Posted by IPR’s Brian Holtz on his blog, Libertarian Intelligence. The opinions are solely those of Brian, not necessarily any others at IPR. The post was made Sunday after the Chairs election, but before the At Large elections on Monday. It appears that Brian’s predictions for At Large were mostly correct, except that he didn’t see Kevin Knedler coming.
The Chair debate on Saturday evening produced no major surprises. Root made an impassioned plea for delegates to grow the party by bringing in new members who aren’t as far along on their libertarian journeys as the delegates are. Root’s closing statement was built around a sports analogy — Canada’s performance in the recent winter Olympics — that seemed to fall somewhat flat with the audience. Root opponents in the crowd loudly pounced when his answer to a question about immigration went on too long and he specifically criticized the open-borders position that the LP removed from its Platform in 2006. Myers handled this hot potato with a shorter answer that ended with a rousing call to end the welfare state and the war on drugs and open the borders — effectively restating Root’s position. Myers spoke well, but not well enough to put himself ahead of Hinkle as the leading unity candidate. Hinkle emphasized his experience and his ability to work with all factions within the party, and managed to avoid being the least dynamic speaker of the evening.
Phillies’ performance did not fully exhibit the speaking skills that he had honed in his 2008 presidential campaign. On a couple of questions he awkwardly failed to end his answer on an applause line. When he said that Angela Keaton asking him was the reason he was running, it’s not clear how many delegates knew who the absent Keaton is — or that this was George’s fourth or fifth consecutive campaign for Chair. Phillies was able to reference his New Path Plan several times, but the debate format did not allow him to get into the details of it.
Hancock gave a spirited performance that was on track to avoid all the land mines that his critics had documented him planting in his own path. He responded to Root’s big-tent rhetoric by saying that newcomers “are welcome to join us, but are not welcome to change us”. Hancock’s opponents had not mentioned either his advocacy against voting or his conspiracy theories, but Hancock himself alluded to both in his closing statement. He talked about “the New World Order”, and gave a lengthy justification for why his 2006 Secretary of State campaign was built around the question “Still Voting?”.
During the Chair nominations, Root followed good speeches by running-mate Rutherford and his daughter with an even better pitch for his own election. For the first time in his Chair campaign, Root declared that as Chair the buck will stop with him: he will take responsibility for delivering results in membership, fundraising, and candidate support. Both Myers and one of his nominators gave a very explicit plea to make Myers the delegates’ second choice, and this probably was not a good strategy for claiming the unity vote from Hinkle. Hinkle gave all his time to an impressive lineup of nominators, and LP founder David Nolan delivered a very well-received endorsement. In contrast to Root, Phillies was not nominated by his New Path Vice-Chair running mate, but rather by three supporters with LPMA connections. New Path Secretary candidate Rob Power awkwardly attacked the sincerity of his fellow PlatCom member Chris Barber, who had sent a letter to delegates revealing that Phillies had filed a criminal complaint with the FEC against the LPUS. Hancock’s nominations were highlighted by a solid speech by Barry Hess. 2004 LP presidential nominee Michael Badnarik’s speech would surely have been more effective if he had identified himself to the audience. Hancock himself merely said: “Freedom’s the answer. What’s the question?”
The first round of voting resulted in Root 200 (38%) Hinkle 113 (21%) Hancock 82 (15%) Myers 70 (13%) Phillies 56 (11%) NOTA 10. Phillies did not endorse any competitor, but Myers foresaw the inevitable and withdrew from the race while throwing his support to Hinkle. Hancock’s weakness actually played against Root’s interests, as Root’s only real hope for a post-first-ballot win was to face Hancock on the final ballot. Before the second round I was agreeing with a Root supporter that a Hinkle victory was inevitable. However, I did forecast a 20-25 vote pickup for Root, while David Nolan predicted 10, or maybe 20 at most. The second round nevertheless helped confirm Hinkle’s Saturday-night assertion that he was almost everybody’s second choice: Root 223 Hinkle 210 Hancock 87 NOTA 0. Hancock endorsed nobody, and said he had gotten what he wanted and had a backlog of activism to get back to. The final ballot was surprising only in that there may have been as five Hancock supporters who switched to Root: Hinkle 281 Root 228 (43%) NOTA 19.
Hinkle gave a great post-election speech, saying he would be “requesting — no, demanding” help from all of us to unite and advance the Party. He gave no hint of endorsements in the remaining officer elections. David Nolan endorsed Carolyn Marbry for Vice Chair, but praised Mark Rutherford for also being an excellent candidate. Rutherford’s speech was brief, emphasizing he could work well with Hinkle. Marbry’s speech was longer, listing the half-dozen state affiliates that she identified with. Rutherford’s 285-201 victory seemed to echo the Chair result, with the delegates choosing an experienced party leader over a younger newcomer promising to bring new energy to the office.
Alicia Mattson had the inside track in the Secretary’s race, as she had spent the morning once again smoothly handling the Platform debate in her capacity as PlatCom Chair. Power was coming off a nominating speech for Phillies in which he had dug into the unpleasant matter of George’s criminal complaint against the LP. Ruth Bennett tried to portray Power as someone who can work well with any faction in the Party, but she praised the competence of outgoing Secretary Sullentrup only moments before he glowingly endorsed Mattson. Mattson coasted to a 264-195 win.
The biggest shock of the day was the very last result. James Oaksun conceded that he had no complaints about how Aaron Starr had been executing the job of Treasurer — even though we had just learned that the leader of his own New Path slate had filed a criminal complaint against the financial reporting of the LP’s relationship with the Barr campaign. Instead, Oaksun said that the reason he opposed Starr was because of LNC divisiveness that he said was caused by Starr. Oaksun’s 319-133 victory suggested that the delegates did not believe that even incoming Chair Hinkle would be able to manage whatever conflicts that Starr would allegedly continue to cause.
The elections for the five At-Large LNC positions will be Monday morning. Judge Jim Gray would coast to a top-three result if he didn’t have a plane to catch, and so he will need stellar nominating speeches to finish in the money. I predict the results will look something like this:
Bill Redpath
David Nolan
Wayne Root
Mary Ruwart
Rebecca Sink-Burris
John Jay Myers
Pat Dixon
Lee Wrights
Jim Gray
Thomas Hill
My rank preference is something like this: Redpath Root Gray Dixon Nolan Sink-Burris Myers.
P.S. None of my predictions in the Chair race were falsified, although in retrospect Root’s chances of a first-round win were probably less than 50%. My predictions were:
* 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.
Oaksun campaigned very effectively and did NOT go negative about Starr’s credentials or anything like that. He pointed out the party’s financial history and its lack of health as well as the factionalism and less than professional antics of a good bit of the then-sitting LNC.
He also made it very clear publicly in his blog that he was not involved in the FEC complaint in any way and in fact was unaware of it until the news broke. He expressed his feelings about that situation discreetly but directly and focused instead on his own campaign and what he brought to the table. Even setting aside people’s disapproval of Starr and company’s “drama,” I think this disavowal of any knowledge of that complaint and straightforward statement of his lack of complicity with it probably explains the difference in result between his race and the other non-chair races more than anything else.
Oaksun came across as very principled and straightforward, which he without question is. It was a privilege to have such a well grounded, honorable and direct person as a running mate, and I’m delighted that he was elected.
I was shocked that he lost , mostly because I dont know how many people are hip to the in- house drama , and Starr has name recognition that may not be entirely bad if you arent privy to ‘the drama’.
and to lose by that much is shocking for someone thats been an activist with the party that long. I felt really bad for him , that had 2 hurt.
When/where?
Last time someone posted the state by state totals.
I can see several different ways to explain what @7 describes, but the state by state vote totals are needed.
I sure didn’t. Honestly, after seeing the results for Rutherford and Mattson, I thought Starr had it won as well.
I don’t doubt that some people opposed Starr intensely. What I’ve not seen is any evidence — aside from after-the-fact vouching — that anybody foresaw the lopsided margin of Starr’s loss.
Roger Gary stepped forward previously. He was not really all that eager, but wanted to make sure Starr was not unopposed. He withdrew and endorsed Oaksun.
Brian you overlooked what I said about his reported record towards others. Frankly I am surprised more people did not step forward to challenge Mr. Starr.
I would not call this a shock.
Very easy to say now, but you won’t find anybody who got on record predicting Starr getting only 30% — especially not after Mattson got 58%.
Mr. Holtz writes; “The biggest shock of the day was the very last result”.
I would not call this a shock. Mr. Starr had put himself in a position to be successfully challenged because of his actions towards others. Common sense tells us that you do not treat others the way Mr. Starr has been reported treating people in today’s business world.
Thanks, Kevin, but do you have any non-token thoughts on this? Lots of IPR posts go without comments, but substantive comments are always appreciated.
I felt bad that no one had posted a comment on Brian’s picks. So here is my token post.