The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

Too little, too late for third-party candidate Gary Johnson

Too little, too late for third-party candidate Gary Johnson

This election points to the rift that exists in our nation. It is a competition of extremes. Trump and Clinton’s name-calling and bickering proves this. Hillary Clinton has had more than a handful of scandals in her political career. Donald Trump has run many businesses into the ground and seems to be a racist. These candidates from both the Democratic and Republican parties have been dominating the media. But another candidate has started to enter a major public platform. Gary Johnson, a Libertarian candidate, is starting to become a familiar name in this year’s election. He may be a candidate where both parties can meet on important issues that are being discussed over these recent months. It appears that he shares stances and ideals on many issues from both parties.

Johnson entering the race adds to the quagmire that is the presidential election. Nonetheless, Johnson needs a major stage from which he can persuade voters. And this stage would be the presidential debates, the first of which he has been excluded from. His message, however, has not grown quickly enough to gain him a national spotlight heading off against Clinton and Trump.

Moreover, I feel it is too late for Gary Johnson. Clinton and Trump both announced their official campaign for Office in mid-June of 2015, while Johnson announced his campaign in January of 2016. Right off the bat, he was about seven months behind his potential competitors. As a third party candidate, Johnson would need one of the most influential and empowering campaigns to compete with both parties. Starting seven months after Clinton and Trump is not a step in the direction of an influential campaign. His campaign began as a grassroots movement at the beginning compared to Clinton and Trump. Te two have been spending millions of dollars in order to become more known and gain support. Clinton has raised over $500 million for her campaign; Trump amassed over $100 million. Meanwhile, Johnson has raised a measly $8 million compared to the Clinton and Trump powerhouses.

Johnson’s Aleppo gaffe did not help his campaign either. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Johnson was asked a question regarding Aleppo, a major Syrian city and the center of the country’s refugee crisis, and he did not recognize the city, believing it to be an acronym. Tis interview yielded Johnson’s campaign the most publicity thus far. His blunder was a huge hit to his following. Te Syrian refugee crisis has been one of the main topics of concern in this year’s election. His campaign is too small to withstand such a blow to his credibility.

Johnson’s movement has snowballed too late in the election season and will not gain enough support by the time Nov. 8th comes around. According to RealClearPolitics.com, Johnson is not leading in any state polls. He is not currently sitting in a position that will prove successful for him. It is almost October, just one month away from the election. Therefore, he is just taking away precious votes from Clinton and Trump in swing states.

Story continues below advertisement

It is possible in future elections that a third-party candidate could arise and assume office. This candidate must learn from Johnson in order to be successful. The candidate should establish a campaign early on and start spreading an influential message through all platforms to reach a diverse audience of voters. A third-party candidate should aspire to gather a following that brings their candidacy to the debates, which Johnson has failed to do thus far.

This election has been as chaotic as ever—from the hack of the Democratic National Committee that released emails showing favor of Clinton, to Donald Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party. It will be interesting to see if any changes occur after this year’s election, or if one of the parties experiences a realignment. If the latter were to occur, it could create an opening for a third-party candidate like Johnson.

It is important for voters not to become zealously associated with a political party, regardless of the party’s message. Many of us vote Democrat or Republican because of the way our parents or friends vote. We should vote for the candidate that best matches our beliefs, but perhaps voting for a third-party candidate is not in our best interest this election.

View Comments (3)
Donate to The University News
$1910
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists of Saint Louis University. Your contribution will help us cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The University News
$1910
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Comments (3)

All The University News Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • L

    Libertarian ForumJul 3, 2017 at 8:51 am

    There was a time when Americans believed in freedom.

    The US is dying from a million cuts. Part of the reason the USA is a nanny police state now is that whenever there is a problem, the kneejerk reaction in the US is to call for a new law.

    Nanny state laws are not the best solution, however. Nanny state laws lead to more laws, higher fines, and tougher sentences. Thirty-five years ago, DWI laws were enacted that led to DWI checkpoints and lower DWI levels. Seatbelt laws led to backseat seatbelt laws, childseat laws, and pet seatbelt laws. Car liability insurance laws led to health insurance laws and gun liability laws. Smoking laws that banned smoking in buildings led to laws against smoking in parks and then bans against smoking in entire cities. Sex offender registration laws led to sex offender restriction laws and violent offender registration laws.

    Nanny state laws don’t make us safer, either. Nanny state laws lead people to be careless since they don’t need to have personal responsibility anymore. People don’t need to be careful crossing the street now because drunk-driving has been outlawed and driving while using a mobile phone is illegal. People don’t investigate companies or carry out due diligence because businesses must have business licenses now.

    The main point of nanny state laws is not safety. The main purposes of more laws are control and revenue generation for the state.

    Another reason laws are enacted is because corporations give donations to lawmakers to stifle competition or increase sales.

    Many laws are contradictory, too. Some laws say watering lawns is required, while other laws say watering lawns is illegal.

    Many nanny state laws that aim to solve a problem can be fixed by using existing laws. If assault is already illegal, why do we need a new law that outlaws hitting umpires?

    Nanny state laws are not even necessary. If everything was legal would you steal, murder, and use crack cocaine? Aren’t there other ways to solve problems besides calling the police? Couldn’t people educate or talk to people who bother them? Couldn’t people be sued for annoying behavior? Couldn’t people just move away? Even if assault was legal, wouldn’t attackers risk being killed or injured, too? Do people have consciences? Having no laws doesn’t mean actions have no consequences.

    If there is no victim, there is no crime.

    We don’t need thousands of laws when we only need 10.

    Should swimming pools be banned because they are dangerous? Hammers? Bottles? Rocks? Energy drinks? Pillows?

    Where does it end?

    If one state can have self-serve gas stations, why can’t every state have them? If sodas were legal 20 years ago, why can’t they be legal now?

    Freedom is not just a one way street. You can only have freedom for yourself if you allow others to have it.

    Control freaks might get angry when a neighbor owns three indoor cats, but what did the neighbor take from them? Why should this be illegal? Is outlawing cats something a free country should do? Doesn’t banning everything sound like the opposite of liberty?

    Instead of getting mad at people who like freedom, why don’t people realize that freedom is a two way street?

    If you allow others to paint their house purple then you can, too.

    If you allow others to own a gun then you can, too.

    If you allow others to swear then you can, too.

    If you allow others to gamble then you can, too.

    Who wants to live in a prison?

    Think. Question everything.

    Reply
  • N

    NicSep 27, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    Johnson is the only sensible and principled candidate in this race. He and his experienced running mate Bill Weld will do like they have done before: Balance budgets, fight crony capitalism and special interests, lower taxes for everybody and incentivize work and business creation — and they will stop wasting $$ on endless war-mongering!

    Reply
  • B

    Benjamin PerrySep 27, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Maybe voting a 3rd party isn’t in your best interest this year and it’s a depressing attitude to have. Why do you feel it is your place to say that you Know what is in my best interest? I don’t like the infighting in Washington D.C.. I’m tired of hearing people call each other Hitler, it’s old and it’s tired. This is the reason I’m voting Johnson, because he represents what I want, and fuck this idea that somehow me voting to put Trump or Clinton in will change what I hate the most about D.C., I’m pro-life but believe in a woman’s right to choose, I’m pro-gun but don’t own a gun, pro-weed and don’t use weed, pro-business but rail against them jackasses pulling their companies out of the US…. so show me the candidate that covers those areas and I’ll vote for them… guess what the closest one is G. Johnson…

    Reply