THE WEEK: Anatomy of a faceplant: Inside the Libertarian Party’s abysmal 2016 campaign

johnson-faceplant

The headline says it all.  The full article is HERE.

Highlights include:

“Johnson seems likely to be remembered as a brief, embarrassing political oddity.”

“The LP’s big break has been marked by one avoidable gaffe after another, an abysmally embarrassing performance and an incomparable lost opportunity. . . . presenting (libertarianism) largely as centrism . . . a miscalculated attempt at pragmatic politics. . . . Johnson’s libertarianism is based more in instinct than principle. . . . when two of his impulses conflict, he goes to pieces.”

170 thoughts on “THE WEEK: Anatomy of a faceplant: Inside the Libertarian Party’s abysmal 2016 campaign

  1. Anthony Dlugos

    This tells you all you need to know about where she’s coming from:

    “When combined with Johnson’s incoherent approach to religious liberty, they are a surefire recipe for estranging disaffected Republicans who might otherwise have been inclined to vote Libertarian this year. If the LP ticket’s kind words for Clinton and Obama weren’t enough to put GOP voters off for good, Johnson’s statements on religious liberty certainly were.”

    She decries the Johnson-Weld libertarian centrism for the same reason every disaffected conservative/paleocon/social con decries the Johnson-Weld platform: they see the LP as their safe landing spot once the inevitable crack up of the GOP happens, and they have the audacity to try and make sure it’s a soft landing spot of a right-wing persuasion.

    Heed her advice only if you want a Libertarian Party where the Ron Paul Newsletters are acceptable opinion.

  2. Andy

    Is Anthony Dlgos on the Johnson/Weld payroll? If not, they should offer him a job, then maybe he could post his propaganda online on a full time basis.

  3. Joseph Buchman Post author

    I think they would have had triple their current support if they had hidden in a cave these past five months. I am also outraged by the percentage of donor funds taken by consultants and staff who added little (or perhaps even negative) political skill/value.

  4. Andy

    All of you Johnson/Weld delegates out there should be happy that this is the kind of publicity the ticket you nominated is bringing us. You all have made the Libertarian Party look like a bunch of goofy, sell out, unprincipled, laughingstocks.

    All I can say is, I TOLD YOU SO. I tried to warn people against nominating Johnson/Weld before the convention, and during the convention, as did Tom Knapp, George Phillies, and others, and you people WOULD NOT LISTEN.

    The Libertarian Party had an excellent opportunity to make some real gains this year in advancing the party and the cause, and you people flushed that opportunity down the toilet for the rest of us.

    Everyone should remember this at future LP conventions.

  5. Andy

    Joe, I agree. Johnson/Weld would have been a better campaign if after receiving the nomination, both had just sat at home and not done any campaigning and just been paper candidates.

  6. Rebel Alliance

    “socially liberal and fiscally conservative”

    Better ways to rephrase this have been discussed extensively within the libertarian movement. Johnson would’ve known that, had he surrounded himself with Libertarians over the past four years instead of Republicans.

    People should’ve known his bumbling cluelessness would be a problem when he introduced Weld, who’d been in the party for two weeks, to a roomful of activists who’ve been with the LP for 10, 20, or 30 years, as “the original Libertarian”.

  7. Tony From Long Island

    When I clicked on this right before leaving for the day, I just KNEW that Andy would have the majority of the responses . . . I wasn’t disappointed!

    I sometimes need a laugh from a zealot . . .

  8. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Andy,

    FWIW, I voted for neither Johnson nor Weld in Orlando. Not so much, frankly, because there were any better candidates there, but because of my concerns about the likely strategy and execution by NSON/Nielson/Hunter/Johnson’s advisors. Frankly I had hope that Weld’s people would fire all of the 2012 senior campaign staff. But apparently Weld’s people had long ago moved on to other campaigns/candidates. (I also liked McAfee’s BURNING MAN vibe/out of the box, vote different strategy. And I was buying into his Chris Thrasher was a mole claims when Chris left McAfee and endorsed Johnson. (I no longer believe the mole claims, but who knows?!?)

    I wrote earlier that “A Vote for Johnson is NOT a vote for Hillary, nor a vote for Trump — it’s a vote FOR Ron Nielson as Chief of Staff.”

    🙂

    A BLAST from the past — April 2000 – DESERET NEWS

    Nielson says Congressman Cook still owes him $193,992 . . . Cook has countersued. . . .

    “When I left the (Greene) campaign, she owed me some money, but that was not the basis for me leaving,” Nielson said. . . .

    Greene said Nielson “had drastically overspent a budget that we had agreed on, in a very short period of time. I dismissed him, and he turned around and sued me.”

    . . .if her campaign proved successful during the state Republican convention, Nielson would get a bonus. . . . “I had to fire him a couple of months before that convention took place, but he turned around and said he was still entitled to that bonus.” . . .

    The lawsuit was settled . . . under a confidentiality agreement after her attorneys advised her it would be less expensive . . .

    The entire article can be read here –
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/753417/Greene-unlikely-witness-at-Cook-campaign-trial.html

    Wonder if he will now sue Gary Johnson, or just those who violate their lifetime “non-disparagement” clauses?

  9. mARS

    If you think any other the other Libertarian presidential candidates (including Petersen, McAfee, Perry, Feldman, or any of the other wacky nobodies) would be doing even half as well as Johnson, then you’re delusional and there’s no hope for you.

  10. mARS

    I think Petersen could still be outpolling Stein, though by a significantly smaller margin, and McAfee would likely be tied with her. The others would be dead last, though.

  11. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    There are two issues here:

    * Can Johnson have done better than he’s currently doing?

    * Would another Libertarian candidate have done better than Johnson?

    Let’s not confuse the two. It’s possible to think that Johnson was the best available candidate (I don’t), but still think he wasted his opportunity.

  12. Fritz Sands

    Is Gary Johnson the most articulate candidate I have ever met (especially on live TV)? Nope. Do I agree with William Weld on all positions? Hell, no. Are consultants being frugal? Nope.

    That being said, let’s all get over ourselves.

    Petersen would have been roundly ignored in the general elections (no newspaper endorsements, no TV interviews (OK, Stossel would have interviewed him), no outside money. With the general disaffection this year, he would have surged from the historic high of 1% (Ed Clark, 1980) to a new high of 2%. Maybe 3%. And all of that would have come from independents and Republicans — none from the left, which is a political area libertarians have not effectively mined.

    McAfee would have been laughed at. Seriously, people.

    Nothing here is going to improve until we have a stable of libertarians who have been elected to (and re-elected to) state and Federal elected offices. Currently we have, well, one. Bitching about the shortcomings of the one we have instead of generating more is not helpful.

  13. ATBAFT

    Mr. Sands’ remarks are useful. Instead of bitching, time to make lemonade out of lemons. Johnson will attract many new members and interested people. (Isn’t membership up like 8,000 already?) Like many of us at our initial attraction to libertarianism, they will be “less than pure.” Heck, I know one libertarian activist who actually supported the draft in the beginning – he went on to become a PhD in philosophy.
    All of us refined our views while being in the LP – through hearing speakers at conventions, through reading materials, through bull sessions with more seasoned LPers. We have to do the same thing with the new-comers, not push them away because they may be LINOs right now. Wasn’t it the founders’ intentions that the LP attract people and then educate them to be “better” libertarians once in contact with the Party? If we can’t handle a big influx of mildly interested voters, then, yes, let’s run only the purest of the pure and continue to get miniscule numbers of votes.

  14. Matt

    So, Gary “what is Aleppo” Johnson is being laughed at now too, and 2-3% is certainly looking likely – and even that may well be too generous.

  15. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Jill Stein is getting decent media coverage, almost as much as Johnson. So I don’t see why Petersen or McAfee wouldn’t have gotten good coverage. None of them have much of a political resume.

    Johnson isn’t being covered because he’s so fantastic. He’s being covered because he happens to be on all 50 ballots, in a year in which many American are looking for a third option.

  16. Anthony Dlugos

    Root’s Teeth Are Awesome is right at 19:51, except I bristle at the use of the word “wasted.”

    This isn’t reflexive Johnson defending by me.

    There were 125 million votes in the 2012 election. Let’s say Johnson is at 7% in the polls. Let’s say the polls accurately reflect the electorate. That’s 8.75 million votes.

    What makes the campaign…”not wasted?”
    Entry into the CPD debates (15%)? That’s 18.75 million votes. That’s a net gain necessary of 10 million votes. Our candidate was nominated Memorial Day weekend. The decision on the first debate invites was what…about September 20? I count 112 days, or 16 weeks.

    I’m sorry. Ten million people. That mass of grey matter is far too big and ponderous to think there is anything we could have done in the span of 16 weeks that would have turned 7% into 15%.

    Knock yourself out playing “fantasy campaign manager” and coming up with all the neat little strategies you would have come up with to get Gary in the debates. The bottom line is, we did all we could do in Orlando: we nominated the most qualified ticket. That was our 5% of the job.

    The other 95% is the light bulb going off over ten million heads. ‘Taint nothing we can do to make that happen.

  17. Anthony Dlugos

    You think a 35-year old blogger with no elective experience plus a “pyramid of p*ssy” radio interview and a drug-addict murder suspect with a NSFW video with strippers, blow, and weapons ALSO with no elective office experience would have received “good coverage,” and your proof is that a Harvard-educated MD is your proof?

    Come on, man. Be reasonable.

  18. Matt

    Petersen did a pretty good job in the Stossel debate, presentation-wise. McAfee wasn’t bad either, as far as I can remember. And there’s been no shortage of goofiness and embarrassment coming from Johnson and Weld. Now, maybe some of the NSFW stuff may have hurt Petersen or McAfee, but would it have hurt more than Johnson not knowing what Aleppo is, seeming to not be able to name foreign leaders, or sticking out his tongue at a reporter?

    And the much worse NSFW stuff – along with multiple sexual assault accusations from a dozen or more women – seems to not have Trump as badly as one may have imagined, with most of his supporters still sticking by him. So what’s a humorous video or some podcast juvenalia about “pyramids of pussy” compared with that? At least as far as we know, all of the “bricks” in that alleged pyramid are/were consenting adults, and the same can’t be said for Donald Trump or Bill Clinton and their “pyramids.”

  19. Matt

    If his credentials as a governor a decade earlier had been such a huge deal as you make it out, why didn’t Johnson do better than he did in 2012? You are assuming he will do better this time but that remains to be seen. Third parties don’t usually do nearly as well as their poll numbers so we’ll see in a few weeks. Maybe he’ll do better than last time but if so, how much of that is due to the poor candidates chosen by the major parties?

    As far as how Petersen, McAfee et al would have done vis a vis Stein…the LP baseline being higher than the Greens baseline would have had more to do with that than resume, which is less important than Anthony thinks, especially in a candidate who very few people think has any realistic chance of winning, including their own supporters.

  20. Andy


    “Anthony Dlugos
    October 17, 2016 at 21:32

    You think a 35-year old blogger with no elective experience plus a ‘pyramid of p*ssy’ radio interview and a drug-addict murder suspect with a NSFW video with strippers, blow, and weapons ALSO with no elective office experience would have received “good coverage,” and your proof is that a Harvard-educated MD is your proof?

    Come on, man. Be reasonable”

    You think that the coverage that washed up Republicans Johnson & Weld have gotten has been good?

    Come on, man. Be reasonable.

  21. Andy


    ATBAFT
    October 17, 2016 at 20:41

    Mr. Sands’ remarks are useful. Instead of bitching, time to make lemonade out of lemons. Johnson will attract many new members and interested people. (Isn’t membership up like 8,000 already?) Like many of us at our initial attraction to libertarianism, they will be “less than pure.” Heck, I know one libertarian activist who actually supported the draft in the beginning – he went on to become a PhD in philosophy.
    All of us refined our views while being in the LP – through hearing speakers at conventions, through reading materials, through bull sessions with more seasoned LPers. We have to do the same thing with the new-comers, not push them away because they may be LINOs right now. Wasn’t it the founders’ intentions that the LP attract people and then educate them to be “better” libertarians once in contact with the Party? If we can’t handle a big influx of mildly interested voters, then, yes, let’s run only the purest of the pure and continue to get miniscule numbers of votes.”

    This approach obviously has not worked with Gary Johnson. The views he is espousing now are LESS libertarian than what he said 4 years ago.

  22. Fritz Sands

    OK. And if he espouses what you consider to be “less libertarian” views than 4 years ago but he then gets 5x the vote percentage that he got 4 years ago, what lesson will you derive from that?

  23. Matt

    “OK. And if he espouses what you consider to be “less libertarian” views than 4 years ago but he then gets 5x the vote percentage that he got 4 years ago, what lesson will you derive from that?”

    Well, some people are more impressed with numbers of votes than with what ideas those votes advance. But if you take that to its logical conclusion, why not just support Clinton, since she will most likely get the most votes of all of them, or Trump, if you still think he will get more votes than her? If you are voting for someone else, at least at some level you must care whether a candidate’s views are more or less libertarian (or more or less socialist, or whatever your ideology is).

  24. dL

    “With headlines like “Man drops bid to be Libertarian Party chair by strip dancing live on C-SPAN” and debate topics like World War I (yes, that’s a one) and selling heroin to children, it should have been obvious from the get-go that the LP was not ready for prime time.”

    NOTE: The LP invites debates moderators(this year Larry Elder) who rehash the quadrennial tradition of repeating the standard Salon.com and National Review objections to libertarianism(WWI,WWII, legalized hard drugs for small children, 1964 civil rights act…). I don’t know why they continue to invite these turds(Elder is pro-war, right-wing con). Mild-celebrity pundit chasing, respectability chasing. But the simple posing of the predictable questions(the answers are irrelevant) are then used to throw out the standard refrain, “not ready for prime time.” So it sort of defeats the purpose. Might want to rethink that strategy.

    TheWeek piece is half-right. Running as centrists, failing to differentiate themselves from the competition are fatal flaws for a 3rd party candidacy. However, the author’s seeming preference for the principled libertarian position for social conservatives to discriminate against gay folk is just as bad…and no winner, to boot. Social Cons are absolutely 1000% behind Trump.

    In the end, it really didn’t how good/bad the message was. TeamGov never even came close to raising the sufficient funds to even make a piffling go of it. The entire strategy more or less was: convince X number of the republican establishment, X number of the media establishment for a revolution on high that would propel them into the debates that would then spawn the popular revolution. But no one outside the beltway crackpipe gives a shit what the beltway/establishment thinks. Not the right year for a “revolution from on high.”

  25. Andy

    “Fritz Sands
    October 18, 2016 at 00:43

    OK. And if he espouses what you consider to be “less libertarian” views than 4 years ago but he then gets 5x the vote percentage that he got 4 years ago, what lesson will you derive from that?”

    The circumstances surrounding each election are unique. Any Libertarian could have been on the ballot and received more votes than normal.

    Also, we are not out to get votes for the sake of getting votes. We want to move society in a libertarian direction, and we are not going to do that if we run candidates who do not really understand or believe in libertarianism themselves.

    If just getting votes is the mission, then why not run Bernie Sanders for President? Or how about Ted Cruz? There are lots of people that we could run that would get lots of votes, but it does not necessarily mean that the candidate who gets lots of votes is going to bring us any closer to liberty.

  26. langa

    This article has two (small) flaws. First, the introduction about how the striptease and the debate questions show that the LP is “not ready for prime time” is garbage. Second, the author, like so many others, insists on misrepresenting the libertarian position on discrimination, which has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with freedom of association and private property rights. Atheists should be just as free to choose whom they do business with as are Bible thumpers.

    That aside, the rest of the article is absolutely spot-on. She is particularly impressive when pointing out Johnson’s tendency to rely on “instincts” in lieu of a solid grasp of libertarian principles, and how that leads him to give rambling, incoherent responses, as well as demonstrating how his reliance on cliches like “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” merely serves to confuse voters about what we really stand for, and to obscure the unique characteristics of libertarianism that should be its biggest selling points.

    This is why many of us have been saying since long before the convention that Johnson is a piss-poor candidate. He lacks both an understanding of the party’s principles, and the ability to articulate what little of them he does understand. In fact, there’s virtually nothing he brings to the table, other than a minuscule amount of name recognition, and of course the gubernatorial “credentials” that his groupies just love to drone on about.

  27. robert capozzi

    L, I agree with this actual quote than your paraphrase:

    “His policy impulses are, from a libertarian view, generally good, but they are not grounded in anything resembling a developed governing philosophy. ”

    That quite different from your “a solid grasp of libertarian principles.”

    NAPster principles are also not a “developed governing philosophy.” Unvarnished NAPsterism laid bare is wildly unpopular and utterly rejected by 99% of the population, making it clearly not a governing philosophy.

    Lessarchism might be, but it would need to be fleshed out.

    Mostly, this writer seems to object to GJ’s left-ish tack, emphasizing social liberalism. My sense is this tack played with millenials, but alienated NeverTrump conservatives. I agree that perhaps J/W overdid the left-emphasis angle.

    I will also note that RP1 seemed quite steeped in NAPster theory, but he too often was rambling and incoherent in 08 and 12. Philosophical clarity helps in developing rhetorical crispness, but sometimes people are just not on their A game communications-wise. And sometimes issues are just complicated, and simplistic NAPsterism doesn’t make the complications go away.

  28. langa

    Unvarnished NAPsterism laid bare is wildly unpopular and utterly rejected by 99% of the population…

    I have seen no evidence that would support such an assertion, but even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. Remember, at one time, the idea that blacks and whites were equal was “wildly unpopular and utterly rejected by 99% of the population.” Public opinion can change.

    Lessarchism might be, but it would need to be fleshed out.

    “Lessarchism” isn’t a philosophy at all. It’s just an incredibly vague concept that could include anything from cutting one penny from the federal budget to completely abolishing government at all levels. That’s way too broad to even be classified as a philosophy, let alone a “developed” one.

    Mostly, this writer seems to object to GJ’s left-ish tack, emphasizing social liberalism.

    Not really. She also criticized, for example, his use of the term “fiscally conservative” as alienating the left, by making it sound as if libertarians support Republican-style crony capitalism.

    I will also note that RP1 seemed quite steeped in NAPster theory, but he too often was rambling and incoherent in 08 and 12.

    Ron Paul never had anything close to an “Aleppo moment” or any of Johnson’s other gaffes. The reason is because, while Ron Paul is certainly no master of oratory, he knows libertarian theory inside and out, and he always closely follows the important topics of the day.

  29. Robert Capozzi

    Langa, yes, lessarchism is not a dogmatic philosophy. Whether it’s not a philosophy depends on your definition of philosophy.

    For me, RP1’s MTP interview when he stated he thought Lincoln should not have put down the Confederate Insurrection was far more damaging to the cause of liberty than GJ’s Aleppo moment. In fact, GJ’s position on Syria makes a lot of sense. His poise in the moment was poor, certainly, which he owns.

  30. langa

    For me, RP1’s MTP interview when he stated he thought Lincoln should not have put down the Confederate Insurrection was far more damaging to the cause of liberty than GJ’s Aleppo moment.

    For me, debunking statist propaganda, of which the “Great Emancipator” myth is one of the most powerful examples, is an essential part of exposing the statists as the liars they are. Once people realize they have been lied to about such an important topic, they will naturally be much more skeptical of the “conventional wisdom” that they hear in the future. That’s why the Establishment is so eager to portray historical revisionism as being limited to Holocaust denial and other such nonsense.

    I still remember when I first realized that “Honest Abe” was a lying tyrant. I was somewhere around 12 years old, and from then on, I never quite looked at the world the same way. It was quite an epiphany, and if Ron Paul’s comment helped others to have that same experience, that was far more important than the possibility that he might have alienated some Lincoln worshipers, who are unlikely to ever “get” libertarianism anyway.

  31. Anthony Dlugos

    “For me, debunking statist propaganda, of which the “Great Emancipator” myth is one of the most powerful examples, is an essential part of exposing the statists as the liars they are. Once people realize they have been lied to about such an important topic, they will naturally be much more skeptical of the “conventional wisdom” that they hear in the future.”

    And you think this can be accomplished in the course of a presidential election campaign?

    lol.

  32. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi
    October 18, 2016 at 06:46
    Langa, yes, lessarchism is not a dogmatic philosophy. Whether it’s not a philosophy depends on your definition of philosophy.

    For me, RP1’s MTP interview when he stated he thought Lincoln should not have put down the Confederate Insurrection was far more damaging to the cause of liberty than GJ’s Aleppo moment. In fact, GJ’s position on Syria makes a lot of sense. His poise in the moment was poor, certainly, which he owns.”

    Oh that is complete BULLSHIT! Ron Paul actually won over black TV talk show host DL Hughley with his arguments about the unnecessary Civil War.

    Also, Ron Paul’s Civil War stance, a stance which is held by many libertarians, was not a major talking point during his campaigns, and it received nowhere near the media attention as Gary Johnson’s “Aleppo moment”.

    You are just projecting, as in you are taking something which is a big bugaboo for you, and acting like it was a big deal for everyone else, which has no basis in reality.

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    “Ron Paul actually won over black TV talk show host DL Hughley with his arguments about the unnecessary Civil War.”

    Wow! Break out the champagne! All we have to do in 6 month presidential election cycle is convince approximately 45 million voters…minus one…that the Civil War was unnecessary!

    lol, Part II

  34. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    October 18, 2016 at 08:06
    ‘Ron Paul actually won over black TV talk show host DL Hughley with his arguments about the unnecessary Civil War.’

    Wow! Break out the champagne! All we have to do in 6 month presidential election cycle is convince approximately 45 million voters…minus one…that the Civil War was unnecessary!

    lol, Part II”

    You never know which questions a candidate is going to be asked during the course of a campaign, which is why a candidate has to be well informed, and prepared to answer a large variety of questions.

    Also, it is not like Ron Paul made this a major talking point during his campaigns. He got asked the question and he answered it, and he did an excellent job of answering it in my opinion.

    Ron Paul was a much better candidate than Gary Johnson.

  35. Tony From Long Island

    WAR’s TEETH said ” . . .There are two issues here:

    * Can Johnson have done better than he’s currently doing?

    * Would another Libertarian candidate have done better than Johnson? . . . .”

    1. yes

    2. Hell NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not even close. Not even 2% – and that’s being generous.

  36. Anthony Dlugos

    “Ron Paul was a much better candidate than Gary Johnson.”

    One could make an argument that Ron Paul is a better EDUCATOR of libertarian principles than Johnson is. (I’d prefer Ron Paul be the professor teaching “Libertarianism 101.”). So I understand why you think he is a better candidate, but you’re wrong. Governor Johnson is a far better candidate in an election, with a higher ceiling, no doubt about that.

  37. Robert Capozzi

    AJ and L., Aleppo was blown WAY out of proportion by the MSM I believe because GJ has been drawing more from HRC than DJT. He’s a threat who needs to be mocked and destroyed.

    RP1 was only a primary challenger, and therefore no threat.

    While RP1’s revisionist moment on MTP probably didn’t do TOO much damage to the cause of liberty in isolation, when combined with the NewsletterGates, my sense is that the hater association HAS done some damage. In a sense, GJ’s more kinder, gentler style has probably has canceled some of the hater tone that RP1 engendered.

    L, I see CSA apologism as being just as statist as Lincoln apologism. State-sanctioned slavery strikes me as highly statist, don’t you agree?

  38. Andy

    The “Aleppo moment” received more coverage because it was funny. It was great material for comedians.

    Johnson/Weld are NOT a threat to the establishment. Weld is an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which means that he is part of the establishment, and the positions taken by Johnson/Weld are so weak and watered down that they offer no threat to the establishment.

  39. Andy

    Neither Ron Paul or any other libertarian I have ever heard weigh in on the subject has ever said that they support state sanctioned slavery. This is a figment of your imagination.

  40. Robert Capozzi

    A, membership in the CFR is verify different than the perceived electoral math. The Ds and the MSM assume that Ls pull mostly from Rs. As the polls have been showing otherwise, the HRC campaign is spending monet on GJ attacks.

    Yes, Aleppo was also funny for some. The blank look on his face was kinda funny to me, too. One of GJ’s charms, and faults, is his emotional transparency.

    No, I recognize that revisionists are not per se slavery apologists. They are apologists for a constitutional interpretation held by slavers bent on maintaining slavery. For most, that nuance is easily and understandably missed.

  41. Be Rational

    Donald Trump, Gary Johnson Omitted From Alaska’s Informational Voter Guide

    Voters began receiving the pamphlets last week and some quickly noticed they were missing biographical information about Trump and his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R). Libertarians Gary Johnson and Bill Weld also were omitted.

    … neither campaign submitted candidate biographies by the Aug. 30 deadline, according to a note in the pamphlet.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-gary-johnson-alaska_us_58057cfde4b0180a36e60105

    *
    Johnson / Weld – a great team in a year of possiblities, saddled with an incompetent campaign manager.

  42. George Dance

    Matt – “but would it have hurt more than Johnson not knowing what Aleppo is, seeming to not be able to name [favorite] foreign leaders, or sticking out his tongue at a reporter?”

    Strange reasons to not vote for a candidate.

  43. George Dance

    “The “Aleppo moment” received more coverage because it was funny. It was great material for comedians.

    Andy – “Johnson/Weld are NOT a threat to the establishment. Weld is an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which means that he is part of the establishment, and the positions taken by Johnson/Weld are so weak and watered down that they offer no threat to the establishment.”

    Sure, Andy: And I suppose those establishment ties explain why no one in the corporate media said a word about the ‘Aleppo moment’.

  44. Andy

    So what? The media has said ad things about Clinton and Trump as well, but this does not mean they are not establishment, especially Clinton.

  45. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Anthony Dlugos: One could make an argument that Ron Paul is a better EDUCATOR of libertarian principles than Johnson is. … Governor Johnson is a far better candidate

    By being the better educator, Ron Paul IS the better candidate.

    Because no Libertarian candidate will win, or even escape single digits, the primary goal of an LP candidate should be educating the voters. Before Libertarians can expect to win, a sufficient number of Americans must be converted to our principles.

    And no, education cannot be left to the Cato Institute and other such groups. Education must be the LP’s primary mission until enough Americans agree with libertarianism to vote Libertarian.

  46. Fritz Sands

    If a libertarian candidate cannot be expected to escape single digits, the question then becomes whether enough people are willing to contribute the fairly significant resources to adequately support candidates who are running a purely educational endeavor.

    If some libertarian candidates. on the other hand, are planning to escape single digits, or even, well, win, they are going to have a number of positions which do not appeal to purists. However they are likely to be able to attract more resources, since people seem to be willing to spend money on candidates who might actually be able to affect policy.

    Tough choice.

  47. Mark Herd

    Typical yellow journalism by an HRC surrogate. Pathetic. This is the best ticket since Ron Paul in 88′ Wait till the final numbers come in, then feed the author crow! The LP continues to grow, and yes we need to change state bylaws to protect delegate stacking but the bottom line is we are growing faster than ever and about to take a state with some luck. We need to focus on 5% now, not crappy journalists who don’t support our cause. The msm is nasty and so is this yellow journalism, #VoteDifferent #LetGaryDebate #2016BestYear4LP #WinNewMexico #5%Matters #ftheHaters #ftheYellowJournalists https://youtu.be/3P9j4ejwBC4

  48. Anthony Dlugos

    “By being the better educator, Ron Paul IS the better candidate.”

    Nope. 100% incorrect. Ron Paul is the exception that proves the rule. It would be far more accurate…if you are looking at who voters typically put in office…to argue that attempting to be an “educator” is a detriment for trying to get elected. Voters almost exclusively look for what they deem as qualified individual for the office in question.

    Libertarians who take the “its an educational mission” tact, do a nifty little slight of hand where they limit the data set of evidence for that notion to elected Libertarians ONLY. Being that that number is close to zero, it allows the Pontificator Caucus to essentially make up whatever the hell they want as a mission for the party, since there’s no evidence in the data set to refute it.

    Obviously, if we enlarge that set to include ALL elected officials of ANY party, it becomes pretty obvious using a campaign to educate voters is…a recipe for failure, both in winning office AND in educating citizens.

    It takes willful ignorance to look at our near complete lack of success in getting into elected office, see what voters TYPICALLY vote for, then double down on the foolish idea that voters need to be educated when the evidence is crystal clear that that’s not what they want.

    A Libertarian Party that insists elections are a chance to educate voters will end up with two things: no Libertarians being elected, and citizens not getting educated.

    A Libertarian Party that focuses on winning elections and then moving particular political jurisdictions in a libertarian direction will, as a side benefit, educate the voters in real time in the real world how Libertarian solutions work. But this all starts with a single-minded focus on Libertarians winning elections, and ceasing the foolish idea that we can turn political campaigns into classrooms.

    You want to know how we end up with a 35-year old blogger with zero public office experience and no executive experience even remotely comparable in the private sphere stand up in Orlando and with a straight face argue that they are qualified to become chief executive of a 2.7 million employee organization with a $4 trillion annual budget, and furthermore, that the American people are gonna trust him to begin dismantling it…and then manages to convince 20% of our delegates of this absurd notion?

    We wind up in that sad state of affairs because we have far too many members insistent on monstrous idea that elections are classrooms and political offices are educational sinecures, not actual jobs.

  49. langa

    L, I see CSA apologism as being just as statist as Lincoln apologism. State-sanctioned slavery strikes me as highly statist, don’t you agree?

    Ron Paul offered no “apologism” for the CSA. He didn’t say that slavery was right. He didn’t even say that the CSA was right to secede. He merely said that Lincoln was wrong to use military force to stop them from seceding. And no, understanding such “nuance” is not difficult for most people. For example, I think most people would agree that a teenager stealing a candy bar from a convenience store is wrong. However, I think they would also agree that the owner of the store would not be justified in stopping the teen by shooting him in the back as he walked out with the candy bar. Don’t you agree?

  50. langa

    Anthony, of course most politicians who get elected don’t use their campaigns to educate. That’s because virtually all of them are running as Democrats or Republicans, and everyone already knows what those parties stand for (or at least what they claim to stand for), so there’s no need to educate them. And if people already knew what the LP stood for, then there would be no need to educate them about us, either. But they don’t know what we stand for, and therefore, if we want them to vote for us, we have to tell them.

    Even your man Johnson recognizes this, and tries to educate. He just does a piss-poor job of it, with his cliches about being “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” and so forth. But even though he does it poorly, he still does it, because there’s no alternative. Virtually no one (you might be the rare exception) is going to vote for a guy who says, “What do I stand for? Who cares? Vote for me because I used to be Governor of New Mexico. I’ve got governing experience and that’s all you need to know about me.”

  51. robert capozzi

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRx-trdMGtY

    L, this link was RP1 on Morning Joe after his disturbing MTP appearance. Listen to what he says about Spooner and the south.

    Yes, I suspect you are correct about proportional force. Shooting a candy-bar thief in the back seems contra-indicated to most…you are correct.

    However — and this is THE rub that L revisionists just SOMEHOW don’t see to get — the Confederate elites weren’t just stealing a candy bar. They were stealing property and people.

    Recall the “three fifths of all other Persons” in the original Article 1, Section 2. The Slaves were (fractionally) represented, and yet they were NOT allowed to participate in the sham “ordinances of secession,” where many of which the individual CSA states explicitly cited maintaining slavery was a primary reason for seceding.

    Unlike the candy-bar thief, the Confederate Elites fired the first shots, btw. Yes, I know the revisionists like to say that the slavers were provoked, and in a sense they were provoked. And, yet, the truth is: They fired the first shots over property.

    Defending the slavers “right” (power, really) to secede hurts the cause of liberty. Thankfully, GJ hasn’t fallen into that rabbit hole. It may be part of the reason that RP1 doesn’t support him.

    Thankfully, truth prevailed in 06 and the LP doesn’t defend secession any longer. Undoing profound dysfunction can sometimes take an awfully long time!

    L: “What do I stand for? Who cares? Vote for me because I used to be Governor of New Mexico. I’ve got governing experience and that’s all you need to know about me.”

    Me: Facepalm. Oh, really, is THAT all GJ says? I had the impression you were paying at least some attention.

    Watch one of GJ’s rallies and media appearances. He ticks off a range of issues…20% budget cuts, tax simplification, stopping regime change, weed legalization, marriage equality, etc.

    Now, while rhetoric designed for the general public is an art, and there is no accounting for it. Still, I do think that the fiscal con/social lib thing needs a better payoff.

    Throwing this out there: In other words, I am consistently for MORE freedom, economic and personal freedom. The Rs and Ds are one big contradiction…each claiming to advocate more freedoms in some areas, more restrictions in others. And BOTH wanting to fight more wars in which Americans and others die, denying them of the freedom to live in peace.

    Or something.

  52. langa

    L, this link was RP1 on Morning Joe after his disturbing MTP appearance. Listen to what he says about Spooner and the south.

    I listened to the entire interview, and I didn’t hear him say one thing I disagree with. Furthermore, I imagine many people who heard that interview went and read DiLorenzo’s book, and learned quite a bit from it. The only people who were likely turned off by what RP said were people similar to the smug son of a bitch who casually dismissed RP as a “crackpot” — and those people would be offended by any statement of genuine libertarianism, so who needs them, anyway?

    …the Confederate elites weren’t just stealing a candy bar.

    And Lincoln wasn’t just shooting one kid in the back. He was launching the bloodiest war in American history — one that would end up resulting in the deaths of over 750,000 people, virtually none of whom were actual slave owners. And for what? Not to end slavery. That, by his own admission, was not his goal, and if it had been, he could have achieved it peacefully, either by purchasing the slaves and freeing them, or by simply refusing to enforce the fugitive slave laws (which he supported as a Senator). No, this was about making a statement, plain and simple. And that statement was, “The Union is my turf, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to give up even an inch of it without a fight.” How noble of him, right?

    Defending the slavers “right” (power, really) to secede hurts the cause of liberty.

    No, it doesn’t, any more than defending the right of the KKK to spew this racist drivel hurts the cause of liberty. If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times, supporting the existence of a right (be it free speech or secession) in no way implies agreement with the goals that said right may be used to pursue.

    Oh, really, is THAT all GJ says?

    It’s what his supporters say. Whenever anyone here (or anywhere else) points out the dozens of cases where Johnson and Weld have said things that directly contradict the LP platform, or make any criticism of them, the response is always the same: “Yeah, well, they may not be perfect, but we had to nominate them, because they had by far the most impressive credentials and qualifications of all the candidates!”

    In other words, I am consistently for MORE freedom, economic and personal freedom. The Rs and Ds are one big contradiction…each claiming to advocate more freedoms in some areas, more restrictions in others. And BOTH wanting to fight more wars in which Americans and others die, denying them of the freedom to live in peace.

    Finally, something we agree on. I would love to have heard Johnson say more things like this. Instead, I have had to listen to a steady diet of mealy-mouthed centrism. If that’s all the LP wanted, we should have tried to draft someone like John Kasich!

  53. robert capozzi

    L: I didn’t hear him say one thing I disagree with.

    me: Think bigger, I suggest. Do you not see that VERY large percentages of the population don’t buy revisionism? Why get into such a subject in a presidential campaign? What does it gain to poke an historical hornet’s nest?

    L: …statement of genuine libertarianism, so who needs them, anyway?

    me: I don’t see revisionism as “genuine.” I get that you do, but, again, don’t you see that it’s AT LEAST a distraction, and one that alienates most?

    L: And Lincoln wasn’t just shooting one kid in the back. He was launching the bloodiest war in American history….

    me: No, the CSA did.

    L: Not to end slavery. That, by [Lincoln’s] own admission, was not his goal…

    me: Stipulated.

    L: …supporting the existence of a right (be it free speech or secession) in no way implies agreement with the goals that said right may be used to pursue.

    me: Yes, sure. But why associate with haters?

    L: Finally, something we agree on. I would love to have heard Johnson say more things like this.

    ME: Thank you. GJ’s rhetoric could be better, agreed. Thankfully, so far, he’s steered clear of the revisionist rabbit hole.

  54. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Fritz Sands: If some libertarian candidates. on the other hand, are planning to escape single digits…

    If doesn’t matter that they are planning to escape single digits, because they can’t. In which case, it’s best to run an educational campaign.

    For nearly 30 years now, I’ve been listening to Libertarian plans for electoral victories, which are allegedly not all that far off, provided we implement the latest plan.

    I remember those ridiculous LNC junk mailers in the 1990s that promised a Libertarian majority Congress by 2010. Not a Libertarian elected to Congress, but a Libertarian majority in Congress.

    I’ve been listening to Libertarian Lites, and Pragmatarians, and Reformers, and Moderates, and whatever else they called themselves over the decades, expound upon their plans, most of which involved moderating the platform, and running safe, non-scary, establishment-friendly candidates.

    Educational opportunities wasted, and for what? For the same single digits a Purist or Radical would have gotten.

  55. Fritz Sands

    OK — then why go through the bother of setting up as a political party? If your sole goal is education, then that makes as much sense to me as setting up your educational institution as a landscaping contracting company.

  56. George Phillies

    Teeth appears to be quoting the Bergland Strategic plan of ca. 1998 +/- 2.

    The reason that you are a party is that it is the way you get people to listen. Also, sometimes libertarians do win.

    I suggest however that the main problem is not the moderates or purists — that debate is a red herring — but the shiny bauble caucus that keeps giving us Republican rejects as candidates.

  57. George Phillies

    ” And for what? Not to end slavery. That, by his own admission, was not his goal, and if it had been, he could have achieved it peacefully, either by purchasing the slaves and freeing them, or by simply refusing to enforce the fugitive slave laws (which he supported as a Senator).”

    Lincoln did not before the war plan to free the slaves, but presented with the opportunity to do so, he took it. “purchase” is economically ludicrous. As it happens the Fugitive slaves laws had ceased to be enforceable in the northeast, so not enforcing them was not the solution.

    WHen you associate with liars who claim the war of teh slaveholders rebellion was not about slavery, you assoicate with racists, KKK types, and other such sorts. I refer anyone who believes that the war was not about slavery to the remarks of Senator Yancey post civil war on the topic.

  58. George Phillies

    “. He merely said that Lincoln was wrong to use military force to stop them from seceding. ”

    The South attacked the North. Fort Sumter. The southerners were rather proud of their efforts in making the attack.

  59. Andy

    “Fritz Sands
    October 19, 2016 at 08:18
    OK — then why go through the bother of setting up as a political party? If your sole goal is education, then that makes as much sense to me as setting up your educational institution as a landscaping contracting company.”

    Because some offices are outside of the Libertarian Party’s capability of winning, like President, Governor, and US Senate. Since we can’t realistically win these offices (barring big changes before hand, or fluke circumstances which have yet to happen), the primary reasons to run for these offices are to get to get the message out and educate the public, and to retain ballot access in the states where getting a certain percent of the vote for various statewide offices will keep the party on the ballot.

    The offices where Libertarians have a realistic shot at running to win are local offices (city/town or county) and seats in state legislatures.

  60. Anthony Dlugos

    While I agree 100% with Mr. Phillies’ stance on the civil war issue, this idea that qualifications for office are merely “shiny baubles” is quite disturbing and is frankly more appropriate for irrational movements like the Troofers and the anti-vaxx screwballs, with their implicit argument that experts should inherently be distrusted simply because they are experts.

  61. Anthony Dlugos

    “Because some offices are outside of the Libertarian Party’s capability of winning, like President, Governor, and US Senate. Since we can’t realistically win these offices (barring big changes before hand, or fluke circumstances which have yet to happen), the primary reasons to run for these offices are to get to get the message out and educate the public, and to retain ballot access in the states where getting a certain percent of the vote for various statewide offices will keep the party on the ballot.”

    All the SECONDARY reasons listed in this paragraph are more easily accomplished…in the context of an election…by running candidates who have the best chance of winning, REGARDLESS of what those chances are. Reducing those chances to ZERO, by design, according to the “Elections As Educational Missions Caucus makes all that stuff more difficult, not easier, and its because voters are primarily interested in putting what they believe are qualified people into the ACTUAL JOBS they are in effect hiring for.

    The biggest problem we have as a party is the “wasted vote” syndrome, and yet we have people suggesting we should explicitly indicate a vote for our candidates are wasted, because they are merely educational missions.

    Why would any voter care to read up on a candidate, go to their “meet the candidate” forum, donate their time or money, knowing there is zero chance or intention by the candidate to actually win the office…BY DESIGN. It’s crazy.

    Regardless of how little chance I have to win an office, I sure as hell aren’t gonna say that. Why? What possible result could there be but the voters saying, “then why should I give you the time of day?”

  62. George Phillies

    We should allow Mr Dlugos to explain why Bob Barr was a sound choice as our Presidential candidate.

    If we simply want to offer a nice person who would get a lot of votes, we should have nominated Hillary Clinton.

    Lost in Mr Dlugos’s rantings is the detail that the candidate must be seen as representing our party, not the Republican or Democratic Party, and Republican and Democratic rejects are intrinsically bad candidates.

  63. Fritz Sands

    The comparison with Bob Barr is a good one to look at, since both Barr and Johnson have actual political resumes as Republicans and both certainly have positions that are not strictly libertarian.

    To me the difference is that Barr actively promoted for many years and while in power one of the most heinous activities of the current Federal government — the War on Some Drugs. That difference is compelling enough to me.

    Personally, at this point, I am not going to directly contribute more than a token amount at a Libertarian candidate who does not have a plausible chance of winning (in the case of the Presidency and at this time, that would mean actually winning a state for the EC).

    I think there are two threads commingling in this discussion — Gary Johnson’s lapses from libertarian orthodoxy and Gary Johnson’s failures in handling himself well in interviews. The second one is really regrettable. The first? I am not orthodox, so I guess it doesn’t bother me. It probably helps that my differences from libertarian orthodoxy are frequently similar to Gary’s.

    I do look forward to seeing what the LP nomination looks like in four years (I assume Gary will not run again and we don’t have anyone else with a resume), and what contributions and campaign budget look like.

  64. Andy

    Many of us who are involved in the Libertarian Party today got involved because we heard one of our candidates who ran for an office where they stood no realistic chance of winning. I got involved back in 1996 after hearing Libertarian Party candidate for President Harry Browne. I was a political novice back in 1996, but even then I was not naive enough to think that Harry Browne stood a realistic shot at being elected President, but this did not deter my enthusiasm. I also did not give a damn that Harry Browne had not held political office before. If anything, I viewed him not having held office before as a good thing because it meant that he was not a career politician.

  65. Robert Capozzi

    A, yes, candidates like Browne might be ideal for slowly building a radical cadre. Reaching millions of regular folk requires a bigger, more credible megaphone.

  66. Andy

    Ron Paul ran for President in the Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012 on a platform that was more radically libertarian than the platforms of Bob Barr and Gary Johnson, and he brought more people into the libertarian movement than anyone.

    I bet that Harry Browne would have been a lot more successful if he had run under the much easier set of circumstances that Bob Barr and Gary Johnson ran under in 2008 and in 2012, and than the circumstances that Gary Johnson is running under right now.

  67. Chuck Moulton

    To those in the shiny badge caucus who think it doesn’t matter whether our candidate says libertarian things as long as he was elected to a high office before: you said that Johnson is running a serious campaign going for actual electoral votes, so how come in one of the states in which he is polling highest (Alaska) his crazily overpaid conservative Republican consultants decided not to submit voter guide information? Maybe you should have informed Alaskans he was a 2 term governor instead of declining to do that?

    As a counter-factual, I highly doubt any of the other candidates for the nomination would have been that grossly incompetent. But he’s a former governor, so it’s A-OK to not get listed in voter guides? Bonuses all around!!! You get a bonus! You get a bonus! Every incompetent conservative Republican consultant who is overpaid to line their pockets and prevent any actual libertarian positions from being uttered by the candidate gets a bonus!!

  68. Tony From Long Island

    Are we really doing the Lincoln thing again? Really? hold on . . . let me yawn

  69. Tony From Long Island

    GP said ” . . . We should allow Mr Dlugos to explain why Bob Barr was a sound choice as our Presidential candidate. . . . ”

    I sure hope Mr. Dlugos didn’t say that. I tend to often agree with him. On that, though I would not!

    Bob Barr was the worst LP POTUS candidate of the party’s history. His running mate was worse.

    2008 was the only time between 2000 and 2016 that I did not vote for the LP nominee.

  70. Andy

    Odd that Tony would vote for Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik, who hold views that are a lot closer to my views than to Tony’s views, especially given how much Tony hates me.

  71. Robert Capozzi

    For me, one mistake =/= incompetence. In fact, they probably made more than one mistake. My guess is David Axelrod and Karl Rove did, too. That’s the nature of the arena.

    You may well have the most exacting of standards, CM.

  72. Fritz Sands

    As far as Alaska goes — yep, somebody screwed up. Probably someone overpaid through the national campaign. (Although perhaps the state party could have made sure the bio got in to the state ballot one way or another).

    However… I was deeply involved in the WA state party four years ago. When Gary came through for a swing, there were virtually NO resources or coordination from the campaign or national. Nothing. We put on events as well as we were able to with the resources we had locally. I think we did a decent job, but it was all what we were able to do with what we had. Same thing when Jim Gray came through. Very, very amateur hour.

    This year, Johnson and Weld did a swing-through in Seattle. There was national co-ordination. There were resources. Bumper stickers, buttons, tee-shirts, media coordination, planning, large hotel booking. I am SURE much money was also wasted. I am SURE that many opportunities were missed. But the amount of resources from the national campaigns swamped what was available four years ago. There is absolutely no comparison.

  73. Thomas Knapp

    “All the SECONDARY reasons listed in this paragraph are more easily accomplished…in the context of an election…by running candidates who have the best chance of winning, REGARDLESS of what those chances are. Reducing those chances to ZERO, by design”

    Those chances don’t have to be “reduced” to zero. They have always been zero and they are zero this year, full stop.

    We can have a candidate who has no chance whatsoever of winning the presidency but who communicates our party’s message well to build it for future success.

    Or we can have a candidate who has no chance whatsoever of winning the presidency and who is out there running against us and sabotaging any chance we might have had at progress toward victory for years to come.

    This year we decided on the latter strategy for the third election in a row.

    It hasn’t worked yet and it’s not going to suddenly start working for EITHER definition of success.

  74. Thomas Knapp

    “The only other choice we had in 2008 was Gravel.”

    Bullshit.

    Barr’s performance as a percentage of the vote was the fourth best in LP history. Kubby, Ruwart, Phillies or Smith would have probably done better and certainly wouldn’t have done much worse.

  75. George Phillies

    To repeat what I said in a different thread, we can immediately see whether the current campaign success is due to the candidate vita or the worthless nature of the opponents. You see, we ran Johnson last time, with a perfectly credible running mate with a record in public office, and he got 1% or so of the vote. That’s what the vita is worth. 0.5% of the vote. Any increase this year arises from the country’s two greatest libertarian recruiters, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

  76. Anthony Dlugos

    And if anyone thought Barr was bad (and he wasn’t good), well, at the very least we didn’t have to deal with the “legal kiddie porn…” issue.

    Yea, don’t think that one would have worked out too well for us.

  77. Thomas Knapp

    Anthony,

    As I pointed out at the time, yes, one candidate for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination in 2008 supported legal child porn. That candidate was Bob Barr, who publicly called for distribution of child porn on demand by the government of Georgia.

  78. Anthony Dlugos

    Oh, god.

    If we are gonna re-litigate the 2008 Convention, I’m gonna have to break out the scotch again.

  79. Thomas Knapp

    Anthony,

    It’s not a matter of “re-litigation.”

    Bob Barr was the only Libertarian candidate in 2008 to publicly support child porn.

    In November, Barr performed within the Harry Browne/Michael Badnarik voting range, as Ruwart, Kubby or Phillies would likely have as well (I was surprised — I predicted he’d knock down 750k votes).

    Those are just facts. You don’t have to like them. They’ll remain facts no matter how much you “re-litigate” them.

  80. robert capozzi

    gp: we can immediately see whether the current campaign success is due to the candidate vita or the worthless nature of the opponents. You see, we ran Johnson last time, with a perfectly credible running mate with a record in public office, and he got 1% or so of the vote. That’s what the vita is worth. 0.5% of the vote. Any increase this year arises from the country’s two greatest libertarian recruiters, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

    me: Not buying this analysis. In 12, GJ got a late start. In 16, he’d been preparing for as long as 4 years. In 12, his running mate was a state judge. In 16, his running mate is — by some standards — more qualified than GJ.

    Vote totals — esp. single digit vote totals — are mathematically insignificant…1 or 1.5% means nothing in particular. There are other considerations. GJ’s polling numbers have been much higher, and he’s the subject of hard news coverage.

    I do take your general point that weak R and D candidates have allowed far more buzz to arise around GJ. Were the field, say, Pence v. Kaine, GJ would probably not have the traction he’s enjoyed so far.

  81. George Phillies

    ” In 16, he’d been preparing for as long as 4 years.” The available data does not suggest that you are right.

  82. George Phillies

    Oh, yes, Thom Simmons (MA, CD-1) has announced his TV ad campaign launch. Thom s a bit unusual as a libertarian candidate. He previously ran a Congressional campaign. His Republican candidate won. Against an incumbent Democrat. In a district that was 3-1 Democratic.

  83. Andy

    That is complete BS to say that our only choices for the LP presidential nomination in 2008 were Bob Barr and Mike Gravel. We also had Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, Michael Jingozian, George Phillies, Christine Smith, and eventual VP nominee, Wayne Allyn Root.

  84. Anthony Dlugos

    “We also had Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, Michael Jingozian, George Phillies, Christine Smith, and eventual VP nominee, Wayne Allyn Root.”

    As I said, Barr and Gravel were the only choices. lol

  85. George Dance

    Tom Knapp: “In November, Barr performed within the Harry Browne/Michael Badnarik voting range, as Ruwart, Kubby or Phillies would likely have as well.”

    Prior to GJ, only two candidates had broken 500,000 votes: coincidentally, the two condemned by the “libertarian Libertarians” as “sellouts”, “opportunists,” “pragmatists,” et al.

    If Barr hadn’t beaten 500,000, the whole moderate/Reform movement probably would’ve died. But he managed that, in spite of the campaigns to (1) cut off his funding, (2) dump him from the ticket, and (3) run “libertarian Libertarians” against him.

    “(I was surprised — I predicted he’d knock down 750k votes).”

    Didn’t you also predict that’s what GJ will get this year?

  86. George Dance

    Root’s Teeth: ” remember those ridiculous LNC junk mailers in the 1990s that promised a Libertarian majority Congress by 2010. Not a Libertarian elected to Congress, but a Libertarian majority in Congress.”

    Interesting; Not only was that at the time when “libertarian Libertarian” Harry Browne and his machine controlled the national LP, but (as Mr. Phillies reminds us), that ‘Strategic Plan’ to take over Congress was written by “libertarian Libertarian” David Bergland.

    I’ve been listening to Libertarian Lites, and Pragmatarians, and Reformers, and Moderates, and whatever else they called themselves over the decades

    Yet your facts are telling us that, when the “libertarian Libertarians” get power within the party, they do the exact same pie-in-the-sky hyping that they’re always accusing centrist Libertarians of.

  87. George Phillies

    “in spite of the campaigns to (1) cut off his funding, (2) dump him from the ticket, and (3) run “libertarian Libertarians” against him.’

    I’m sorry, which planet was this on?

    The important part of Barr’s funding is how he spent his money, which made Harry Browne’s 2000 campaign look like a model of thrift and efficiency. Barr’s fundraising was at the top end for libertarian Presidential campaigns.

    Were there libertarian libertarians running against Barr? The Boston Tea Party fits the model, but was very limited in its range. Yes, it offered a modest choice in that direction.

    Has there been an effort to remove a Presidential candidate from the ballot, an LNC vote? There was one in 1992. There was one this year.

    Barr’s vote totals came to 0.4% of the vote, not awful but not outstanding. The claim that half a million was generally recognized at the time as a significant number is a fabrication.

  88. George Phillies

    Browne was certainly not a radical, He had a radical as an opponent in 1996, and an elected libertarian as an opponent in 2000.

  89. Anthony Dlugos

    After this election, the top 4 LP presidential vote-getting tickets. in order, will be:

    1. Johnson-Weld 2016…even WORSE pragmatic sellout ticket.
    2. Johnson-Grey 2012…pragmatic sellout ticket
    3. Clark-Koch 1980…”low-tax liberalism” + CATO
    4. Barr-Root 2008…worst ticket ever.

    All four with better results than Ron Paul.

    I’m noticing a trend. lol

  90. Andy

    I would say that Harry Browne was pretty radical. He advocated abolishing all government agencies and activities that were not specifically authorized by the US Constitution, and he pointed in the direction of anarcho-capitalism by saying that after we cut government down to only what was authorized by the Constitution that we take up a voluntary collection to rent out a large arena to discuss how much further we could go in cutting government.

  91. Andy

    Percent of the vote is more important than number of votes. Harry Browne/Jo Jorgensen and Ron Paul/Andre Marrou received higher percentages of the vote than Bob Barr/Wayne Root.

  92. Anthony Dlugos

    “Percent of the vote is more important than number of votes.”

    haha, I know you’d like to think that, but not at these low percentages.

  93. Andy

    How was Bob Barr’s vote total any more impressive than his vote percentage? It wasn’t.

    The population of the country has increased quite a bit since Ron Paul ran in 1988 and since Harry Browne ran in 1996. This needs to be taken into account when doing comparisons.

  94. Andy

    How do you think that Gary Johnson would be doing now if Donald Trump had run as an independent, or if Bernie Sanders had run as the Green Party candidate, or if both of them had gotten in the race?

    This is like what Harry Browne had to contend with going up against Ross Perot and Ralph Nader.

  95. Fritz Sands

    In terms of vote percentage, Clark/Koch beat Johnson/Gray (barely). Presumably Johnson/Weld will massively overwhelm both.

  96. George Phillies

    Anthony, are you proposing Paul is a radical? Really?

    CATO 1980 is not like CATO 2016.

  97. Andy

    “George Phillies
    October 19, 2016 at 22:58
    Anthony, are you proposing Paul is a radical? Really?”

    I suppose that there could be different interpretations of what makes one a radical, but by my definition, yes, I’d say that Ron Paul was a radical. His platform proposals when running for office were not as radical as the platform of Darryl W. Perry, or the platform of possible 2020 candidate for the LP’s presidential nomination, Adam Kokesh, but even so, Ron Paul did call for massive cuts in government as a candidate.

    I long suspected that Ron Paul was a closet anarcho-capitalist at heart, and I had heard rumors to support this, and since retiring from electoral politics, Ron Paul has come “out of the closet” (so to speak) as supporting anarcho-capitalism / voluntaryism.

  98. wolfefan

    Hi Dr. Phillies – is the amount of money available to Johnson/Weld vs. Johnson/Gray a variable that needs to be accounted for, or is it solely a function of the unpopularity of the two major candidates?

  99. robert capozzi

    gp:The available data does not suggest that you are right.

    me: Please clarify.

    Please note I said “as long as.” When I first wrote the comment, I just said “4 years.” I changed it because — despite the fact that I support GJ and that he has demonstrated a high level of perseverance in other aspects of his life — I don’t get the sense that GJ was well prepared for this run. He’s stumbled on things that he should not stumble on…starting with the burqa ban. I don’t think he had a true Svengali, and — ideally — he would have gotten one early on to hone his message and presentation.

  100. Tony From Long Island

    Andrew said ” . . . . Odd that Tony would vote for Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik, who hold views that are a lot closer to my views than to Tony’s views, especially given how much Tony hates me. . . . ”

    Hate is such a strong word. Despise might be more on track . . .

    I’ve stated several times that I have evolved politically, though I still hold some libertarian positions. Tony of 2016 would not have made those votes, but I don’t regret them. The fact that I didnt’ vote for Browne in 1996 indicates that I was torn. I really did try the whole “purist”thing until I finally concluded that it wasn’t practical and wouldn’t work. Thankfully I escaped the cult before really becoming a member. I’ll take an Arizona fruit punch over Kool-Ade

  101. Tony From Long Island

    Anthony, percentage of the vote is the only number that matters in the end (other than electoral votes obviously)

    Considering only raw vote numbers is as ridiculous as Generalissimo Trump bragging about getting the most votes in Republican Primary history. The population is a bit larger than it was during the 1960 Nixon campaign and the 1980 Reagan campaign.

  102. George Phillies

    Candidate accepting vote…The moderator of the faux debate last night is apparently unaware of the Tilden-Hayes election, the 2000 outcome some week or another, or how John Quincy Adams became President. Then there was 1860, in which a good part of the country completely and totally rejected the election outcome.

  103. Tony From Long Island

    George, that is a good point, but I’m sure the vote collecting process was just a tad bit slower during the Hayes / TIlden election of 1876.

    The 2000 election was not about rejecting the outcome. It was about waiting to see what the outcome actually was (or wasn’t . . . ). Despite how it turned out Gore peacefully conceded the election.

    If you are using 1860 as an example, are you insinuating that there should be a civil war when Hillary wins?

  104. Anthony Dlugos

    RC: “percentages make sense to me. Tenths of percentages…not so much.”

    Exactly. Using a percentage when those percentages are tiny is an obvious way to minimize what is a pretty clear indication of which “3rd party” candidate is more acceptable to the general public.

  105. robert capozzi

    AD, the same can be said of using absolute numbers, too, though. Even with a reasonably good ticket vs. really bad ones, achieving 5% will likely be extremely challenging.

    Personally, I’d like to see the LP completely de-fringify, and probably try to focus on winning a congressional seat first. It needs to do a LOT of work to build credibility, which is nearly impossible with all the crazy talk in the Platform and SoP, for it provides a strong case for the deontological NAPsters to undermine the much-broader lessarchist movement. A shaky foundation makes it tough for even a J/W ticket to operate in the real world.

  106. George Dance

    [George Dance] – ““in spite of the campaigns to (1) cut off his funding, (2) dump him from the ticket, and (3) run “libertarian Libertarians” against him.’

    George Phillies – I’m sorry, which planet was this on?

    I take it, then, that none of those phenomena made it into your history of the 2008 campaign. Will any of them make it into your history of the 2016 campaign?

    “The important part of Barr’s funding is how he spent his money, which made Harry Browne’s 2000 campaign look like a model of thrift and efficiency. Barr’s fundraising was at the top end for libertarian Presidential campaigns.”

    The Barr campaign raised over $1 million, less than 2 – “within the Harry Browne/Michael Badnarik range,” as Tom would say; and even on the “high end,” as you say, despite articles and letters like this:

    “Don’t waste any time or money supporting a campaign that avoids the “L” word, has demonstrated its incompetence time and again, and goes out of its way to insult friends and allies.
    “By all means, vote for Bob Barr in November. I plan to, and I urge every Libertarian to do likewise…. But do not, under any circumstances, send any money to the Barr ’08 campaign. Most of the money will be wasted, and the rest will be spent muddying the waters about what genuine libertarianism is all about.” (David Nolan, Sept. 11, 2008)

    Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

    “Were there libertarian libertarians running against Barr? The Boston Tea Party fits the model, but was very limited in its range. Yes, it offered a modest choice in that direction.”

    I never made any claims about the effectiveness of the campaigns against the ticket, only that such existed.

    BTP wasn’t the only such effort, BTW. Don’t forget New Hampshire, where the state LP refused to put Barr on its ticket and ran the placeholder instead , causing national to have to repetition the state to put Barr on as an independent (at the expense of ballot access in Connecticut). I’d be surprised if you’d actually have forgotten that one.

    “Has there been an effort to remove a Presidential candidate from the ballot, an LNC vote? There was one in 1992. There was one this year.

    And there was one in 2008, though it mostly consisted of online petitions and (like this year’s) did not make it to the LNC.

    “Barr’s vote totals came to 0.4% of the vote, not awful but not outstanding. The claim that half a million was generally recognized at the time as a significant number is a fabrication.”

    I never claimed that everyone – campaign supporters and opponents alike – saw that 500k total as impressive. Of course the ticket’s opponents did their best to frame the campaign as a failure, just as they did for the 2012 and (see original article ) are doing for the 2016 one.

  107. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m glad Wallace asked the question about accepting the voting result, and Trump answered appropriately. He put Hillary and the rest of the the poll workers on notice that he’d be watching.

    The faux outrage is hilarious! You can’t make this stuff up.

    (I fully expect that Hillary will cheat to win, as she has already done by getting the media to support her, and only her. I don’t think she’d win on her own.)

  108. George Phillies

    “BTP wasn’t the only such effort, BTW. Don’t forget New Hampshire, where the state LP refused to put Barr on its ticket and ran the placeholder instead , causing national to have to repetition the state to put Barr on as an independent (at the expense of ballot access in Connecticut). I’d be surprised if you’d actually have forgotten that on”

    New Hampshire election law does not work that way. They do not have placeholders, as was made clear by the LPNH to everyone well in advance. Whoever they put on the ballot had to be on the nominating papers from the beginning. In fact, the national party sued to removed the LPNH candidate from the ballot, and spent money putting Barr on the ballot in NH, rather than prioritizing putting Barr on the ballot in states where elsewise no Libertarian would be on the ballot.

    “And there was one in 2008, though it mostly consisted of online petitions and (like this year’s) did not make it to the LNC.”

    As you are obviously unaware, at its very first meeting of the current term the LNC voted on a motion to remove the Presidential candidate. The motion was voted down.

  109. Fritz Sands

    Instead of hashing over minutia of elections past, can we just all agree that there was been no progress in libertarian voting for president between 1980 and 2012? I think we can move the discussion on from there rather than rehashing (shudder) Bob Barr.

    It is possible that that does not matter. Or at least that increasing the libertarian vote for president should not be a funding priority. (I do assume that the “educational” people do want to fund ballot access for the LP presidential nominee, so the LP candidate does not utterly disappear from sight.)

    Or maybe it is important to show an arc of some progress.

  110. Tony From Long Island

    Jill why exactly do you have to cheat to win (if you can even do that) when you will win overwhelmingly?

    There is no voter fraud. Let me say it clearer. Voter fraud is virtually non-existent.

    Where I work, the customers are mostly Trump Cult Followers. Even they are having a hard time dealing with last night.

  111. George Phillies

    “Jill why exactly do you have to cheat to win (if you can even do that) when you will win overwhelmingly?”

    OK, so why did Nixon send the plumbers to Watergate?

    In the case at hand, private polling might match the LA times polling. Paranoia comes to mind as a reason.

    Voter fraud is sometimes decidedly extant, as witness how LBJ was first elected to the senate.

    “increasing the vote total” and “education” are two wrong themes for the PResidential campaign. It’s in my book Stand Up for Liberty!

  112. George Dance

    Phillies – “New Hampshire election law does not work that way. They do not have placeholders, as was made clear by the LPNH to everyone well in advance. Whoever they put on the ballot had to be on the nominating papers from the beginning.”

    The New Hampshire SoS has allowed ballot substitution in the past. ” New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, who has been in office almost 30 years, permitted John B. Anderson to substitute a new candidate for vice-president in 1980 (Anderson had listed Milton Eisenhower on the petition for vice-president, but the actual v-p candidate, chosen too late to be on the petition, was former Wisconsin Governor Patrick Lucey).” (Ballot Access News, 2007)

    “As you are obviously unaware, at its very first meeting of the current term the LNC voted on a motion to remove the Presidential candidate.”

    True; I was aware only of the September resolution (which wasn’t brought before the LNC. If you have a cite for the earlier one, I’d be interested in seeing it.

    Even though that’s a side issue from what we’re debating; whether there was a similar motion to have Barr removed as the candidate in 2008. I have found a cite for that, though (still) no indication that it came before the LNC:

    https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Plans_set_in_motion_for_the_removal_of_Bob_Barr_as_the_Libertarian_Party%27s_U.S._presidential_nominee

  113. Tony From Long Island

    Mr. Philiies, LBJ was elected to the senate in (I think 1948) – not 2016. There is no voter fraud.

    The LA Times poll is a completely outlier. It’s methodology is a joke. They use the SAME EXACT voters for each of their daily polls.

    CNN doesn’t even include it because it doesn’t meet their criteria. 538 doesn’t even score it – it gets below an “”F” on their scale.

    So why did Nixon send the plumbers? We could talk about that for months and years. Nixon is not Clinton. The candidate closer to Nixon in terms of mental health is Mr. Trump.

    If on November 9th, the results are even remotely close, please please point and laugh at me.

    My prediction:

    Clinton 49
    Trump 41 (I’m being generous)
    Johnson 7
    Stein 3
    McMuffin 1

  114. George Phillies

    The claim was that there is no voter fraud. There is. You claim that there is no voter fraud is simply wrong.

    Whether the fraud matters is another question.

    The question is why you would perform illegal acts to win, if you were already winning by a landslide. That was a rhetorical question, leading stupid people to conclude that you of course wouldn’t. History proves that the conclusion is wrong.

    My point, which went over your head, is that Clinton’s private polling might show she had issues. The large issue,which is still there is that close to 20% of the voters either are undecided or are supporting a third party candidate, and 70% of the latter say they could change their minds. Also, as Nate Silver repeatedly points out, a lot of Clinton’s lead is appearing in places that will not change the outcome, like giant leads in CA and MA (she’d win anyhow) and a strong result in Mississippi (she’ll lose anyhow).

  115. Tony from Long Island

    My earlier statement was that “voter fraud is VIRTUALLY non-existent,” which is true. You can keep claiming that there is, but you’d be as wrong as Trump – and really, who wants to be on the same side as that guy?

    Of course She will win NY, CA, IL, the usual suspects, but she will have more electoral votes that President Obama did in 2008, and that victory was by a pretty wide margin.

    What illegal acts? There are none. The Republicans have a historically bad candidate. Almost any of the other hacks on those primary debate stage would have beaten Mrs. Clinton. They chose the worst of maybe all time. No one to blame buy themselves. Not only will they lose the election, but he has now associated the fringe Alt-right with the republican party and fomented paranoia.

    It would be as if Daryl Perry all of a sudden represented the LP as a whole. Disastrous.

  116. George Dance

    Fritz Sands “Instead of hashing over minutia of elections past, can we just all agree that there was been no progress in libertarian voting for president between 1980 and 2012?”

    No. First of all, because the 1980 campaign was an anomaly because of its large fundraising budget, which was mainly the result of contributions from one person (David Koch). If you’re going to use a baseline year, it would be better to use 1984. In fact, the LP vote for president was 5.5 times higher in 2012 than in 1984.

    Second, the historical record is the only evidence the party has for what works and what doesn’t. It’s only by quantifying the results of campaigns (vote totals being only one variable) that the debate on what type of campaign to run will be motivated by hard data, rather than (as it is now) by personal hunches and prejudices.

    “I think we can move the discussion on from there rather than rehashing (shudder) Bob Barr.”

    I wasn’t talking about Barr — I’ve said more than enough about him in the past — but about the existence of campaigns by Libertarian Party members against the presidential ticket (first of Barr/Root, then of Johnson/Weld). It’s an open question how significant those campaigns were, but before moving to that it’s necessary to acknowledge their existence.

  117. Tony From Long Island

    Oh yeah, the “liberal media” that doesn’t exist.

    Check Rasmussen’s track record. Check how their polling compares to almost every other poll (except the ridiculous LA Times Poll). I guess the polling firms (whose accuracy their income depends) is all liberally biased too, right?

    Cherry-pick poll numbers all you want. You will end up as smart as the Bush Administration cherry picking its Iraq data.

    I stand by prediction, which is actually on the conservative side.

  118. Thomas Knapp

    William,

    A poll lead “nationwide” tells us precisely nothing about who’s in the lead to actually win the election.

    Fritz,

    You write:

    “Or maybe it is important to show an arc of some progress.”

    Define “progress.”

    Ed Clark 1980 and Gary Johnson 2012 got twice to two-and-a-half-times as many votes as other recent LP tickets.

    Ed Clark 1980 and Gary Johnson’s results were completely insignificant as a percentage of the vote. Harry Browne’s 2000 campaign had a far greater impact on the actual outcome — he arguably cost George W. Bush the electoral votes of New Jersey, and also kept Al Gore in contention in Florida.

    The idea that the LP is going to creep up on winning the presidency by adding a percentage point or two ever four years until we’ve got a plurality is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. Shifts of that type, when they happen, happen suddenly.

    The LP is not going to go from 0.5% to 1.2% to 5% to 7% to 10% to 12%, etc. It’s going to go from low single digits to plurality over a period of one or two election cycles, or it’s not going to go from low single digits to plurality at all.

    There are two types of factors that affect whether or not that happens.

    One type is completely out of the control of the LP. We don’t get to decide when the economy is going to take a giant shit, or when the major parties are going to run Clinton and Trump, or anything like that. Those events affect our prospects, but we don’t affect those events.

    The other type of factor is PERSUADING PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE THE BEST IDEAS FOR DEALING WITH THE ISSUES THEY CARE ABOUT. What ideas are those? The ones we agree on. How do we know we agree on them? Every two years the people already in the party send representatives to a national convention to codify those ideas as a platform. And day after day, people join and become active in the party because they agree with that platform.

    A presidential campaign that doesn’t promote the platform is, at the very outside best, a wash, no matter how many votes the candidate gets. And more likely it is a step or two backward in terms of “progress.” What it is not and cannot be IS “progress.”

  119. William Saturn

    “Cherry-pick poll numbers all you want”

    I listed all the national polls released today on RCP (thus far). Not sure how that’s “cherry-picking.” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/

    “Oh yeah, the ‘liberal media’ that doesn’t exist.”

    Go ahead and ignore the fact that 96% of journalists who gave money, gave it to Hillary.

    “A poll lead ‘nationwide’ tells us precisely nothing about who’s in the lead to actually win the election.”

    I never said it did. Sure, Hillary could win the election and lose the popular vote, but would that constitute a landslide?

  120. Tony From Long Island

    Billy Sats: ” . . . “Oh yeah, the ‘liberal media’ that doesn’t exist.” . . . . Go ahead and ignore the fact that 96% of journalists who gave money, gave it to Hillary. . . . ”

    Should have been 100%. Most who supported Trump will look back with embarrassment down the line .

    You say “96% of journalists WHO GAVE. . . ” really meaningless stat. Let’s say there are 10,000 journalists in the USA. Of those 100 gave money to a candidate – 96 of whom gave to Hillary. So, what does that tell us? Do the math for me . . I hate math (except when it comes to the margin of victory on November 8th).

    You cited a Rasmussen Poll, as well as a clearly methologically challenged LA Times Poll. That’s cherry picking.

    DISCLAIMER: I am still voting for Gov. Johnson

  121. William Saturn

    The LA Times poll was actually the most accurate in 2012 using the same methodology. You can write it off, but all that shows is cherry-picking on your part.

  122. Jill Pyeatt

    Tony said: There is no voter fraud. Let me say it clearer. Voter fraud is virtually non-existent.

    Hahahahaha!!! That’s a good one! That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all week!!!

  123. Tony From Long Island

    Jill, if reality is humor, then I am glad you are having a good day!

    Sorry if you want to remain a typical libertarian skeptic, but sometimes there’s no there there.

  124. Tony From Long Island

    Billy Sats . . . you seem to misunderstand the actual definition of cherry picking.

    If you want to say that the LA Times poll is correct but all the others are wrong, you are the one doing the cherry picking – even if in the end the LA Times is the only right one. That won’t be the case, however.

    It was so accurate that no major news organization considers it legitimate. A clock is right twice a day my friend

  125. robert capozzi

    tk: How do we know we agree on [the platform]? Every two years the people already in the party send representatives to a national convention to codify those ideas as a platform.

    me: I guess for me the word “agree” means something different, then. It’s more like the agreement to let the crazy Uncle Murray live in the attic “because he’s family” even though the family would LOVE to hear that Murray has found a halfway house to live in.

    Changing the platform is SUCH a time sink that few have the energy to engage in the cause, noble as it might be.

    As I understand it, “representatives” also feels incomplete. It’s more like “people who have enough money to afford the flight and hotel.” Just how “representative” the representatives are in any particular convention is an open question.

  126. Thomas Knapp

    Jill,

    Tony is absolutely right. Voter fraud is virtually non-existent.

    Note the “r” at the end of the word.

    There’s certainly vote fraud. But almost none of it is voteR fraud — because voteR fraud is the most difficult, inefficient and likely to be detected form of vote fraud.

    In order to perpetrate voteR fraud, I would have to get a bunch of people together to run around to different polling places with different IDs to vote under different names without any of them getting caught.

    I don’t know if I’ve ever heard of any large-scale cases of voteR fraud since I’ve been an adult and at all involved in politics. The cases that get discovered are things like US Representative Todd Akin (my opponent in the 2008 election and later of “legitimate rape” fame in his US Senate run) deciding that even though he has moved, he might as well just continue voting at his old polling place instead of letting the county clerk know his new address.

  127. Tony From Long Island

    Time for me to get ready to leave work . . just remember, I am not some blind Hillary mark. I didn’t vote for her in the primary.

    I just am disgusted by Trump. He’s a know-nothing national embarrassment. He spoon feeds his salivating ingnorant (NOT ALL) followers with meaningless repetitive drivel and drives them into a frenzy while saying nothing. He is laughed at around the world (I have friends in several countries). He must be repudiated “bigly.”

    Have a good night all.

  128. William Saturn

    “If you want to say that the LA Times poll is correct but all the others are wrong, you are the one doing the cherry picking”

    Never said that. In fact, I listed all the polls released today. You singled this one out as being wrong because the media you’ve been brainwashed by tells you so. You are the cherry-picker.

  129. Andy

    I wonder if Tony is finishing up a “hard days work” at one of those government internet troll centers.

  130. wolfefan

    The 1860 example that Dr. Phillies cites is not appropriate. The south did not contend that Lincoln was not the legitimately elected President; they just didn’t like the outcome. They made no claim that, say, Breckenridge had been cheated.

  131. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt
    October 20, 2016 at 16:25
    ‘I wonder if Tony is finishing up a ‘hard days work’ at one of those government internet troll centers.’

    I have wondered the same thing.”

    Jill, is Tony posting from an IP anonymizer?

  132. Andy

    “William Saturn
    October 20, 2016 at 17:43
    I can tell you he is not.”

    Does anyone in the Libertarian Party know Tony from Long Island? His posts don’t sound genuine to me, but then again, maybe I am giving him too much credit.

  133. Anthony Dlugos

    George Dance says:

    “Second, the historical record is the only evidence the party has for what works and what doesn’t. It’s only by quantifying the results of campaigns (vote totals being only one variable) that the debate on what type of campaign to run will be motivated by hard data, rather than (as it is now) by personal hunches and prejudices.”

    Bingo. Literally could not have said it better myself.

  134. Anthony Dlugos

    Thomas says,

    “The idea that the LP is going to creep up on winning the presidency by adding a percentage point or two ever four years until we’ve got a plurality is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. Shifts of that type, when they happen, happen suddenly.

    The LP is not going to go from 0.5% to 1.2% to 5% to 7% to 10% to 12%, etc. It’s going to go from low single digits to plurality over a period of one or two election cycles, or it’s not going to go from low single digits to plurality at all.”

    Dear god, the apocalpyse is upon us, I am in 100% agreement with the man.

  135. Be Rational

    Predictions: (as of today – any major new scandal or new stupidity could, of course, require revisions):

    Tony’s prediction:

    Clinton 49%
    Trump 41%
    Johnson 7%
    Stein 3%
    McMuffin 1%

    BR’s prediction:

    Clinton 52%
    Trump 38%
    Johnson 6%
    Stein 2.5%
    McMuffin 0.4%
    Other 1.1%

  136. George Phillies

    “In order to perpetrate voteR fraud, I would have to get a bunch of people together to run around to different polling places with different IDs to vote under different names without any of them getting caught.”

    No, you would need to go to the polling place after it was closed, sign the names of 200 voters who did not appear, in alphabetical order in green ink, and place their ballots in the ballot box.

    Alternatively, you would need to go to voting machine before the polls opened, spin the dials to give your candidates extra votes, paste zeros over the dials so anyone checking would see nothing amiss, and at the end of the dat sweep the floor where your pasted labels fell.

    Alternatively, you would need to visit the touchscreen company, insert self-erasing hackware into their software before it is inserted into the voting machine, and walk away.

    Paragraphs 1 and 2 are Texas and Chicago. paragraph 3 is still possible in two states. Alas, these states are ones where the outcome is in doubt.

  137. robert capozzi

    tk, I see you are back to predicting a DJT win. I see to recall you were doubting that outcome a week or 2 ago. Why do you think he will win, reasonably handily so?

  138. Jill Pyeatt

    Even with the cheating processes in place (George’s comment explains some of the processes), I think it’s unlikely Hillary will have an easy win. Even in CA, people HATE her. I honestly think I’ve only seen one Hillary bumper sticker, and I don’t believe I’ve seen any yard signs. Wikileaks is going to continue to release damaging information about her, and many people are paying attention to them (I wish people here would). Notice she doesn’t even deny that they’re true?

  139. Thomas Knapp

    “No, you would need to go to the polling place after it was closed, sign the names of 200 voters who did not appear, in alphabetical order in green ink, and place their ballots in the ballot box.”

    That’s vote fraud (making up fake votes), not voteR fraud (making up fake voteRs or impersonating real ones).

    Which was the whole point.

  140. Anthony Dlugos

    Johnson and McMullin’s chances are infinitesimally small, so I doubt there is any way to quantify it with certainty, but I’d rate Johnson’s chances as a tad bit higher since he is on the ballot in 50 states rather than 11.

  141. Anthony Dlugos

    McMullin has no chance. No one on the ballot on 11 states and unlikely to get more than half a million votes total has ANY chance of getting elected through the cockamamie “Thrown to the US House” Scenario. Its brain dead dumb to think the House would vote for anyone other than the Democrat or the Republican in that case. They cannot turn the Presidency over to someone with 500,000 votes when Hillary and Trump will have over 50,000,000 each.

    As small as Johnson’s chances are, at least he has the chance the LP is able to release a nanobot infestation into the air and turn enough people into Libertarians, who would then go into the ballot booth and vote Johnson Weld. That has a better chance of happening than McMuffin becoming president, with or without Utah.

  142. Anthony Dlugos

    I don’t agree and never agreed with that idea of winning through the House being possible. I understand campaigns need to raise money, and you do that by figuring out creative ways to say “we gonna win,” but I knew it wasn’t realistic.

    Although, even in the scenario you suggest, its probably marginally more realistic that Johnson could pull it off than McMuffin. If only because he’ll have more total votes and the ticket is a pair of ex-governors, lending legitimacy to the decision. Still a 100,000,000 to 1 shot.

    The way to win is via the traditional method of 270 EV.

Leave a Reply

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