http://video.foxnews.com/v/1961353410001/did-gary-johnson-affect-the-election-outcome
What's amusingly funny is that none of the states had a margin of victory smaller than the number of votes Gary Johnson received.
So he was not a "spoiler" or even an annoyance.
In Florida, for example, Johnson got 0.5%, or 44,684 votes. Obama won by 73,858. Ohio was won by about 100,000 votes; Johnson got under 50,000. Virginia was won by over 100,000, Johnson got 30,000. Colorado was won by over 100,000, Johnson got some 30,000 again, and he claims he took them from Obama (which means he did nothing, natch.) Pennsylvania had a 300,000 vote margin of victory, again, Johnson was an insignificant under-50k.
The most-outrageous result, in fact, is New Mexico -- where people were so cock-sure that he was "loved" by his former constituents -- and in which he also failed to influence the election, in that while he got 3.5% of the vote (his best showing) the 27,000 votes were far less than half of the margin of victory that Obama scored.
So Johnson was in fact a complete non-event in terms of results and if you donated money or time to his "run" directly or indirectly you flushed it down the toilet, exactly as I predicted would occur.
Finally, note how terrible the quality of that interview over Skype is. I do Skype interviews all the time with Capital Account and others, and while it's definitely not "high-definition" you be the judge as to whether someone who was allegedly a serious Presidential Candidate is credible when he can't even manage an interview with rational technical competence. For broadcast TV I can get to a real no-BS studio in about an hour where they will shove a real broadcast camera in my face and uplink me on a real no-BS connection.
Johnson couldn't manage to do that for Fox and at least present a credible appearance on national television?
Then again that does go along quite-well with the rest of the FAILs that made up his candidacy, and the Libertarian Party elements that supported him.
Bye-bye Gary.
