When a football team is struggling, the most popular player often is the second-string quarterback.
Political statistician Nate Silver said over the weekend that, with Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson polling at 24 percent in his home state of New Mexico, it is “plausible” the election could end in a deadlock.
While I agree the Chicago Tribune’s Editorial Board should not endorse Trump or Clinton if they have serious reservations about their abilities to serve as president.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper.
Hillary Clinton’s executive experience is limited to running the Department of State, and it’s hard to argue that she did a good job. She can lose Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia, etc etc, and still eke through to a win – again, if she holds all of the traditional blue states. Like most veterans, she has supporters and critics.
“They say it didn’t get into the rivers, but what about the aquifers?”, she asked.
Paul hinted at his problem with that in the MSNBC interview. Unfortunately, he couldn’t handle the snap. It was an odd question, and one I’ve certainly never thought about.
How has Gary Johnson’s presidential campaign benefitted the Libertarian Party?
On Thursday, he was unable, in an MSNBC town hall, to name a single foreign leader he admires. Johnson eventually settled on “the former president of Mexico” – but then couldn’t remember his name. There is the Supreme Court and all the other federally appointed judges that are increasingly setting the direction of the country.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don’t want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
A shift in their support toward either of the major party nominees – away from Libertarian Gary Johnson, Jill Stein of the Green Party or another third party candidate – could drastically change the shape of the race. “It may surprise you to know it is not the libertarian ticket, instead, it is Green Party nominee Doctor Jill Stein”. I say “almost” because it’s possible that some Republican centrists would decide that Trump is unacceptable as president and would cross the aisle to vote for Clinton, although that would be such an enormous betrayal of their own base that they’d need to be prepared to lose their careers over it. Johnson and Stein are, on their own merits, terrible, unserious choices. Every vote matters. First, while Carter and Reagan had their pros and cons, this time one of the candidates, Donald Trump, is utterly unfit to be president. If subjected to scrutiny on the field of play, they would be shown not to be the alternatives some think. “The best way to use our vote is to invest in this social movement, this social transformation that we are creating together”. Likely true if we don’t hear anything about or from them.
Those polls happen to be the only quality surveys we have of the state in recent months, and they both suggest Johnson is a real player.
That seems. unlikely. As does Johnson winning the state in the first place (since third-party candidates tend to fade closer to Election Day). We need more people to write-in ballots, not just simply check off boxes that are given to us with most of us not accepting those choices.
Regardless of the arbitrary 15 percent rule, there is a public call for a third party candidate another voice to break up the bickering. Being aware of the most important global crisis isn’t just a requirement for a potential world leader, it’s a requirement for a responsible resident of the world, and being that unplugged means Johnson deserves nobody’s vote. Doing something to make yourself feel good under the illusion that you are making some kind of statement.