Tag: Gary Johnson

video

The Hillary Loss, Are Libertarians to Blame/Thank?

Post author By Redactor
Post date November 12, 2016
No Comments on The Hillary Loss, Are Libertarians to Blame/Thank?

O, the Trump win was a thing to behold! Maybe you are like us here at Common Sense, and did not vote for the man. But you did not vote for Hillary Clinton, either.

So, are you to blame? Er, thank?

There were plenty of Jill Stein voters. And many more Gary Johnson voters — over four million, the largest return of any Libertarian Party candidate in the challenger party’s history.

At least one writer on the ostensible Left has argued that, had ALL of Stein voters “done their duty” and voted for Mrs. Clinton, and HALF of the Libertarian’s vote wised up and voted for the Anti-Trump possibility, Mrs. Clinton would have won. So, these folks blame minor party voters for a Clinton Loss . . . and its allegedly horrible flip side record, the surprising Trump Win.

Well, what do the Libertarians think of it?

As you can see: Not much. That is what. Here is Nicholas Sarwark, Libertarian Party chairperson, doubling down on what Gary Johnson said:

And they are right. How, exactly? Well, it is not just that Hillary/Tim voters took votes away from the Libertarians’ Gary/Bill ticket. It is also the case that, well, the responsible parties for Hillary Clinton losing are . . . Democratic Party voters!

Read the graph and weep, folks:

SO, WHY THE PRECIPITOUS DROP?

Could it be that Hillary Clinton was an awful candidate . . . even by leftist standards? And that is why so many Democrats could not even be bothered to go to the polls and vote for “their” sorry candidate?

The obvious answer is: Yes.

Tags Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party, ReasonTV

Accountability folly media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The Un-gaffe-able Hillary Clinton

Post author By CS Admin
Post date October 24, 2016
5 Comments on The Un-gaffe-able Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, Mosul, Syria, Turkey, illustration

What a troublesome election season. My wife and I have argued for days … over which one of us first blurted out that Clinton’s statement about Mosul, Iraq, in the final presidential debate, was flat-out wrong.

Geographically. Map-wise.

Iraqi and Kurdish troops (with U.S. “advisors” and air cover) have set out to re-take Iraq’s second-largest city, under Islamic State control since June 2014. So both presidential candidates were questioned about it.

“What’s really important here is to understand all the interplay,” stated the former Secretary of State, authoritatively. “Mosul is a Sunni city. Mosul is on the border of Syria.”

The problem for Sec. Clinton?

Mosul is not on the Syrian border.

Syria is 100 miles to the west; Turkey, 75 miles north. Mosul is actually closer to the border of Turkey than Syria.

“It going to be tough fighting, but I think we can take back Mosul and then move on into Syria and take back Raqqa,” Mrs. Clinton asserted. “This is what we have to do.”

Really?

“Mrs. Clinton’s comments were uttered in the context of her strategic plan to take on ISIS,” explains Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com. “If she really thinks that taking Mosul will somehow provide a gateway to ‘press into Syria,’ then she is in for a big surprise.”

Over at Reason.org, Anthony Fisher found that “Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy gaffe at Wednesday’s debate was noticed by almost no one in the mainstream political commentariat.”

Libertarian Gary Johnson of “What is Aleppo?” fame sure noticed, dubbing the massive coverage of his gaffe and the complete non-coverage of hers “a very hypocritical double standard.”

(Psst — they want her to win.)

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Gary Johnson, Hillary Clinton, media bias, Mosul, Syria, Turkey

Accountability ballot access general freedom media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

Serving the Voters

debates, presidential, Gary Johnson, phone number, Commission on Presidential Debates, illustration

Who will choose the next president of these United States?

Voters? A private non-profit organization? The media? The Electoral College? The U.S. House of Representatives?

Russian hackers?

No joke, that last. Beyond the suspected Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee, the FBI warned last week that hackers, likely Russian, had broken into the online election systems of Arizona and Illinois.

Earlier this week, and months ago, I floated the possibility that Libertarian Gary Johnson could win New Mexico, where he served two terms as governor. Currently polling at 25 percent, a New Mexico win might prevent any candidate from obtaining an electoral majority, throwing the election into the House of Representatives.

Not likely. But possible. After all, by the Constitution, what actually determines who will be president is the Electoral College. Its elected electors vote in December. And, as attorneys David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman remind us in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, those electors can vote their conscience.

But first, voters must decide. Vote their consciences, based on good information not predigested by the press and the insider class.*

Which means people need to hear from each candidate who can be elected president. The partisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has no right to narrow our choices by holding a closed debate.

A series of polls before voters have even evaluated their choices ought not pre-determine the election.

Tell the Commission on Presidential Debates (202 – 872-1020) to open the debates to all viable candidates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

*The media made a mountain out of Gov. Johnson’s gaffe yesterday morning, not knowing immediately what MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle was asking concerning “Aleppo.” Johnson seemed to think it an acronym for some government agency, instead of a besieged Syrian metropolis. But consider it a sign the media is paying attention. Meanwhile, Green Party nominee Jill Stein became the first candidate charged with a crime — vandalism — for spray painting “I approve this message” on a bulldozer used to build a pipeline.

Printable PDF

Tags Commission on Presidential Debates, Gary Johnson, presidential debate

ballot access ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The Stupidity of 15

President, Presidential, vote, House of Representatives, tie, illustration

Most Americans think there are only two choices for the presidency. And will thus vote for either Clinton or Trump.

They are wrong. There are two popular minor party contenders, and one will even be on all 50 state ballots.

In other election cycles, one could argue that a “third party” candidate has no reasonable chance to win — so, just ignore.

A self-fulfilling criterion?

Sure. But it works … for the major parties.

This cycle, however, it just doesn’t apply. A third party-candidate could indeed become the next president … even without capturing 15 percent nationally in the polls … or, get this, in the actual voting!

Confused?

Founded and run by Republican and Democrat bigwigs, the private non-profit Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is not an honest broker. The CPD’s 15 percent national polling threshold for inclusion in the debates neglects a crucial fact: presidential electors aren’t won nationally, but by winning states.

According to the latest Washington Post/SurveyMonkey poll, the Libertarian candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, isn’t polling quite 15 percent nationally. But he is polling 25 percent in his home state, where Trump is at 29 and Clinton at 37 percent.

Yes, Johnson is within striking distance to win New Mexico’s five electoral votes.

If Johnson does win there, and Trump keeps it close, winning say Ohio and Florida, no candidate may gain a majority of the Electoral College. The presidential contest would be thrown into the House of Representatives, the first time since 1824! With each state delegation casting one vote, Johnson could serve as the compromise, even consensus, choice.

It seems to me that the next president ought to be in the debates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Commission on Presidential Debates, Congress, debates, Gary Johnson, House, New Mexico

Accountability ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies political challengers Regulating Protest

The Media’s Job

debate, debates, candidates, media, illustration

Do nearly two-thirds of Americans want Libertarian Party presidential nominee and former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson in the presidential debates?

Snopes.com, the hoax-busting website, investigated the truthiness of a widespread Internet meme making just that claim.

The verdict?

It’s true.

An August 25th Quinnipiac University poll showed 62 percent of likely voters saying yes, “Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, should be included in the presidential debates.” Among 18-to-34-year-olds, a whopping 82 percent felt Johnson deserved a podium.

Or perhaps more accurately, these voters want an opportunity to hear about all their choices, not just Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton —deliciously dubbed “the unloved presidential candidates” in the Quinnipiac news release. Which leads to the most important number in the survey: 68 percent felt they “haven’t heard enough” about Gov. Johnson to even form an opinion.

He still garnered 10 percent support overall and was the only candidate with a higher favorable* than unfavorable rating.

Voters are dissatisfied with the major party choices, so why limit the debate to just Trump and Clinton? Because the Commission on Presidential Debates is a crony organization, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC and the RNC. With 68 percent of the public totally uninformed about Johnson, he’d have to win nearly a majority of everyone else to hit the 15 percent support required to get in the debates.

Where’s the Fourth Estate? Doesn’t the American voter deserve enough information about Johnson and Stein to form an opinion?

Or will they be broadcasting rigged debates?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* By the way, once again, the contest was closer when the polling included Libertarian Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. While head-to-head Mrs. Clinton bested Mr. Trump by a full 10 percentage points, 51 – 41, with Johnson and Stein included, Clinton’s advantage shrank to 45 – 38 percent, a seven point lead.

Printable PDF

Tags debate, debates, Gary Johnson, Green Party, Jill Stein, libertarian

Accountability media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Too Dangerous x 2

CIA, Director, Michael Hayden, Donald Trump, danger, Libertarian, Gary Johnson, illustration

“If he governs consistent with some of the things he’s said as a candidate, I would be very frightened,” former CIA Director Michael Hayden says about Donald Trump.

These are the words that begin an ominous television spot from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The advertisement concludes that Mr. Trump is “too dangerous.”

Hayden was director of the National Security Administration under President George W. Bush, before becoming the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and then moving to head the Central Intelligence Agency. He served at the CIA for only a few weeks into President Obama’s first term, but obviously Mrs. Clinton wouldn’t broadcast his negative view of Trump before millions of us in TV Land if she didn’t respect Mr. Hayden’s opinion.

Funny, yesterday on John Catsimatidis’s New York City radio program, Hayden declared, “I’m uncomfortable with the nominee of both of the major political parties.”

“John, a lot of my friends are saying that’s nice, Hayden, but you have to vote for one of them,” the former top spy offered, “but I’m not so sure I do.”

He doesn’t. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson will be on all 50 state ballots and Green Party standard-bearer Jill Stein will be on most. And there are others.

“Somebody is going to win, but … I’m hoping they don’t think they’re sweeping into office with some powerful mandate,” Hayden continued. “And for people like me … to vote for some other choice, might deny them that sense of mandate, which would make, I think, things even worse.”

I’m no fan of Mr. Hayden, but regarding this? I agree.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF