(The following was originally reported by Newsmax.)
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who ran for president in 2012 with the Libertarian Party, said he would like to be a third party candidate in 2016, the National Journal reported.
Johnson was elected in 1994 as a Republican in New Mexico and served two terms as governor. He participated in a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” session last week.
“I hope to be able to run in 2016,” Johnson replied to a query, according to the National Journal.
LOL thanks. More like zoned out from burning the candle at both ends and not getting enough sleep or downtime of any sort.
It really makes little difference who gets the Libertarian nomination. The party will vilify whomever it is.
I sure do wish that a better candidate would emerge. I sure do miss the Harry Browne days.
pf, you are in the zone of late!
It depends on how many delegates believe the smears and to what extent. I think the damage won’t be anything like seriously threatening to the nomination, but will not be anything like insignificant either. It will probably get really vicious and blown out of proportion in IPR comments, of course.
ns: I won’t say that Johnson can’t win the nomination without addressing his issues, but there’s something to be said for winning it clean instead of winning it bloodied.
me: Define “bloodied.” The impulse to bloody over big issues or minor policy disagreements seems deeply ingrained in the L psyche.
Odds are very high GJ will be viciously attacked often no matter what he does….
I think Gary was a better candidate in the general due to having had to face Lee and others in state conventions leading up to it. And if Chuck or others run for ’16 Gary will be better if he has to campaign against them, although I think he will still win the nomination…if he runs.
Agreed.
I won’t say that Johnson can’t win the nomination without addressing his issues, but there’s something to be said for winning it clean instead of winning it bloodied.
Nicholas Sarwark May 1, 2014 at 7:15 pm said: “In any event, well-informed insiders focused on practical politics are not a big enough bloc within the LP to give him the nomination, but the issues identified here need to be addressed before he gets the 2016 nomination. If they are not, those insiders will share their (often well-respected) opinions with the delegates at large and Mr. Johnson may not get another shot.”
Unless a higher profile and/or better funded candidate for the LP nomination emerges, or unless Gary Johnson some how screws himself up big time, Gary Johnson will win the LP nomination for President in 2016 if he runs for it.
The LP National Conventions in 2008 and in 2012 showed that more hardcore Libertarians are not well organized as far as running campaigns goes, and that a majority of LP convention delegates prefer style, name recognition, and big promises over substance.
“paulie April 30, 2014 at 11:37 pm
‘Also, he has the benefit of there not being any higher profile minor party or independent candidates in the race, like say John Anderson or Ross Perot or Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan.’
That may or may not matter, since our previous 1%-range presidential run was in the year Anderson ran.
‘Then factor this in with the internet and the Ron Paul effect (as in Ron Paul’s campaigns in the Republican primaries greatly increase the name recognition of the word libertarian). Even so, he still got a lower PERCENT of the vote than Ed Clark got back in 1980. Percent of the vote is actually a more important number than number of votes.’
Ed Clark had a billionaire running mate, 15 months to campaign as the official party nominee, and ballot access in two more states than Johnson.
The D/R-oids did not spend nearly as much in 1980 as in 2012, so Johnson was outspent by orders of magnitude more than Clark was.
The percentage difference was trivial, though.”
The fact that Ed Clark had a very wealthy running mate who sunk a few million dollars of his own money into the race did in fact make a difference, as did the fact that Ed Clark had a longer period of time to campaign as the Libertarian Party candidate’s nominee for President than Gary Johnson had.
However, on the flip side Ed Clark had to contend with the higher profile independent candidate John Anderson being in the race, while Gary Johnson was the highest profile non-major party candidate in the race.
The bottom line is that while Johnson did relatively well (by minor party standards), he still did not beat Ed Clark in the important category of percent of the vote received.
Everything said by “Been There, Done That” is correct. I’m less concerned about Mr. Johnson’s deviation from party orthodoxy or even his quest for matching funds as I am that his campaign manager is ineffective and does not understand how a non-Republican campaign should be run (though from his performance in the 2012 Republican primary, maybe it’s that he just doesn’t understand how a Presidential campaign should be run).
In any event, well-informed insiders focused on practical politics are not a big enough bloc within the LP to give him the nomination, but the issues identified here need to be addressed before he gets the 2016 nomination. If they are not, those insiders will share their (often well-respected) opinions with the delegates at large and Mr. Johnson may not get another shot.
@Been There, Done That: +1
The issue isn’t money. Period. It’s campaign leadership. Ron Nielsen is/was an ineffective leader. He refused to address issues, refused to take advantages of opportunities, and flatly told some LP state affiliates that GJ would not be campaigning there because there aren’t enough votes, or perspective votes, to be had. Nor did he show any interest in reaching out to Libertarians who may/may not be active participants in their local affiliates.
If, by some miracle, GJ won the WH, the problem of leadership would remain if Ron became Chief-of-Staff. I don’t care how much money he personally spent. Most of the Libertarians who were in campaign positions spent a great deal of their own money, as well, myself included. GJ is a good man. He does believe in liberty and what you see is what you get with him. While those are admirable traits for a candidate to possess, politics is not personal. It’s a business. A dirty business. But there is no room to continue to make the same choices over and over, expecting a different result. Einstein, anyone?
GJ is sentimental, not practical, about the people he chooses to run his campaign. Nielsen may have run a great campaign for him in NM, as a Republican. But he is beyond ineffective in the world of third party politics. If basic changes cannot be made, without worrying about someone’s feelings, their results will be the same.
It was significant from what I have been told.
Yeah, I’m sure it had some. I doubt it was much though.
The news filters out. It had an impact on fundraising.
Well, its only a small group of Ls that pay any attention to his campaign’s finance records. So, yeah, it looks bad to half of the 200 people who care.
It does look bad on paper. Johnson would have been better off taking the Harry Browne approach to matching funds.
There are plenty of things about GJ that are less than ideal. However, I welcome all, non-embarrassing candidates into the race.
As for GJ’s campaign debt, I’m with Cannoli. There doesn’t seem to be much of a story there, though some people keep trying to make one.
Good luck.
That may or may not matter, since our previous 1%-range presidential run was in the year Anderson ran.
Ed Clark had a billionaire running mate, 15 months to campaign as the official party nominee, and ballot access in two more states than Johnson.
The D/R-oids did not spend nearly as much in 1980 as in 2012, so Johnson was outspent by orders of magnitude more than Clark was.
The percentage difference was trivial, though.
The debt story is completely overblown. Basically the “debt” is almost all owed to Ron Nielson, who is essentially (although not technically, since that would be illegal) writing it off as uncollectable. In reality the money was spent a lot more efficiently than the FEC reports seem to indicate. It was all a shell game to try to get FEC matching funds, which did not work out very well and ended up costing Nielson personally a huge amount of money. I personally saw plenty of money spent on producing campaign materials and gtting them to supporters around the country as well as getting Gary and the Judge all over the place, plus there was an office to run, and allegedly a six figure radio ad buy. Given that they also had a full time office and employees, and barely over a million in contributions, I would say that was pretty efficient.
“Jed Ziggler April 30, 2014 at 10:46 pm
Good news. I know he has his detractors, and frankly I don’t get it. Yes, he spent a lot of money. No, he’s not perfect. But he got more votes than any other Libertarian POTUS candidate in history. If we’re not excited about a candidate getting votes, then what the Hell are we doing? Go Gary Go!”
The problem wasn’t that his campaign spent a lot of money, it is in HOW they spent the money, as in did they spend it efficiently, or did they squander resources and put themselves into debt?
Also, he has the benefit of there not being any higher profile minor party or independent candidates in the race, like say John Anderson or Ross Perot or Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan. Then factor this in with the internet and the Ron Paul effect (as in Ron Paul’s campaigns in the Republican primaries greatly increase the name recognition of the word libertarian). Even so, he still got a lower PERCENT of the vote than Ed Clark got back in 1980. Percent of the vote is actually a more important number than number of votes.
Maybe not a disaster, but I’d still prefer to see a better candidate emerge.
Newsmax is jumping the gun, but hopefully it is true.
Good news. I know he has his detractors, and frankly I don’t get it. Yes, he spent a lot of money. No, he’s not perfect. But he got more votes than any other Libertarian POTUS candidate in history. If we’re not excited about a candidate getting votes, then what the Hell are we doing? Go Gary Go!