General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSince Johnson just committed harakiri on live TV, where do his voters go?
Last edited Thu Sep 8, 2016, 06:53 PM - Edit history (1)
Since he was a Republican Governor and is running with a Republican ex-Governor, I would think most of his support would go to Donald Trump. That is not good news for the Clinton campaign.
It is very depressing. The media is not our friend.
LisaL
(44,974 posts)It's not like he actually had a shot at becoming president.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)Is that possible?
roamer65
(36,747 posts)Be careful what you wish for...you just may get it. He was a very popular moderate Republican governor of MA.
Weld used to work with HRC and they like each other, probably due their focus on the details. Bill is very versed on a wide range of policy and debates extremely well. If he is in the VP debate, he will win it.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)radical noodle
(8,015 posts)The reason so many were considering Johnson is because they'd already determined that Trump was unfit. I don't think they'll suddenly think that Trump is worth voting for.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)More votes from Hillary than Trump.
womanofthehills
(8,784 posts)and here in NM, the only people I meet who are voting for him are Republicans.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)doc03
(35,389 posts)nobody gives a damn?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Chiyo-chichi
(3,589 posts)several media outlets have posited that Johnson had pulled more voters from Hillary than Trump. If that's at all true, we might assume that those voters who favored Hillary a couple of weeks ago will reconsider her.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)"The Legal Weeeeeed" isn't worth starving grandparents and giving the wealthy a tax-free life on our consuming backs.
Really not getting how they connect THAT (a) to (b).
Chiyo-chichi
(3,589 posts)If there is any truth in it, I would guess these are not Democrats, but a few independents and/or "never trump" republicans who were leaning toward Hillary, but not firm supporters.
Johnson has maintained all along that he thought he would pull support equally from Trump and Clinton... but we saw this morning that he doesn't know jack.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)They decouple social from economic and foreign policy.
There is also the anti-war side that believes America should have a smaller role militarily, or no role at all.
Johonny
(20,913 posts)as long as he stays away from economics and the total core of his being. Conservatives have been quick to hide Johnson's economic policies this time around. In a debate he would be forced to talk about his granny starving policies and shown to be the true idiot that he is...
JustinL
(722 posts)Voters who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative may prefer to vote for Johnson. However, if they perceive Johnson to be not viable as a candidate, and if social liberalism has a higher place in their scheme of values than fiscal conservatism, they may settle on Clinton as the lesser of two evils.
The issue may not be Johnson "taking away" Democrats from Clinton, but rather Democratic-leaning Libertarians "coming home" to a candidate they perceive as viable. If that perception is weakened, they may go back to settling for Clinton.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)As to his platform, just as people support Ron and Rand Paul, there are issues where he is not beyond right wing. Over the years there were many threads here that praised the Pauls -- that many of us responded to by listing those very issues where libertarians are the opposite of liberals. (ie esp big government vs small government )
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Americans.
Maybe it's time for some people on our side to stop treating "legal weeeeeeed" like a big joke or a pain in the ass question, and ask ourselves why there are people in our party who still defend wasting tax dollars throwing people in prison for the stuff.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Individual states are making larger strides on this issue than the Federal Government is. With the Ryan congress, I don't see that changing even if he did become president.
All I'm saying is that Johnson's one or two calling cards are masking a horrible economic and societal plan.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The Libertarian Party is like that person who speaks total gibberish 90% of the time but occasionally says something incredibly cogent.
MANative
(4,112 posts)OMG - what a moran!
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 9, 2016, 05:35 PM - Edit history (1)
And he said, "What is Aleppo?"
(on edit) Or maybe he said, "What is a Leppo"?
MANative
(4,112 posts)Cicada
(4,533 posts)And how many voters know what Aleppo is? Five percent?
MineralMan
(146,338 posts)Nor do they care. That's the sad truth of libertarianism.
TwilightZone
(25,499 posts)I don't think this is going to change their minds much, if at all.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)After all, Trump repeatedly has shown complete ignorance on vast subject areas, and he still is in 2nd place.
malaise
(269,219 posts)dembotoz
(16,864 posts)hrc is in trouble
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)alarimer
(16,245 posts)I listened to him on the New Yorker Radio Hour. He said we should consider raising the retirement age to 72, and, despite being a libertarian, supports the EPA. Not very consistent, not that consistency is the most important thing. But he seems too weird. Anybody who thinks Atlas Shrugged is a good book has more than a few issues.
I'm not sure his supporters care about Aleppo.
ProfessorGAC
(65,248 posts)Clearly, he didn't think that through. Hillary's proposal to allow Medicare buy-in at 55 has the potential to encourage early retirement for those that can afford it, opening up good jobs for younger people. Raising the retirement age would do just the opposite.
What an idiot this guy is!
karynnj
(59,507 posts)great idea.
1) People 55 to 65 who do not have group plans from work would be able to get cheaper, better plans -- even as many of the collectively most expensive group of people are moved from private plans to Medicare. (Medicare has a much lower administration cost.)
2) Adding - on average - healthier people to Medicare, reduces their per capita cost.
Raising the retirement age ignores that people not in white collar jobs often physically can not work at their jobs until 72 years.
It also ignores that finding a job after age 55 years old is difficult for most people. Age discrimination exists.
ProfessorGAC
(65,248 posts)I was just referring to the macroeconomic piece, which libertarians claim to be about.
Doing something to restrict the economy and increase unemployment is in conflict with their usual philosophy.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)I was repeating the arguments that were stated - and backed - when the Democrats wanted to do this in late 2009, but could not get all Democrats behind it. They needed 60 votes so they had to drop it ... all because of Senator Lieberman. What is sad is that had they included that option, it is easy to argue that Obamacare would have been more successful than it was for those reasons given.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)book_worm
(15,951 posts)tblue37
(65,502 posts)madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)still_one
(92,454 posts)taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)I have never heard that word before and still don't know what Aleppo is. This is idiotic.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Silly.
Much ado about nothing.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)jen63
(813 posts)That's rare for a politician. Nobody running is going to burn Clinton in a foreign policy debate.
BlueInPhilly
(870 posts)It's called "HarAkiri" (one word). Sorry.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Legalizing marijuana.
Which fortunately is tentatively us, at least as per our platform.
But people don't tend to vote Libertarian for foreign policy chops anyway, so Im not sure how much real effect this will have.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)still_one
(92,454 posts)That is a false flag.
Johnson's credentials are libertarian
Hillary is doing just fine thanks