Depends. If your main swing audience is Bernie supporters then maybe not. Bernie has the college kids. The Libertarians also draw college kids.
Any R's looking for a Trump alternative already know about Libertarians and know who/what they are.
Same with D's.
It's the yoots that have been hanging onto their parents politics that need to be persuaded. Convincing that college kids that Johnson isn't all that far away from Bernie should be an easy sell. Just don't tell them Gary won't give them any free stuff. :-)

Are you getting your info from the Puffington Host?
The only semi-questionable market problem I have with Gary is GayNazi Cakes. I understand his point, but he should stand with the constitution, "everyone has a right to be a jerk". In the case of the baker, the aggressor is the person demanding a cake be made for them which is stepping on the liberties of the baker.
Other than that, I have no problems with Gary's economic policies.

Did you look at the details of the questions by clicking on the button by each candidate? Its interesting, even though the candidates answers are pretty meaningless since there is no penalty for them if they lie.

Give 4 examples of Johnson not wanting free markets.

you are wise...Trump is a creation of the times..no philosophy...total pragmatist and opportunist...he is the ultimate deal maker...regardless of who suffers or gets hurt...Obama and Bush have offerred him the opportunity to be President...it fits his ego and desires...
i sent him an email "Manifesto for Job Growth and Economic Liberty"...never got a reply...

there are no "liberals" in the 19th & early 20th century sense of the word...they use that to cover the fact that they are totalitarians...Johnson needs to understand that and differentiate himself from them...he needs to label them as they are...totalitarians...and not find common ground with their lies and deception...he does great harm to himself and the libertarian movement...Sanders and Hillary do not espouse freedom only slavery...he needs to make that very clear...failing that, he is a failure...and it is why Sanders, Hillary, and all the other democrat/republicans have succeeded and will continue to succeed...stop them now...or we will all suffer the consequences...

I agree with that. DUI has gotten to be a money maker and an excuse for religious banning of alcohol. It makes no sense at this point.

The sentiment is fine, but it's the kind of deterrent that doesn't work, because no one thinks it will happen to them. And indeed, in a way they're right.

The statistics we have about drunk driving are collected in a very biased way, dictated by NHTSA: every accident in which any participant, even a pedestrian, has some alcohol in their blood gets counted as alcohol related and assumed to be the fault of a drunk driver.

Yet even with that biased data, we can reach some conclusions. NHTSA tells the public that if you have even one drink, and drive after dark, your chance of an accident with an injury or death goes up by a factor of 100. And that's true as far as it goes. What they don't say out loud are the numbers. Your chance of an injury accident on that one drive home from your favorite restaurant goes up from about 1 in 20 million to 1 in 200,000.

I can't especially blame someone for believing that 1 in 200,000 is still close enough to zero that he'll risk it. And besides, that chance varies hugely from one driver to another. Some people, especially the heaviest drinkers, are affected much less by alcohol than others. The same goes for other drugs.

Therefore, I would repeal any laws that set a specific legal limit for alcohol or drugs in the body, and simply require that any arrest for drunk driving must be backed up by video of that person driving badly. (Or showing gross clumsiness and then getting behind the wheel.) Let a jury view it and decide whether the person is too drunk -- and let the police stop bothering the people who really aren't drunk enough that a convincing video could be made, or who were sleeping in the back seat and not driving when they were arrested.

I agree. It will eventually fall apart, they all do.

this is scary. -- j
.

I took the Isidewith quiz and got 85% agreement with Trump and 78% agreement with Johnson. That's mildly irritating. On the bright side, I agree with Shrillary 28% and Bernie 27%.

I took that test.. I wound up with 96% Trump, who I am not very enthused with and consider to be a loose cannon.
I have a trust issue over what this "deal maker" will really do should he be voted into office.

I like your last comment about leaving people to do what they want with their bodies, but if they violate someones rights, then they pay the price.

I have also toyed with the idea that when a person's rights are violated, the perpetrator should lose some or all of HIS rights, which means either the victim or his family (if he is killed) or anyone they appoint, could do what they wanted with the perpetrator to the extent that HIS remaining rights werent violated.

Kill my daughter with your car and you are subject to being killed in return- my choice. How about that to discourage drunk driving.

Funny. I never heard Gary Johnson say a thing about what's to be done about it. And the only solution I ever heard was to tell everybody to curtail building homes and driving cars.

Only someone who doesn't understand Libertarianism would write that article. The headline infers that Libertarianism leans toward socialism, which, of course, it doesn't. Because of the fact that Libertarianism has parts which Liberals also espouse makes some think it leans left, which turns off conservatives. It straddles several philosophic premises making it difficult to give it a simplistic left or right or middle. I would be willing to bet that many who vote Libertarian do so out of discontent with both major parties without understanding what they are voting for. Come to think of it, that might describe Democrats and a few Republicans.

Good series about Norway & shot in Norway on Netflix that illustrates the extreme of their moocher statuses and lack of being able to defend themselves... check out "Occupied".

Those subsidies have driven the cost of living of Norway and Sweden to among the very highest in the world, and no-doubt 'the highest' on a per capita / everywhere in the country look (compared to living in downtown Beijing vs living in the Chinese countryside for example).

By giving everyone something above zero as a baseline, you raise the costs of everything up to that baseline. Increase the baseline and the cost of everything goes up.

They (Scandinavia) also have that little thing called miserably small donations to NATO while soaking up that 'you defend us if we are attacked' clause and pretty much not doing any kind of national defense planning or budget. The definition of a moocher in the NATO alliance. Trump was very right to point that out, France is pretty bad too, they don't necessarily participate in NATO exercises or wartime planning, but would certainly want to be rescued (again). The Brits are pretty much the only ones that carry their own weight on that.

Trump isn't saying scrap NATO either, nor am I, but he is very correct to say "chip in your fair share or get out".

I would suggest that Johnson should use the platform to talk about ideas and how the crony establishment is ruining us in so many ways. If he doesnt visibly try to get votes, the media might leave him alone

I also believe that the globe may be warming, because this happens over geological ages. The idea that man contributes more than a negligible part of the cause is just silly.

But the important part of that belief chain is what you think should be done about it. And there Johnson is on the right side. If we need to cool the earth, Gregory Benford's boatload of iron filings will do the trick. If we need to warm it up, there are similarly easy and fast ways. All of them much cheaper and more sensible than ordering everybody to curtail building homes and driving cars.

Its just NOT in line with human nature in my opinion. In the absence of voluntary agreement about individual rights and adherence to them, we revert to animal mentality to get whatever we can from whoever is weakest.

Its obviously a generational thing, I'm not getting into the weeds on that shit (pun intended) beyond saying that I've never had the urge to need to abuse a substance to deal with my problems, I just deal with my problems.

My wife's family has had huge issues with drugs, there were six kids, she is the oldest and is a civil engineer, the second oldest is a civil engineer but never got his PE (he's a pot head) and he only got the scholarship to go to school because my wife wrote his essay & application (on the day it was due because he sloughed it). Third one is ok, but has smoked and drank and now has stage 4 cancer at 43, the youngest 3 are all potheads, all on public assistance, one is in jail more than out of jail, and the youngest has like 6 months of total job experience and she's 30 years old and now on a worker's-comp claim (from her first 6 months of working in her life).

People that get addicted to that stuff (and I'll lump alcohol and tobacco in the same group), get transfixed on chasing their next high / drunk / cigarette. The other responsibilities in life kind of become subordinate to that... If they always did it in the privacy of their own home, I wouldn't care, but they don't - they stop at stop lights and get out to share a joint with the person in the car next to them, they think no one knows (but I can smell the skunk weed from 150 feet back behind them at 50 mph, so I'm sure everyone else can). We had an old bag of a piece of shit of a woman high & drunk flying down the 40 mph zone my dead end street tee's off from, hit a young 15 year old girl on the walking trail adjacent, "thought she hit a deer" and dragged pieces & parts of her 7 miles to the next town on her way home with the poor girl's scalp, ear, and a foot stuck in the bitch's suspension where they found it after arresting her. The family said "she doesn't really ever get that drunk & high"... oh, that makes it better!

So don't hit me with that stupid 'alcohol' argument, I don't drink either, and very few people statistically have more than maybe a glass of wine with a Friday dinner or something. I grew up in an area where alcoholism was rampant (in a small town in the center of the 3 largest tribal reservations in the country), and I even worked in a sports bar as a bartender in college and had to deal with the assholes and shit heads up-front and firsthand. I don't support that stuff either.

I have a simple policy, do what you want, but do it in public on a public road and hit someone, its zero tolerance, life in prison after that.

Saw "stupid" strip in a disgusting video last week.
It provided me the proverbial last straw for considering the Libertarian Party for a presidential vote this time around.

There is such a thing as voluntary socialism. I tried to live in a commune once. It didn't work for me, but some people were fine with it, and I don't have a problem with them doing it.

Johnson is agreeing with the socially liberal, the individual freedom aspects of the liberals Sanders also espouses, not with his "socialist" goals.