During the “unofficial” debate tonight, long-shot presidential candidate Jim Burns announced his willingness to run as the vice-presidential nominee, should he not win the presidential nomination. Burns described himself as a “dark horse,” and asked the crowd for their presidential and vice-presidential “tokens” during his closing remarks. Each candidate must collect a number of tokens in order to participate in the nominating speeches and “official” debate Saturday. It is not clear to many what those numbers are.
After the debate, Mr. Burns articulated the strategy he’d pursue as the nominee, and offered that any of the other candidates “would just run the same kind of campaign we’ve been running, and get the same results.” Mr. Burns’s strategy involves targeting voters in swing states in order to have an impact on the outcome of elections. He theorizes that if the LP causes Republicans to win elections, Republican donors will give to the LP. The plan would apply equally well to Democrats, Burns says.
Burns has been a Libertarian since 1973. In 1978, he finished second in a three-way state-legislative race — beating a Republican. This is the only time a Libertarian outside of Alaska has finished second or better in a state-legislative race including both Democratic and Republican candidates.
Exactly. But it would probably kill Phillies, etc.
Well, Burns has no support to undercut, so he’s okay.
As soon as you agree to start taking VP tokens as a back-up, it totally undercuts your Presidential campaign.
Maybe the rules will be changed or suspended to allow Presidential candidates to be considered. Or, the candidates could recruit placeholders who could collect the VP tokens. And then use their time to urge a vote for a failed Presidential candidate?
Just thinking outloud.
I was surprised that Burns was the only candidate who has left the door open to a VP run (I asked Christine Smith about this point-blank and she said absolutely no way). From talking with people, I get the sense that the number of unpledged delegate tokens for the Presidential race is dwindling… but most delegates are still holding on to their VP tokens at this point (there’s lots of confusion about whether Presidential candidates need VP tokens or can “drop down” on their own if they don’t get enough Presidential support).
As the deadline for tokens gets closer, I’m still waiting for some candidates to reverse themselves and open the door for taking VP tokens… although this morning will be the the time to shit or get off the pot (no pun intended, Kubby fans!) if anyone wants to woo those.
Seems like running a safe states strategy makes more sense… it’s easier to win over voters who aren’t so pressured by the “wasted vote” syndrome.
Winning more votes leads to people taking you more seriously for next time around.
The swing states idea was tried and 100% failed. Badnarik pushed to tip a couple of states from Bush to Kerry in 2004… including Wisconsin and New Mexico. Bush won New Mexico anyway and Kerry won Wisconsin by several times over the number of votes for Badnarik. And in fact, despite pouring major dollars into both states… Badnarik polled a bit worse in those states than he did on a national average.
Besides, being a so-called “spoiler” did very little for Ralph Nader except make a lot of Democrats extremely hostile to him and third parties in general.
I will bring that up to Burns. Burns thinks his strategy is revolutionary. It has to do with direct mail. It’s a dinosaur of a strategy, imo. He said Mary Ruwart would run a campaign just like every other nominee ever. Um, hello? Anyone care to point out a very obvious difference here?
The swing states strategy was tried heavily by Badnarik in 2004 and it completely bombed.