I do think more voices (third party) should be included in the national discussion/debate. But if they can't garner the grassroots support to get at least 15% of the vote, which is the only thing that stopped Gary Johnson from participating in the debates, then i'm not all that fired up about it. I have yet to see a third party candidate that I am willing to throw my vote behind anyway, based on the issues.

I believe Gary Johnson is polling at around 5% right now. But that's because most polls won't put him on there.

I like Gary Johnson. He was a very popular governor. You would think he would leverage that popularity and run as a Libertarian for an office more attainable like the House or Senate.

I think a lot of people are undecided because the Republican party has been hijacked by the Tea Party, and the Religious Right. I wish they would split off into a third party. I think it would shake off a lot of indecision, since I don't believe most people want to vote in a theocracy, but are left without a viable choice.

I believe Gary Johnson is polling at around 5% right now. But that's because most polls won't put him on there.

I like Gary Johnson. He was a very popular governor. You would think he would leverage that popularity and run as a Libertarian for an office more attainable like the House or Senate.

But why? If he got into the House or Senate, he wouldn't be able to do anything he would be one vote among many... Granted he won't win the presidency... I know he won't... But he is making a mark... and he is planning on running in the next election as well.

I am of the opinion that in order for a 3rd party to become a reality it has to build it's base. In order to do that, they have to win local and state elections. Rather then run for President, which they have no chance of winning, these third party candidates should work on building the base.

Gary Johnson is very popular in New Mexico so it is not a stretch to believe that he could get elected to the House or Senate for that state. Yes he would be one vote among many but at least he would have a vote. After November he will be back to working with his non-profits or whatever he is doing right now.

I believe Gary Johnson is polling at around 5% right now. But that's because most polls won't put him on there.

I like Gary Johnson. He was a very popular governor. You would think he would leverage that popularity and run as a Libertarian for an office more attainable like the House or Senate.

But why? If he got into the House or Senate, he wouldn't be able to do anything he would be one vote among many... Granted he won't win the presidency... I know he won't... But he is making a mark... and he is planning on running in the next election as well.

I am of the opinion that in order for a 3rd party to become a reality it has to build it's base. In order to do that, they have to win local and state elections. Rather then run for President, which they have no chance of winning, these third party candidates should work on building the base.

Gary Johnson is very popular in New Mexico so it is not a stretch to believe that he could get elected to the House or Senate for that state. Yes he would be one vote among many but at least he would have a vote. After November he will be back to working with his non-profits or whatever he is doing right now.

I think regardless of the level, libertarians (whether they are libertarian Republicans or Libertarians) get little to no media exposure and what little they get it's usually bad. I know that is true here in Texas. In Texas we had a libertarian Republican running against Perry (Lord, I wish we could get rid of him)... her name is Debra Medina... well she was holding her own numbers wise and had a good shot.. that is until Perry hack, Glen Beck went on to call her a conspiracy theorist and all the typical libertarian stereotypes and names the mainstream like to label Libertarians. The Libertarian candidate Kathy Glass, got almost nothing from the media.You seriously have to dig to find the third party candidates... how do they stand a chance against that?

Undecided voters don't think in terms of issues. Perhaps the greatest myth about undecided voters is that they are undecided because of the "issues." That is, while they might favor Kerry on the economy, they favor Bush on terrorism; or while they are anti-gay marriage, they also support social welfare programs. Occasionally I did encounter undecided voters who were genuinely cross-pressured--a couple who was fiercely pro-life, antiwar, and pro-environment for example--but such cases were exceedingly rare. More often than not, when I asked undecided voters what issues they would pay attention to as they made up their minds I was met with a blank stare, as if I'd just asked them to name their favorite prime number.

The majority of undecided voters I spoke to couldn't name a single issue that was important to them. This was shocking to me. Think about it: The "issue" is the basic unit of political analysis for campaigns, candidates, journalists, and other members of the chattering classes. It's what makes up the subheadings on a candidate's website, it's what sober, serious people wish election outcomes hinged on, it's what every candidate pledges to run his campaign on, and it's what we always complain we don't see enough coverage of.

But the very concept of the issue seemed to be almost completely alien to most of the undecided voters I spoke to. (This was also true of a number of committed voters in both camps--though I'll risk being partisan here and say that Kerry voters, in my experience, were more likely to name specific issues they cared about than Bush supporters.) At first I thought this was a problem of simple semantics--maybe, I thought, "issue" is a term of art that sounds wonky and intimidating, causing voters to react as if they're being quizzed on a topic they haven't studied. So I tried other ways of asking the same question: "Anything of particular concern to you? Are you anxious or worried about anything? Are you excited about what's been happening in the country in the last four years?"

These questions, too, more often than not yielded bewilderment. As far as I could tell, the problem wasn't the word "issue"; it was a fundamental lack of understanding of what constituted the broad category of the "political." The undecideds I spoke to didn't seem to have any intuitive grasp of what kinds of grievances qualify as political grievances. Often, once I would engage undecided voters, they would list concerns, such as the rising cost of health care; but when I would tell them that Kerry had a plan to lower health-care premiums, they would respond in disbelief--not in disbelief that he had a plan, but that the cost of health care was a political issue. It was as if you were telling them that Kerry was promising to extend summer into December.

http://www.chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/