

            1. bullshit. There are many people that are for fixing the welfare system and securing the border without building Trump’s stupid wall. Apparently , the republicans are incapable of fixing imigration, welfare and health care. Why waste a vote on them?

              1. This needs to be Johnson’s message. He needs to stop being nice.

        3. This is why third party candidates never get any traction. Because one of the two major parties cover pretty much every position on any issue

          That’s just silly.

          Libertarian candidates often get to election day with rock-bottom name recognition, because the press consistently denies them any coverage. Gary Johnson has pretty good name recognition in New Mexico, which is likely to help him a lot on election day. It will also make it hard for the press to shut him out (but I expect them to try!)

          1. I doubt the local media will try to shut him out. It’s the national media that is in the DeRp’s pocket and that has that agenda.

          2. As for why many Libertarian candidates get to election day with no name recognition. It’s because most don’t even try. They don’t work the local press. They don’t know how to market themselves beyond some shock value self-indulgence. They don’t spend a nanosecond on an issue of local concern. Or spend any time on the tactics of politics like say Pirate Party in some countries or the classical liberal parties in others.

            So they end up far too often being the Official Monster Raving Loony Party – without the humor.

    2. People who don’t like either Trumpism or Progressivism?

      1. All 8% of those people will vote for Johnson.

        1. That must be why 42% of voters didn’t vote for either Hillary or Trump in 2016, right? Because Hillary Progressivism and Trumpism are both deeply satisfying positions for everyone?

          1. Trump and Hillary combined for like 90+% of the vote. The people who didn’t vote, didn’t’ vote. You can’t claim what reason. Maybe they just don’t care? Who knows and it doesn’t matter because they didn’t’ vote. If they wanted an alternative, they would have showed up and voted for Stein or Johnson. They didn’t. So pretending they are just waiting for their ideal candidate to vote is stupid even for you.

            1. There you go again, Rosie, trying to demoralize us all with your propaganda. You know as well as I do that there is nothing resembling a level playing field when it comes to Team Red/Team Blue and everyone else. But please, continue to tell us how everyone in the country must love either Progressivism or Trumpism even though 42% of voters didn’t vote for either one.

              1. I think the correct answer is the other people just aren’t that political, and just don’t care.

                As somebody who has followed politics rabidly since in high school, I don’t get those people. It seems incomprehensible that people would just not care either way… But I have met tons of people like this throughout my life.

                As John said, if they really hated Trump and Clinton they would have voted third party out of spite… That’s what I did! They’re mostly people who just don’t give a fuck about politics either way.

          2. And yet that 42% didn’t vote for Johnson either did they?

        2. I dont have a finger on the pulse in New Mexico, but it would be reasonable to look to the last election Johnson ran in NM as a Libertarian. He got 9% of the vote.

  17. What I am hoping for in this race is for GayJay to really build the NM LP into a credible rival to the Rs and Ds, maybe even poach any principled Rs or Ds for the LP. Too many candidates (i.e., almost all) finish their race with nothing to show for it. I want to see the LP in the down ticket races come up with at least 15% in three way races.

    I’m not holding my breath.

  18. LOL at Martin Heinrich freaking out over Johnson.

    In all seriousness, I don’t expect a Senator Johnson to govern as a libertarian. He’ll vote like a centrist Democrat or a Rockefeller Republican. It’s hard seeing him being as outspoken on foreign policy as Rand Paul or Justin Amash or Thomas Massie. He’s just too much of a goof. And as a pro-life libertarian, I can’t see him offering me much. I don’t think he’d even vote to defund Planned Parenthood or ban abortion after 20 weeks.

    So, whatever.

    1. Well, he doubtless will not govern as anything, but I agree. I do not like the guy.

      1. Sadly, a lot of his supporters are the kind who bash Ron Paul. Which is a shame, because GJ himself seems like a fun guy. Can’t see him doing well here, though. This is the guy who emphasized his socially liberal credentials in the hopes of winning Sanders supporters, as though Sanders’ appeal was based on those issues and not his economic viewpoints.

        1. This.

          A lot of people have a distaste for Johnson, because the people around him spend all their time trashing the Paul brand and spend more time cozying up with identity politics and establishment Democrats.

          He needs new people around him

          1. This is the problem with ALL these Cosmotarians!

            I disagree with Ron Paul on some of his conservative stances, because I’m not a bible thumper, but by and large he’s my kind of guy. If he got everything he wanted politically it would improve the USA 10,000%. Johnson would be maybe a 500% improvement, which would be awesome… But it would also be horrible with a lot of the SJWey things he and other Cosmotarians push.

            I think the Cosmotarians are in denial that Ron Paul style libertarians are the majority, just as urban progressives are in denial that more moderate 90s Bill Clinton style Democrats are really the majority within their own party. They both took control of the levers of power, and push their views, but the rank and file don’t always fall in line like they want…

  19. Interesting alt-text. I’m not sure what Welch is trying to say with that.

    That’s the song Charles Manson wrote that the Beach Boys recorded.

  20. Hopefully he prepares for this a lot more than he did his presidential bid. Pick up a newspaper maybe? Browse Drudge? Anything to avoid another Aleppo moment. The Republicrat machine is going to hammer him, and their media lapdogs are going to seize any opportunity to paint him as simply a distraction.

    1. “What would you do about Brett Kavanaugh?”
      “About?”
      “Brett Kavanaugh.”
      “And what is Brett Kavanaugh?”

  21. Be still my heart.

  22. “I’m done with elected political office”

    With rare exceptions, the only time an elected politician is done with elections or political office is on their death bed or when the revolution makes them dictator-for-life.

    1. Ariel Sharon found a third way. Tech isn’t the only field in which Israelis have been innovators!

  23. I’m an Arizonan, but I hope New Mexicans can rally around Governor Johnson and put him in the Senate seat. Liberty loving people around the globe will love you for that and this could have some big implications breaking through two-party corruption and stagnation. Viva Gary Johnson!

  24. “Third Time’s the Charm! After Andy and Lyndon, finally a Johnson you can be proud of in the Senate.

    “This will be the best Johnson the Senate has ever had.

    “The other puny Johnsons will be put to shame.

    “And he’s more qualified than those other Johnsons to enter the White House.”

    1. (By the way, I’m offering all these slogans for free to the Gary Johnson campaign)

      “Make the Senate squeal – put a Johnson in it!”

      “A Johnson that really satisfies!”

      “You see, ‘Johnson’ is slang for ‘penis’!”

    2. You’re telling me you’re not proudly endorsing Gary “Big” Johnson for this office? I am–if only to get some more use from my graphics T shirts from the ’90s.

      …Hmm, I wonder if he is libertarian enough to support legalizing coed naked sporting events?

      1. Hey, when did those “Big Johnson” T-shirts become offensive?

          1. LOL! I think that second one is actually authentic!

            As for the first, I want it to become a thing for the new throwback wave. Next up: bootleg Rebel Bart Simpson T-shirts. (“Who the hell are y’all?”)

  25. Two things: the article’s image gave me cancer; chemjeff and John’s fight broke my heart. I love you two so much that reading your textual altercation made me realize that this place needs more LOVE. Thus, to all you loser libertarian faggots that reside here, please consider making arguments with an ostensibly seductive tone and avoid calling each other names.

    1. Wait aren’t you a libertarian?

    2. Well I am sorry to have made you sad.

  26. Senate makes more sense than President, since libertarians have ZERO policy solutions. For anything.

  27. Luckily, Trump is Libertarian-ish and shows that Libertarian policies are the best and work, along with really pissing off the Lefties.

    1. Trump is libertarian-ish? Sorry, not a fucking chance. Go tell your handlers we’re not buying this bullshit here.

      1. …or at least I’m not.

      2. He bounces around between alt-right, Trump and libertarian, and thinks hating government means libertarian.

      3. The tragic thing is he may be the most libertarian-ish president we’ve had in decades!

        That’s not to say he’s very libertarian, merely that all the others were even worse.

  28. Holy fuck, the people piling on chemjeff and sarcasmic are a hoot. I’ll probably be called a sock, even tho I’ve been posting and lurking (mostly lurking) for longer than most on here. I mean, I remember Gary Gunnels/Jean Bart/etc, TWC, Thoreau, Episiarch, and others that were around years before The Glibbening.

    John has always been a Republican who can sometimes make reasonable (drink!) comments from time to time, but TDS doesn’t always have to be a negative reaction, it seems.

    Cathy L is another commenter who seems to be getting attacked way beyond what I would assume is her due for an ostensibly libertarian comments board.

    Anyway, I’m just a fierce individualist with some anarcho-capitalist tendencies, who just wishes we (humanity) could all get along, so what do I know?

    1. Agreed. I’ve been mostly a lurker here for many, many years also. It’s just this push to somehow align trump with classical liberals that I find downright repugnant. Never really felt the need to comment until recently….

      1. Who else are classical liberals supposed to work with??? Bernie Sanders? Warren???

        The Democrats have gone off the rails. Trump is more or less a conservative-ish Democrat from a few decades ago. He’s not awesome, but he’s a hell of a lot better than anything else that is on offer. People are too stupid to vote for Rand Paul, or Justin Amash for president… So we get Trump. Might as well make the best of it.

  29. If this seat is a solid lock for the Dem, I see nothing bad here. If it was projected to be close or a toss up… Kinda sucks. Things are just too close to be handing seats to the Dems. I don’t like the whole 3rd party is a wasted vote thing, and I usually vote L for many things… But I also vote R when they have a shot, because Rs are generally waaay better than the Dems are nowadays.

    Personally I think the Rs would be smart to stop wasting time and money running candidates in places that have zero chance of winning in hyper liberal areas… Let the Libertarians run there. So in Cali or NY for instance, let the Libertarian run, and save that RNC money for a race where they might actually win. In a lot of blue areas Ls probably won’t win… But they will likely do better than a hard line R would. The softer stance on some issues might even actually allow them to win in some areas where Rs never could.

    It would be an interesting and smart strategy IMO, but I suppose that’s why the RNC would never go for it. 🙁

  30. Does he still agree with 70% of everything Bernie Sanders says?

  31. This is good news. Gary learned firsthand how ditching Republican tendencies to force pregnant women into involuntary labor increased his own vote total by over 300%. Hopefully the Warriors for the Babies will stop trying to infiltrate the LP the way communists gave up the effort after the funding from Moscow dried up. Besides, there’s other Gary Johnson’s where that one came from.

  32. I’m not sure what to think of this. IMHO, it’s way too late for him to win such a race. Being a thorn-in-the-side influence in the conversation, well, sure, he can do that. Given that I believe Trump is the big problem, if I were a New Mexico resident, I’d probably vote for the Dem with all the enthusiasm (sarcasm on) I hit the button for Hillary Clinton. I do wish the day will come soon when I can vote FOR someone who can win. Sigh!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.