Talk about rigged!Johnson got mostly favorable treatment by the media. Meanwhle, Trump met a firestorm from the media, the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Libertarians who treated him like crap.
60 million people voted for Trump, some of whom were Democrats, who have been betrayed by the Duopoly.
But most Trump votes were from Republicans, who rejected Johnson's bid to defeat Hillary and who know that winning is the way to be relevant in the political arena.
It is insane stupidity to overlay a personality pageant on the political arena. "Favorabity" ratings are as relevant as beauty ratings.
The point of the favorability ratings is that they prove most Trump voters weren't voting for him. They were voting for the leading candidate who wasn't Hillary Clinton, because the system was rigged against non-cartel candidates. Their buying into this system was a recognition of its dominance and their not being ready to step out of line and pursue real change, not a rejection of Johnson. Trump was a candidate of the duopoly. That is how he won. If he'd been the candidate of the Constitution Party, or the Populist Party, he would not have won.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
As long as Libertarians believe the main premise of such argument, there is no chance of a major win -- winning meaning a chance to actually implement policies.
A concrete mixing company had big pink equipment, on the side of all said, "Find a need and fill it."
That's what it takes to have a seat at the political table also. Trump found that need -- the forgotten Middle America voter. Clinton missed the clues entirety. Johnson tried but with scattered focus.
Marcy
The goal is to advance the cause of freedom. Public officeholders implementing libertarian policies is one way to make that happen, and the office of POTUS is the single office (in the United States) from which the most can be done. Either someone running as a Libertarian Party candidate, or someone like Ron Paul running from inside one of the cartel parties, could potentially occupy that office and make libertarian changes. Of course the nature of the cartel parties is such that they rarely produce candidates like Ron Paul.
The LP is much more likely to produce pro-freedom candidates – but let's be realists about it – the odds against success are still long. An alternative party candidate running for president isn't just up against the Republican and Democrat candidates, s/he is up against an entrenched system, the mainstream media, the pollsters, the ignorance of members of the public who have bought into the "myth of the wasted vote", etc. I think we can and must forge ahead and take on that system and build a viable and sustainable libertarian alternative despite these obstacles, but to do so I believe we'll need to avoid making any of these related mistakes:
• Assuming that all we have to do is elect someone with an "L" next to his or her name, and things will automatically be better
• Assuming that we can just focus on winning elections, and the ideas, ideology, and building a sustainably libertarian Libertarian Party will take care of themselves
• Assuming that winning in conventional terms (taking office and having a chance to implement policies) is the same thing as winning in libertarian terms (actually getting policies implemented that move the world significantly toward freedom)
• Assuming that the candidate with the strongest conventional resumé or most fame or money is necessarily going to be the candidate with the best chance of winning in libertarian terms
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))