i THOUGHT MOST POLS SHOWED we already knew the winner. I guess miricles can happen. There is always hope!!

Adinnieken said: mrstickball said: Right, but there's enough bipartisan support for nuts-and-bolts stuff in congress that they could easily override vetos, especially if they figure out that they all need to support each other's  pork projects in order to get any one of them passed. I agree with three of your four proposals, anyway. Mr Khan said: mrstickball said: Mr Khan said: Would it really be in the president's power to cut budget that much? Even if the Libertarians swing into the White House, they'd need substantive support from outside. Though if he's willing to abuse executive privilege He did pretty well at vetoing everything the legislature tried to pass until they started slashing things in New Mexico. It'd be hard, but I think he could do it, because there is a lot of pork in almost every government agency. End the war in Afghanistan, the War on Drugs, slash the DoD's budget by 20%, then cut off all stimulus funding and you've probably covered more than half the deficit.  I would have thought the same thing would happen in Gary Johnson's New Mexico where 2/3rds of the legislature was Democrat, so they already had a built-in majority against him. Yes, there would be a few over-rides. But he could use the veto to at least achieve a modicum of things to be done. More importantly, he could force both sides to come to the table and actually write a budget, which would then (hopefully) get both sides to agree on some cuts. There's a big difference between a state government and the federal government.  Most state governments cannot legally operate with a budget deficit, so the legislators themselves have a legal obligation to work together to create a balanced budget, or raise taxes.  The federal government however, can run up a deficite as we all know.  Both parties are guilty of doing it.  Budgets rarely get vetoed at the federal level, this is mostly due to the fact that getting a budget passed is actually a lot of work.  Where vetos usually happen are on appropriations and other spending bills. Also, in order to participate in the debates, a candidate has to have garnered I believe 10% of the vote.

Most polls with Gary in them have him polling between 7-10% already. If RP throws his weight behind Johnson, it will shoot up to 11-15% and get him in the debates.

If the media can get away with excluding Johnson from the debates, they will.

Could he be the most successful Libertarian party nominee ever? Maybe. He's definitely going to have a Ross Perot effect on the election (handing over to the Dems). Not that I mind that... 4 years of Obama, or potentially 8 years of his identical twin Romney?

Really, three party nominees are set.

I think Gary Johnson is a great deal more intelligent and capable as a leader than Obama and Romney combined. I certainly hope he makes it to the debates. Was Ross Perot included in 1992?

He was one year... but he had the poll numbers to be.  Johnson won't.

He actually lead the polls at one point.  It's why I don't buy it when people say third parties can't make it.  It's just third parties need a strong charismtic head... and usually Repubs or Dems will accomidate such a person even if they aren't fully on point.

Yes, Ross was. He did great in the debates.

Here's one of the full hour and a half debates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD_cXN9O9ds

The fact that Perot did so well makes it less likely that they'd include him in the debates.

/tinfoil hat off.

Ron Paul third party run? Some kind of joint ticket with Johnson? Your views?

Not really a tinfoil hat moment.  Afterall he did really well in the first debate in 1992. (kinda sucked in the rest)   Then was excluded from the debates in 1996.

Usually blamed on Clinton.

He was quite the intriguing mishmash of policies.

On the one hand he wanted to balance the budget,end oursourcing and was for protectionism, for gun control, Pro Choice

On the other he wanted to expand the war on drugs, wanted a flat tax.

Almost sounds like my kind of guy (with certain preconditions i'll accept the flat tax) barring the protectionism thing.

Wonder why he drew more from the Right as he did?

He didn't. He didn't really draw the rigth *that* much more. Exit polls usually put voters as slightly more republican than Democrat, if at all. He catered to both sides of the asile, and that really freaks the D's and R's out, because it means that there can be alternatives to their reigns of terror.