Why Gary Johnson Isn't Taken Seriously

[Lunar]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/why-gary-johnson-isnt-taken-seriously/61631/

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/05/05/gary_johnson_most_interesting_republican

"His chances are zero," political analyst Stu Rothenberg says via e-mail. "I'd say that they are less than zero, if there was such a thing. I'd expect his impact to be nonexistent."


Ask Johnson what he thinks of Barack Obama, for instance, and rather than the stream of vitriol that might issue semi-automatically from the lips of some party colleagues, he answers: "You can't help but like him."

Johnson seems ill at ease with the belligerent icons of modern-day conservatism. What does he think of the idol of the Tea Partiers, Glenn Beck?

"I have not watched Glenn Beck. I don't watch him."

Does he listen to Rush Limbaugh?

"I don't. Not that I haven't [ever]. But I don't tune in to Rush."

On other issues, Johnson doesn't bother to hide his disdain for his party's hard-liners. Take the incendiary new immigration law passed in Arizona, for instance:

"I just don't think it's going to work," he says. "I think it' s going to lead to racial profiling. I don't how you determine one individual from another -- is it color of skin? -- as to whether one is an American citizen or the other is an illegal immigrant."

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

"I've totally made up my mind about it (The Tea Party movement.) I got a hand out in South Carolina which listed the top ten things that a tea-partier stands for, based on a poll, and you know what? I was a Tea Partier. I stood for all those ten things, which really had to do with the pocketbook." - Gary Johnson

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

had to google the name to find out who he was...why are we discussing him?

[CatoMinor]

had to google the name to find out who he was...why are we discussing him?

There are still people on this forum who don't know who he is

[Vepres]

McCain almost won in 2000 by being, in some ways, anti-GOP. He could win New Hampshire, and use the momentum to then win Nevada, which would tie him with social coservative x, then wrap the nomination up by winning states such as New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey.

[Bo]

McCain almost won in 2000 by being, in some ways, anti-GOP. He could win New Hampshire, and use the momentum to then win Nevada, which would tie him with social coservative x, then wrap the nomination up by winning states such as New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey.

McCain was pro-life, though, which made him much more acceptable to many GOP voters. Plus, he was against legalizing weed.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

McCain almost won in 2000 by being, in some ways, anti-GOP. He could win New Hampshire, and use the momentum to then win Nevada, which would tie him with social coservative x, then wrap the nomination up by winning states such as New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey.

McCain was pro-life, though, which made him much more acceptable to many GOP voters. Plus, he was against legalizing weed.

Johnson is pro-choice only until the point of viability, and got endorsements from New Mexico right-to-life organizations when he was running for Governor.

Unless Obama has a serious primary challenger, then an influx of independents into GOP primaries would be to Johnson's benefactor.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don't think Johnson will even run if Ron Paul runs in 2012.

Paul is much better positioned to capture the tea party crowd as well as disillusioned independents, plus he starts of with an extremely loyal grassroots college youth base. Unlike during the media blackout in 2008, Paul is already on TV all the time now, commenting on economic policy or whatever nonsense is going on in Congress at the time.

Johnson is kind of a boring speaker, isn't well-known outside of a very small circle, and has some divisive issue positions, as well as some personal issues.

[Mint]

I don't think Johnson will even run if Ron Paul runs in 2012.

Paul is much better positioned to capture the tea party crowd as well as disillusioned independents, plus he starts of with an extremely loyal grassroots college youth base. Unlike during the media blackout in 2008, Paul is already on TV all the time now, commenting on economic policy or whatever nonsense is going on in Congress at the time.

Johnson is kind of a boring speaker, isn't well-known outside of a very small circle, and has some divisive issue positions, as well as some personal issues.

[Eraserhead]

He seems like a nice enough guy. Obviously, he has no chance and neither does Ron Paul. Sorry.

[SPC]

Ron Paul has more name recognition, polls higher, and is more principled than Gary Johnson (outside of social issues).

[Mr. Morden]

Ron Paul has more name recognition, polls higher, and is more principled than Gary Johnson (outside of social issues).

Paul's name recognition and poll numbers were roughly what Johnson's are now back in early 2007 when he began his campaign.  He gained exposure and built his army of internet fans via the GOP primary debates.  I don't see why Johnson couldn't do the same in this campaign.  I'm not predicting that that'll happen, but I don't see why he'd be less likely to do it than Paul was.  Though obviously, that only happens if Paul doesn't also run.  (I presume that Johnson wouldn't run in that case anyway.)

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Ron Paul has more name recognition, polls higher, and is more principled than Gary Johnson (outside of social issues).

But he's older than radio.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Ron Paul has more name recognition, polls higher, and is more principled than Gary Johnson (outside of social issues).

Paul's name recognition and poll numbers were roughly what Johnson's are now back in early 2007 when he began his campaign.  He gained exposure and built his army of internet fans via the GOP primary debates.  I don't see why Johnson couldn't do the same in this campaign.  I'm not predicting that that'll happen, but I don't see why he'd be less likely to do it than Paul was.  Though obviously, that only happens if Paul doesn't also run.  (I presume that Johnson wouldn't run in that case anyway.)

Paul did already have a nationwide following with libertarians prior to his 2008 presidential campaign, and he was able to attract new attention and support by shaking up the debates.

It's unlikely that Johnson with his dull speaking style and moderate rhetoric would able to endear himself to so many the way Paul was able to do.

[Mr. Morden]

Ron Paul has more name recognition, polls higher, and is more principled than Gary Johnson (outside of social issues).

Paul's name recognition and poll numbers were roughly what Johnson's are now back in early 2007 when he began his campaign.  He gained exposure and built his army of internet fans via the GOP primary debates.  I don't see why Johnson couldn't do the same in this campaign.  I'm not predicting that that'll happen, but I don't see why he'd be less likely to do it than Paul was.  Though obviously, that only happens if Paul doesn't also run.  (I presume that Johnson wouldn't run in that case anyway.)

Paul did already have a nationwide following with libertarians prior to his 2008 presidential campaign, and he was able to attract new attention and support by shaking up the debates.

It's unlikely that Johnson with his dull speaking style and moderate rhetoric would able to endear himself to so many the way Paul was able to do.

Meh, it's not "moderate" for the GOP.  It's wildly out of step with the entire GOP establishment, same as Paul.  That's why it would attract attention.  And honestly, I don't think his speaking style is any duller than Paul's.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Ron Paul has more name recognition, polls higher, and is more principled than Gary Johnson (outside of social issues).

Paul's name recognition and poll numbers were roughly what Johnson's are now back in early 2007 when he began his campaign.  He gained exposure and built his army of internet fans via the GOP primary debates.  I don't see why Johnson couldn't do the same in this campaign.  I'm not predicting that that'll happen, but I don't see why he'd be less likely to do it than Paul was.  Though obviously, that only happens if Paul doesn't also run.  (I presume that Johnson wouldn't run in that case anyway.)

Paul did already have a nationwide following with libertarians prior to his 2008 presidential campaign, and he was able to attract new attention and support by shaking up the debates.

It's unlikely that Johnson with his dull speaking style and moderate rhetoric would able to endear himself to so many the way Paul was able to do.

Meh, it's not "moderate" for the GOP.  It's wildly out of step with the entire GOP establishment, same as Paul.  That's why it would attract attention.  And honestly, I don't think his speaking style is any duller than Paul's.

I actually think Gary Johnson's speaking style is actually "better" than Paul's for political purposes. Johnson is no Reagan in terms of public speaking, but when he talks about things like drug legalization, he does so in a calm and collected manner. Paul often gets inflamed and passionate when he talks about the issues (and I don't have anything against Paul), and often comes across as "kooky" to people that either haven't heard of him or disagree with him. Paul's probably better at getting his supporters passionate, about the issues but Johnson probably comes across as more acceptable to moderates or independence.

Once again, I don't have a problem with either of them, it's just an observation.  

[Mint]

Totally disagree. No one wants to hear someone as bland and droning as Johnson. Even people I've known who hate Paul at least find him entertaining.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Totally disagree. No one wants to hear someone as bland and droning as Johnson. Even people I've known who hate Paul at least find him entertaining.

I don't think they find Paul entertaining in a way that's good for him.

[Mr. Morden]

Honestly, I think Paul's speaking style is irrelevant to his popularity.  I think what happened was simply that Paul-style libertarians were excited by the Youtube clips of him in the early 2008 debates, that someone with those views was challenging GOP orthodoxy to the faces of the other candidates.  Same thing would likely happen with Johnson, though it would be a different set of libertarians.  The Paul-ites are more paleocon/libertarians and Johnson is more of a conventional libertarian.

The other difference is that things might play a bit differently when the incumbent president is a Democrat rather than a Republican.  If Johnson criticizes the Afghanistan War, then it would play differently now, since the war is being prosecuted by a Democrat.  Not sure whether that would help him or hurt him.

[Lunar]

This thread was a bit of a hit-n-run by yours truly, wasn't it?

[tpfkaw]

Ron Paul has had a following for quite some time - I just watched a clip of him on William F. Buckley's show in 1988, with the host mentioning that he had never had so many letters sent to him urging him to invite anyone else onto his show . . .



On the topic at hand, I think the best option would be for him to run a "trojan horse" candidacy via Ron Paul - Ron Paul's name would be on the ballots, but Paul would announce beforehand that he would direct his delegates to vote for a younger candidate who shares his values (Johnson).

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Ron Paul has had a following for quite some time - I just watched a clip of him on William F. Buckley's show in 1988, with the host mentioning that he had never had so many letters sent to him urging him to invite anyone else onto his show . . .



On the topic at hand, I think the best option would be for him to run a "trojan horse" candidacy via Ron Paul - Ron Paul's name would be on the ballots, but Paul would announce beforehand that he would direct his delegates to vote for a younger candidate who shares his values (Johnson).

Is that possible/legal?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Ron Paul has had a following for quite some time - I just watched a clip of him on William F. Buckley's show in 1988, with the host mentioning that he had never had so many letters sent to him urging him to invite anyone else onto his show . . .



On the topic at hand, I think the best option would be for him to run a "trojan horse" candidacy via Ron Paul - Ron Paul's name would be on the ballots, but Paul would announce beforehand that he would direct his delegates to vote for a younger candidate who shares his values (Johnson).

Is that possible/legal?

I think it's legal, but would probably cause a lot of outcry.

[Psychic Octopus]

He shouldn't be taken seriously, since he isn't a serious candidate for the position.

[The Mikado]

Ron Paul has more name recognition, polls higher, and is more principled than Gary Johnson (outside of social issues).

But he's older than radio.

No, he isn't.  Radio is 90 years old.