This is who Democrats should be worried about, not Stein

[PatSeg]

While everyone is getting bent out of shape over Jill Stein and her TV ads, Gary Johnson is moving up in the polls and is rarely mentioned as a viable threat to Democrats.

LIBERTARIAN GARY JOHNSON IS NEARING A PRIME-TIME SLOT

With Donald Trump plummeting in the polls and Hillary Clinton registering high negatives, the Libertarian Party nominee has a rare opportunity to be the first person outside the two party system to participate in the presidential debates since Ross Perot did so in 1992--a potentially groundbreaking moment that could alter the presidential race.

That opportunity has been underscored by a new Fox News poll that shows the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee, Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor, getting 12 percent support. A party qualifies to join a presidential debate if it scores 15 percent in a series of polls leading up to the fall forums.

In addition to the attraction of being someone other than Clinton or Trump, Johnson is helped by his running mate, William Weld of Massachusetts, who like himself is a former Republican two-term governor of a Democratic state. Both men have a certain charm: Johnson is a triathlete who has climbed the highest peaks on all continents and Weld is an old-line Boston Brahmin who once dove fully clothed into the city’s Charles River to show its cleanliness. Pro-abortion and anti-Common Core, they’re libertarian without heeding some of the party’s more extreme freedom-loving, anarchistic elements. (At the party’s convention this spring, Johnson had to defend his belief in driver’s licenses and anti-discrimination laws.)

http://www.newsweek.com/charm-libertarians-johnson-weld-presidential-debates-487371

[MineralMan]

1. Republicans are far more likely to vote for a Libertarian candidate

than Democrats. If Gary Johnson does well, it will result in a net benefit to Hillary's campaign.

While there are some Democrats who lean libertarian, they're much rarer than Republicans who do.

Johnson will have a strong appeal to many conservative Republicans who refuse to vote for Trump. That will cut into Trump's vote count.

[PatSeg]

13. I don't think anything about this election season

is predictable. I have encountered life long Democrats who still aren't ready to vote for Hillary. Though I am hopeful that will change, I think Johnson/Weld could draw some of them away from the party. The ticket could also appeal to the older white male voters who won't vote for Hillary and aren't crazy enough to vote for Trump.

I've seen Johnson on television and if he were to get enough exposure, I could appeal to a lot of "on the fence" voters, both right and left.

This part of the article concerns me: "......they’re libertarian without heeding some of the party’s more extreme freedom-loving, anarchistic elements."

It is very likely that Johnson would draw more from the republican voter pool, but I don't think we can guarantee that. Meanwhile, Democrats still have to win over Independents, something a Johnson/Weld ticket might be able to do.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. I honestly do not believe that there are enough of these people you speak of to make a big

difference. I just don't. Those people are probably more likely to support Stein than Johnson. And even if they did support Johnson, again, there's not enough of them to make a marginal difference.

[KingCharlemagne]

19. it will split the Repuke vote, ensuring an even greater Electoral College landslide

for HRC.

[MineralMan]

21. That's my take on it, as well.

While there are some who have claimed to be Democrats, but who are really Libertarians, they make up a very, very tiny fraction of Democrats. You can find almost all of them over at another website that spun off from DU.

[KingCharlemagne]

26. It would, however, be delicious to see Trump come in fourth, behind HRC.

Johnson AND Stein! That would be some serious humiliation and shaming, about the only tactic that can shut up pathological narcissists like Trump.

[PatSeg]

28. I think we have to remember

Last edited Fri Aug 5, 2016, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

that we live in a bubble here at DU and at that spin off site as well. I have often been surprised at how what we see here does not always reflect the Democratic party at large. Not every voter follows politics the way we do and not every Democrat shares are our views.

Being too subjective in politics could be a hazard, especially in this election.

(Edit for spelling error)

[MineralMan]

65. DU is not what I study when I'm studying an election.

DU is where I post. To understand elections requires paying attention to how people actually behave at the polling place. It requires studying historical information and trends, as well.

A Libertarian candidate will take more votes from Republican candidates than Democratic candidates. It doesn't work the other way. We have had libertarian candidates in elections and the results of those elections are known. Gary Johnson is not a threat to Hillary Clinton. He will, however, take votes from Donald Trump. The few Democrats who will vote for Johnson aren't really traditional Democratic voters. They are splinter voters. I don't really care how they decide to vote. Their numbers are too small to affect the outcome for a strong Democratic candidate like Clinton.

I've been following electoral politics closely for over 50 years. I didn't learn about them on DU. DU is where I post, not where I learn, in most cases.

[PatSeg]

67. I think some people

believe DU is a reflection of the Democratic party and would be surprised how many elected Democrats don't even know it exists.

As for Johnson, he may not take many votes from traditional Democrats, but we rely on Independents as well to win elections. I don't think they are as predictable, as they can be a very diverse group. Also, every election brings in a new batch of first time voters that are not easy to define - they have no real political history.

I enjoy your posts.

[MineralMan]

72. Libertarian candidates tend to attract more conservative Republicans.

We aren't looking for those. Instead, we're looking for moderate Republican voters and those independents who hold more centrist views. Democratic candidates get most of their votes from the left center portion of the population. At times, they get votes from people on the right side of the center line, as they will this year.

It's not so much ideology as general political position on the spectrum. It's been shown many times that distribution of political opinion is a classic bell-shaped curve, with the bulk of voters in the central part of the curve. The edges of the bell rarely matter very much, except in very close elections. This year's election is not likely to be one of those.

A large number of Republican women, for example, are very likely to vote for Hillary, especially those who fall somewhere in the central third of the right side of the bell curve. They're likely to see Donald Trump as the sort of man they simply dislike and will decide to vote for Hillary, instead. Some of them won't make that decision public, though, even in polls. Some of them will just quietly mark Hillary's name when they are in the polling booth.

Others, however, are like my 92 year old mother, who has voted for Republicans all her adult life. She told me she was voting for Hillary, because Donald Trump is a "boor," as she put it. My father, so far, is not going along with her on that, but may change his tune by Election Day. He brought up the Khan thing yesterday when I talked to them on the phone. He did not like that one bit. I expect him to come around by November, too.

Libertarians do not attract the center bulk of the political spectrum. Not in any way. Some on the left and right edges might vote for a Libertarian, for one reason or another. Someone who thinks marijuana laws or gun laws are crucial issues might vote for a Libertarian, just on those issues. Single-issue voters often behave oddly.

[PatSeg]

74. Very interesting

It has dawned on me that there will be a lot of people who will as you said, vote for Hillary, but not say so publicly, especially republicans.

[MineralMan]

76. I think it's especially true for Republican women.

I think they may just be the surprise factor in November. Many won't want to get into arguments about it, socially or in their families, but will just quietly vote for Clinton and say nothing about it. I expect to see some of that, especially for those who are moderates in general. Some Republican men, too, many switch their vote, without ever saying anything about it to anyone.

There's a lot of public pressure out there, but that all goes away when you're in the voting booth. That's why we have a secret ballot process. People can, and often do, say one thing in public and vote in another way. That's what produces final counts in elections that are different than the polls taken just before the election. People sometimes vote as they choose, no matter what they say in public with their peers.

That's one of the things that pre-election polls can't measure.

[PatSeg]

78. And I can totally identify

with people not wanting to get into arguments with family members over politics or worse having to "eat crow".

I think there may be a number of surprises in this election.

[bettyellen]

80. I've got to say it's shocking how pissed off and irrational the haters are... Impossible

to have a rational conversation with them. They literally bare their teeth and seethe and I just smile and calmly ask them questions. I've been blowing their gaskets all over the tri-state area. HA.

[MineralMan]

83. I never actually argue with Republicans.

It does no good. But, I do have conversations with those Republicans I think are rational. Not long ones. Just conversations. I let them tell me about Trump and ask simple questions. I don't try to sell Hillary to them. I just listen to them try to tell me why they're planning to vote for Trump. The rational ones, I've found, can't really articulate why. My plan is to try to just get them thinking about it.

Most will still vote for Republicans. A few might flip or just skip that line on their ballot. That's good enough for me.

I don't argue politics with people I know. I do ask questions, though.

[bettyellen]

85. I think it's good to let people know their bullying ways don't effect you...

And I don't argue either, as I said I ask them few questions and for some reason they seem to get angry and sputter in as if they want to argue, but I don't take the bait. But I'm not keeping my mouth shut just because they act angry or belligerent. I could give a shit if they have a short fuse. It's kind of amusing to watch how twisted up they get.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

96. Yes, I think that's right, too. If there are disaffected Dems, angry that Sanders didn't win and who

would be attracted to Stein, Johnson or even Trump, those numbers may be offset by the number of center-left Independents and moderate Republicans who are supporting HRC.

[Expecting Rain]

150. This is an unusual year

While I agree with the bulk of your excellent posts in this thread, the circumstances of this race are unlike any previous election.

Usually, the Libertarians are positioned to the zany right on most issues (other than drugs and some social issues).

This year, uniquely, Johnson-Weld seems like the saner of the alternatives in a GOP vs Libertarian contest. So they will draw many disaffected Republicans who can't vote Trump. This year I think they will (for the first time) draw centrists. Mostly Republicans, to be sure, but many will the votes that might have gone to Clinton were there a binary choice.

So I think Johnson-Weld will hurt by taking votes from people for whom HRC would be the second choice.

I still think we'll win, just not quite as big as without a relatively sane Libertarian ticket.

[oberliner]

113. A fair number of self-identified Democrats are choosing him

According to some of the recent polls posted here.

[MineralMan]

134. Really? Show me some actual numbers, then, that

identify how many "self-identified Democrats" you're talking about. I think it's a minimal number, not even enough to make up 0.5% of the voting population. Insignificant.

[oberliner]

136. It's a pretty small number

But it seems like he draws equally from Democrats and Republicans.

[Maru Kitteh]

141. show it

haven't seen or heard such a thing

[oberliner]

151. I thought I had seen it in one of the polls

Don't remember which one, and most of the ones I have seen more recently do not show this to be the case, so I will withdraw my assertion.

[IVoteDFL]

132. A lot of young people who would have voted dem find Gary Johnson appealing

Not necessarily registered Democrats, but potential Democrats.

Gary Johnson runs on bringing all of the troops home and marijuana legalization. He is a lot more liberal on social issues too.

Idiots on both sides are going to throw votes at him. My ex voted for him last election cycle. I don't think it's going to really help or hurt either Clinton or Trump. At the end of the day he will be a low tallying third party clown.

[MineralMan]

133. How many voters in that "lot."

Very few, I think. Not enough to matter. I reckon naught to your "lot."

[IVoteDFL]

135. So I guess you agree with me then

I literally said in my last sentence that it isn't going to be enough to help or hurt either candidate, but I do think that the OP has a point. Idiots on both sides will vote for him and he will do better than Jill Stein.

[Bucky]

138. oddly enough, most polls I've seen show he hurts Clinton a little bit more than Trump

I know it seems wacky but when Johnson is included in polls, it is Clinton who drops more than Trump

[HERVEPA]

4. Sp you don't care about their horrendous views on economic issues?

[Springslips]

9. Good reply.

That trope does get old.

[PatSeg]

57. Thunderdome

That is the analogy I was looking for!

[PatSeg]

16. I agree with Springslips

Very good reply. Explaining why a candidate is a potential threat is being realistic. Any candidates who can pull Democratic votes in blue states must be taken seriously.

The primaries are over and Democrats need to take their blinders off.

[Demsrule86]

33. Oh please Massachussetts and New Mexico have a habit of electing the GOP.

I find neither candidate attractive and they are both running against our candidate.

[Demsrule86]

46. And Scott Brown as well as Romney.

I don't believe any of the third party nothings are a danger to the Democrats...I do think Trump may be endangered.

[rjsquirrel]

48. What's your point again?

If we just want to list names all day the list of Massachusetts progressives will dwarf the list of moderate republicans.


But so what?

The point I'm making is political and not moral. Weld and Johnson got elected by strong margins in predictably blue states. You may think that means the voters in those states are stupid but that doesn't change the tactical point that these guys can appeal to voters who also support progressive democrats and are not a joke when we need every single vote for Hillary we can get, but also the votes *against* Trump from millions Of voters who say they can't vote for Hillary Clinton.

It's a matter of math and models, not morality.

[Demsrule86]

89. Third party nothings do not threaten Democrats in either of those states.

From time to time, all they elect GOP types in statewide elections.

[seaglass]

144. In MA we elect Repub GOVERNORS primarily because of an overwhelming majority of D's in

the state house and senate. Balance of power. It has nothing to do with stupidity except in the case of Scott Brown - an anomaly.

[brush]

130. Pulling Dem votes in blue states by Johnson is a concern, a small on though

Johnson is most likely to pull more repug votes, to which I say, "God bless him."

What's that they used to say Libertarians: Repugs who like to smoke dope?

The rest of the time they're still repugs.

[thesquanderer]

8. It's not a matter of not caring, it's a matter of which compromises you want to make.

Someone could turn that around on a Clinton supporter and say, so you don't care about her hawkish/interventionist views on foreign policy?

[PatSeg]

17. Democracy entails compromise

We don't always get what we want.

[Demsrule86]

31. Screw Stein

and any voter who supports the Green traitors IE Green party members. Democrats and progressives support the Democratic nominee.

[Demsrule86]

29. Consider she has never been in charge of foreign policy

that would inaccurate. The president sets the policy. And I would remind you that Kerry also voted for the Iraq war which was not a problem for many DU members when Kerry ran...many who criticize now Hillary for it in fact.

[thesquanderer]

107. Hillary's views are well known and have been expressed many ways over the years.

And yes, president sets policy, but Hillary had input. For better or worse (and I'm not taking sides here), when he was unsure about whether to go after Osama, she said Go. When he was unsure about the intervention in Libya, she said Go.

As for Kerry, his IWR vote was a big reason I was not enthusiastic about him, though I did vote for him in the general, of course.

Personally, I think it's fine to say you're fine with Hillary because you prefer a more aggressive foreign policy, and I also think it's fine to say you're fine with Hillary despite her having a more aggressive foreign policy, but I think it is hard to rationalize that she doesn't have an aggressive foreign policy inclination or that we do not know what her foreign policy inclination is.

[Demsrule86]

110. We don't know what her policy will be.

President Obama makes the big decisions...that is clear.

[thesquanderer]

111. We *do* know what her general inclinations are.

She has spent decades telling and showing us. She even wrote a book about it.

Normally, I would say that if you don't have a darn good idea what are policies are going to be like, you have no business voting for her. But since the alternative is Trump, I guess it hardly matters.

[Demsrule86]

137. Wrong...all you know is what has been reported in the various attacks on her from different sources.

You assume you know but you don't. Now... Trump has actually said he would use nukes in Europe...from his own lips.

[thesquanderer]

139. Her own book is not an attack source. Neither are numerous other factual sources.

And remember, not everyone equates her more hawkish tendencies to be a negative, either. So assuming that all sources supporting that perspective are "attack" sources is its own biased view.

[Demsrule86]

143. Oh please

Given what Bush did there are no easy answers for extricating ourselves from the middle east...the chaos that will ensue if and when we leave, will make the end of Vietnam look like a walk in the park. Try watching the last desperate days of that stupid war. It takes a certain amount of American privilege to shrug your shoulders at the thought of millions dying because of our actions. Wars are easier to start than to end. Clinton is not a warmonger anymore than Obama is...she will not start wars but will still be stuck with Bush's mess. I do not consider her a hawk and feel many on the right and the left,who accuse her of this are merely playing politics, and I have read her books. It does not matter as she is the only one who can defeat Trump. Trump has the mental capacity of an ant and would risk the entire world.

[thesquanderer]

145. Like I said, I've been avoiding making judgements here, but just discussing facts as we know them.

Was the Osama Bin Laden raid a good thing? I'm not saying yes or no. I'm saying that, when Obama was asking his advisors for opinions to help him make his decision, she said yes.

Was Libya intervention a good thing? I'm not saying yes or no. I'm saying that, when Obama was asking his advisors for opinions to help him make his decision, she said yes.

Would a Syrian no fly zone be a good thing? I'm not saying yes or no. I'm saying that, she supported it, and Obama did not.

I don't see how anyone can argue that Hillary doesn't lean hawkish, and was not a hawkish influence within the Obama administration.

There are even articles like this, which few would call right wing attack pieces:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html

As for the IWR, yes, she was among many who were wrong. But she was, shall we say, enthusiastically wrong. She didn't merely cast a vote, she made a big speech to try to get others to vote that way as well. And then there's "We came, we saw, he died." So sure, of course we all want her to beat Trump. Some of us will approve of her aggressive foreign policy inclinations, some will vote for her despite those inclinations, but I think you are among the few who will deny they exist.

[Demsrule86]

146. I do not consider killing Bin Laden hawkish

first of all...and what were we supposed to do in Libya exactly? Let all those people die? And a no-fly zone saves lives too...see where this is going? As for the enthusiastic support for Iraq...read her speech before the vote. That is simply not true. Ultimately, president Obama made the policy choices and no doubt was privy to information Clinton was not... and none of us know what she would have done as president. The middle east is a mess created by Bush and there are no good solutions. The thing is ...I would crawl across broken glass naked to vote for Clinton... I like her actually. And the thought of the orange menace becoming president should terrify everyone. Those who are voting for third party spoilers like Stein (not saying you) and come here and hint at all sorts of things about Clinton(sneak attacks), should consider that all progressive achievements are gone if Don the Con gets elected. We literally have no future...for years. I think you are unfair to Sec. Clinton.

[thesquanderer]

147. Again, re: Bin Laden & Libya, I offered no opinion about whether these were GOOD or BAD decisions.

Only that they were the MORE AGGRESSIVE of the two available options in each of those cases. Same with the Syrian no-fly zone, etc. "No good solutions" is an entirely different conversation.

[Demsrule86]

148. It is not agressive to try to save lives.

She did not advocate attacking anyone but only those things that might help the people in these hell holes. Never forget, we broke it and now we sort of own it.

[thesquanderer]

149. re: "Never forget, we broke it and now we sort of own it."

It's no one thing, it's a pattern of numerous circumstances over many years.

re: "It is not agressive to try to save lives."

In some circumstances, yes, it is. Military action is often not a black-and-white decision. You seem to be equating "hawkish" and "aggressive" with "unnecessary" or "unjustified" but it's not the same thing.

If you have a situation where bad things can happen if you act and also bad things can happen if you don't act, either decision can be justified. Hillary herself has said she'd rather be "caught trying." As the Times put it, "she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all." This is not an unjustifiable position. However, it is the aggressive/hawkish position vs. positions that would be called, say, dovish/pacifist, restrained, or isolationist. Again, I am avoiding judgement here. This is not about whether Hillary's positions have been (on balance) good or bad... it's just acknowledgment that she repeatedly leans toward action over inaction. Some people are comfortable with that, others not so much, but (a) most people do seem to accept it as truth which is why your argument surprises me, and (b) the vast majority of us here at DU are going to vote for her regardless.

[PatSeg]

15. Though I find Johnson

very smart and appealing, I wouldn't want him in the White House. However, there are some voters who might think that is enough to vote for him.

This is such an unusual election, I don't think we can rest until election day.

[KingCharlemagne]

23. in a hypothetical match up between Johnson and Trump, Johnson should

win. As reprehensible as some of his views are, they pale before Trump's unabashed Caesarism.

[PatSeg]

39. Very well said

You should be a political strategist.

I am really concerned by how any of this will affect down ballot races. That should be a big concern for us. While Democrats get all emotional about the top of the ticket, republicans are probably focusing on governorships, state legislatures, the House, and the senate. They may suck at presidential elections, but they are very calculating and organized about their down ticket races.

[Protalker]

40. The Pied Piper of 420 crowd

He has charm and loves his dope giving cache to many dopers.

[PatSeg]

41. Yep

Hard to believe, but that really is a #1 issue for some people.

[PatSeg]

60. Also there are people

both republican and Democrat who have serious health concerns and want to make cannabis more easily available.

[Arazi]

109. Legalizing weed isn't an issue just for "dopers"

Mock the very serious medical mj movement at your peril

[obamanut2012]

70. Johnson is not the least bit progressive -- he is an extreme wingnut

WTF

[burrowowl]

125. Johnson Whose Construction Company Big J

Screwed his workers royally re pay, safety, etc. Not the most moral of men!

[TeamPooka]

126. Libertarians want to get high and not let black people use their gas station rest room.

[Auggie]

3. Agreed ... I've been seeing more mention of him in media than I'd expect

[highprincipleswork]

6. Thankfully the cwazy Repubs seem more likely to vote for this guy.

[PatSeg]

22. Maybe, maybe not

As rjsquirrel said in post #5 "Gary Johnson and William Weld were both elected and reelected as governors of blue states by democratic voters who thought they were reasonable, intelligent, competent people."

That is real cause for concern. We dismiss Johnson at our own peril and I'll bet the Hillary camp wouldn't.

[Demsrule86]

25. Why do we want to view Stein who is running ads against our

candidate in battleground states, as a lesser evil? You keep posting about the greens and I don't know why. I hate the greens and nothing you or anyone else says will change my mind. I despise Jill Stein too.

[PatSeg]

37. My concern is that Democrats

are taking their eye off the ball. Stein clearly is the lesser of two evils. I don't "keep posting about the greens", I have responded when I thought people were overreacting to her and her campaign. This post is about Johnson/Weld who I consider a very possible threat to Hillary.

No one is asking anyone to change their feelings about Stein or the Green party, just to change their focus to where it could make a difference.

[Demsrule86]

45. Johnson is not running ads in swing states

And where is Ms Stein getting the money? Johnson is conservative and can siphon off GOP votes. Stein on the other hand, is running ads against our candidate. Screw her.

[PatSeg]

52. Johnson is socially liberal

and is actually registering in the polls, 12%. At this rate, he could end up on the debate stage. I would be very curious to know where Stein is getting her money, but I still see her as inconsequential.

[Demsrule86]

88. He is fiscally way worse than even the GOP

And I would not call a candidate who wants to get rid of the civil rights act socially liberal...

[Maru Kitteh]

91. Your "concern" is demonstrably selective to Jill Stien and the Green party.

You never fail to rush in to defend Stein, and attempt to deflect all attention away from that noxious asshole and her party of spoiled malcontents.

[Demsrule86]

92. Thank you...she is a boil on the arse of humanity. hehe...nt.

[PatSeg]

114. That is not true

I happen to think many people are overreacting to Stein, when Johnson is a far more significant threat. I also believe that Democrats should be more civil than republicans.

Calling people "noxious assholes" or "spoiled malcontents" is not very persuasive. Talking about policy and experience would be more effective.

[Beartracks]

128. I agree re. the name-calling. I also agree Johnson is the bigger threat.

If for no other reason than BECAUSE he's not a noxious asshole or a spoiled malcontent, as some here think of Stein. If he cracks 15% polling and gets to the debates, he will gain a lot of exposure. I happen to think he'll appeal to way more Republicans (who are looking for an "out&quot than Democrats, which will split the conservative vote handily, but his potential appeal to Democrats who still find Hillary too hawkish or whatever should not be ignored. While Stein is currently competing "directly" against Hillary, I just don't think she can or will gain the traction that Johnson already has.

Honestly -- didn't most Republicans dismiss Trump as "not a threat" waaaay back at the beginning of the race? Of course, his appeal to them actually WAS his being a noxious asshole.

==================

[PatSeg]

131. If I was a relatively

uninformed voter and I saw Johnson/Weld on television, I would consider them to be a pretty moderate, sane alternative. Unfortunately a lot of people vote with their gut. Ideally Johnson would primarily steal votes from Trump, but in this election I am not prepared to make any assumptions based on past elections. We've never had a nominee like Trump and Hillary is our first viable female candidate, who thanks to decades of right wing smears has low approval ratings.

Stein is someone I had never heard of until the past few weeks and she looks like a distraction to me. The only threat I see there is if she distracts us from any real threats. It would be interesting to know where she is getting her money, but it isn't something to lose any sleep over.

[MoonRiver]

7. He'll take votes away from Rump.

No worries.

[SharonClark]

50. Some of the repugs in my office are supporting Johnson

They vow to vote straight GOP except for Johnson because they think Dems will take their guns. It is all about guns for several of them. The NRA propaganda and lies are well ingrained.

[MoonRiver]

71. Some people just can't, or won't, think for themselves.

Rather than carefully analyze reality, it's just so much easier to be led.

[apnu]

79. In my office, in Chicago, many are looking at Johnson

As vote of no-confidence in Trump and Hillary too. They're all very pleased they can exercise this privileged, most of them don't say a word about Hillary at all, except for a few rabid weirdos. They know, deep down, their lives will be superior under a Clinton Presidency than a Trump or anybody else. So they're all comfortable having cake and eating it too.

[glennward]

10. I do believe that her campaign is prepared for whomever is her challenger. She is too. nt

[kurt_cagle]

14. Definitely not worried

Worst case scenario with Johnson and Weld is that they take some of the more centrist Republicans that Clinton is trying to woo away from Trump. The hard-core fundies won't go for J&R because they are relatively socially liberal. And to be honest, J&R may end up pulling away enough of the business Republicans that they are able to take control from the social conservatives. I can think of worse things that could happen than for the GOP to look a lot more like the Libertarians do now, at least in the Johnson mold. They might actually get to the point where they are able to compromise.

[zappaman]

18. Lol!

[Demsrule86]

24. That is a problem more for the GOP

I could care a less about them. They are conservative really...but the Greens who purport to be progressive stab Democrats in the back every chance they get ...they are really part of the GOP effort.

[beachbumbob]

27. Trump would not want Johnson on stage...as johnsons hate for trump

Is huge....

[PatSeg]

32. There is no shortage of Trump haters!

It feels like he is trying to alienate the whole except for his children.

I honestly don't think Trump wants to be on that stage at all. It will be interesting to see what excuses he comes up with to ditch the debates. Can you imagine both Hillary and Johnson going after him?

[Demsrule86]

35. For the record I am not worried about Stein or Johnson.

I despise all Greens as traitors to the progressive movement. Libertarians are worse than Conservatives in my opinion when you look at their platform.

[misterhighwasted]

38. Libertarian & Tea Party were founded & funded by the Koch Family John Birch Society

http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/01/21/the-john-birch-societys-anti-civil-rights-campaign-of-the-1960s-and-its-relevance-today/#sthash.VFB6ZuRS.IdyyR22u.dpbs

Buyer beware!

The John Birch Society’s Anti-Civil Rights Campaign of the 1960s, and Its Relevance Today

Founded in 1958, the John Birch Society (JBS) fiercely opposed the Civil Rights Movement during the 1960s and 1970s. Decades later, the rise of the Tea Party and the ongoing “Ron Paul Revolution” have helped the JBS make a comeback as it attracts young people by re-branding itself as “libertarian.” The organization is a significant force behind promoting the nullification of federal laws, as described in the most recent issue of The Public Eye. The JBS has also helped provide fodder for accusations that President Obama, considered by most Democrats to have governed as a centrist, is a Marxist. ...MORE

Also from DKOS:
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/29/1227404/-Where-do-Rand-Paul-Ralph-Reed-and-David-Koch-Connect

[PatSeg]

42. Do you think the Koch brothers

are still involved with the Libertarian party?

[Person 2713]

47. I do and the 15% I think I read puts them on the ballot in future elections which as extreme as the

are is not good.

[PatSeg]

54. It just feels like

Johnson doesn't fit their Libertarian mold.

[misterhighwasted]

59. True. The Tea Party sounded a lot like Republicans until they got to Congress.

Johnson sounds a lot like Dems ..until they hold some power.
Then they & the Tea Party arm of the JBS will sound a lot different.
Kochs operate as the underbelly of American society.
Trust all the warnings you read about the Birchers.
We do NOT want the govt they want.

[PatSeg]

61. We've already gotten a taste of that

in a number of state governorships and legislatures. They are insidious and effective.

[misterhighwasted]

49. Yes. Through funding & policy push.

Though some fringes do identify as differing somewhat, they have the Koch JBS supporting in some fashion.
Any group affiliated with Koch JBS in some appearance should be taken with a great amount of caution.

I often see the Kochs remaining behind the scene in their political operations.
There is a sneaky sort of method to their madness.

[PatSeg]

53. Yes, they are very calculating

While everyone else is focused on top of the ticket, they are undoubtedly buying themselves some legislators (both state and national) and a bunch of governors. Very sneaky.

[misterhighwasted]

56. Their goal is to pull the extreme Right & the extrme Left into the

competitive & dominant 3rd Party.
Divide & Conquer is their method to restore the John Bircher Society .

The brothers will return their father's political legacy before they both croak.

[PatSeg]

62. With people like the Koch brothers

I console myself that they can't live forever, but damn they just keep on breathing!

[misterhighwasted]

66. They are a danger till their last breath.

[PatSeg]

68. And maybe beyond

Like their father before them, they have left a legacy of sorts. I wonder if they have any extremist offspring. I would look it up, but not sure I want to know.

[misterhighwasted]

69. Oh I completely agree. They are building a legacy of fringers to last forever.

When all their small angry extremist groups come together in one party..they will have put the JBS in play once again.

May wiser heads prevail.

[PatSeg]

73. Wouldn't you say

that the Tea Party grew out of that fringe? There are so many similarities.

[misterhighwasted]

82. Certainly. Tea Party was a Koch brainchild to divide the GOP.

And Palin was their voice.

With the success of that movement they found a willing demographic . They are simply repeating the methods of the Tea Party emergence, with the DEM Party in 2016.
This time around, their Libertarian fringe is the Left Wing version of the RW Tea Party.

The two are one in the same. Founded & Funded by the same and with one goal.

I believe they can do some damage in 2016 but doubt they are united enough to make the same easy entrance into the Dem Party.
Which is why the Dem Primary needs to keep their Super Delegates. This is the firewall that makes it much more difficult to gain dominance in the Dem Party. Unlike the ease at which the Kochs divided the GOP via the Tea Party.

Koch's JBS are a rotten nasty anti-American political fringe.
They should remain there.

[PatSeg]

87. Some things don't change all that much

Change some tags and a few key words, but it is the same old bunch. Such a dangerous ideology disguised as patriotism.

[getting old in mke]

43. I watched their Town Meeting on CNN this week

They are working hard to present themselves as the middle--socially as liberal if not more so than the Democrats with a Republican economic approach.

Strong position on immigration being the backbone of America.

Trying to distinguish at a foreign policy level isolationist, which they reject, versus non-interventionist (that is, no regime change adventures, fighting ISIL is OK).

Their incarnation is not the rabid let-everything-go-no-government-anywhere as in the past. You'll not find them spouting "Within a Libertarian framework" and "As a Libertarian I..." (anyone who deals with, particularly younger, libertarians knows what I'm saying).

Instead they are trying to sell a pragmatic approach to problem solving.

Although this year's model might be equal attraction for Republicans and Democrats, I think they will pull more from the Donald than Hillary, because Republicans are less satisfied with their nominee when compared to the Democrats.

I think it will be especially marked if they do reach the 15% necessary and are part of the debates.

[misterhighwasted]

51. They are lying . They say what gives them rise but when

pulling back that curtain they are clearly not what they present themselves to be.

It's marketing without the history of doing what their current message tells us.

They are a fraudulant political organization disguised in popular themes.

[getting old in mke]

58. No doubt.

Just for folks who haven't paid attention to the Libertarians in the past and have no context, they may be taken in.

I guess there is an advantage to working next to one that rarely shuts up...kind of an immunization.

[PatSeg]

64. Oh no, seriously?

I am so sorry to hear that! You should get paid some kind of incentive pay for that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

98. Yes!!

[PatSeg]

63. That's very interesting

I suppose I should really be paying more attention to them.

I think you are probably right that they will pull more votes from republicans than Democrats, but I am allowing for any possibility between now and November. This election has not been quite like any we have ever seen before.

[Demsrule86]

95. Libertarians are wolves in sheep's clothing

and despite what they say they want no government period...and people would starve under them...and Jim Crow would come roaring back. Democrats are too smart to fall for that bullshit...but Republicans may just do that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

103. Exactly! They are more dangerous than ReThugs because they tend to be hyper-nationalists and

pro-states rights advocates. Now, to black people, those who shout anti-government, states rights zealotry--these people are dangerous. They tend to be against any kind of civil rights; they hide their racism behind the States' Rights banner.

They are MORE dangerous than most Republicans.

I hope people aren't being duped by these folks. I noticed a lot of young white males were attracted to Ron Paul, not realizing how dangerous he and his son are. They seem not to care about the plight of minorities. All they cared about was being able to smoke pot and "protectionist"-leaning anti-war.

[Demsrule86]

121. Exactly right...someone on this site told me Libertians

were socially progressive. My response ...no one who is socially responsible much less progressive would want to tear up the civil rights act.

[Jamaal510]

140. For such a socially

progressive bunch, the average Libertarian is fine with businesses discriminating against people. That's an important thing that some people overlook about them.

[Demsrule86]

142. Indeed and makes them among other reasons a non-started for me and for my family. nt

Even in my son's no shower/ rebel stage he never had any use for Paul or the Libertarians. He supported Bernie but is now on deck to elect Sec. Clinton. About half of us were Bernie supporter and half were Clinton supporters.

[bananakabob]

55. Libertarians. Republicans who like to smoke dope and get laid.

Nobody cared about Gary Johnson before 2016 and nobody will care about him after.

[Demsrule86]

94. To your post I would only add

"Republicans who like to smoke dope and get laid", but are open about it and not hiding behind family values.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

99. LMAO!!! ^^^^THIS!!^^^ Absoutely right!

[DemonGoddess]

129. bwahahahaha too right you are!!!

[kestrel91316]

75. He's not gonna peel off any votes from Hillary.

He WILL divide the RWNJ vote.

[workinclasszero]

81. He will steal votes from the TrumpenFührer

Not Hillary in most cases.

Johnson is just another nail in the cheeto monsters coffin.

[democrattotheend]

84. I would be happy to have Johnson in the debates

Libertarians tend to take more votes from Republicans, and while I don't agree with them, they bother me a lot less than the Greens or the right wing fringe parties because at least they offer a unique perspective as opposed to just being on the fringes of one of the parties.

[Koinos]

86. Libertarians are mostly young white males.

They have many of the same demographic issues that Republicans have. For that reason, I doubt that they will take too many votes from Hillary.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/10/why_libertarianism_is_so_popular_on_the_right_its_the_last_bastion_of_white_male_dominance/

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

101. And most of them are just as racist, if not moreso, than Republicans. They tend to be isolationists,

xenophobes, and vehemently anti-government (even more so than the ReThugs!). Opposed to social safety net and any economic plan that addresses inequality. I have found that they are more likely to blame women and minorities for their economic woes...even more so than Republicans. To me, they're just as dangerous, despite the fact that they claim to be socially liberal.

[Koinos]

105. I agree.

It appears to me that legalizing marijuana is more important to them than the rights of minorities. They are highly "individualistic." I hesitate to use the word self-centered.

[PatSeg]

112. What about young Ron Paul supporters

It seems that many of them were relatively liberal, just politically naive.

[Koinos]

120. Yes, and selfish individualists. I think of Ayn Rand.

People who are anti-government, because they do not at this time (they are doing well as techs and professionals) need anyone's help. And Gary Johnson's position on Medicare, for example, is horrendous. Libertarianism has an individualistic belief system, which would undo many of the New Deal "entitlements." It is as far from democratic socialism as one can get. Paying taxes for services that benefit others (such as the poor and elderly) and not myself, is wrong in their eyes.

Young, white, male well-off professionals don't worry so much about the collapse of social welfare, until they find themselves needing help.

[PatSeg]

123. That is for sure

When I was young, my views though liberal, were quite naive and unrealistic in many ways. Social Security was a tax taken out of my paycheck and Medicare was for VERY old people. These things didn't affect my life and old age was so very far away. I wasn't terribly interested in politics and sadly uninformed.

It didn't take too many years before I became aware of society's safety nets and had need for them. Though I never resented them, I did appreciate them even more when they were there for me.

[Demsrule86]

122. libertarians are not liberal.

And most Paul devotees are racist in my opinion and nuts too.

[PatSeg]

124. I think a lot of very young Ron Paul

supporters weren't really true "libertarians". I think they were finding their way politically and wanted legalized cannabis as well. One or two issue voters so to speak. Legalized drugs and anti war for the most part.

[Maru Kitteh]

97. Oh enough already! Your repeated and noxious defense of Stein and the Greens is odious

and woefully transparent.

You show yourself in that you are only "concerned" about criticism of Jill Stein and the Green party.

Your constant calls to coddle and caress that fucking idiot bobblehead Jill Stein by ignoring her - by pretending she's NOT running attack ads on national television against our nominee every single day, are just vomitous.

Shame on you.

Shame. on. you.

[PatSeg]

115. Pretty much nothing you said is true

I posted about Johnson, saying he is a bigger threat than Stein. I am not "concerned" about criticism of Stein or the Green Party - I couldn't care less about either of them, though some here seem to be obsessed with them, which I find really strange.

I do not call for people to "coddle" or "caress" third party candidates. And I never pretended she was not running attack ads. I saw them and I think they are pretty damn lame.

Don't you say "Shame on you" to me. You know absolutely nothing about me. If you are implying something, then you are out of line and in violation of DU rules.

[cynatnite]

100. Johnson is anti-choice. He'll drain some repubs from Trump. n/t

[GulfCoast66]

102. Any Democrat

Who would give their vote to Johnson is not planning on voting for he now. He would steal votes mainly from Trump and to a less degree from stein and those planning on skipping the top of the ticket.

[vi5]

104. Nope. It's always the liberals fault.

ALWAYS.

[Maru Kitteh]

106. That is the general stance of the puritopian malcontent indigo kids of the Green party.

They always blame liberals. (While calling themselves liberals)

Puritopian
A Puritopian is a self-described liberal or progressive whose political orientation is to be angry, dissatisfied and unhappy with the state of the nation, because in their view, liberal policies are not being implemented quickly or forcefully enough. They have particular contempt for Democratic presidents.

They are ideological purists who disdain compromise and incremental change, which they see as "selling out" liberal ideas like full employment, an end to war, and liberal social policy. Their views can often sound like utopian fantasy where opposing views never exist.

Puritopians dislike Republicans but reserve their greatest disdain for Democratic presidents, whom they relentlessly attack for not meeting a set of ideological goal posts that are constantly adjusted to ensure that the president will be deemed a disappointment, "not progressive enough" or "just like a Republican" no matter what policy achievements are made.

Puritopians routinely dismiss or ignore congress' role in making or impeding policy, believing presidents can simply "use the bully pulpit" in order to overcome constitutional or legislative obstacles.

Puritopians have an affinity for 3rd party politics as a way to punish Democratic presidents. They are especially hostile to President Obama and deem anyone who expresses a lack of ill will toward him to be "Obamabots" and enemies of liberalism.

Puritopian supersedes Emo Progressive.

[JDC]

108. I find Gary Johnson to be a bit of a goofball

William Weld seems to be the head on those shoulders. These guys may be running on the Libertarian ticket, but they are just recycled republicans in my book.

[ecstatic]

116. Raven Symone was gushing over him on The View

He's pro marijuana! He smoked weed!

Like, seriously? Is that all it takes these days?

[PatSeg]

117. Sadly that is what drew

a whole lot of young voters to Ron Paul. Very much single issue voters!

[TwilightZone]

118. It seems that a lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding about Gary Johnson

A few "left" positions do not a liberal make. They don't even make a moderate.

He's a right libertarian. Outside of a few hand-picked issues, he's a conservative on everything else and on several things, he is *very* conservative.

If any liberals or progressives are thinking about supporting the guy, they don't know much about him and they need to learn more.

[PatSeg]

119. Sadly

Not all voters are well informed, many are new young voters, and Johnson could draw single issue voters with his stand on cannabis. I've known people who would say, "So and so seems like a nice guy", without reference to policy or experience.

[DonCoquixote]

127. normally this would not apply

however, it depends on if two sets can get together, the Koches, and Mitt Romney. Mitt can painy weld, his former mentor, as the sort the gop wants to vote for, and the Koches can shovel money as revenge for Trump.