Whats the Latest on the Libertarian Candidates

[RangerOne]

Given the dismal choices left to us with the Clinton and Tump, I am reading up a bit on the libertarians. Whats the general feeling towards their potential candidates? I would think this party should garner support here, given they are typically anti consumerism, social liberal and fiscally conservative.

[davisgang90]

I think President Clinton will warmly thank you for your support of Libertarian candidates.

[Digital Dogma]

I like the practical sense I get from Johnson, but I dread the weirdness of fringe libertarians seeking ayn rand styled Social Darwinism

[acroy]

I think President Clinton will warmly thank you for your support of Libertarian candidates.

haha! true.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Gary Johnson, if nominated, would be the best-qualified of the three candidates on the ballot in all 50 states. Of course, don't underestimate the ability of the Libertarian party to shoot itself in the foot by nominating a whackjob.

[bobechs]

Any candidate, even the practically speaking unelectable, will certainly welcome your vote.  Votes are the means by which final score is kept and they do matter... somewhat.

But if you think you have actually done something by merely rousing from your political stupor and voting in the general election, think again.

Every candidate lives and dies by the ability to raise the funds necessary to communicate their message, the staff necessary to do both.

If you back a party or a candidate then back it/him/her.  Write a check.  Even a small check -- and don't think you have bought some kind of shot-calling access or influence.  Volunteer - and again, don't think you are now needed to strategize  for the campaign.  Just pitch in and do what the managers tell you needs to be done.

Invest a little more than your passive thumbs up or thumbs down from up in your shaded seat in the Colosseum.

And that goes triple for third parties.

[iris lily]

There are other races than the
Presidential race, and I value Rand Paul being in the Senate, so I wrote him a check. Im not from Kentucky but I still support him.

[mcj]

I think President Clinton will warmly thank you for your support of Libertarian candidates.

Some studies/polls show that Johnson would take away more votes from Clinton than from Trump.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/05/19/gary-johnson-sees-huge-jump-new-poll-bernie-supporters/

I've never understood why a party that is anti-war, anti-drug prohibition, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-cronyism is considered more closely aligned with the Republicans. Is it just because they support smaller government?

[Kris]

I think President Clinton will warmly thank you for your support of Libertarian candidates.

Some studies/polls show that Johnson would take away more votes from Clinton than from Trump.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/05/19/gary-johnson-sees-huge-jump-new-poll-bernie-supporters/

I've never understood why a party that is anti-war, anti-drug prohibition, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-cronyism is considered more closely aligned with the Republicans. Is it just because they Republicans pretend to support smaller government?

FTFY

[golden1]

I've never understood why a party that is anti-war, anti-drug prohibition, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-cronyism is considered more closely aligned with the Republicans. Is it just because they support smaller government?

Yes.  Libertarianism is a particular favorite of the young conservative that has never really needed the social safety net for anything so has little empathy or understanding for those who do need it.  Younger conservatives also tend to be more socially liberal than older conservatives because they are more likely to know gay people, or women who have had abortions etc.... 

[infogoon]

Yes.  Libertarianism is a particular favorite of the young conservative that has never really needed the social safety net for anything so has little empathy or understanding for those who do need it.  Younger conservatives also tend to be more socially liberal than older conservatives because they are more likely to know gay people, or women who have had abortions etc....

Libertarianism tends to appeal to young white people from relatively affluent families who still think the world is fundamentally fair and that the only reason poor people exist is because they're lazy and stupid. It's the political philosophy of the suburban high school study hall.

[Yaeger]

Wow, lots of hate on here for Libertarians for some reason. I think its the best party out a bad bunch, which isn't saying a whole lot. Republicans are moving towards crazy and away from the liberty and small government platform of policy by supporting the popular 'gimme stuff' programs and not shrinking government during their Presidencies. The larger the government the smaller the individual. Democrats have been there for a while and it feels like Clinton epitomizes what they've become: The party of we'll say and do whatever gets us into power, 'free stuff for votes'. Socialism is perhaps the worst platform in human history, it's tied with communism and some versions of totalitarianism for creating the worst government-run atrocities in human history. Promising paradise, but delivering Venezuela.

Yeah, Libertarian is the best option by a long shot and probably best captures the American dream and the policies responsible for our success today.

[Drifterrider]

For those who really think there is a difference between the parties:

What has really changed (for the better) in the last 50 years?  I'm talking about changes brought about by government, not by individuals who invented a better mousetrap, etc.

[bobechs]

For those who really think there is a difference between the parties:

What has really changed (for the better) in the last 50 years?  I'm talking about changes brought about by government, not by individuals who invented a better mousetrap, etc.

Uhhhm... the Soviet Union-USA rivalry is no longer a daily threat of Massive Nuclear Destruction?

Can't lay that all to one party, or even one government, but  still...

[onlykelsey]

For those who really think there is a difference between the parties:

What has really changed (for the better) in the last 50 years?  I'm talking about changes brought about by government, not by individuals who invented a better mousetrap, etc.

My clients and I do business across upwards of 100 countries because the military protects trade, and Congress negotiates tax treaties, and the Treasury backs the US dollar, and Bretton Woods has ended, and and and and...?

[jrhampt]

There was also the civil rights act of 1968, and in the seventies: the ruling that unmarried people have the right to use contraceptives, Title IX, equal credit opportunity act, marital rape was outlawed, and more recently, in the 2000's: women are allowed to serve in combat roles, gays are allowed in the military, gay marriage is legalized.  So yeah, lots of changes in the last 50 years, and those are just a few in the area of civil rights.

[onlykelsey]

Oh, also, I can take on debt alone as a woman! and go to most colleges! That's pretty exciting.

[jrhampt]

Oh, also, I can take on debt alone as a woman! and go to most colleges! That's pretty exciting.

Yeah, I'm guessing Drifterrider is a white male if he's truly oblivious to these civil rights expansions over the last 50 years.  Like most libertarians (white male, that is, not necessarily oblivious).

[onlykelsey]

Lawrence v. Texas means no longer being arrested for sodomy!

[jrhampt]

Lawrence v. Texas means no longer being arrested for sodomy!

Ah yes, make that a white, straight male.  (Drifterrider)

[Yaeger]

Most of these sound like corrections to bad government laws and policies (civil rights, DOMA, Jim Crow, etc). It needs to be in context. You can't point to a government creating a law that oppresses people for decades, then repeals it in favor of equality, as examples of 'good' government intervention. It's an intervention of what... itself?

[Drifterrider]

Most of these sound like corrections to bad government laws and policies (civil rights, DOMA, Jim Crow, etc). It needs to be in context. You can't point to a government creating a law that oppresses people for decades, then repeals it in favor of equality, as examples of 'good' government intervention. It's an intervention of what... itself?

Exactly.  Fixing what they broke doesn't count.

[Spork]

Yeah, I don't understand the contempt for Libertarians.  Whether you are left or right: This is a group that pretty much wholeheartedly agrees with one half of your platform.

[rosaz]

To be fair, the Civil Rights Movement also prohibited private discrimination in employment, housing, etc. that went a long way towards improved opportunities for black Americans.

The flip side though is that mass incarceration, particularly for drug claims, has seriously mitigated the benefits of those increased opportunities.

So I'm chalking that up as  a *small* win for the government.

[onlykelsey]

Most of these sound like corrections to bad government laws and policies (civil rights, DOMA, Jim Crow, etc). It needs to be in context. You can't point to a government creating a law that oppresses people for decades, then repeals it in favor of equality, as examples of 'good' government intervention. It's an intervention of what... itself?

Exactly.  Fixing what they broke doesn't count.

I'm not sure any of the things i mentioned in my original post count in that group (tax treaties, US dollar, end of Bretton Woods, infrastructure to allow trade, etc).  Also, keeping people from discriminating obviously requires actual government action (which is separate from the government itself discriminating).

[onlykelsey]

Yeah, I don't understand the contempt for Libertarians.  Whether you are left or right: This is a group that pretty much wholeheartedly agrees with one half of your platform.

I don't have contempt for libertarianism, honestly.  I am closely following the McAfee (who I find batshit) v. Johnson thing and discussing with libertarian or libertarian-leaning friends.  I'm also sort of interested in whether we're about to see a splintering of the GOP into a more business/libertarian/Adam Smith liberal wing and a protectionist wing.

But a small minority of self-identified libertarians I've met seem capable of complex thought or thinking beyond the life circumstances they were born in to (largely male, white, middle- or upper-class, able-bodied, etc).  The idea of the veil of ignorance seems beyond them. To be fair, there are idiots of all political stripes, but I think the other two main parties don't have platforms that are as easily (over)simplified in to bullet points.  There is a serious overlap in my acquaintances between the Sanders and Paul supporters, and they both seem very prone to simplistic black and white arguments that do not account for empirical evidence.

[Spork]

Yeah, I don't understand the contempt for Libertarians.  Whether you are left or right: This is a group that pretty much wholeheartedly agrees with one half of your platform.

I don't have contempt for libertarianism, honestly.  I am closely following the McAfee (who I find batshit) v. Johnson thing and discussing with libertarian or libertarian-leaning friends.  I'm also sort of interested in whether we're about to see a splintering of the GOP into a more business/libertarian/Adam Smith liberal wing and a protectionist wing.

To be fair, McAfee IS batshit, though he sounded much less so in the debates.  But make no mistake: He cray.

I like Johnson.  He seems pretty level headed and likable.

...And I'd LOVE to see a splintered GOP.  I'm a little sad that so many anti-Trumpers are falling to the wayside.  For that matter, I'd LOVE to see Dems splinter on Clinton/Sanders lines.  The current party machine is non-representative and really only made to re-elect themselves.  I'd love to see smaller, more focused parties.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Yeah, I don't understand the contempt for Libertarians.  Whether you are left or right: This is a group that pretty much wholeheartedly agrees with one half of your platform.

I don't have contempt for libertarianism, honestly.  I am closely following the McAfee (who I find batshit) v. Johnson thing and discussing with libertarian or libertarian-leaning friends.  I'm also sort of interested in whether we're about to see a splintering of the GOP into a more business/libertarian/Adam Smith liberal wing and a protectionist wing.

To be fair, McAfee IS batshit, though he sounded much less so in the debates.  But make no mistake: He cray.

I like Johnson.  He seems pretty level headed and likable.

...And I'd LOVE to see a splintered GOP.  I'm a little sad that so many anti-Trumpers are falling to the wayside.  For that matter, I'd LOVE to see Dems splinter on Clinton/Sanders lines.  The current party machine is non-representative and really only made to re-elect themselves.  I'd love to see smaller, more focused parties.

I'm definitely a libertarian and don't feel represented by the two parties. Unfortunately it appears that if we had a four-party system, one of them would be the American version of France's National Front.

[MoonShadow]

I think President Clinton will warmly thank you for your support of Libertarian candidates.

Some studies/polls show that Johnson would take away more votes from Clinton than from Trump.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/05/19/gary-johnson-sees-huge-jump-new-poll-bernie-supporters/

I've never understood why a party that is anti-war, anti-drug prohibition, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, anti-cronyism is considered more closely aligned with the Republicans. Is it just because they support smaller government?

Pretty much, yes.

[MoonShadow]

To be realistic, the lib isn't going to get elected, so it would be better to nominate a good representative of the ideas than a politician with a background such as Johnson.  Mcaffee is not that guy either.  I'm partial to Austin Peterson, who was just on the Glenn Beck show this week.  He doesn't sound crazy.

[MoonShadow]

Yeah, I don't understand the contempt for Libertarians.  Whether you are left or right: This is a group that pretty much wholeheartedly agrees with one half of your platform.

I don't have contempt for libertarianism, honestly.  I am closely following the McAfee (who I find batshit) v. Johnson thing and discussing with libertarian or libertarian-leaning friends.  I'm also sort of interested in whether we're about to see a splintering of the GOP into a more business/libertarian/Adam Smith liberal wing and a protectionist wing.

To be fair, McAfee IS batshit, though he sounded much less so in the debates.  But make no mistake: He cray.

I like Johnson.  He seems pretty level headed and likable.

...And I'd LOVE to see a splintered GOP.  I'm a little sad that so many anti-Trumpers are falling to the wayside.  For that matter, I'd LOVE to see Dems splinter on Clinton/Sanders lines.  The current party machine is non-representative and really only made to re-elect themselves.  I'd love to see smaller, more focused parties.

I'm definitely a libertarian and don't feel represented by the two parties. Unfortunately it appears that if we had a four-party system, one of them would be the American version of France's National Front.

Do you know what the NF actually stands for?  It doesn't sound materially different than Trump's version of populism to me.  I'd say that if we had 4 parties they'd be; Repub, Democrat, Libertarian & Green.  But Green is a misnomer, as they are more like watermelons.  Green skin deep, but all red underneath.

[onlykelsey]

Yeah, I don't understand the contempt for Libertarians.  Whether you are left or right: This is a group that pretty much wholeheartedly agrees with one half of your platform.

I don't have contempt for libertarianism, honestly.  I am closely following the McAfee (who I find batshit) v. Johnson thing and discussing with libertarian or libertarian-leaning friends.  I'm also sort of interested in whether we're about to see a splintering of the GOP into a more business/libertarian/Adam Smith liberal wing and a protectionist wing.

To be fair, McAfee IS batshit, though he sounded much less so in the debates.  But make no mistake: He cray.

I like Johnson.  He seems pretty level headed and likable.

...And I'd LOVE to see a splintered GOP.  I'm a little sad that so many anti-Trumpers are falling to the wayside.  For that matter, I'd LOVE to see Dems splinter on Clinton/Sanders lines.  The current party machine is non-representative and really only made to re-elect themselves.  I'd love to see smaller, more focused parties.

I'm definitely a libertarian and don't feel represented by the two parties. Unfortunately it appears that if we had a four-party system, one of them would be the American version of France's National Front.

Do you know what the NF actually stands for?  It doesn't sound materially different than Trump's version of populism to me.  I'd say that if we had 4 parties they'd be; Repub, Democrat, Libertarian & Green.  But Green is a misnomer, as they are more like watermelons.  Green skin deep, but all red underneath.

Interesting.  I don't think Green party ever polls more than 2 or 3%.  There are also strong structural reasons we'll only ever have two lasting parties on the national stage.

I think if we had four they'd be libertarian-ish, democrat-ish, conservative/religious/evangelical and protectionist (could pull from Sanders and Trump types).

[MoonShadow]

Yeah, I don't understand the contempt for Libertarians.  Whether you are left or right: This is a group that pretty much wholeheartedly agrees with one half of your platform.

I don't have contempt for libertarianism, honestly.  I am closely following the McAfee (who I find batshit) v. Johnson thing and discussing with libertarian or libertarian-leaning friends.  I'm also sort of interested in whether we're about to see a splintering of the GOP into a more business/libertarian/Adam Smith liberal wing and a protectionist wing.

To be fair, McAfee IS batshit, though he sounded much less so in the debates.  But make no mistake: He cray.

I like Johnson.  He seems pretty level headed and likable.

...And I'd LOVE to see a splintered GOP.  I'm a little sad that so many anti-Trumpers are falling to the wayside.  For that matter, I'd LOVE to see Dems splinter on Clinton/Sanders lines.  The current party machine is non-representative and really only made to re-elect themselves.  I'd love to see smaller, more focused parties.

I'm definitely a libertarian and don't feel represented by the two parties. Unfortunately it appears that if we had a four-party system, one of them would be the American version of France's National Front.

Do you know what the NF actually stands for?  It doesn't sound materially different than Trump's version of populism to me.  I'd say that if we had 4 parties they'd be; Repub, Democrat, Libertarian & Green.  But Green is a misnomer, as they are more like watermelons.  Green skin deep, but all red underneath.

Interesting. I don't think Green party ever polls more than 2 or 3%.

Neither does the Libertarian Party.

  There are also strong structural reasons we'll only ever have two lasting parties on the national stage.

Also true, but since we are all here pretending, might as well go big.

I think if we had four they'd be libertarian-ish, democrat-ish, conservative/religious/evangelical and protectionist (could pull from Sanders and Trump types).

That's just what I said.

[maizefolk]

Interesting. I don't think Green party ever polls more than 2 or 3%.

Neither does the Libertarian Party.

That was true until this election cycle. The Lib party isn't always included in the big national polls, but with Trump and Clinton and the nominees it's been hitting double digits from time to time. The most recent one I know of is from May 14th-17th:

Trump 42%
Clinton 39%
Johnson 10%
Undecided: 9%

If you take away the libertarian option, Clinton and Trump each go up 3 percent points and undecided goes up 4.

Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pay-attention-to-libertarian-gary-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/

[MoonShadow]

Interesting. I don't think Green party ever polls more than 2 or 3%.

Neither does the Libertarian Party.

That was true until this election cycle. The Lib party isn't always included in the big national polls, but with Trump and Clinton and the nominees it's been hitting double digits from time to time. The most recent one I know of is from May 14th-17th:

Trump 42%
Clinton 39%
Johnson 10%
Undecided: 9%

If you take away the libertarian option, Clinton and Trump each go up 3 percent points and undecided goes up 4.

That's nice and all, but generic Libertarians don't poll that high.  I suspect that Johnson polls as high as he does there simply because he has a fairly recognizable name and is a choice in the poll that isn't either Hillary or Trump. 

[mcj]

For those of us who do not live in swing states, our electoral college votes are pretty much already set.

Isn't the best anti-establishment action in that case to vote for the third party of your choice?

They can't win, but once they reach 5% they have access to public funds, debates, and then you have more perspectives entering the discourse. With so many people #NeverHillary and #NeverTrump who might otherwise sit this one out, I think that is a good way to register their dissatisfaction with the 2 parties.

[Fudge102]

I looked into some of these people after hearing about them.  Sadly to me, they seemed to be the best ideas of one side and the worst of the other.  As much as I don't like Hilary, I still trust her more than the third party side.  If you ask me, we need to figure out a way to remove the winner take all aspect of our political system.  We've made it so it's one of the other.  I don't necessarily think we need a parliamentary system where you vote for a certain percentage of who controls what, but what we have isn't working as well as it used to...

[mcj]

I looked into some of these people after hearing about them.  Sadly to me, they seemed to be the best ideas of one side and the worst of the other.  As much as I don't like Hilary, I still trust her more than the third party side.  If you ask me, we need to figure out a way to remove the winner take all aspect of our political system.  We've made it so it's one of the other.  I don't necessarily think we need a parliamentary system where you vote for a certain percentage of who controls what, but what we have isn't working as well as it used to...

Yeah something like a runoff voting system, or the system explained in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

[Indexer]

I'm really surprised people assume Libertarians side with republicans. Libertarians are socially liberal, fiscally conservative.  Republicans are neither of those things. Republicans like to pretend they are fiscally conservative/small government. The last fiscally conservative Republican administration we had... was before I was born so I have no experience of it ever happening. Reagan= tripled the national debt. Bush Sr= was on track to double it if he had 2 terms. Bush jr= doubled the national debt.

Democrats are socially liberal compared to Republicans. At least Libertarians get one of the things they want. Sure Democrats are fiscally irresponsible... no more so than Republicans. Yes, they increase the size of government... no more so than Republicans. 


I like the Libertarians because they are the only party suggesting we should do something about our massive deficits. Gary Johnson balanced his state's budget. He is pretty frugal, and paid his way through college doing odd jobs. He likes biking everywhere. He thinks pot should be legal. He built his house himself. He has hiked many of the tallest mountains including Everest. He sounds like.... 

I'm just saying I'm surprised mustachians won't give the guy the time of day. :) He fits in with our crowd a lot more than the other options.

[Yaeger]

It really depends on what you define the role of government being in protecting your right to life and liberty. I'm more of a Constitutional Libertarian, so I look at Art 1 Sec 8 in regards to the limits of the Federal government as what the federal government should be limited to. However, the government has expanded significantly based upon the implied authority of income taxation granted by the 16th Amendment and has grown unchecked, despite the 9th and 10th Amendment, which grants all of the rights not given to the federal government through the Constitution to the states and the people.

Democrats usually take being socially liberal as seeming to want increased laws, taxes, or other types of government intervention to provide social improvement and social protections. Which lends itself to larger government and more social freedom at the expense of economic and individual freedoms.

Libertarians usually take being socially liberal as improving individual freedoms and social improvements by removing the ability of government to intervene in our lives and allowing individuals the freedom to choose. Which lends itself to smaller government and more social and economic freedom at the expense of less government protections.

Similar goal, wildly different method of achieving it. I personally think that economic freedom is probably the most essential freedom a society can have.

[yuka]

As someone in a battleground state (VA), I feel the need to vote the anti-Clinton ticket. If the good people of CA (who won't stop honking their support (?!?) for Sanders right by my house every weekend) and other late-primary states can prevent Clinton, then I get to vote libertarian. Like another poster mentioned, I already did my part by donating to Rand Paul. I'd volunteer for him too, but I live nowhere near Kentucky.

[ender]

I'm really surprised people assume Libertarians side with republicans. Libertarians are socially liberal, fiscally conservative.  Republicans are neither of those things. Republicans like to pretend they are fiscally conservative/small government. The last fiscally conservative Republican administration we had... was before I was born so I have no experience of it ever happening. Reagan= tripled the national debt. Bush Sr= was on track to double it if he had 2 terms. Bush jr= doubled the national debt.

I never understand this either.

Both Democrat and Republican parties love spending money. They just have different things they want to spend it on. I think that if the Republican party actually was fiscally conservative they would be much more popular across the USA.

[jim555]

Johnson/Weld ticket.  Hope they drain enough from the Repubs so Hillary wins and I get to keep my ACA health coverage.

[Mac_MacGyver]

I typically vote Libertarian, this year is an Anti-Hillary vote.

[Cyaphas]

I never understand this either.

Both Democrat and Republican parties love spending money. They just have different things they want to spend it on. I think that if the Republican party actually was fiscally conservative they would be much more popular across the USA.

They're both the same party, Corpratists and Globalists. Same breed of monsters, ones blue and the others red. They both want more control over resources and citizens. They both take money from the same corporations. They both support unjustified and constant war. The differences are pretty minuscule in the grand scheme of things. Over time, they've both contributed to expanding debt, expanding spending, restricting freedoms, expanding government agencies, ridiculous economic policies/trade agreements, killing brown people, supporting despots, destabilizing foreign governments.... You know? Things that matter.

[MoonShadow]

As someone in a battleground state (VA), I feel the need to vote the anti-Clinton ticket. If the good people of CA (who won't stop honking their support (?!?) for Sanders right by my house every weekend) and other late-primary states can prevent Clinton, then I get to vote libertarian. Like another poster mentioned, I already did my part by donating to Rand Paul. I'd volunteer for him too, but I live nowhere near Kentucky.

I actually live in Rand Paul's district.  I still switched my registration back to Libertarian this spring, mostly out of disgust for the process.

[libertarian4321]

Johnson/Weld ticket.  Hope they drain enough from the Repubs so Hillary wins and I get to keep my ACA health coverage.

Gary Johnson has said that he is closer to Bernie Sanders politically than any of the Republican candidates.

Bernie is a socialist with mostly tolerant social policies.  They differ on fiscal policy, but Bernie and Johnson is close to Sanders on most social tolerance issues.

Trump is a loose cannon, he's all over the place.  But he's actually less of a warmonger and less of a corporate shill than Hillary (I know, it's weird, but at least Trump isn't holding out his hand to Goldman Sachs all the time like Hillary does).

Politically, Hillary is a corporatist, middle of the road, warmongering Republican.  She's been VERY slow to warm to tolerance issues like gay rights (she only does so once she's sure the vast majority are going that way).

She and Johnson would disagree on a wide variety of social issues, and on Foreign policy, Gary Johnson is a polar opposite of Hillary Clinton, who essentially agrees with the entire Bush/Cheney "shoot first" version of foreign policy.

So Johnson is more likely to pull progressives and pacifists (who rightly despise Hillary) from the Dem party than pulling Republicans from whatever the Hell Trump (he's got an "R" next to his name on the ballot, but he doesn't really seem to stand for anything).

[libertarian4321]

For the Record:  I think Hillary and Trump are not only poor candidates, but both are vile human beings.

I wouldn't vote for either of them under any circumstance.

So when my wife and I vote for Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson won't be "pulling votes" from either of those ridiculously bad candidates.

[jim555]

Johnson/Weld ticket.  Hope they drain enough from the Repubs so Hillary wins and I get to keep my ACA health coverage.

Gary Johnson has said that he is closer to Bernie Sanders politically than any of the Republican candidates.

Bernie is a socialist with mostly tolerant social policies.  They differ on fiscal policy, but Bernie and Johnson is close to Sanders on most social tolerance issues.

Trump is a loose cannon, he's all over the place.  But he's actually less of a warmonger and less of a corporate shill than Hillary (I know, it's weird, but at least Trump isn't holding out his hand to Goldman Sachs all the time like Hillary does).

Politically, Hillary is a corporatist, middle of the road, warmongering Republican.  She's been VERY slow to warm to tolerance issues like gay rights (she only does so once she's sure the vast majority are going that way).

She and Johnson would disagree on a wide variety of social issues, and on Foreign policy, Gary Johnson is a polar opposite of Hillary Clinton, who essentially agrees with the entire Bush/Cheney "shoot first" version of foreign policy.

So Johnson is more likely to pull progressives and pacifists (who rightly despise Hillary) from the Dem party than pulling Republicans from whatever the Hell Trump (he's got an "R" next to his name on the ballot, but he doesn't really seem to stand for anything).

Beg to differ here.   A loose Sanders voter is MUCH closer to Hillary than to Johnson.  Why would a socialist want to vote for someone who wants to tear down and destroy the so called "safety net"?  Johnson is much closer to conservatives who have been orphaned by the populist Trump.  They have no where to go and Johnson would seem to be the logical alternative.  10-15% should shift enough votes from the Great Orange One to hand the election to Hillary.

[Mac_MacGyver]

Johnson/Weld ticket.  Hope they drain enough from the Repubs so Hillary wins and I get to keep my ACA health coverage.

Gary Johnson has said that he is closer to Bernie Sanders politically than any of the Republican candidates.

Bernie is a socialist with mostly tolerant social policies.  They differ on fiscal policy, but Bernie and Johnson is close to Sanders on most social tolerance issues.

Trump is a loose cannon, he's all over the place.  But he's actually less of a warmonger and less of a corporate shill than Hillary (I know, it's weird, but at least Trump isn't holding out his hand to Goldman Sachs all the time like Hillary does).

Politically, Hillary is a corporatist, middle of the road, warmongering Republican.  She's been VERY slow to warm to tolerance issues like gay rights (she only does so once she's sure the vast majority are going that way).

She and Johnson would disagree on a wide variety of social issues, and on Foreign policy, Gary Johnson is a polar opposite of Hillary Clinton, who essentially agrees with the entire Bush/Cheney "shoot first" version of foreign policy.

So Johnson is more likely to pull progressives and pacifists (who rightly despise Hillary) from the Dem party than pulling Republicans from whatever the Hell Trump (he's got an "R" next to his name on the ballot, but he doesn't really seem to stand for anything).

Beg to differ here.   A loose Sanders voter is MUCH closer to Hillary than to Johnson.  Why would a socialist want to vote for someone who wants to tear down and destroy the so called "safety net"?  Johnson is much closer to conservatives who have been orphaned by the populist Trump.  They have no where to go and Johnson would seem to be the logical alternative.  10-15% should shift enough votes from the Great Orange One to hand the election to Hillary.

And Bernie is closer to Johnson on foreign policy unlike that neocon hawk Hillary.