Governor Bill Weld Responds to Democrat Spin Machine

Responding to numerous web stories and media reports regarding my strong denunciation of Donald Trump Tuesday, I released the following statement today:
Several web sites and media outlets have seized upon my statement from a news conference Tuesday in Boston to jump to conclusions that are wishful thinking, rather than reality.

Led by Occupy Democrats, a well-known mouthpiece for the left, the sensationalists and wishful thinkers are re-writing my forceful condemnation of Donald Trump into a suggestion that voters should support Hillary Clinton.

That is absurd.

Governor Johnson and I are campaigning nonstop, with rallies and appearances scheduled over the next few days across the country from Alaska to Cincinnati, and are fully committed to giving voters the third choice they deserve in this election.

Any suggestion to the contrary is the product of active imaginations and partisans in both the Republican and Democrat camps who see how many independents, millennials and other disenfranchised voters are looking to our ticket as a vote they can cast in good conscience.

I have made clear from day one my fear of a potential Trump presidency, just as I have made clear my policy differences with Hillary Clinton. The only candidate I am urging voters to support for President is Gov. Gary Johnson. Period.

The wishful thinkers need to take a break and start wishing for something else, because the Johnson-Weld ticket is not giving an inch to Donald Trump OR Hillary Clinton.

The two parties are working hard to keep voters from looking to our campaign. They know, if we win a single state, or get 5% of the national vote, their duopoly over the election process will be over.

95 thoughts on “Governor Bill Weld Responds to Democrat Spin Machine

  1. Jill Pyeatt

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this. Weld just took his lessons from both Trump and Clinton: Say whatever the heck you want, then just deny that’s what you meant.

  2. Losty

    Jill and her 2% is going out too…

    Constitution and his .1 is going out too… They aren’t winning either.

    That is a non-denial denial, just to keep the $ Coming in for 2 weeks..

  3. Rebel Alliance

    Bull sh*t. If Weld was a real libertarian, he wouldn’t have to keep spin-doctoring and “clarifying” his own comments again and again. The only people more stupider than Weld are all the dumb gullible Libertarian delegates who were suckered into voting for him, just as they did for Bob Barr and never learned.

  4. Andy

    “Rebel Alliance
    October 27, 2016 at 01:44
    Bull sh*t. If Weld was a real libertarian, he wouldn’t have to keep spin-doctoring and ‘clarifying’ his own comments again and again. The only people more stupider than Weld are all the dumb gullible Libertarian delegates who were suckered into voting for him, just as they did for Bob Barr and never learned.”

    Yep.

  5. Darcy G Richardson

    “AJ, does WW have a CFR handler?”

    Apparently, he only has a Clinton handler — and a fairly effective one at that.

  6. Tony From Long Island

    He didn’t say to vote for Hillary yesterday and again today he didn’t say to vote for Hillary.

    He went after an opponent. That’s what happens in elections.

    So, Jill said (very cynically): ” . . . Weld just took his lessons from both Trump and Clinton: Say whatever the heck you want, then just deny that’s what you meant. . . . ”

    I seem to see both his statements pretty clear. I was a better student of history than English, but I tend to think I know the language pretty well. I guess when you read something without your preconceived cynicism / bias it can say whatever YOU want it to say.

  7. Be Rational

    When you are running a serious 3rd party or independent campaign, it is a valid winning strategy to maximize votes by taking on one candidate at a time instead of both simultaneously.

    It can be easier and more effective to first take on one, then the other.

    Had the GJ/WW campaign been run properly from the outset, the campaign manager would have targeted the states I laid out from just after if not before the national convention. This was first targeting Clinton, and mostly Clinton states, as she was the strongest candidate and lesser evil for most Americans. We needed to shore up a reasonable percentage of her voters who disliked her but were NEVER Trump to allow the NEVER Clinton voters to feel safe in dumping Trump.

    After securing enough of the never Trump Clinton voters, the campaign could pivot to a full on assault on Trump, driving his numbers down to 18% – his real core, leaving the election as a two-way between Johnson and Clinton. Once knocking Trump out of the race, a flip back against Clinton for Johnson to win.

    This is a good way to win in a 3-way.

    It can work to target two at once, but it’s much more difficult and has never been effective in an LP POTUS race.

  8. wredlich

    Sorry but I’m completely with Jill on this and Weld is a phony and a disaster for the LP.

    From the original statement:

    “Against that backdrop, I would like to address myself to all those in the electorate who remain torn between two so-called major party candidates whom they cannot enthusiastically support.”

    –So naturally you would expect him to say that they should turn to vote for the Libertarian ticket which they should enthusiastically support. But no.–

    “This is the worst of American politics. I fear for our cohesion as a nation, and for our place in the world, if this man who is unwilling to say he will abide by the result of our national election becomes our President.

    In the final days of this very close race, every citizen must be aware of the power and responsibility of each individual vote. This is not the time to cast a jocular or feel-good vote for a man whom you may have briefly found entertaining. Donald Trump should not, cannot, and must not be elected President of the United States.”

    This was a Vote for Hillary message. It’s plain on its face. Anyone trying to spin this any other way is just not reading what he said.

    It would have been very easy for him to say to all those “disgruntled Republicans” that they should vote for the Libertarians. He didn’t.

  9. wredlich

    Plus there was this line:

    “This is not the time to cast a jocular or feel-good vote for a man whom you may have briefly found entertaining.”

    That could easily refer to Gary Johnson rather than Trump. In context it seems obviously about Trump, but it’s not much of a stretch to apply the same thing to Johnson.

    Weld has been a disastrous candidate for the LP. Disastrous. And the responsibility for that falls on none other than the man who picked him – Gary Johnson.

    I’m still voting for them by the way. But I’m pissed.

  10. Anthony Dlugos

    Weld has not been a disaster. Weld is who he has always been right from the beginning: a centrist libertarian.

    But, without Weld, the ticket and the party does not get the unprecedented coverage that it got. No paper of the Chicago Tribune’s level would have endorsed a Libertarian ticket with any other of our v.p. options in Orlando. While Libertarian purists and paleocons excoriate Weld, the excoriate Johnson for picking Weld, predict the end of the Libertarian Party because of Weld, the issue I get most frequently from the general public in my outreach for the ticket is that maybe we should have flipped the ticket.

    Now, I’m not suggesting we SHOULD HAVE flipped the ticket, but I am suggesting we should take what the Hysterical Caucus thinks about Weld with a grain of salt. A great many average voters thought Weld was the competent one.

    I’ll also remind you what Ms. Dearn said in Orlando: someone from outside the party in the polling community flatly told her: No Weld, No polls.

  11. Tony From Long Island

    WR: ” . . . . –So naturally you would expect him to say that they should turn to vote for the Libertarian ticket which they should enthusiastically support. But no.– . . . ”

    Warren, he has been saying to vote for Gov. Johnson and to vote Libertarian for months now.

    His statement was clearly directed solely at those people who refuse to vote 3rd party but will have to choose between Generissimo Trump and Mrs. Clinton. The choice is pretty clear for most people. He has been quite open about his disdain for Mr. Trump. A large majority of Americans agree with him.

  12. Be Rational

    Sorry W, but you’re just wrong. You’ve missed the strategic intent and value of this brilliant statement.

    Clinton has won this election. She is moving beyond 50% and will carry in the 400 plus EV ballpark. Trump is toast.

    Now, the Clinton voters are spun up, they are more excited and happier about their choice. There is blood in the water, the Ds are going to win the Senate and come close in the House.

    The Libertarian ticket has little chance of taking a large number of committed Clinton voters away.

    But, GJ/WW still want to maximize their vote totals: for the LP, for their own egos. So, who can they get? R voters that can be torn away from Clinton. But, the case that both Trump and Clinton are bad reminds these anti-Trump voters that they were also never Clinton, so they’ll stick with Trump. To take them away from Trump, it’s better to point out what most Americans actually believe – that Donald Trump is demonstrably mentally ill and too sick to be allowed to hold office, too mentally ill to be President.

    So, appeal to these anti-Trump Republicans and Independents on the basis of what’s good for America – as patriots we all have a duty to pretect our nation and even if we can’t stop Hillary we can stop Trump and anyone who cannot see that Trump is more dangerous than Clinton is just delusional – even that great ad for the Balanced Rebellion had this right: “Clinton is like the mob. You know she’s corrupt, but you know what you’re getting. Trump is like the Joker, you don’t know what he’s gonna do, but you know it’s gonna be hell.”

    Republicans and R leaning Independents don’t like the fact that they can’t beat or stop Hillary, but they can be pursuaded to NOT vote for Trump. If they don’t vote for Trump – and given the fact that they hate Hillary – there’s a good chance that they’ll vote LP or stay home – either of which will help the LP get 5%or more.

    So, attacking only Trump is a better way to win votes. It was a briliant message. It was aimed at a the most likely group to change their vote at this late date in the way most appealing to do just that without alienating any others.

    It won’t be enough to make up for Gary Johnson’s gaffs, but this Weld statement will actually increase the LP percentage come November.

  13. Tony From Long Island

    Rational, I don’t know if I agree with your 400 EV assessment, but I would be thrilled if that was true. The bigger the landslide, the more repudiated that disgusting man will be.

    I also don’t know if the rationale for Weld’s statement was that calculated, but it certainly could have that effect.

  14. Tony From Long Island

    Donald Trump will be like Woodstock in 1969.

    Ask anyone around the ages of 67 – 72 and they will say “yeah I was at Woodstock….”

    In 20 years, ask any Republican and they will say “No way did I vote for Trump!”

  15. Anthony Dlugos

    Personally, I’m not getting that worked up about anything Weld says anyway. If we didn’t get into the debates, I didn’t thought we had a better than 50/50 chances of keeping him.

    So I expect him to leave, and that really wouldn’t bother me. We got something out of it (unprecedented media coverage), and he got something out of it (a chance to reinsert himself into the political scene). Additionally, there is actual substantial value in creating well-worn paths between the major parties and our party. There is institutional knowledge that is getting transferred from the path-travelers to our inexperienced little affair. There is the signal being sent out to potential defectors from dying parties that there is cleared path to a party with a future, and a leadership that is getting the necessary experience in handling legit, professional campaigns. For a party like ours, that has been an infancy thinking that philosophy conquers all, that sort of institutional knowledge and experience…in the political world…is catastrophically underestimated.

    Probably as important, there is a definite p.r. value in the subconscious of the general public in seeing legitimate professionals go back and forth between the LP and the dinosaur parties.

  16. Tony From Long Island

    “Apparent?” Are you saying it might be an imposter? 🙂 Usually those kind of conspiracies are Andy’s bag.

  17. George Phillies

    “Apparent” The header *claims* that Johnson appears. I did not watch it. It may be two seconds of Johnson, and minutes of advertisements for English cookbooks.

  18. Tony From Long Island

    So why bother posting it Jorge?

    Jill, it’s clear you are unable to make a rational analysis of this issue. Your pre-conceived bias clouds your judgment. I often like your posts, but you really lose credibility when you start sounding like Andy.

  19. JamesT

    He’s playing both sides of the fence plain and simple. Hillary is his back up bf after stuff doesn’t work out with Johnson. Maybe moral character should matter to LPers going forward.

  20. Tony From Long Island

    No, James, he is not playing “both sides of the fence.”

    From day one he has been clear about which of the other two candidates he prefers. Anyone with clear thinking can see quickly which one of them is “more vile.”

    His back up what? He doesn’t need a back up for anything. The man is in his 70’s. He was quite retired and probably happily.

    Maybe President Clinton will appoint him to something, but he isn’t leveraging for something like that. He’s known future President Clinton for 40 years.

  21. Jill Pyeatt

    Tony, I’ve already recognized and said here that I understand that half the people who read Weld’s statement take it the way I did, but the other half take it the way you did.

    You and I are so far apart that I don’t see a reason to spend time arguing with you. I’ve also already said that I know Clinton will be our next President.

    Is there anything else for us to talk about? I sort of don’t think so. You’re very rude to Andy, and I’ve already told you he does a lot for the cause of liberty. I don’t appreciate the way you ridicule him.

  22. Tony From Long Island

    Jill, it’s quite a bit more than half.

    Andy . . . as usual you are unable to really comprehend the English language. For you that is normal though.

    Saying you prefer one over the other is not saying you prefer the other over yourself!

    If you say to me . . Tony, would you prefer an apple or an orange?” If I don’t really like either of them and want a peach but you don’t have a peach, I would choose between the apple or orange if I were hungry.”

    Weld’s statement was obviously and clearly directed toward people who did not have Johnson as an option. As an LP member you obviously know that a huge (“uge”) majority of Americans will not vote for a “third party” under any circumstances. Those people have to choose between the apple and the orange. Gov. Weld is letting them know he prefers the apple over the orange (hair and face).

  23. robert capozzi

    Tony, all those fruits are benign.

    Here’s a better analogy, I think: Electing Trump is shooting oneself in the head. Electing Hillary is continuing to eat food laced with the same poison you’ve been eating for the last decade. Either are survivable, although the gunshot wound is extremely unlikely. Eating more poison will make you more ill, but you stand a better chance of survival.

  24. Tony From Long Island

    You make a good analogy. I guess I just don’t agree with the possible results of the choices.

    At least you clearly understand that one is much more dangerous than the other.

  25. Be Rational

    Weld is a chess player, he gets it even if Andy and Jill do not.

    Clinton voters will not desert a winner. Trump voters who see just how bad he is can be pull away – especiallly now as his numbers fall ever lower. I may have to revise my estimate of his vote totals down from 38% as I think he’s down to 37 or 36 at this point.

    Weld can get voters to dump Trump to save America and he’s smart enough to see that they won’t go for Clinton – some will vote for Johnson, some will vote for some other 3rd party or write in, some will stay home – he wisely doesn’t tell them how to vote – but they will never vote for Hillary. But reminding them just how much they hate Hillary could cause them to stay with Trump. In order to maximize Johnson’t vote totals, he had to focus only on Trump.

    It works because most people can now see just how mentally ill and unfit Trump is to hold office. In their hearts all but about 18% of America wants to keep Trump out of office. We could have peeled away all of the rest with a better campaign and better candidate management. Weld is on the right program for this stage of the election. The campaign missed the boat.

  26. Tony From Long Island

    Rational – I would be absolutely thrilled if Trump fell that low, I just don’t see it happening. The rednecks in Alabama and Mississippi as well as Arkansas will boost him, as well as Wyoming, Kansas, Montana, etc.

    Yes, those are lower population states, but he will get at least 60% in most.

    I sincerely hope you are right! This man and his cult followers must be thoroughly repudiated.

  27. Andy

    Hey Tony, how much is the Hillary Clinton campaign paying you to post here? If they are not paying you, they should consider giving you a job.

  28. Tony From Long Island

    Again the paranoid Andy comes out . . . I could use the money . . I only make 12 an hour . . . but maybe I should vote for Trump. He’s gonna make Ammurca Great Again!

    See ya all tomorrow

  29. wredlich

    “His statement was clearly directed solely at those people who refuse to vote 3rd party but will have to choose between Generissimo Trump and Mrs. Clinton.”

    Are you out of your mind?

    The message to those who refuse to vote party is either:

    1. Yes, you should vote 3rd party; or maybe
    2. They both suck. If you’re not going to vote 3rd party, then just don’t vote.

    Either of those lead to the LP getting a higher percentage. A message that tells people to vote for a major party candidate is absurd for a third party candidate in the same race.

  30. wredlich

    “You’ve missed the strategic intent and value of this brilliant statement.
    Clinton has won this election. She is moving beyond 50% and will carry in the 400 plus EV ballpark. ”

    Then why the fear mongering about the danger that Trump might get elected. Either he’s lying to the public about the danger of Trump winning, or you’re completely wrong.

  31. Be Rational

    “Then why the fear mongering about the danger that Trump might get elected. Either he’s lying to the public about the danger of Trump winning, or you’re completely wrong.”

    Trump voters need a reason to bail. If the R candidate were sane they would want to do all they can to maximize the R vote total in the long, shot desperate hope of a victory.

    But knowing Trump is nuts gives them an excuse to bail. They will deny the reality that Trump can’t win, but the reality that Trump is nuts gives them an excuse to bail and recognize that he can’t win anyway, so doing so makes them patriots.

    It’s a brilliant strategy. I hope Weld and Johnson double down on this message. It’s the best spin to increase their vote totals.

  32. wredlich

    “From day one he has been clear about which of the other two candidates he prefers. Anyone with clear thinking can see quickly which one of them is “more vile.””

    Again this is absurd. Both candidates are vile. Hillary is utterly corrupt. She is one of the pigs in Animal Farm who says some animals are more equal than others. She has not said anything in her entire life that remotely fits with libertarian ideals. At least Trump has moments where he says quasi-libertarian things (before contradicting himself in the same speech).

    Trump is at least vaguely in the ballpark of Howard Roark from Fountainhead. Hillary is a pure Randian villain, part Ellsworth Touhey and so many others, a clear looter and moocher.

    And I’m not defending Trump. I’m suing his buddies. He’s a rat bastard.

  33. wredlich

    “Weld’s statement was obviously and clearly directed toward people who did not have Johnson as an option. As an LP member you obviously know that a huge (“uge”) majority of Americans will not vote for a “third party” under any circumstances.”

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

    No, I do not accept that. That is utter nonsense. Anyone who believes that should stop pretending to believe in third parties and independent candidates.

    The reason we don’t get votes is that we don’t campaign effectively. Weld is Exhibit 1.

  34. Andy

    Warren, you indicated that you are very upset with the Johnson/Weld campaign, and you called it a disaster, but then you said that you are going to vote for them anyway. Why in the hell would you do that?

    If you are upset at Johnson/Weld, and you vote for them anyway, the messages you are sending are, “Keep it up guys,” and “Let’s nominate mire candidates like this in the future.” Why reward this behavior?

    I am astounded at the number of Libertarian who are succumbing to the “My party right or wrong” syndrome, just like the Democrats and Republicans do. What happened to principle over party?

  35. Be Rational

    Hillary is more evil.

    To simplify Weld’s message:

    “Trump is menatlly ill and unfit to hold office, hence much more dangerous. No patriotic American who cares about our nation’s futre can vote for Trump.

    Choose someone else.

    (hint, hint: Since you are dumping Trump we know you already hated Hillary, since if you didn’t you wouldn’t need to dump Trump. Trump is nuts and you know he can’t win. So, now consider another choice. Hey, guess what, see who I am, I don’t even have to say this: I’m running for VP with Gov. Johnson for P. How about us?)”

    Brilliant message.

    GJ/WW should run flat out against Trump with this message. Ignore Clinton, her negatives speak for themselves.

  36. Anthony Dlugos

    I think Weld:

    1) Genuinely worries more about Trump as President than he does about Hillary. I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that.

    Once again, he’s a centrist-libertarian. He’s clearly in the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan chart, its also clear he bumps up against that centrist box in the middle. It’s not surprising he genuinely fears Trump more than Clinton. A LOT of smart people, irrespective of ideology, believe Trump is quite scary/deranged/far more of a threat than Hillary is.

    2) Not entirely opposed to taking some kind of position in a Clinton administration.

    Thus, this statement is threading the needle between trying to pick off weak Trump supporters who are also afraid of Hillary, and not pissing off a chance at a job with Hillary. He at least wants to keep his options open.

    Both the Libertarian goal and his selfish personal goal can be achieved with this campaign tact.

  37. robert capozzi

    BR gets it. WW’s approach is 1) true and 2) good politics to maximize the L vote. Trump is an unacceptable protest vote. GJ is (for many) an acceptable protest vote. Peel as many disenchanted Trump voters away as possible.

  38. Be Rational

    Patriotic Americans cannot support Donald Trump – a mentally ill candidate who is unfit and too dangerous to be President of the United States.

    Please join your Republican leaders in choosing someone else on election day:

    a partial list of Republican Leaders Disavowing Trump:

    Kelly Ayotte
    Senator of New Hampshire

    William J. Bennett
    Former secretary of education under Ronald Reagan

    Robert Bentley
    Governor of Alabama

    Jaime Herrera Beutler
    Representative of Washington

    Bradley Byrne
    Representative of Alabama

    Jason Chaffetz
    Representative of Utah

    Mike Coffman
    Representative of Colorado

    Barbara Comstock
    Representative of Virginia

    Mike Crapo
    Senator of Idaho

    Dennis Daugaard
    Governor of South Dakota

    Rodney Davis
    Representative of Illinois

    Carly Fiorina
    Former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard and candidate for Republican nomination

    Deb Fischer
    Senator of Nebraska

    Jeff Flake
    Senator of Arizona

    Jeff Fortenberry
    Representative of Nebraska

    Darryl Glenn
    Running for Senate from Colorado

    Cory Gardner
    Senator of Colorado

    Scott Garrett
    Representative of New Jersey

    Kay Granger
    Representative of Texas

    Kim Guadagno
    Lieutenant governor of New Jersey

    Cresent Hardy
    Representative of Nevada

    Bill Haslam
    Governor of Tennessee

    Joseph J. Heck
    Representative of Nevada, running for Senate

    Gary Herbert
    Governor of Utah

    Jon Huntsman
    Former governor of Utah

    Will Hurd
    Representative of Texas

    John Kasich
    Governor of Ohio

    John Katko
    Representative of New York

    Stephen Knight
    Representative of California

    Mike Lee
    Senator of Utah

    Frank A. LoBiondo
    Representative of New Jersey

    Mia B. Love
    Representative of Utah

    Susana Martinez
    Governor of New Mexico

    John McCain
    Senator of Arizona

    Patrick Meehan
    Representative of Pennsylvania

    Lisa Murkowski
    Senator of Alaska

    George Pataki
    Former governor of New York

    Erik Paulsen
    Representative of Minnesota

    Tim Pawlenty
    Former governor of Minnesota

    Rob Portman
    Senator of Ohio

    Condoleezza Rice
    Former secretary of state under George W. Bush

    Martha Roby
    Represenative of Alabama

    Thomas J. Rooney
    Representative of Florida

    Brian Sandoval
    Governor of Nevada

    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    Former governor of California

    Michael K. Simpson
    Representative of Idaho

    Chris Stewart
    Representative of Utah

    Daniel Sullivan
    Senator of Alaska

    John Thune
    Senator of South Dakota and chairman of the Republican Conference

    Fred Upton
    Representative of Michigan

    Ann Wagner
    Representative of Missouri

    This message brought to you by Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld

  39. Andy

    These Republican leaders are all pieces of crap themselves, so them telling people to not vote for Trump is meaningless.

    I am not saying that people should vote for Trump, I am just indicating that i would not base a decision about who you are going to vote for based on recommendations from these clowns.

  40. Be Rational

    No one would run a campaign according to what you would base a decision Andy. Thats a quick way to fall to the Milnes vote level.

    The campaign wants to peel R voters away from Trump. R voters tend to listen somewhat to R leaders and elected R officeholders. Didn’t they explain that in conspiracy school/

  41. Tony From Long Island

    Warren said: ” . . . .Again this is absurd. Both candidates are vile. Hillary is utterly corrupt. She is one of the pigs in Animal Farm who says some animals are more equal than others. She has not said anything in her entire life that remotely fits with libertarian ideals. At least Trump has moments where he says quasi-libertarian things (before contradicting himself in the same speech).

    Trump is at least vaguely in the ballpark of Howard Roark from Fountainhead. Hillary is a pure Randian villain, part Ellsworth Touhey and so many others, a clear looter and moocher. . . . ”

    You disappoint me Warren, I had the impression that you were more of a “normal” libertarian, not a “froth at the mouth – they all suck” weirdo. Makes me regret voting for you in 2010. If you can’t see one candidate as more vile than the other, you exhibit a lack of rational thought.

  42. Tony From Long Island

    Andy Dandy: ” . . . . These Republican leaders are all pieces of crap themselves, so them telling people to not vote for Trump is meaningless.

    I am not saying that people should vote for Trump, I am just indicating that i would not base a decision about who you are going to vote for based on recommendations from these clowns. . . . ”

    Hey Andy, can you name one current elected D or R that you don’t think is a piece of crap? Don’t cop out and say “Justin Amash.”

  43. ATBAFT

    “The reason we don’t get votes is that we don’t campaign effectively”

    Sure, but what does that mean in the real world? I’ve received literally dozens of mailers from both candidates for a freaking state house seat. I’ve seen dozens of tv ads for them, bought in a market with dozens of other districts running similar ads. The lawns and streets are plastered with their signs. How do LP candidates compete $$$wise for this kind of attention? The local newspaper ran one free story interviewing each candidate and that’s it. Knock on 20,000 doors? Sometimes it seems that George Washington himself would only get 2% of the vote as long as the word “Libertarian” is printed after his name on the ballot. Yes, the message can be more perfectly tuned but the audience needs to 1)hear and 2) be receptive to the message.

  44. wredlich

    >>“The reason we don’t get votes is that we don’t campaign effectively”

    Sure, but what does that mean in the real world?

    Yes, the message can be more perfectly tuned but the audience needs to 1)hear and 2) be receptive to the message.< <


    LP candidates are horrible at sending a clear message. If you were to sum up the Johnson-Weld message in 7 words or less what would it be? “Fiscally conservative and socially liberal” maybe. Does that resonate with voters? No. Do they stick to that message when they speak? No. They’re all over the place.

    How about my message: “Stop Wasting Money”. I can tell you that does resonate with voters and it did work in my 2010 campaign.

    You are correct that it’s difficult to deliver the message so voters hear it. Especially when you spread your resources over 50 states. That’s why I suggest the next campaign focus on one state, probably New Hampshire.

    See One State Strategy

    From Andy: “Warren, you indicated that you are very upset with the Johnson/Weld campaign, and you called it a disaster, but then you said that you are going to vote for them anyway. Why in the hell would you do that? ”

    Because they’re still the best choice on the ballot.

  45. Don Wills

    This thread is prima facie evidence that the leadership AND membership of the LP has no clue as to the PURPOSE of the party is or even WHAT IT STANDS FOR. Many in the LP have their own opinions, but there is no common agreement on the big picture. That’s a recipe for futility. I dare say that even if IRV/RCV is widely adopted, the LP will continue to be COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

    The only hope for the libertarian movement to actually effect policy in the USA is the for the LP to break into two parts, each of which consists of folks who generally agree as to what their part stands for. IMO, this is not outside the realm of possibility if the GOP starts to fracture. My crystal ball indicates that the Johnson/Weld faction of the LP will associate with the non-neocon nanny-state loving Republicans. The purist faction of the LP will win a few state legislature elections in liberty-friendly states, and in doing so will finally begin to gain some influence in actually policy making. A caveat – this will only happen after the PureLP stops wasting its limited resources on the presidential contest.

  46. Tony From Long Island

    Don Wills: ” . . . The purist faction of the LP will win a few state legislature elections in liberty-friendly states, and in doing so will finally begin to gain some influence in actually policy making . . . ”

    I think your post was well-written and realistic except for the above quote. In my opinion, the “purist” faction is one of the main factors the LP remains unable to break through. If they were on their own, they would be even more unsuccessful.

    If, by some miracle, they were to be elected to a few seats, they would get absolutely nothing accomplished because they refuse to compromise or bend on even the most minute of things. That’s just not how government works. There have been compromises in our government since its founding. Some good, some bad.

    Don’t get me wrong, the refusal to bend on anything is not confined to only the LP purists. It infects the entire right and some on the left. Other than gerrymandering, it is, in my opinion, the biggest problem we face today in terms of governing ourselves.

  47. Anthony Dlugos

    Yea, I saw Don’s post as reasonable and within the realm of possibility until he went off the rails and suggested a split would lead to the new Purist party winning some elective offices.

    I can’t even begin to imagine the clusterf*ck a party made up solely of Purists would devolve into. They’d argue about everything, punctuated by periodic mantras of agreement like “taxation is theft.” Then they go right back to catechism arguments.

    Kinda like a church.

  48. Tony From Long Island

    Anthony: ” . . . Kinda like a church. . . . ”

    EXACTLY!!! One of the main reasons I left.

  49. ATBAFT

    “That’s why I suggest the next campaign focus on one state, probably New Hampshire. ”

    You mean like McMullin is doing in Utah? I wonder if enough $$$ can be raised nationally to make a presidential campaign in just one state effective? It would take a huge buy-in from the membership for this plan to work. Maybe test it with a few competitive state house races first.

    Did any of the LP’s state legislature candidates try to raise money nationally this year? I got no solicitations yet remember prior elections where one candidate or another would be begging for money because they believed they were in a competitive local race. (And, of course, were delusional as proven by the election returns.)

  50. Be Rational

    “That’s why I suggest the next campaign focus on one state, probably New Hampshire.” http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/11/2016-and-the-one-state-strategy-a-what-if-scenario/

    ****

    The one state plan, just like the 50 state wet dreams were both debunked in that thread.

    A roadmap for 2016 was spelled out in that 2012 thread. It will still apply for 2020, so get busy now.
    Too bad Nielson didn’t read and learn any more than Gary Johnson did in preparation for 2012.

    Target seven states to begin.
    Start TV advertising before the convention and again right after.
    Organize individual LP groups in every county of the target states well in advance
    …. (and any serious LP state org should do the same).
    Spend as close to 100% as possible of funds raised on Major Network Broadcast TV in the target states.
    The best target states for 2020:
    AK
    ME, NH, VT
    WY, MT, ID
    if money is available add next:
    NM, UT
    CO, NV

  51. Andy

    Warren, I disagree with you that Johnson/Weld are the best choice in this race. William Weld is a neo-con who enthusiastically supported Bush, the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, and Romney. You might think that Johnson is better, which I do not assume, but even if he is, Johnson defers to Weld, and if Johnson really is better, the establishment could just JFK him, then Weld would be President.

    Voting for a ticket with Weld is like voting for George W. Bush or Mitt Romney.

    Warren, would you vote for a ticket with Bush or Romney on it? This is basically what you are doing if you vote for Weld.

    You are also sending the message to everyone in the LP who supported Johnson/Weld to keep nominating candidates like this in the future, which is the last thing we need.

    Not voting, or leaving the presidential part of your ballot blank, would be better than voting for Johnson/Weld.

  52. Don Wills

    “The one state plan, just like the 50 state wet dreams were both debunked in that thread.”

    What’s truly laughable about the LP is that leadership thinks about things in TOP DOWN terms. In my understanding, libertarianism is about bottom up action and responsibility — individuals and groups of individuals with the free will to act in their own interests. Such traits are completely missing from the thought process of the governing structure of the LP.

    For example, they decide “50 states ballot access is a must” at the highest levels of the party, and then squander most of their resources in getting on all ballots at any cost. And then every two years they don’t actually have the time or resources to field and support candidates who can actually win down ticket.

    And then everyone whines, points fingers and 10% or more of those who were active for the most recent election quit in disgust.

    WRT the comments about my belief that the PureLP can win a few seats in state legislatures — I believe that the ModerateLP folks (Johnson/Weld/et al) can easily win a few seats in the state legislatures. I actually didn’t mention that because to me it is obvious. IRV/RCV is a key part of this. As is the realization that spending resources on the presidential election when you don’t hold a SINGLE legislative seat is complete stupidity.

  53. Andy

    Also, Weld has not changed at all. Weld endorsed Jeb Bush for President in September of last year, and he endorsed John Kasich for President in February of this year after Jeb dropped out of the race.

    Gary Johnson’s credibility should have been destroyed when he tried to pass Bill Weld off as being, “the original libertarian”.

  54. wredlich

    The one-state plan was not debunked. Some disagreed with it. That’s not “debunking.”

    Andy – Yes Johnson is clearly a better choice than Trump, Clinton, or anyone else on the ballot. Just his position on legalizing marijuana puts him ahead of the big two and at least he’s credible on that one. He has espoused at least somewhat non-interventionist policies so that’s another plus.

    He was not my first choice, not even second. I would have preferred Darryl Perry or Austin Petersen. Darryl is the true libertarian and Austin would handle the media spotlight better. But Johnson is still the best choice on the ballot.

  55. Anthony Dlugos

    Don,

    re: “What’s truly laughable about the LP is that leadership thinks about things in TOP DOWN terms.”

    I wouldn’t call it top down as much as I would suggest it’s the structure of the market the LP is attempting to break into, one which requires a national presence and running a presidential candidate, even if it is a “loss leader” campaign. As Harry Browne pointed out, the presidential campaign is a marketing opportunity we just cannot afford to ignore.

    In other words, not running a presidential candidate would have a more deleterious effect on down ballot races than running a candidate that is almost certainly going to lose.

  56. Anthony Dlugos

    Quoth Andy,

    Gary Johnson’s credibility should have been destroyed when he tried to pass Bill Weld off as being, “the original libertarian”.

    Dr. Feldman’s credibility was shot when he decided that the presidency was going to be the first public office he would try to win.

    Ditto for AWP, with the cherry on top of being 35 yrs old, a generally accepted asshat, and a pyramid of p*ssy audiotape out there.

    Ditto for McAfee, with the cherry on top of a videotape of him with strippers, blow, and weapons, plus the story of faking a heart attack to get out of possible extradition on a murder rap.

    Ditto for Perry, with the cherry on top of being an angry anarchist who said at the Saturday night debate in Orlando that people should be able to purchase crystal meth like tomatoes.

    I can assure you, that, to tens of millions of sane voters…not you, but the sane voters we are trying to reach with our message, any of the above is far more credibility damaging than calling Bill Weld the “original libertarian.” In fact, the only people who care about that statement is a tiny slice of the Libertarian base.

  57. George Phillies

    One can name parties that stopped running Presidential candidates and soon faded from sight. Which was the cause?

    Harry Browne was entirely right about the marketing opportunity, though the choice of issues this time was less than outstanding.

    In particular “cut your taxes” has been used so often by Republicans that no one cares. Well, except the GOP billionaires trying to rig the tax structure in their favor.

  58. Anthony Dlugos

    I agree on the “get rid of the IRS” being done to death.

    At a bare minimum, Gary needed to be far more skilled on his knowledge and delivery of that material if he was gonna make it a campaign talking point.

    I would have preferred he just stuck to the “six lane highway” down the middle idea. He has a very few libertarian positions that he speaks competently on. His best message was as a proven governor/executive with a “fiscally conservative/socially tolerant” message.

  59. Andy

    Warren, Darrell Castle supports legalizing marijuana (and calling off the drug war in general, which is more than what Johnson/Weld have called for), and Jill Stein also wants to legalize marijuana.

    Voting for Johnson/Weld just sends the message that the LP should keep nominating candidates like this, which is a terrible message to send.

    I am astounded that so many Libertarians are putting party over princinto, and falling into the same type of group think mentality as Democrats and Republicans. “The Party of Principle” is turning into another meaningless slogan.

  60. Andy

    Marc Feldman tried to win public office before in Ohio.

    Donald Trump had never run for office before, and now he is one of the top two contenders to be the next President.

  61. Richard Winger

    Don Wills, the Libertarian Party focus on getting its presidential nominee on the ballot in all 50 states has paid off big time. For 30 years, we tried and tried to persuade the Oklahoma legislature to ease the petition and/or vote tests. We got nowhere for the period 1975-2015. But in 2015, the LP spent the $100,000 to get on the Oklahoma ballot. One big payoff then occurred this year, when the legislature reduced the vote test from 10% to 2.5%. Legislators, like other humans, respect effort and success.

    In your own state, Wyoming, the party petition was once a difficult 8,000 signatures, and the vote test was 5%. But the Libertarian Party kept on petitioning in Wyoming, year after year, anyway. Finally the Wyoming legislature lowered the 8,000 to 3%, and then it lowered it again to 2%. Same with the vote test; it went from 5% to 3% to 2%. Constant petitioning was a nuisance to the election officials and kept the issue alive. I could go on and on with other examples.

  62. Don Wills

    Richard – you wrote that the LP “focus on getting its presidential nominee on the ballot in all 50 states has paid off big time. ”

    Really? 45 years of existence and the sum total of the accomplishments of the LP is better ballot access laws in some states? I realize that ballot access is very important to you, but to most folks it’s almost irrelevant. Why? Because if a third party (either single issue or general philosophy) is popular enough to be actually viable in state legislative elections, then that movement/party will have more than enough volunteers and donors to get on the ballot, even in nasty places like Oklahoma. Therefore it (better ballot access) is a solution to a “problem” that has been adopted as a primary goal by LP leadership so they can say that they’ve been successful in reaching their goals. It’s quite circular … and dishonest.

    Flash — the LP hasn’t been able to influence public policy in the states or nationally in any meaningful way in its 45 year history. Compare that record to the record of the socialists from 1890 to 1930, and the abysmal failure of the LP is obvious.

    PS. Libertarians — don’t beat yourself up about your party’s failure. I’ve come to believe that a majority of the today’s American electorate is lazy and envious — that a majority of voters favor a collectivist government to take stuff from the richer 49% and give it to the poorer 51%. And that democracy is nothing more than mob rule in disguise.

  63. Just Some Random Guy

    Warren, I disagree with you that Johnson/Weld are the best choice in this race. William Weld is a neo-con who enthusiastically supported Bush, the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, and Romney. You might think that Johnson is better, which I do not assume, but even if he is, Johnson defers to Weld, and if Johnson really is better, the establishment could just JFK him, then Weld would be President.

    Why do you think that if Johnson wins the presidency, Weld would be the vice president?

    Johnson can’t win the majority of the vote at this point, so his only route to victory is the very slim chance that he wins at least one state, have neither Hillary nor Trump win a majority, then have the House give him the win (theoretically possible if the Republicans maintain control and have become so annoyed with Trump they give the win to Johnson).

    If that happens… Weld isn’t vice president. The House chooses from the top three candidates for president but the Senate chooses from the top two candidates for vice president, which wouldn’t be him. The vice presidential candidate for the Libertarian could either be the biggest statist or most pure libertarian ever and it would MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE because they wouldn’t take office.

  64. Andy

    Just Some Random Guy: “Why do you think that if Johnson wins the presidency, Weld would be the vice president?

    Johnson can’t win the majority of the vote at this point, so his only route to victory is the very slim chance that he wins at least one state, have neither Hillary nor Trump win a majority, then have the House give him the win (theoretically possible if the Republicans maintain control and have become so annoyed with Trump they give the win to Johnson).”

    1) The scenario that you presented is highly unlikely to happen.

    2) I would not trust Gary Johnson anyway.

  65. Andy

    Don Wills said: “Really? 45 years of existence and the sum total of the accomplishments of the LP is better ballot access laws in some states? ”

    The main purpose in running a Libertarian Party presidential ticket is to spread the ideas of liberty and to build the party and the movement. It is really more of an advertisement campaign and recruiting tool for the party and the movement than it is a campaign to actually win the election, and this is the way it is going to be unless or until the day comes when Libertarians can raise enough money to compete the with D’s and R’s in a presidential election, which presently would probably take around $1 billion.

    Another reason for the Libertarian Party to run a presidential ticket is because there are some states where getting a certain percent of the vote in the presidential race will give the party ballot access, but of course the ballot access laws are complicated, so it is not a case of get 5% of the vote and get ballot access nationally as the Johnson/Weld campaign has claimed.

    The offices where Libertarian Party candidates can actually stand a chance to win are city/town or county offices, and seats in state legislatures.

  66. Andy

    I’ve talked to a lot of Libertarians and small “l” libertarians all over this country, both in person and online, and one common question I ask them is how did the get involved in the party or movement. The number one answer that I get is because of a candidate for President. The two names I have heard the most are Ron Paul (from his two Republican runs and his Libertarian Party run back in 1988) and Harry Browne.

  67. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

    Dr. Feldman’s credibility was shot when he decided that the presidency was going to be the first public office he would try to win.

    If you’re going to be an asshole and endlessly repeat ad hominem attacks against good libertarians while ignoring all the faults of your guy, at least don’t make assertions that are demonstrably false so you don’t look like a complete idiot — especially when you have been corrected on that easily researchable fact over and over and over and over again in this very forum.

  68. Anthony Dlugos

    What I meant to say was that would be the first elective office he would hold.

    Its hardly an ad hominem attack to report that he’s never held elective office before. Nor is it ad hominem to suggest, as I did, that that fact WOULD destroy Dr. Feldman’s credibility in the eyes of the average voters, while Gary’s description of William Weld as the original libertarian would not.

  69. Be Rational

    “I’ve talked to a lot of Libertarians and small “l” libertarians all over this country, both in person and online, and one common question I ask them is how did the get involved in the party or movement. The number one answer that I get is because of a candidate for President. The two names I have heard the most are Ron Paul (from his two Republican runs and his Libertarian Party run back in 1988) and Harry Browne.” – Andy

    *****
    Of course this is true. If you did a complete survey you would find this trend going further back and including Clark and MacBride. Presidential campaigns are essential to building the party and recruiting members for future campaigns, as candidates, donors, etc.

    In future years, it will be Gary Johnson as one of the main recruiters. Then later, it will be our candidates in 2020, then 2024 … hopefully increasing in importance as the years pass and the LP grows.

    It’s just too bad that we didn’t have a campaign manager who knew how to run a campaign, managage a candidate, run a media outreach effort, target advertising or manage campaign finances to benefit the campaign.

  70. Andy

    Be Rational said: “Of course this is true. If you did a complete survey you would find this trend going further back and including Clark and MacBride. Presidential campaigns are essential to building the party and recruiting members for future campaigns, as candidates, donors, etc.”

    My survey includes lots of people, from all over the country, both in person and online, and over a long period of time (a good 16 plus years).

    Yes, I have talked to people who have mentioned Ed Clark and Roger MacBride, and also David Bergland, Andre Marrou, and Michael Badnarik.

    “In future years, it will be Gary Johnson as one of the main recruiters.”

    I have had people mention Gary Johnson as well, although I’m wondering how many I am going to run encounter after this election because that Gary Johnson has sounded less libertarian this time than when he ran the first time (which I believe is a combination of his true colors coming out, since he knows he is not going to run again and therefore no longer needs us, and the influence of Bill Weld), and he did not sound like a hardcore libertarian the first time.

    I have also encountered people who said that they became a libertarian because of a Libertarian Party candidate for some other office, usually one running for Governor or US Senate, or because they saw a Libertarian/libertarian on TV or on the radio (John Stossel and Andrew Napolitano are two names that come up pretty often), or they read an article about libertarians in a newspaper or a magazine, or because they visited a libertarian website, or read an article from a libertarian that was posted to a website they visited, or because they had a family member or friend that was a libertarian, or because a random person that they encountered explained to them what a libertarian is, and/or handed them a libertarian pamphlet or flyer (World’s Smallest Political Quizes are very popular and good recruiting tools).

    Incidentally, I have yet to encounter anyone who said that they became a Libertarian/libertarian because of Bob Barr or Wayne Root.

    I doubt that I will encounter any William Weld libertarians either.

    It would actually be a useful survey for the Libertarian Party to engage in to find out how Libertarian Party members and small “l” libertarians became libertarians. This data would be useful for future recruiting efforts.

    Like I said above, my informal survey sample is pretty large, and comes from across the nation and over a long period of time, and the data I have received has said that presidential campaigns are the biggest recruiting tool for the Libertarian Party and movement, and the two most successful recruiters have been Ron Paul (#1 by far) and Harry Browne.

  71. Andy

    Oh, another method of recruiting for people becoming Libertarians/libertarians are books. Unfortunately, not enough people read books anymore, but still, I do encounter people who have read books that were written by libertarians and that was how they got involved in the party or movement.

    Films/videos are another one, especially in the age of YouTube.

  72. Andy

    Be Rational said: “It’s just too bad that we didn’t have a campaign manager who knew how to run a campaign, managage a candidate, run a media outreach effort, target advertising or manage campaign finances to benefit the campaign.”

    Yes, it is also too bad that we do not have better candidates, like ones that were actual libertarians and were actually able to sell a libertarian message to the public.

  73. Andy

    “how many I am going to run encounter”

    Should read, “how many I am going to encounter…”

  74. Just Some Random Guy

    1) The scenario that you presented is highly unlikely to happen.

    Of course it’s unlikely, I SAID it was. But, your argument was predicated upon the assumption that *if* Johnson becomes president, William Weld would be vice president. I was pointing out that, even if Johnson became president, the only possible way to do that at that point was the “highly unlikely” situation I mentioned. Which, while highly unlikely, is still substantially more likely than him winning a majority; extremely low chance is more likely than zero chance.

  75. George Phillies

    If Johnson becomes President via the absurdly improbable three-way draw outcome, the next VP will be Kaine or Pence, Weld not being eligible, unless the Senate is tied, in which case the VP is not elected.

    I urge state parties to worry about more likely events, like an invasion from Mars.

  76. NewFederalist

    “Johnson can’t win the majority of the vote at this point, so his only route to victory is the very slim chance that he wins at least one state, have neither Hillary nor Trump win a majority, then have the House give him the win (theoretically possible if the Republicans maintain control and have become so annoyed with Trump they give the win to Johnson).” – Just Some Random Guy

    Each state gets one vote in the House. It really doesn’t matter which party has control. Wyoming has as much say as California.

  77. John Rogers

    Libertarians and Johnson/Weld will never get beyond a few percent as long as they support the globalist open border/free trade agenda of the two major parties.

  78. Matt

    If only the two major parties had such an agenda, that would be amazingly awesome. Unfortunately that is not even close to being the case.

  79. Tony From Long Island

    Warren Redlich: ” . . . He was not my first choice, not even second. I would have preferred Darryl Perry or Austin Petersen . . . ”

    Wow was I wrong about Mr. Redlich. Now I REALLY regret my vote for him.

  80. Tony From Long Island

    John Rogers : ” . . . . .Libertarians and Johnson/Weld will never get beyond a few percent as long as they support the globalist open border/free trade agenda of the two major parties. . . .

    I’m curious as to how you would characterize the Republican platform and particularly Drumpf as “open borders.” I seem to recall hearing “Build that wall . . .build that wall . . . build that wall . . ” and “Mexico is going to pay for it” (which now is ‘mexico will kindly reimburse us for it’).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *