Kn@ppster: Handicapping the LNC chair election

Posted by Tom Knapp at Kn@ppster:

General Predictions:

– The final ballot will be Wayne Allyn Root vs. ???

– On all ballots prior to that final ballot, Root will place first among all contenders.

– If Root isn’t within a short distance of a majority (40-45% minimum) on the first ballot, he won’t win. He commands a plurality for first choice, but is hardly anyone’s second or even third choice. For the most part, either you’re for Root or you’re for Anyone But Root (including None of the Above). As candidates are eliminated from the running, his gains will be small. He may even lose some votes as one or more of his remaining opponents start to look like viable choices instead of long shots.

– Of course, there’s a chance that he’ll manage a majority on the first ballot, which will make it the last ballot, too.

My guess is that either Root will win a surprise first-ballot majority, or that it it will go to four or more ballots, and that Myers will be eliminated on the first ballot and Hancock on the second.

First Ballot

Root: ~40%
Phillies: ~20%
Hancock: ~20%
Hinkle: ~12%
Myers: ~8%

Second Ballot

Root: ~41%
Phillies: ~21%
Hinkle: ~20%
Hancock: ~18%

Third Ballot

Root: ~44%
Phillies and Hinkle: ??%
NOTA: ~5%

What happens next depends on whether Hancock’s non-NOTA voters go to Phillies or Hinkle. My guess is Phillies, but it’s nothing like a sure thing.

If Hinkle manages to get it down to Hinkle v. Root, Hinkle will ride the “emerging consensus wave” all the way to a fourth-ballot majority.

If Phillies manages to get it down to Phillies v. Root, we may go several ballots with a stubborn NOTA vote keeping either from winning a majority. When that deadlock breaks, I don’t think it will break to Root’s benefit.

As always, take my predictions with a grain of salt. When I’m on, I’m usually dead on. When I’m not, I’m usually so far off it’s silly.

92 thoughts on “Kn@ppster: Handicapping the LNC chair election

  1. AroundtheblockAFT

    If you ain’t the first choice of at least 50% of the delegates, then you may have a thankless job as Chair as it is most likely the majority of NatCom wasn’t for you either. Maybe it’s best to vote NOTA and let NatCom choose their chair?

  2. LP watcher

    Bump up Root % by 4% higher in each round.
    Move Phillies and Hancock to bottom and move Meyers up with Hinkle.
    Final between Hinkle and Root.

    Unless Root wins in first round. If he does, he gets about 53%

  3. Brian Holtz

    It all depends on the debate performance. If no major (dis)advantage develops there, then I would predict:

    * Root has 50% chance of a first-ballot win.
    * Phillies and Myers are eliminated in the first two rounds.
    * If the “final” round is Root vs. Hancock, Root eliminates Hancock but needs a final vote against NOTA to secure a majority.
    * If the final round is Root vs. Hinkle, Hinkle is more likely to win than Root.
    * Hancock will not throw his support to a more electable candidate, because he wants a Root vs. Hancock referendum.

  4. Trent Hill

    Paulie–thanks for the posting man. Between you and I we’ve posted 22 stories today (Oddly enough, I turn 22 today).

    My prediction is either that Root narrowly misses the win in the first round, scoring 40-45% or so, a clear plurality. In the subsequent rounds he remains at that number while Myers, then Phillies, then Hancock, are eliminated–all of whom throw their support to Hinkle.

  5. Robert Milnes

    I want the radicals to win. I believe that is the Phillies slate. I KNOW it is NOT Root. Hancock 2nd choice. Definitely reelect Mary.
    Please everybody, do NOT elect Root. Might as well shoot yourselves in the foot & turn over everything to the GOP.

  6. paulie Post author

    Trent,

    Happy birthday!

    I hope that prediction turns out to be correct. However, I have a hard time seeing Hancock doing that…but stranger things have happened.

  7. paulie Post author

    So, Milnes, what are your predictions?

    Trent

    thanks for the posting man. Between you and I we’ve posted 22 stories today

    We now have 306 so far in May, more than any other time except September-December 2008, and the month is not over yet.

  8. Matt Cholko

    Yeah, I find myself coming to IPR often, as there is much to see. Keep up the good work.

  9. Doug Craig

    Root
    hinkle
    Phillies
    John Jay
    hancock

    root
    hinkle Hinkle getting more and root getting less
    Phillies
    jonhJay

    Phillies and JohnJay Drop out and support Hinkle

    Hinkle wins

  10. Andrew

    Should his conscience be your guide? (Review of Wayne Allyn Root’s book by Mary Ruwart)

    Ernest Hancock vs. Wayne Allyn Root – LNC Chair Debate – Michigan

    http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/069271-2010-05-23-ernest-hancock-v-wayne-allyn-root-lnc-chair-debate-michigan.htm

    December 2009 at the FreedomSummit Judge John Buttrick shares his opinion about the National Libertarian Party’s future.

    and

    (Review of Wayne Allyn Root’s book by Mary Ruwart)

    at:

    http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/068379-2010-05-04-should-his-conscience-be-your-guide.htm

    This book might be more honestly titled “Conscience of a Conservative II” or even “Conscience of a Constitutionalist.” Chapter 2, “The Libertarian Model,” opens with Ronald Reagan’s quote “Libertarianism is the very heart and soul of conservatism.” The author then describes the history of the New York State Conservative Party which his parents supported; he tells us that he wants to reintroduce the principles espoused by Republican conservative Barry Goldwater. No mention is made of any libertarian economist or Libertarian Party (LP) member. The uninformed reader cannot help but come away with the impression that “libertarian” is another name for “conservative.”
    On page 24, Mr. Root goes on to say “As a Libertarian, I believe that social and personal freedom issues are quite simply States’ Rights’ issues. … Voters should decide these issues on the state and local level.” Root’s position is that of a Constitutionalist, not a Libertarian. Libertarians believe that social and personal freedom issues are individual rights. However, since Mr. Root never refers to the non-aggression principle anywhere in his book, naïve readers are unlikely to learn of this distinction.

    Liberals will almost certainly come away with the impression that they are unwelcome in the Libertarian Party. While the author criticizes both Democrats and Republicans, he has nothing but praise for conservatives and offensive comments, almost to the level of “hate speech,” for liberals.

    Indeed, Root chokes on the popular slogan “Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” He insists on saying that libertarians are “socially tolerant” instead. Since Conscience was originally conceived as a campaign book, why would the author, the LP’s 2008 Libertarian VP nominee, insist on alienating liberals, who constitute almost half of the voting populace, especially when the LP has the solutions to poverty, pollution, and health care that they seek?

    The answer to this question may lie in how the author apparently sees himself: as a conservative first, and Libertarian second. He usually styles himself as a “Libertarian conservative” (page 60), even though libertarianism is generally considered “beyond right and left.” Mr. Root apparently wants to redefine what it means to be a libertarian.

    Indeed, Mr. Root can’t seem to get the words out when stating standard LP positions, like ending the Drug War. He tells us that we must “reposition” the war on drugs instead (page 225).

    Similarly, although telling readers he wants smaller government, the author’s proposed solutions often do just the opposite. He wants to increase the number of Congressional representatives from 435 members to almost 3,000 (pages 201-203). Mr. Root also wants to pay this gargantuan Congress CEO-level salaries ($500,000-$1,000,000 per year) “so they do not feel desperate to sell out their constituents in order to support their families” (page 202). Will paying more to those who steal our liberties and our money really stop them—or encourage them?

    Why not simply make it illegal for Congress to pass laws favoring one group over another, like taking from Peter to give to Paul? That would be the Libertarian solution, but our former VP candidate shows little awareness of it.

    Mr. Root continues: “The people who make our laws are very important people. We should try to pay them enough to attract the best and brightest (page 202).” Since virtually every law Congress passes violates our individual rights—and will continue to do so unless we place some truly libertarian restrictions on them—do we really want them to do it smarter and better?

    The author is undaunted by those who point out that the LP hasn’t yet elected anyone to major national office. Mr. Root counters that the LP has a great message, “but the missing ingredient up until now has been heart. I am Stella Root’s son. I am relentless. I have a bigger heart than a thousand candidates. More heart than all the others that came before me—combined… We have had plenty of intellect, plenty of brainpower, plenty of good ideas, but up until now, not enough heart” (page 347, emphasis in original).

    Judging from my three decades of observation, I would say that the LP has heart far beyond what any single person can bring to it. The Natural Law Party, with better funding and more political connections than the LP, threw in the towel years ago. The Reform Party, with taxpayer money and a more mainstream message, has self-destructed. Recently, when National Chair Bill Redpath approached the Constitution and the Green Parties for ballot access help, he learned that both of these groups could barely keep their doors open.

    Unlike the Greens, we receive no special interest funding. Unlike the Reform Party, we’ve never accepted matching funds. Unlike the Natural Law Party, we don’t have donors with deep pockets. Unlike the Constitution Party, we didn’t get Ron Paul’s endorsement. How is it that the LP, with the most radical message of all, is the only third party that is a recognized threat to the establishment, standing tall when other Parties are on their way to oblivion?

    The dedication of thousands of LP members make up the Party’s heart, which beats more powerfully than that of any individual. Many of our seasoned activists forgo the high pay they could get in the private sector to volunteer their time to gather ballot access signatures, run full-time campaigns, staff our state and national organizations, or spread the good news of liberty through their writing. Others donate their hard-earned money to help support the national office or their state parties. Many of our members have given, not just for a single year or two like the author has, but for decades, in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. The dedication and relentlessness of thousands of LP supporters have created the pulpit on which Mr. Root now stands; he abuses it when he belittles their contributions with grandiose and unsupported self-aggrandizement.

    Mr. Root’s dismissal of his LP predecessors is apparent in statements like “I’m the only politician in history who wants to make my office less important” (page xxviii). Every LP presidential ticket has vowed to shrink the power of their offices, but the author appears oblivious. He also claims to be “… the first candidate to run for president who has the same worries of a typical U.S. voter and taxpayer” (page 99), a patently false statement given his LP predecessors. On page 64, the author claims that he and Barr “attracted a record number of new LP members,” when that honor belongs to two-time presidential nominee, Harry Browne.

    Truth may not be that important to Root, though. On p. 249, he states “I understand that in the end, all that matters is winning. All the principles in the world gain you nothing, if you’re not in power to institute them. So winning really is everything…” We’ve heard this argument from the mouth of tyrants everywhere: the ends justify the means.

    Is this the conscience of a libertarian?

    Dr. Mary Ruwart currently serves as an At-large Representative of the Libertarian National Committee. You can contact Dr. Ruwart at mary@ruwart.com.

  11. Nicholas Sarwark

    I predict that I am going to spend the weekend lobbying hard to get the candidates I support elected. Once the Bylaws business is done, that is.

    I also predict my re-election to the Judicial Committee.

  12. Michael H. Wilson

    How about working to get some new faces on some of these committees? Seems we have the same old people all the time. It makes sense to have some who have been a round awhile so that there is some institutional memory.

    Also some people are on more than one committee from what I have seen. New rule needed that allows a person to serve only on one committee at a time.

  13. Don Wills

    DW predicts – Root narrowly defeats Myers in the final round. Not the result I prefer, but I’ve been really impressed with the full court press by W.A.R.

  14. paulie Post author

    You may be right.

    While Knapp is correct that Root may not pick up much in the way of delegates as candidates drop off in subsequent rounds if it goes to multi ballot, he may pick up percentagewise if, say, Hancock delegates leave before the final round.

  15. paulie Post author

    I think Myers has the most “Badnarik” potential to be the last man left standing after the rest knock each other out, combined with a good debate performance.

    I’d prefer Hinkle but would be happy either way.

    I would not prefer Root, but I won’t be as strongly disappointed as I once would have been – I think he has made genuine progress.

  16. David F. Nolan

    I agree with Tom Knapp (and others) that if Root does not win outright or come very close (45%) on the first ballot, he’s toast. His supporters love him; everyone else despises him or thinks he’s a bad joke. Unless there is massive “packing” of delegations by the Root forces, he will get well under 40%, and eventually fall. Most of his supporters will migrate to Hinkle, unless Hinkle is eliminated early-on.

    So who will win if Root doesn’t triumph on the first or second ballot? Here’s how I see it:

    Hancock: will start a strong second but fade; too many people find him scary.

    Phillies: will get his usual 10% or so on the first ballot, get knocked out in round one or two.

    Myers: a long shot, but not crazy-long. His rhetoric appeals to the hard-core crowd (anti-war, anti-Fed, etc.), the Ron Paul brigade, and the “we must be a real party” advocates. Few enemies, but a relatively thin resume hurts him.

    Hinkle: Acceptable to most people, and the likely beneficiary of people who support Root on the first ballot or two, if and when it becomes evident that Root has stalled.

    Overall, I’d say the chances of each candidate winning are as follows. (Note: these are NOT the percentages they’ll get on first ballot, they are odds of winning.

    Root: 35%
    Hinkle: 25%
    Myers: 20%
    Hancock: 10%
    Wild Card: 10%
    Phillies: 0%

    (Wild Card could be a late entrant/draftee – e.g. Mark Rutherford, Jim Lark or even me – or a deadlocked convention with a NOTA block that does not budge.

  17. Chuck Moulton

    David Nolan wrote (@30):

    I agree with Tom Knapp (and others) that if Root does not win outright or come very close (45%) on the first ballot, he’s toast.

    I agree.

    David Nolan wrote (@30):

    His supporters love him; everyone else despises him or thinks he’s a bad joke.

    I don’t think that “everyone else” generalization is quite true. There are a number of delegates (myself included) who like Root but think his tendancy to self-promote and his focus on conservative outreach is more appropriate for a candidate than for the LP chair role.

    David Nolan wrote (@30):

    Unless there is massive “packing” of delegations by the Root forces,

    I don’t think any “packing” is required. Root delegates are likely to be more affluent and more dedicated than supporters of the other candidates and are thus more likely to make it to the convention.

    Radicals could have organized car pools, but that never happened. Much like the 2006 and 2008 conventions, the people who didn’t bother showing up have no one to blame but themselves if they don’t like the outcome.

    Also the Rutherford factor will be huge from Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Kentucky. And Rutherford’s friends in other delegations (e.g., Bette Rose and Tony Ryan) will bring more support. I expect Root will get at least 90% support in region 3. Probably more. And I expect they will fill their delegations — or at least come very close.

    Frankly, I’ve reviewed the literature sent by the candidates and it all looks like amateur hour. The only candidate that sent a color brochure was Phillies, yet that was rambling and lacking in focus rather than captivating.

    Any candidate who don’t try to “pack” delegations with his supporters isn’t very serious. By that definition none of these candidates seem to be trying very hard to win.

  18. Steven R Linnabary

    I predict that I will be really really drunk this weekend.

    Furthermore, I plan to drink free beer provided at the Root, Hancock, Myers, Phillies and Hinkle hospitality suites!

    PEACE

  19. Chris Bennett

    Chuck, I tried in January to arrange a way to get more radicals to St. Louis but only a few people were willing to contribute money/time to the cause. If we lose, the blood won’t be on my hands cause I tried. I’ll be sitting around the hotel room drinking watching the LP implode after the takeover is complete.

  20. Steve LaBianca

    I predict that I will resign my LP Life Membership if W.A.R. becomes LNC chair.

  21. George Whitfield

    I prefer Root and also think he will win on the first ballot. However, if he doesn’t any of the other candidates are acceptable. Let’s hang together.

  22. paulie Post author

    I agree with everything Chuck said at 32. Except about the candidate mailers, I don’t know, I haven’t gotten any. Possibly they are going to the LPA office as I listed that as my address in 2008, or maybe they are not going to me at all as Bodenhausen added me to the official delegates list late.

    I mentioned the ride/room share idea oh, like a million times (including yesterday) on radical lists.

    I don’t know who will win chair, but I’ll be more surprised if it will be Hancock or Phillies than if it will be Hinkle, Myers or Root.

  23. paulie Post author

    I agree with Tom Knapp (and others) that if Root does not win outright or come very close (45%) on the first ballot, he’s toast.

    What do you think of my counter to that? Root does not pick up actual delegates, but picks up percentage points in subsequent rounds as some people leave?

    Another possibility is that he may in fact pick up some delegates. I expect there to be a lot of negative campaigning against Hancock and Phillies*. If that campaigning is effective, and one of them is the last man standing against Root, some of the other candidates supporters may switch to Root and some may leave.

    *And against Root. But it’s a question of which will be more effective.

  24. sane LP member

    I have seen much improvement in the delivery and style of Root. Still over the top at times, but he seems to have become more relaxed with the LP, has maybe toned it down a bit, and is working at being a leader more . We will see, but I HAVE seen improvement over the past few months, both in his interviews and in person at state conventions. Kudos for attempting to improve.

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    Yes, that’s a plausible counter.

    Hancock and Phillies “base” supporters strike me as the most likely to head for the bar or go get a snack if their guy is eliminated, instead of hanging to support a second choice or vote for NOTA. They’re more likely to take the attitude that if the winner is not their chosen X, it doesn’t really matter that much whether Y or Z wins.

  26. James Oaksun

    Bear in mind that a very (shockingly!) large proportion of the delegates (I hesitate to say the number because it’s probably some quadruple-secret number I would be castigated (or worse) for revealing) are either first-time attendees, or have only been to Denver in 08.

    My prediction: if Wayne doesn’t win on the first ballot… all bets are off. The Saturday debate will be critical.

  27. Steven wilson

    If Root loses, he will go to the tea party and take over for Palin. The people in areas like Rolla and Sullivan that are tea party or C4L people don’t realy trust Root, but they don’t know any other libertarian leaders. He is the talking head. In central Missouri, Root is a real problem.

    I believe in the new path for real politics. Predictions are not, if Root wins the turn will be quick and permanent.

  28. David F. Nolan

    Paulie @41 – Possible, but not too likely in my opinion. A bunch of anti-Root folks may leave right after the Chair is chosen if Root wins, but I think they’ll stay through the voting for Chair, even if only to vote NOTA.

  29. LibertarianGirl

    really?? so , then they cant draft someone that NOTA beat correct? that doesnt seem fair , i mean if the delegates are assembled why not just have them pick

  30. Michael Seebeck

    Paulie @6: thanks. Wasn’t sure if I was seeing double or not. 🙂

  31. Michael Seebeck

    LG, there is no restriction on whom the LNC could elect in that case. That makes the LNC races even more important (and regional reps, too!) should that happen.

    IMO, that is a problem that the Bylaws Committee needs to address and hasn’t. The logical way is to amend them so the nominations reopen from the floor with the previous batch of candidates that lost eliminated from further nomination for that seat (They could still run for something else).

  32. Rich

    I agree that Wayne’s chances are all or nothing. Wayne did just release a very impressive list of endorsements and Rutherford’s support will be an immense help, esp given where the convention is. Plus the support of Sullentrup and Starr, whom few people trust but they know how to work the system.

    Ernie certainly has been making a lot of noise, but he’s run for chair before and came in last place, I think primarily because it’s clear he really doesn’t want the job of running meetings and being the CEO of the party (his thesis is just be radical and the members and money will come).

    I think Hinkle will be the first eliminated. He just does not impress in the debates I’ve seen. His answer to everything is better communication, which is a tool not an answer. I also do not think he has the force of personality to stand up to some of the existing factions and manipulators on the LNC.

    The results on subsequent ballots will be greatly influenced by the endorsements of the eliminated candidates. I know Myers won’t endorse Wayne or Ernie, and if Mark is gone, that leaves George. Not sure whom George would endorse, but def not Root. I know he and Ernie get along and would likely be fine with either of them in the chair’s seat. Knowing George, it is possible he won’t endorse anyone.

    I do think Myers is the dark horse in this race who will surprise. He’s very personable, has energy, has a plan, is a county chair and a congressional candidate. I can easily see him being nearly everyone’s second or third choice, which may be enough to push him over the top by the fourth ballot, particularly if the anti-Root forces can coalesce around him.

    Of course, this is all dependent on who shows up. If a lot more grassroots and radicals show up than expected, or if the New Path folks have a good floor operation, Wayne may not finish in the top spot on the first ballot, which will seal his fate, then it’s a fight for rhetoric vs competence. Which means Hancock, Myers and Phillies.

    What may be more interesting is if Wayne is elected chair, how much of a counterforce the delegates decide upon for the other officer positions.

  33. Trent Hill

    “#31- “Draft Lark”? Not too bad an Idea. Save that for the possibility that NOTA wins and we need new nominees.”

    I’d suggest trying to draft Judge Gray. Both radicals and reformers seem to like him quite a lot–he has a record of service to the party, and he’s a former elected official with real experience. A Gray/Rutherford or Gray/Redpath team could be very effective (I admit it, I’m a fan of Redpath–he puts his money where his mouth is)

  34. Jill Pyeatt

    Oh Trent (happy birthday a day late, BTW), Judge Gray is a great idea. Does anyone know if he’s interested?

  35. Trent Hill

    I’m quite sure he isnt, and I’m quite sure this won’t be an issue.

    Still, I think someone should attempt to draft Gray into the chair’s race.

  36. James Oaksun

    Mike @53

    In the event of a NOTA win for a position, the LNC will elect a person for the position, and cannot choose any of the people NOTA defeated for the position the day before. Applies to all officer and AL positions I believe.

  37. Chuck Moulton

    I still think it’s silly that all of you want someone to lead the LNC who has never served on the LNC. That applies to Gray and most of the currently declared Chair candidates.

  38. David F. Nolan

    Jim Gray is a great guy, and I hope he winds up on the LNC … but he has no experience on that body, and therefore should not be Chair. In my opinion.

  39. Nicholas Sarwark

    I still think it’s silly that all of you want someone to lead the LNC who has never served on the LNC. That applies to Gray and most of the currently declared Chair candidates.

    Given the accomplishments of the current LNC, I think the silly position is to want someone currently serving to be Chair.

  40. paulie Post author

    Jim Gray is a great guy, and I hope he winds up on the LNC … but he has no experience on that body, and therefore should not be Chair. In my opinion.

    Is that a Hinkle endorsement I just heard, Mr. Nolan?

  41. paulie Post author

    Given the accomplishments of the current LNC, I think the silly position is to want someone currently serving to be Chair.

    For everything bad that has been said about the current LNC, a few good things can be said as well. They managed to hire Wes, and now the various party operations are improving. The checkbook is in the black. The idea that electing someone with no LNC experience is more likely to be an improvement than the opposite seems to me to be not adequately thought out.

    The last such “house cleaning,” in 2002 (which I approved at the time, BTW, although I skipped Indianapolis because we were at crunch time on the medical marijuana initiative in DC) turned out in retrospect to have been a disaster. Whatever my criticisms at the time of Messrs. Cloud, Bergland, Dasbach, Willis, etc., they were clearly more competent than what we have had ever since.

    Based on that experience, I have to say…be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

  42. JT

    Rich: “The results on subsequent ballots will be greatly influenced by the endorsements of the eliminated candidates.”

    I don’t think so; I think endorsements from anyone are mostly meaningless. I can’t see a large number of delegates changing their minds about who they’re supporting next just because their preferred candidate says “I like this guy.”

    In the 2008 LP presidential race, for example, I don’t think most of Root’s delegates went to Barr after Root was eliminated b/c Root said, “Go with Barr.” Those people weren’t going with Ruwart anyway.

    Rich: “I do think Myers is the dark horse in this race who will surprise.”

    I hope so. He’s certainly not the favorite, but I can see how it’s possible, especially given the Badnarik shocker in 2004. I don’t think Myers has said a single thing I disagree with, he has worked hard on the local and state level doing what a national chair should do on the national level, and he isn’t a divisive personality.

    Rich: “Of course, this is all dependent on who shows up.”

    I agree with that. If one of the candidates does a great get-out-the vote effort and the others do a poor one or none at all, that candidate has an advantage. And I expect at least Root to do that.

    Rich: “What may be more interesting is if Wayne is elected chair, how much of a counterforce the delegates decide upon for the other officer positions.”

    That would be interesting. What would be more interesting to me is seeing whether, in the event of his defeat, Root even stays with the LP at all. I heard he was pretty bruised after failing to win the presidential nomination in 2008, but at least he still got on the ticket then. I’m not sure his ego could handle losing another top spot.

    Chuck: “I still think it’s silly that all of you want someone to lead the LNC who has never served on the LNC.”

    I don’t. Experience on the LNC is low on my list of qualities for national chair, just as having been an elected Libertarian is low on my list of qualities for presidential nominee. In some cases, having served on the LNC could even be perceived as a negative.

  43. Nicholas Sarwark

    For everything bad that has been said about the current LNC, a few good things can be said as well. They managed to hire Wes, and now the various party operations are improving. The checkbook is in the black.

    That’s two good things. They hired a competent ED (who one of the Chair candidates wants to fire) and they stopped spending more money than they brought in.

    It’s better than a sharp stick in the eye, but it’s not a ringing endorsement for one of their number as Chair.

  44. James Oaksun

    Since 2004, total revenues to the LNC (inflation adjusted) are down 50%; membership down by a third.

    Trough to trough (the first year of the cycle is typically worst), 2009 revenue was 25% below 2005 (also in real dollars).

    I suppose some will argue this is a record of unbridled success, or, in the alternative, that the executive officers and the incumbent members of the committee bear no responsibility whatever for that. Well… then who does.

    P.S. I wonder whether the decision to hire Wes was unanimous. Something tells me, it wasn’t.

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    James,

    “The decision to hire” the executive director is the chair’s:

    The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Party with full authority to direct its business and affairs, including hiring and discharging of National Committee volunteers and paid personnel, subject to express National Committee policies and directives issued in the
    exercise of the National Committee’s plenary control and management of Party affairs,
    properties and funds.

    The LNC could intervene versus the chair’s hiring decisions in any of a number of ways (directly by passing a directive reversing that decision, indirectly by refusing to approve or budget for the salary numbers and such in the employment contract, etc.), but they don’t have to formally approve the chair’s personnel selections.

  46. JT

    Paulie: “Whatever my criticisms at the time of Messrs. Cloud, Bergland, Dasbach, Willis, etc., they were clearly more competent than what we have had ever since.”

    I never know the other guys personally, but I did know former LP executive director Steve Dasbach and former LP communications director Bill Winter very well for a while. Dasbach was a true professional and one of the most civil and fair libertarians I’ve ever met. Winter was one of the best libertarian writers I’ve ever met, and an excellent page designer as well. Compare the quality of LP News in the past few years to the quality of the publication in the late 90s and early 2000s, when he was the editor. It speaks for itself.

  47. JT

    That should be never “knew.” Don’t bash me, Tom Knapp; it’s just an Internet post (I’m just joking). 🙂

  48. paulie Post author

    @ 68 agreed. I thought they were too conservative at the time, and I was concerned with the allegations of favoritism and conflict of interest.

    But looking back on it, things were running much smoother and better and the messaging was better than it was more recently.

    So I’m more careful about “throw the bums out” sentiments anymore.

    Once bitten…twice shy.

  49. LibertarianGirl

    MS__LG, there is no restriction on whom the LNC could elect in that case. That makes the LNC races even more important (and regional reps, too!) should that happen.

    me__That doesnt seem fair , if the body voted Noata over certain candidates , they should be excluded . the LNC shouldhave very limited use of overturning the will of the body

  50. Trent Hill

    If I were a delegate, and I’m not, my choices would be:

    Hinkle: Myers: Phillies: Root: Hancock

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG,

    You write:

    “if the body voted Noata over certain candidates , they should be excluded”

    They are.

    The Convention Special Rules of Order of the
    Libertarian Party specify (Rule 11):

    Votes cast for “None of the Above” in voting on the Party’s nominees for President and Vice-President, the Party Officers, and at-large members of the National Committee, shall be considered valid. Should a majority of the votes be cast for “None of the Above” in the
    Presidential or Vice-Presidential balloting, no candidate shall be nominated for that office. Should “None of the Above” be selected for any Party office, that position shall be declared vacant and none of the losing candidates for that position may be selected to fill the vacancy for that term of office. “

  52. Steven wilson

    I would like to know if Root loses the chair, would he even try for the presidential nomination for 2012?

    Myers needs more experience, but he would be a strong candidate. He might get Texas and Georgia in the college. I hope he wins his congressional run.

    He could get Arizona and New Mexico if anybody would cover his responses to the citizenship laws passed. 15 Million hispanics join Libertarian party, in one day. Hello California.

  53. paulie Post author

    Trent

    If I were a delegate, and I’m not, my choices would be:

    Hinkle: Myers: Phillies: Root: Hancock

    Agreed on those top two. After that I’m not sure yet. I hope either Hinkle or Myers stays in til the end.

  54. LP watcher

    Root’s future in big time politics would be in the US Senate from Nevada. LP candidate or Tea Party candidate

  55. Robert Capozzi

    My guess — not prediction — is that Root or Hinkle will win. It will of course depend on who actually shows. I’m hearing that Root has the most intense support, with some state delegations in the Midwest “maxed out,” which will mean that their overflow delegates will stand with other states that don’t have full delegations…an oddity of internal L politics. Root will need a lot of these “convention carpetbaggers.” Hinkle is probably acceptable to most of the delegates, but lacks the intensity of the Root supporters. The anti-Root forces will likely be the most intense, however.

    Should be a show.

  56. LibertarianGirl

    I predict the losers will be sore and not of good sportsmanship. also , in stark contrast to the convention 2 years ago , Root will likely have unanimous support from NV , why?? because he earned it:)

  57. LibertarianGirl

    “Root’s future in big time politics would be in the US Senate from Nevada. LP candidate or Tea Party candidate”

    me_ well the real Tea Party candidate would be competing w/in the GOP , and the ballot qualified ‘Tea Party ‘ in Nevada is just a hoax to split the conservative vote , Wayne would never sign on with them .

  58. Observation

    If Wayne wins, as I think he will, it’s possible he’ll do such a bad job as chair that we won’t want him as our 2012 presidential candidate. I’m keeping my eye on that silver lining.

  59. Brian Holtz

    None of my predictions were falsified, although in retrospect Root’s chances of a first-round win were probably less than 50%.

    * Root has 50% chance of a first-ballot win.
    * Phillies and Myers are eliminated in the first two rounds.
    * If the “final” round is Root vs. Hancock, Root eliminates Hancock but needs a final vote against NOTA to secure a majority.
    * If the final round is Root vs. Hinkle, Hinkle is more likely to win than Root.
    * Hancock will not throw his support to a more electable candidate, because he wants a Root vs. Hancock referendum.

  60. Robert Milnes

    Michael H. Wilson, a while back, it may have been on Third Party Watch, there was a guy who was very sick, maybe cancer. Wrote comments. I can’t remember his name but yours seems like it. Was that you?

  61. Michael H. Wilson

    # 91 No that wasn’t me. He had a form of brain cancer and he was from West Virginia. Tod or Tim. I don’t recall the last name at the moment.

Leave a Reply

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