-22 votes

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson receives 24% in nationwide poll

A new presidential opinion poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research shows Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson receiving 24 percent of the nationwide vote. The poll was commissioned by the Libertarian Action Super PAC, which supports Gov. Johnson's presidential campaign. After an earlier poll commissioned by LASPAC showed Johnson with 19 percent of the nationwide vote, an outpouring of donations made this recent poll possible.

The telephone survey of 1,000 likely voters was worded as follows:

“Suppose in this year’s Presidential Election you had a choice of Libertarian Gary Johnson or Democrat Barack Obama. If the election were held today would you vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson or Democrat Barack Obama?”

Many will point out that the poll does not include Mitt Romney. Therefore, why is this poll relevant?

If one were to take a look at any of several nationwide polls, the wording is nearly identical, with the only exception being that these polls only include Obama and Romney. According to the rules of the Commission on Presidential Debates, the organization controlled by Democrats and Republicans that oversees the presidential debates, a candidate must achieve 15 percent in nationwide polling to be allowed to participate in the debates.

The Commission on Presidential Debates must be consistent. If two-candidate polls that include Obama and Romney are valid, this one is as well...


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


I get what your saying.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our Liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

So, basically, Obama beats Gary Johnson

76%-24%. That's just....sad!

Read the article and poll results.

Obama doesn't even get a majority in this case.

There is a 27% or so "undecided/someone else" result.


So in a poll Libertarians commissioned their guy comes in 3rd behind "undecided/someone else".

How could you expect any different? Most people have never

heard of him.

He gets no mentions in any news pieces or articles. Romney and Obama are mentioned nearly side-by-side every news piece about everything.

This is how the MSM gives free press to candidates. They discuss the "issues" and they discuss the "campaigns" but only as regards to their chosen candidates.

If everytime they mentioned Obama or Romney they had to talk about what one, two, or three other candidates were doing on that subject, the poll results would all be far different.

The fact his managed 24% with near zero free press mentions is astounding to say the least.

If Romney were NEVER mentioned by the media, do you think he'd have a snowball's chance of defeating Obama or polling north of 5%?

Johnson might be starting out

Johnson might be starting out higher name recognition than Ron did in 2007.

Are Gary Johnson supporters

Are Gary Johnson supporters really that desperate? LOL

Touting a poll that does not include Romney?

It may make you feel good, but it's worthless, meaningless, and a waste of money for the people who footed the bill.

This does not prove anything...Except that among these 1000 people 240 of them dislike Obama enough to declare support for a person they have never before heard of. That's it.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

That's not the intention here.

The intention is to show bias in the CPD polling criteria.

If the polls are biased, then the criteria of using polls to get into debates is biased.

The reason that is important, is because the CPD is a 501(c)(3) organization - which cannot by law show bias, else they lose that non-profit status.

The object of the poll is to demonstrate bias and thus legally corner the CPD into allowing Johnson into the debate.

The intention, as you state

The intention, as you state it, is as pointless and meaningless as the poll itself. The CDP will not be using this poll in the 3-5 they use to measure a candidate's standing prior to the debates. Furthermore, no judge is going to force them to use a poll that does include the GOP candidate.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

You still don't get it. Of course the CPD won't use it.

Of course a judge won't force them to.

Where did I imply that this would be the case?

No, the point was to ILLUSTRATE that the use of polling as a criteria AT ALL is inherently biased and partisan.

Thus, using that criteria causes the CPD to violate their 501c3 status.

THAT is the angle. Use their fear of losing their non-profit status, and having to pay back taxes in the millions as leverage to get them to abandon that criteria and invite all candidates who get on the ballot in enough states to win. (regardless of if they are polling well or not)

I get it...Not sure you do...

This sham poll does NOTHING to threaten the 501c3 status of the CPD.

The notion that this ridiculous non poll has somehow struck fear into the decision makers over at the CPD is pure lunacy.

Again, this poll only demonstrates that 240 people out of these 1000 dislike Obama enough to declare for a guy they have never before heard of. In fact, I am guessing if you swap out the name Gary Johnson in this poll for Mickey Mouse...Mickey would have polled even better.

Watch out CPD...The Johnson folks are coming for your 501c3 status.

I never play with a Johnson I cannot trust...I am sticking with Dr. Paul.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!


Thanks for your OPINION. You realize the difference between an opinion and a fact right?

Now please stop trolling this thread. I'm sure there are other posts on the DP that you would like more.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

LOL It's funny because


It's funny because there's a poll on the sidebar of Paul vs Obama and everyone's like "if Romney can do it, it's only fair".

Double standards are everywhere and it's killed this movement.

Let me explain this to you slowly......

Ron Paul is still in the race. He is running to be the republican candidate against Obama. So a poll showing his strength against Obama is perfectly valid. Especially if a court rules before the convention that all delegates are in fact unbound.

Johnson is the libertarian candidate. He is one of many candidate fighting to take votes away from the two major party candidates...Obama and quite probably Romney. A poll with Johnson that does not include the two major party candidates is pointless, worthless, meaningless, and stupid.

So you see there is no double standard, no matter how much you want it to be true. It is not your made up assertions of double standards that have killed this movement. The movement is alive and well. However, stupidity could very well injure it!

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!


Johnson IS the libertarian candidate and will appear on the ballot in all 50 states. Paul has little chance of actually becoming the republican nominee. In fact, rules are being changed or selectively enforced to insure he does not. To say johnson is only running to take votes from the 2 major party candidates is not realism. It's indirect approval of our corrupt, exclusive democratic process. The fact that you think this poll is any less relevant than one that features only the major parties is a symptom of the same mentality that rationalizes deliberate ignorance of candidates who are only "unelectable" because they think outside of the preset parameters for discussion dictated by establishment politicians on both sides. You're a shit stirrer when it comes to gary johnson and an apologist for rand paul, which makes me question whether this is about philosophy or a last name.


The fact that I believe this poll is not relevant, pointless, worthless, and meaningless is a symptom that my brain is firmly planted in reality. :)

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

Comment field is required.

Comment field is required.

anyone up for a

anyone up for a bike ride in the Texas heat?

I bet Johnson is...

However, I LMAO'd when Ron said that in the debates.

Out of the candidates, Ron is the oldest and I'm pretty sure Johnson is the youngest (Obama may be younger - I'm not going to take the time to look it up). Both men are incredible shape for their ages.

Ron amazes me, and Johnson... what percentage of the population has reached the summit of Everest?

All the way back to 08

All the way back to the 08 campaign Gary Johnson has been on my fantasy-team list for a Paul administration. (Ya know the "Ron Paul Fantasy Administration" topic that can be found on every RP forum on the internet? lol) I always thought GJ would be good in a diplomatic position in a Paul administration. I could see him climbing mountains with Putin or smoking hookah with the Egyptian Prime Minister or hash with the President of Turkey, run a marathon with the British PM, play goat carcass polo with the President of Afghanistan, etc. - whatever it takes to get the deal done.


ron paul delivered 4k babies in our district.
many to poor minority women for free.
I would say that is much more accomplished then climbing any mountain.

that being said.
I had my hardwood floors refurbished in Galveston and have not been able to use the Ac in any part of my house except the Bedroom, for a week.
The humidity is 100% and the heat index is 107 in the shade.
Paul can go 20 miles on his bike, in this weather.
GJ would ABSOLUTELY fall out, and so would most.
so the point is, Paul is in better shape then all the others combined- and his thinking power is unmatched

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Never can tell

"Paul can go 20 miles on his bike, in this weather.
GJ would ABSOLUTELY fall out, and so would most.

I don't know whose back's that strong, maybe find out before too long. Maybe weeks. Maybe months. Maybe as early as Monday morning. Maybe even sooner. Maybe none of us will ever know "absolutely".

You may be right. You may be wrong. No need for us to split hairs over speculating. I do agree that very few could accomplish the feat. But your comment does beg the question, who would even try? You and I would probably agree that very few would even attempt such a feat. I don't know if you would agree Gary Johnson is one of the politicians, that easily comes to mind, as being among the "very few" who would try. Think about it. Who could accomplish the challenge? Who would accept the challenge and attempt it? Both are very short lists of names.

For the record, my comment had nothing to do with Dr Paul's physical health or thinking power, nor Gary Johnson's. Neither was my comment specific about the distance of the ride.

they're going to ignore any poll that doesn't include Romney

The Commission is not going to accept any poll that only include Johnson and Obama. He'll need an average of 15% in 3-candidate polls including him, Romney, and Obama (across 5 separate major polls) before they let him participate. In a one on one poll against Obama, it would be near impossible to get below 15% in the first place. No matter who John Doe is, they'll always get at least 15% of the respondents to pick him over Obama. And they clearly can't allow every John Doe to participate in the debates.

That's not the point.

See my comments above.

The point is a legal maneuver.

It's not about the poll itself.

It's not a strong legal maneuver

It presupposes that if there were more candidates, Romney would be below 15%, which is not true. It also, as I said above provides a reason for any random Joe who asks to also be in the debates. The prerequisite for getting at least 15% in a one on one poll against Obama is that the individual has a pulse and isn't named Nancy Pelosi.

They're not going to get the outcome they're hoping for from this legal maneuver. It doesn't back the commission into a corner like they think it does.

It doesn't suppose anything about other candidates or about

what Romney's numbers might be in such a situation.

You're still missing the point and you are still stuck on your "every other joe" thing.

It isn't about that Johnson or anyone else could get 15% against Obama.

It's that the criteria used to determine entry into the debates of averaging 15% in 5 polls (of the CPDs choosing) is by its very nature a FLAWED and BIASED criteria.

It shows that the CPD, using polls only including Romney and Obama are necessarily biased against any other candidate. Thus they have violated their 501c3 status.

The argument is that the only criteria that isn't biased is being on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning. And even technically that is a bit of a stretch considering the state of ballot access controlled by the other two parties, and the fact that one need not get a majority of the Electoral College to win the presidency, there is always the possibility of forcing a House vote and winning there.

they're biased against candidates that can't win

There needs to be more than a mathematical chance of victory for them to add someone else to the debates. There needs to be some type of plausibility argument that the person can win as well. That's why they've gone with the 15% polling qualifier. Even that is extremely generous. That's just the game that Johnson has to play when he lives in a country with a 2 party majority system. If he doesn't have polling support, then even if he is on every ballot he will not win, and they're not going to pretend it's a possibility. Releasing this poll is not going to be a legal maneuver of any kind that will force the commission to let him in the debates. He needs to get some real support in order to be able to exert real public pressure on the commission. Without that, a poll like this won't mean anything from either a PR standpoint or a legal standpoint.

It might not work, but that has nothing to do with the reasons

you pointed out of needing the criteria.

Those are irrelevant. If the criteria is inherently biased in a partisan way, then the status is violated. It doesn't matter how bad they claim they need to use polls. They can't unless they can do so without bias. It's against the law.

Now, on to the point of "needing" to use them: Nonsense.

You are forgetting that it is participation in the debate itself that determines viability - NOT the other way around. They want you to think that's the case, but it really isn't. That's the dirty little secret they don't want you to figure out, but that you implicitly already know is true.

If a candidate isn't in a debate - at any level - they effectively DO NOT EXIST for the voter.

So thus the debate is the measure of viability.

Excluding someone from a debate based on some arbitrary rule of viability is a circular argument.

Every candidate that CAN win must be in the debate, or there should be NO DEBATE at all.

And by CAN, I mean, is on enough ballots that they can win the Electoral College.

What you are arguing for is a system where a group of people can control access to the ballot and the voters and the media, and through this, prevent a candidate from being viable and thus use this lack of viability to further exclude said candidate from the voters and that's just fine and dandy.

Sorry, I call that equine excrement.

viability in a popular election

Viability in an election depends on having large amounts of popular support. If a candidate doesn't have any popular support (measured by polls or by contributions), then people are already saying they aren't interested in that individual being President. Bias does exist, and it is toward candidates that people express interest in voting for. If Gary Johnson wants to be involved in the debates, he needs to develop some support. The debate exists to help distinguish between the candidates that most people are considering voting for, not for any random person to just try to get their name out there. Sure, the debates could help him build some support. But he has to show some minimal level of support first. He has not yet done that.