There are other immigration reforms issues that have had wide bipartisan support, but congress doesn't seem to like to package legislature that way. There's a strong historically tendency towards bundling.
> Maybe the President getting re-elected pretty solidly ...
Electorally, yes, but it's a squeaker by popular vote. As of this writing, the victory margin is less than half of a percent.
I live in Texas, and I voted for Johnson. If I lived in Ohio I would have voted for Obama. It's hard to find numbers at the moment, but it looks like Johnsons's pulling 5%.
Nationally as a popular vote thing, plenty of people who voted Johnson might have voted for either Romney or Obama in their "safe" state otherwise. I live in Obamaland, support Johnson, but would not have voted for Obama if I hadn't voted for Johnson. So you can't just add 100% of Johnson to Obama.
Are you confused because you believe that libertarians are on the right, maybe? If you examine libertarian positions, you might be surprised to find many of them "left" of Obama.
There are some issues which aren't fiscal (directly) but aren't really social policy (directly), where Libertarians are the farthest "left" (or right, or whatever) of the two big parties, and where people may vote based on morality.
GTFO Afghanistan ASAP (and their overall isolationist position) is one of the big ones. I could see someone who was pro-state intervention in domestic life, pro big taxes, etc. still voting Libertarian if he thought GTFO Afghanistan ASAP was the most important issue.
It's basically impossible to put US politics (or anywhere, really) on a strict left/right linear chart.
And the only state he came close to costing Romney was Florida. But even so, he would have lost it by over 3000 votes if all Johnson supporters voted for Romney.
> Maybe the President getting re-elected pretty solidly ...
Electorally, yes, but it's a squeaker by popular vote. As of this writing, the victory margin is less than half of a percent.