In an article titled, “Who Will Make It Through the Homestretch?” published by the New York Times earlier today, contributing opinion writer Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of the New York Times best seller “The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise” (2012), offers the following advice to the Johnson campaign:
“Hillary had a full-blown trust crisis on her hands even before her team decided to stage their own episode of “House” for the public. Yet her response to legitimate questions tends to be either to simply give her name, rank and serial number, or to offer a mirthless chuckle and a contemptuous eyeroll. This is driving more and more people — if the polls are believable — toward “neither” or Gary Johnson. Interestingly, and contrary to conventional expectations, the differences between two-way and four-way polling suggest the libertarian is pulling more support from Clinton than from Trump. . . .
“Johnson is a very adroit guy who is getting much more serious attention than anybody expected. He’s polling at or over 10 percent in 42 states. He’s over 15 percent in 10. Those are uncharted waters for libertarians, who are more accustomed to campaign rallies that would fit comfortably around a single hookah pipe. . . . Not to take anything away from Johnson, but the reason for his big bump is obviously that the major parties nominated two of the two most disliked candidates in history. He is probably as surprised as the rest of us about how the race has gone, so it’s not shocking that his policy knowledge has a couple of holes in it as large as an Ayn Rand novel.
“If I were Johnson, I would heavily market my ideology of tolerance and policy flexibility. For example, he believes in legalizing a lot of drugs, but that doesn’t mean he insists it’s going to happen. He has some unusual opinions, but can say he respects the views of others as well and does not intend to impose his iron will on the majority in most instances. This would paint a stark contrast to his competitors, who talk as though their views will be directly translated into the law of the land if they are elected, and who reliably demean opposing opinions as stupid and evil.”