Gary Johnson polling at 5.3% nationwide

A new nation-wide poll was released by JZ Analytics showing Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson garnering 5.3%. Undecided was at 13.1%. The sample size was 893 people with a margin of error of 3.3%. No other candidate was listed.

The Daily Caller reported on this new poll:

“That’s a big deal,” Johnson told Capitol Report New Mexico. “We’re at 5 [percent] today, we could get to 7 tomorrow because people will check it out.”

Johnson is still polling far behind the two presidential front-runners, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who polled at 43 percent and 38 percent, respectively, according to the poll.

However, Johnson has gained popularity in recent months. A JZ Analytics/Washington Times poll from May had him at only two percent.

“It’s all good, from our vantage point a lot more money is coming in,” Johnson said at a libertarian-leaning meeting called Freedom Fest in Las Vegas. “If people get the notion that I could win, that could be a game-changer. We’re not there yet, I’m not saying that, but these numbers are encouraging.”

Read the rest at the Daily Caller: Gary Johnson Polls at 5.3%

Check out the Poll at Nationwide Interactive Likely Voters Poll 7/10/12 thru 7/13/12

34 thoughts on “Gary Johnson polling at 5.3% nationwide

  1. Kyle Kneale

    Great news. That could easily be much higher if other polling sources/media sources would cover Presidential candidates out of the main two.

    If this CNN thing the Johnson Campaign is doing works, and they cover/include him, we could see 10% by mid-August.

  2. Dave

    And of course the comments are the typical “A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama!” “spoiler!” “Wasted vote!”

    That argument always annoys me. Even if you buy into all of Johnson’s voters otherwise voting for Romney, and even if you genuinely believe Romney is better then Obama, Voting for Johnson would only be spoiling the race for Romney in… what? 5 states? The vast majority of states are not battlegrounds. Voting for Johnson, Stein, Goode or any of the others in any of them impacts the race in no way whatsoever.

  3. NewFederalist

    I doubt that this is meaningful. If all the “major” alternative nominees were included (Goode and Stein in addition to Johnson) I wonder if the aggregate for all of them would exceed 5.3%.

  4. NewFederalist

    So might Fellure and a host of others who are not mentioned. Undecided often means, well… undecided… as in don’t know yet.

  5. Stewart Flood

    Johnson is polling at 100% in my household. And since I’d never vote for Obama or Romney, casting my vote for him is simply a VOTE FOR JOHNSON!

    I hear the wasted vote stuff around here all the time. They are fools and losers. Scared of the Devil, so they vote for Stalin! (You can cast either of the two as the Devil, depending on whether you’re talking to a democrat or a republican)

  6. ATBAFT

    Had the same “you are a fool to vote for Johnson even if you don’t like Romney, because America can’t take an Obama unfettered from his need to be re-elected” complaint by a Tea Partier last night.
    “Hold you nose and vote for Romney,” I was advised.

    I countered with usual arguments but, on the spot,
    couldn’t well articulate why America will survive four more years of Obama. So, how bad would it be for Obama to win???

  7. NewFederalist

    “So, how bad would it be for Obama to win???”

    Not any worse than Romney especially if the GOP controls BOTH houses of Congress. Gridlock, baby!

  8. Austin Battenberg Post author

    If Romney wins, you have one party control, and we know how well that works.

    If Obama wins, he has another chance to appoint another life serving judge.

    Either way, we are screwed, because both are statist war-mongers.

  9. zapper

    The most important thing to whichever Tweedle might win an election – either Dee or Dum – isn’t how many votes they won by; rather it is whether or not a significant number of votes went in another direction.

    Voting for either Obama or Romney is a wasted vote.

    Yes. Let me repeat that.

    Voting for either Obama or Romney is a wasted vote.

    Unless you agree with one or t’other 100%, it is better to seek out an alternative candidate.

    Whichever Big 2 candidate wins will be made more nervous by those votes beeing peeled off in an alternative direction. The winning Tweedle will have to seriously consider the desires of a mounting threat to the ruling duopoly, and that outside voting force, even if small, is a real threat if it is growing. As the numbers against mount, the ruling Tweedle perceives he may lose out altogether on being in the big two, so he will move toward the 3rd force.

    Additionally, if we do stick together supporting our 3rd force – the Libertarian Party – we WILL eventually win. We will break through. This will happen suddenly, and surprisingly to all but the most discerning among us. Just as in Maine, on several occasions, when suddenly an Independent has won the Governor’s race – until now it’s almost expected – the LP will suddenly field the winning Presidential candidate.

    It could even be this year. Gary Johnson still has a chance of breaking through. And if this year only results in an uptick beyond 1%, a repeat run in 2016 could put Johnson in the White House.

    These “vote for Romney or Obama wins” attacks are not issued out of fear of a President Obama for the next four years.

    These “vote for Romney” attacks are the result of a deeper fear – the fear that it could be Johnson who wins in 2016 if not 2012 and the fear that the LP winning the White House, followed by a subsequent takeover of the Congress, is inevitable, and that the demise of the Republican Party will follow.

  10. Robert Capozzi

    12 z: Unless you agree with one or t’other 100%, it is better to seek out an alternative candidate.

    me: Is this an overstatement for effect? If not, my feedback is the 100% bar is WAY too high. I don’t agree with GJ 100%, BUT I’m voting for him. If he’d gotten the R nomination, I’d STILL have voted for him in all likelihood.

    z: These “vote for Romney” attacks are the result of a deeper fear – the fear that it could be Johnson who wins in 2016 if not 2012 and the fear that the LP winning the White House

    me: Please offer evidence for this assertion. My guess is if we polled R operatives, few to none would cite fear of the LP as being on their radar. And my guess is that their fear of BHO 2.0 is real enough.

  11. zapper

    My guess is that if we polled R operatives, they would lie and deny their true fears.

    At any single point in time, there is little chance of any 3rd party candidate actually changing the outcome of any election between the big two. Even when the number of votes earned by the 3rd party candidate exceeds the difference between the first and second place finishers, it doesn’t follow that the absence of that alternative on the ballot would have changed the outcome.

    We would have to first have to deduct from the 3rd party candidate all the voters that would not have voted for either of the big two. And since some votes may have come from either, all of those from the lesser and an equal amount from the greater should be deducted. Further, fear of the third candidate will have increased turnout for each of the big 2 candidates, so that number must be deducted from each of their totals.

    Having Johnson on the ballot may actually increase Romney’s totals by inducing a greater turnout of less interested voters who wish to counter the Johnson threat, who might never have voted at all except because they thought Johnson would take votes from Romney.

    However, in the end, most operatives have a longer term view of their positions. They will have jobs in their party machines somewhere as long as their party machine continues to exist.

    It is the total defeat of their machine that they fear most. A discerning view of the future shows that outcome is inevitable and can at best (for them) be delayed. And they can never admit that. Because if they admit THAT fear, they may set off the spark that unleashes the wildfire they wish to prevent.

    If an R operative ever admitted on National TV in front of millions of viewers that he thought the L party could defeat and replace the Rs it would cause millions of viewers to suddenly take a serious look at the Libertarian Party for the first time.

    The fear of Ross Perot was of a one time abberation – an Independent victory can be explained away as a fluke.

    The fear of a Libertarian victory is the fear of the total destruction of the R party. They are not stupid. They are fully aware and smart enough to deny the possibility of the Political Tsunami they are trying hard to prevent.

  12. Robert Capozzi

    z, OK, like everyone, R operatives are likely to lie. So, if we poll them under the influence of sodium pentathol, I severely doubt they fear the LP. They may fear the Paulistas to some extent inside the GOP. Again, I see no evidence that there is wholesale, conscious fear of the LP, and, again, you present no evidence they do. On the margins they may fear that GJ might hurt MR’s totals, but that’s a different kettle of fish.

    I suspect they fear the demographic waves favoring the Ds WAY more than the LP. They have been able to manipulate the fears of knuckledraggers on the immigration issue, for ex., and to use veiled racism and unveiled homophobia to be competitive with the Ds for the past 3 decades or so.

    Why on Earth would they fear the LP? We get almost no votes. We have been historically mired in childish internal squabbles. And we even seem to believe there’s a “cult of the omnipotent State,” i.e., we’re so off in la-la construct land, we don’t have the good sense to expunge all the loony “intellectual” legacy excesses of Randian Rothbardianism.

    We’re going nowhere fast.

    Now, I happen to believe that movement toward liberty is both virtuous and sellable, and that maybe, just maybe, GJ might just represent a move toward real – as opposed to Ivory Tower – L politics, so I continue to monitor the situation, hoping for a shift in approach. But at the moment, the LP remains dominated by constructivistic (extremist) thinking.

  13. zapper

    My view is that the LP has been primarily held back by bad management, poor leadership and perhaps worst of all, incessant infighting.

    Diluting our principles is not a solution but another detour from the path to victory.

    Having personally moved into a state where the total number of people willing to attend an LP event was 3 (including me) and within 3 years getting regular turnouts in the hundreds (up to 250) at multiple LP events with TV news coverage on every major TV network where the LP was used as the tease and the lead story, I’d say we just need better leaders with sound strategic vision, the ability to plan and execute, financial management skills, fundraising skills, party growth and membership skills, advertising and outreach skills, and the ability to budget and prioritize as well as, most importantly, the ability to get along, and skills to diffuse and prevent disabling friction and infighting.

  14. Robert Capozzi

    16 z, diluting falsehoods always sounds like a good idea to me. Indeed, I favor rejecting the false!

  15. Michael H. Wilson

    My view is that the LP has been primarily held back by bad management, poor leadership and perhaps worst of all, incessant infighting.

    Diluting our principles is not a solution but another detour from the path to victory.

    Well you are not the only one with that view. Right now I am highly pissed for the failure to do much of anything to improve the promotional material the LP uses at this last LNC meeting but maybe it’ll come up in November. That will help the candidates running for office this year I am sure.

    Maybe I am wrong. It seems foolish of us to produce adequate literature to promote our cause when we are not going to win anyway. Why waste the time, money and good trees? The failure to produce the brochures just show that we are good stewards of the environment. No trees we killed to advance our cause.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    z and mhw, any theories on WHY the LP has “poor” leadership? Has it ever had effective leadership, aside from the occasionally faster-growing state LPs here and there?

    I’d note that even if a state LP has effective leadership for a time, no state (with the possible exception of AK in the 80s) LP has been much of an electoral force. Why is that?

  17. Michael H. Wilson

    RC @ 19. It is possibly the nature of the beast and the failure to produce any training materials.

  18. Michael H. Wilson

    paulie @ 20. I’d appreciate you keeping me posted as to what is planned. I was writing a letter to the LNC members this a.m. and the wording might be a little strong. Thank you.

  19. Robert Capozzi

    21 mhw, so, if it IS the “nature of the beast,” then the obvious implication seems to be the enterprise is completely futile. And if THAT’S true, why do it?

  20. Robert Capozzi

    24 mhw, let me rephrase: Despite the fact that the LP’s nature is that it’s inherent that party leadership is and always will be dysfunctional, IF adequate training materials were to be produced, the party could overcome its built in leadership limitation to be an effective counter-force to the State.

    Am I in the neighborhood?

    If so, then you might want to produce training materials gratis and simply ignore the leadership and its inherent shenanigans. 100% effort to provide Wilsonian training materials might be indicated.

    If I’ve got it scoped reasonably correctly, it’s a valid view, certainly. I happen to think the dysfunction is deeper (creeping Randian Rothbardian cancer in the foundation) but neither contention can be disproven.

  21. Michael H. Wilson

    Well I am Cobden & Bright kinda guy myself so I don’t feel so negative. The training material was once upon a time produced, at least a draft version. There was no interest in it but then I was in Oregon at that time.

  22. zapper

    ” … sound strategic vision, the ability to plan and execute, financial management skills, fundraising skills, party growth and membership skills, advertising and outreach skills, and the ability to budget and prioritize as well as, most importantly, the ability to get along, and skills to diffuse and prevent disabling friction and infighting … ”

    All organizations need to take care to put qualified, skilled individuals in charge. Many suffer from the same sort of leadership problems the LP has faced and still faces. Some of these skills are a matter of University level educational programs, some can be aquired through party training (which has been sadly minimal), some are inate, some are learned, I would venture that no one is the master of all of these skills though many may possess none of them without training, despite holding high level party posts.

    One specific problem endemic to the LP is that we have tended to choose leaders for managerial or functional positions based on political and ideological values instead of competence in fulfilling the required duties of their position.

    One’s views on Rothbard have little bearing on managing a petition drive, balancing a checkbook, choosing a convention site or making a rent vs. buy decision for an office.

    Somehow we need to remove the managerial function from the ideological.

    For example, while the LNC manages the party affairs, perhaps a separately selected group should be charged with producing literature or making official party statements. When the managers disagree over political views and statements, it’s difficult for them to come back together and manage the outreach, promotion, and business affairs due to resentments and ongoing ideological positioning.

  23. Robert Capozzi

    z 27, might be a good way to go. But any change of that nature requires a change to the Bylaws, and a consensus in the party.

    Changing the Bylaws is not easy, since the ideologues who founded the party thought of themselves as omniscient uber-men or something, doing things like protecting the notes-from-the-asylum-sounding SoP with a 7/8ths hurdle.

    I wonder how the “grassroots” types might like your proposed change. And, of course, the ideological divide over messaging won’t go away under the Zapper Internal LP Re-Organization Plan.

  24. NewFederalist

    It is actually easier to found a new party than to change the bylaws of the LP. More sensible as well.

  25. Paulie

    Right now I am highly pissed for the failure to do much of anything to improve the promotional material the LP uses at this last LNC meeting but maybe it’ll come up in November. That will help the candidates running for office this year I am sure.

    Staff and LNC are already working on new materials and were doing so even before the meeting. There was no action item for the meeting, such as a request for money to be spent, so it was not on the meeting agenda. I’ve added to some of the discussion of materials today on the email list, which you will see on LNCDiscussPublic when Starchild gets to it if he hasn’t already.

    The goals discussion took place after formal adjournment because there were also no items for immediate votes on that agenda item and everyone was exhausted, with some people having already left and other people having planes and rides to catch.

    While I would have liked the goals discussion to have progressed on to specifics such as promotional materials, that was not something that had to be discussed at the meeting; it has been and will continue to be discussed on email and phone conferences and with staff.

    One concern that Carla brought up was the staff time needed to print and fulfill orders once materials are created. She suggested just posting .pdfs that people could print themselves instead. I am looking for ideas of ways in which we can have someone other than staff OR the volunteers already taking out time to give out literature spend the time and money to print it; your thoughts welcome.

  26. Paulie

    Also, if anyone has specific language or better yet actual promotional items including layout, logos etc ready to suggest, I would be happy to pass them along for consideration.

  27. zapper

    @28 We’re not talking about amending the Statement of Principles – 7/8.

    Other bylaws changes are more reasonably possible.

    This is a fresh idea, but I think it’s worth kicking around. Perhaps removing some of the ideological battles from management would help.

    Maybe it wouldn’t.

    It’s worth considering and discussing in any case. Perhaps after the current election countdown, if anyone remembers and cares.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *