Who will a Libertarian presidential candidate take votes from?
Former two-term New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is upset that he isn't getting much attention in his presidential run. Yet, rather than being upset, he should realize that there are several very libertarian candidates running in the Republican presidential race: Ron Paul and on many issues Michele Bachmann. From Politico:
According to a Public Policy Polling survey of New Mexico conducted Dec. 10-12, Johnson as a Libertarian candidate could impact the vote in his home state.
PPP found Johnson would draw between 26 and 30 percent of GOP votes, between 12 and 16 percent of Democratic votes and win independents, in a race with either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich as the GOP nominee.
Johnson on the ballot would help Obama win New Mexico, typically a swing state, by a 17-point margin, PPP found.
Labels: 2012election
posted by John Lott at 3:11 AM
4 Comments:
Do you realize there is a great falling away afoot? I don't care about the mainstream Republican candidates anymore. It doesn't matter if Romney or Gingrich or Obama wins. None of them will end the unconstitutional activities of the government. Bachmann has said several inaccurate things, about Iran at the very least- pathetic pretexts for war aren't part of the libertarian agenda.
I will simply not vote, except perhaps if Ron Paul becomes the nominee. Guess who that takes votes from? Yes, from a Rush Limbaugh listener at fifteen, to a person committed to see the downfall of the both parties at thirty-seven, because I have been paying attention and the Republicans are liars- sometimes they say the right things, but they deliver the same socialist crap dressed up in different clothing. The are, at best enablers, and at worst (and more often) collaborators with the Democrats.
August... Who praytell created the story that voting other than Dem or Repub, will result in an upset?
Granted, the Bull Moose party did set the tone for this, and it has been followed ever since.
With this foundation in place, does it not make sense for those in 'power' (so they think), to utilise such a tool so as not to lose?
If you, and those who share similar ideas do not vote, due to your concerns about the status quo, does not this play into the hands of those in office now?
Martin, I don't understand your question. There isn't a story here, except for the lie implied- namely that you have to vote for a Republican or else you get a Democrat. Plenty of folk vote Republican, and still get Democrat.
Don't vote at all, and maybe the politician who expected you to vote for him realizes he's more dependent on you for his job than on whatever deals are going down in Washington. Maybe not, but at least you haven't lent the air of legitimacy to this circus if you don't vote. Seriously, they gave us a choice between McCain and Obama last time, and neither one went against the bailout. All the polls were overwhelmingly against the bailout- McCain could have taken the thing by coming out against it. They aren't giving us viable candidates. Most of the stuff that goes on in D.C. is unconstitutional and these people are committing to breaking their oath before they ever even make it.
Precisely my point August; "There isn't a story here, except for the lie implied- namely that you have to vote for a Republican or else you get a Democrat."
Silence is simply ignored, because it has no impact; "Don't vote at all, and maybe the politician who expected you to vote for him realizes he's more dependent on you for his job than on whatever deals are going down in Washington." If no one votes for I, how would I know?
If I vote Libertarian, my voice is heard, and clearly understood. If I do not vote, no one hears anything...
Post a Comment
<< Home