Excerpt from a column at Town Hall by Wayne Root entitled Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide, forwarded by Joe Hassen to Comstock Libertarians on facebook:
Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.
Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.
But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them.
Wayne Root is currently an At Large member of the LNC and Chair of the LNCC. His remarks last month were interpreted by some readers/listeners to mean that he was endorsing Romney.
Root underestimates all the blood sucking recipients of govt money who will flood to the polls to keep their ill gotten gains…
@ Paulie 80. You mean so we can yell at them and call them statists and liberals in person? I am intrigued. 🙂
In person face to face is the best way to reach people. More libertarians should try it more often.
In post 77 it should be 2 NBC, 3 CBS, 2 ABC, 1 FOX.
So what is the best way to reach them – how do we frame the message, what media reach 18-29 year olds best, how do we get them actively involved?
Is anyone thinking out there?
Ron Paul grassroots point the way.
Be Rational: “Three media markets. Total major affiliates – seven. $55,ooo budget spread over the best available packages. Average cost per ad per station aggregated together appearing in a prime time spot over a week. Yes, that will mean you could calculate 7 spots for less than $3000.”
I thought there were 8 major network affiliates in Maine (3 NBC, 3 CBS, 2 ABC, 1 FOX). Ad spot packages for $55,000 spent on all of the network TV affiliates effectively reduce the price of each spot during prime-time programming to just a few hundred dollars?
Be Rational: “You keep asking the wrong questions.”
I only asked one question before.
Be Rational: “Nobody would buy one spot.”
Some people can & do. That’s why there are prices per 30 seconds. Just like people only buy one can of Coke sometimes.
Sounds to me that the 18-29 demographic is clearly more receptive to the LP message AND more receptive to not voting only Democrat or Republican.
So what is the best way to reach them – how do we frame the message, what media reach 18-29 year olds best, how do we get them actively involved?
Is anyone thinking out there?
Yes, you can, if you don’t specify the date and program and use packages and if you don’t buy just one ad on each network. It’s cheaper to buy more spots.
Three media markets. Total major affiliates – seven. $55,ooo budget spread over the best available packages. Average cost per ad per station aggregated together appearing in a prime time spot over a week. Yes, that will mean you could calculate 7 spots for less than $3000. However you would be buying well over one hundred of spots in total.
If you tried to buy exactly one ad on each major local affiliate at specified dates and times you would pay a higher total cost than you would buying dozens of spots in packages and run in every market without demanding specific time slots.
To reach the bulk of viewers over a week the best option is to be spread throughout the day buying packages that reach voters – early morning, noon, evening and late news programs.
You keep asking the wrong questions.
Nobody would buy one spot.
If you go to a supermarket and want to buy one sip of Coke from a single can, you will still have to pay for the whole can. They might charge you more than the price of a whole can is they have to give you a cup and clean up after.
It’s even cheaper to buy the cans in bulk packages of six, twelve and twenty-four.
Be Rational: “It’s fairly clear that you’ve made assumptions without any experience. TV ads are not that expensive.”
No? I wonder why state LPs aren’t currently doing it all over the country. Maybe none of them have thought of advertising on TV before.
*Some* TV ad spots aren’t that expensive. Local cable TV ad spots during late night hours, for example, are usually very cheap. If you buy ad packages, that does cut the cost.
Are you saying that one can buy an ad spot *during prime time hours on every local network TV affiliate in the state of Maine* for anything even close to $3,000? Yes or no?
JT@71
It’s fairly clear that you’ve made assumptions without any experience. TV ads are not that expensive. If you buy a single spot on a single program at a single time, and you have specified the time slot, yes it could be expensive for each ad and for the most expensive Prime time programs in Portland ME – the biggest of the three markets – it would go over $1000 buying specified spots.
However, the way to buy advertising is in packages – you can specify all news, for example, and you can specify the week, and how many spots on which programs, but not the exact days. Stations offer a variety of packages. They will assist in reaching your required demographics at the best rates when you have flexibility, are buying multiple spots and have the option of running on another station. Remnant time or pre-emptable time slots are also good deals for buying multiple insertions. This is great for repetition. The rates are much – up to 90% – cheaper.
So does either of you have a source/link for what it costs now?
Be Rational: “The Total cost of running ads in all 3 Maine media markets over a week was a little over $3000, so your suggestion that $55,000 would only buy one ad is just silly.”
I was referring to one prime-time ad per each local network TV affiliate in Maine (though I may have overestimated), not a single local network TV affiliate prime-time ad. I believe that the latter can be done for $3,000. The former can’t be done for anything even near $3,000. I don’t have any idea what that cost 20 years ago though.
Sorry for the filibuster. I’ll hold off til more people weigh in.
@BAN http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/06/01/new-mexico-presidential-poll-shows-gary-johnson-at-12/
On May 31, a Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz poll was released, for the presidential race in New Mexico. It shows President Obama at 48%, Mitt Romney at 35%, Gary Johnson at 12%, and undecided 5%. The poll has a breakdown by the age group of respondents. Johnson’s strongest age is the 18-29 category, where he is at 18%. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
Of course that assumes an organization that is even thinking in those terms. I haven’t heard back from the Johnson campaign, so I’m not really plugged in to them at all yet (even to the extent of knowing whom to talk to about what), and my impression is that the LNC has not been thinking in terms of broadcast advertising either. There’s Wes Benedict’s superpac. I don’t think he has any immediate plans to advertise, but he may be more open to considering it, especially if there was a ready-made list to hit up for money and/or an appeal already written up.
As far as advertising – cable TV stations which also carry broadcast stations have some very cheap targeted ads. Doug Craig has the details. This includes news programs in prime time and even major metro areas. His test market was Atlanta, so we could aim them, for example, at neighborhoods where CNN reporters and program directors live.
Young people are also getting screwed big time by SS and other entitlements, which will almost certainly collapse long before they retire, and which are being used to redistribute wealth upwards by both age and wealth bracket. As well, by the mounting debt, the financial irresponsibility that could lead to a monetary system collapse, the wars overseas, and much else.
His campaign management team, but they are not asking for the money right now. He does owe some money to a fundraiser he used to contract with, who does want the money right now, but hasn’t agreed with Johnson as to how much would make him whole.
oops Ad Hoc was @59 not @39
@39 It sounds like the Johnson campaign should get some TV advertising rate cards from the stations in the target states.
But, they might be fundraising just to pay bills owed to useless overpaid consultants. Does Johnson really owe $676,000 to some consultants who have obviously done nothing worthwhile.
What a waste of money.
The US only has about 210 TV markets. Maine has 3. The 1990 Maine experience above showed significant results with a $3,000 + budget. Much lower than the Zapper rule of thumb of $55,000 for the first run.
It sounds like a TV ad campaign could be done cheaper than the Zapper numbers.
Remnant TV advertising can be purchased at up to 90% off the rate card. This is very useful for LP branding during pre-convention time periods. The new LP “peace breads peace” ad or other LP anti-tax ads are very effective branding that can be used with great impact at very low rates. The LP should start doing this in the smallest, cheapest states.
As for OPH booths.
Yes, there are certainly ways to optimize them.
But our biggest mistake in doing this or any other kind of outreach is not doing it at all.
A suboptimal OPH setup is a lot better than a campus, city or county – in some cases state – that has seen no LP booth in many years.
Lower rate, somewhat, but they do vote.
By far outweighed by their propensity to not be locked in to a pattern of voting for an establishment party, which is something like 10 times more likely to be set as a pattern by the time they are 30.
And, as the video shows (I have a lot of experience to back this up) more likely to be ideologically within the libertarian orbit sphere than older people.
Those factors, combined, far outweigh slightly lower rates of voting.
The enthusiasm factor, and future potential, are big deals, too.
There are some other good target audiences as well, but that’s the biggest one.
Anyone who is least demographically or otherwise likely to be part of the comfortable establishment is a prime target.
Whether it is because they are being discriminated against by “race”, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, age, hair color, clothing style, income level or perceived income level, or what have you…or because their recreational, sacramental or medicinal substance of choice is “illegal”…anything that puts them at odds with the “law” or the establishment.
Young veterans and their immediate families are another good target audience.
Startup entrepreneurs, saddled with red tape and with larger and more established competitors who receive government favors.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Where are either of you getting the current ad prices from? A source or two may shed light on the matter.
Zapper claimed 10 cents per person to saturate advertise. Sounds like it may actually be higher.
JT: This was posted by Zapper on this thread:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/05/gary-johnson-campaign-video-peace-is-cheaper/
The Total cost of running ads in all 3 Maine media markets over a week was a little over $3000, so your suggestion that $55,000 would only buy one ad is just silly. There are still TV spots available on major network TV in Maine for under $100 and very cheap package deals:
zapper // May 27, 2012 at 1:20 pm 113
Maine 1990 ? summary:
LP ads were run in the spring of the year in all 3 of Maine?s TV broadcast markets ? before the LP nominating convention for state and local office. Multiple repetitions were run during prime times bracketing the local news ? morning, noon, evening, and late news programs were chosen.
Prior to 1990, no media outlet had attended a Maine LP convention.
Following these ads, every major TV network, several radio stations and all the major newspapers sent cameras, photographers, and reporters to the LP convention in 1990. All three days were covered. The Maine LP convention was the teaser lead on several local news reports. On the third day of the state convention coverage was so intense that the convention business came to a complete stop for about 30 minutes as all the party officers, potential candidates and most of the attending members were giving simultaneous interviews ? some live, some on tape ? to so many reporters that there was no one left to run the convention.
The LP backed an indpendent for Governor that year, assisting with his ballot drive and on campaign staff, who went on to earn 9% of the vote and gave the Maine LP ballot status (5%) required for the 1992 Marrou campaign.
The media expects the LP to do nothing. Usually we meet their expectations.
Occasionally some foolish LP member promises big things to the media, followed by the LP doing nothing or next to nothing. Proving to the media that the LP always does nothing and that they were right.
Smart media strategy means doing something they don?t expect ? like actually running major network ads EARLY in the campaign. This will surprise them and earn media coverage.
It is important NOT to tell the media what you are doing. Let them expect nothing. They will be so surprised that the LP is doing something that they will cover it.
However, if you brag about your media plan, it will appear less than expected so you will still get nothing.
Be smart.
Target what you can afford.
Deliver MORE than you promise.
Surprise your adversaries.
Surprise the media.
If you want to be noticed, do something big in a small venue.
Paulie: “Yes, that was already discussed in great detail in other threads.”
I don’t read every IPR thread & I don’t remember specific figures from some of what I read. But I did find this from the one Zapper linked to:
“For an initial beginning run, we would need $900,000 to run in TX. We would need $1,600,000 in CA. But, only $55,000 in ME. Only $30,000 in WY.”
I don’t know the source of these numbers. But if you’re talking about advertising during prime time shows on network TV stations, you won’t be able to saturate ME with $55,000. Nor will you be able to do so in WY with $30,000. You may be able to run one 30-second ad across each state, but that’s it.
Yes, that was already discussed in great detail in other threads.
Zapper: “I have described how to begin this ad campaign and I expect that enough money would come in to fund at least the first 7 states through targeted, dedicated fundraising where 100% of the donations were guaranteed to by air time for TV ads on prime time (morning, noon, evening and late news and perhaps other programs) covering an entire state – one at a time, up to the first 7 states chosen from the list of 14.”
Enough money, meaning how much? Do you have an idea what the cost is of running network TV ads in 7 small states?
Lower rate, somewhat, but they do vote.
By far outweighed by their propensity to not be locked in to a pattern of voting for an establishment party, which is something like 10 times more likely to be set as a pattern by the time they are 30.
And, as the video shows (I have a lot of experience to back this up) more likely to be ideologically within the libertarian orbit sphere than older people.
Those factors, combined, far outweigh slightly lower rates of voting.
The enthusiasm factor, and future potential, are big deals, too.
There are some other good target audiences as well, but that’s the biggest one.
From @49: “JT // May 31, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Zapper: ?No way around it. We gotta get on major network TV first. Market by market. State by state. Starting small and growing as our donor base grows.?
JT: “Are you talking about running ads on hit shows during prime time?”
Yes. Starting with the news, but looking at demographics and cost of ads on all programs on major network stations, saturating a state, one state at a time, starting with the smallest states.
I suggested a list of 14 (13 plus one more later) although due to limited funds we’d need to start with about 7, mostly the smallest US states in population.
Although this topic has been discussed in bits and pieces on a variety of recent threads, most of the explanation is on this thread:
Zapper: Lessons from Americans Elect Collapse, Opportunities and Ad Strategy for Libertarians
May 18th, 2012 ? 100 Comments
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/05/zapper-lessons-from-americans-elect-collapse-opportunities-and-ad-strategy-for-libertarians/
I have described how to begin this ad campaign and I expect that enough money would come in to fund at least the first 7 states through targeted, dedicated fundraising where 100% of the donations were guaranteed to by air time for TV ads on prime time (morning, noon, evening and late news and perhaps other programs) covering an entire state – one at a time, up to the first 7 states chosen from the list of 14.
Out of the recent money bomb and the matching funds, enough money (maybe $10,000) could be found to produce some high quality spots with a Libertarian advertising professional such as Travis Irvine.
In reality, no LP POTUS campaign has advertised since 1980. It’s expensive and we can’t afford to go nationwide. We can, however, achieve the same effect one state at a time and earn free media by showing how strong we are in targeted states even with a small advertising budget.
The big question remains for today: Is anyone in the Johnson campaign listening?
Someday, perhaps, we’ll see an LP POTUS campaign wise enough to run targeted major network TV advertising first:
before ballot drives
before hiring a paid staff
before renting an office
… only production of the first round of ads and fundraising come before airing the first spots in the first target states …
And if the campaign can generate early funds or the candidate can make a sizable startup donation, even major fundraising can follow the first air dates.
George @12:
Colorado will depend on how much El Paso County (the county I barely live in) will turn out the GOP vote. The county, being home to such religious right groups as Focus on the Family, has a strong evangelical WASP bent, but the unknown is whether they will hold their noses and vote for a Mormon assuming he gets the GOP nomination. The likely answer is yes, not because Romney stands for anything useful, but because they are stuck in ABO mode. Plus the county has a very strong military bent with 5 military bases as well. El Paso County is also the single most-populous county in the state, although the Denver 5-county area has more people overall and is a political demographic split. Boulder County will vote Obama as well, and most of the western slope and rurals will go GOP as well.
As for this headline, it should read, “Root backpedals, endorses Johnson, thinks Romney will win”
Langa,
Poli Sci, yes, I bet they are more abstract.
Here is a good source for you. http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp
Mark,
You’re certainly correct about different people responding to different types of communication. In the past, I have had some decent success with college students using a method similar to the one I suggested, which is why I thought it would work well on campuses.
However, many of the people that I used it on were political science majors (as I was), so perhaps they were more accustomed to thinking about the role of government in the abstract, and thus were more receptive to that type of communication. In any event, it’s good that different libertarians communicate in different ways, as it allows us to reach different people.
Zapper: “No way around it. We gotta get on major network TV first. Market by market. State by state. Starting small and growing as our donor base grows.”
Are you talking about running ads on hit shows during prime time?
JJM @ 30: I had to go back & read those comments, I had missed them the first reading. Wayne certainly does have his work cut out for himself!
I wish Wayne good luck in reaching such closed minded people, but it seems a losing proposition to me.
RC @ 33: Our “target audience” at this time should be the disgruntled, or fed up voters. Those that are registered but don’t see much point in voting. The people that Perot brought to the polls.
PEACE
@46 Langa
Very good feedback, I appreciate the response. I have a few reasons for giving a concrete answers regarding what government SHOULD do. The main one is based on communication style. Most people are concrete communicators, so giving them very precise concrete answers keeps them from going down tangential roads. If you have not read up on concrete vs. abstract communication, let me know, I’ll link some great info here.
By giving them the non-aggression principle it gives people a concrete thing to bounce off, so when they ask about various government programs we can get back to the non-aggression principle. (Protecting our rights)
Leaving it open and abstract doesn’t give them a frame of reference other than the typical self identification as in R’s favor X but not Y and D’s favor Y but not X.
If you are good at reading people and find that they may be the 10% or so of the population who are abstract communicators, your method would be very interesting and beneficial. Most Libertarians are abstract communicators, hence why we self select people who understand our abstract way of communicating.
#45: Overall, I like your explanation of libertarianism, and your approach of gently easing people into recognizing their own “inner libertarian”, so to speak. However, I do see one problem that could cause quite a bit of confusion in the potential convert.
Toward the end, you do a nice job of explaining how you can’t trust the government to just do the small number of things that you want them to, and so inevitably, they end up doing lots of things that you don’t want them to do. However, this explanation comes right after you just told the convert that the government should be trusted to do a small number of things, and nothing else. These contradictory claims can’t help but confuse the convert, and may even make them question your sincerity and/or intelligence.
To avoid this, I would suggest that when the potential convert asks if libertarians “don’t want the government to do anything”, the best reply would be to say, “Well, we believe the government should do as little as possible.” The convert will likely press for more specifics, which provides the libertarian with the perfect opportunity to reinforce the message. Such an exchange might go as follows:
Libertarian: Well, we believe the government should do as little as possible.
Convert: So, what exactly does that mean?
Libertarian: Well, you tell me. Do you think that society could function with no government at all?
(If the convert happens to say “yes”, then great, obviously your work is done. Of course, it’s much more likely that they’ll say “no”, but that’s OK too).
Convert: Of course not. We obviously need at least some government.
Libertarian: Well, what sorts of things do you think we need government to do? In other words, what do you think are the essential functions that we couldn’t live without the government doing?
Convert: Well, we need the government to do X, Y, and Z.
(“X, Y, and Z” may be a lot of things, or not many, but it will almost certainly be much less than what the government currently does).
Libertarian: Is that all?
Convert: Yeah, I guess so.
Libertarian: Well then, it seems like you agree with us that government should be doing a lot less than it currently does.
(Then you suggest to them that they might be interested in learning more, etc).
The beauty of this method is that virtually no one will tell you that the government should be doing more than it currently is, and most people will tell you that it should be doing far less. Once they have done that, they have voluntarily “converted” themselves, by agreeing with the basic gist of libertarianism, and since their “conversion” was voluntary, they’ll fell intellectually committed to it, much more so than if you “convinced” them of the error of their ways.
OPH booths are great if they are done in a way to include, not exclude and help plant a seed, not further sterotypes.
Below is a good explanation which tends to be more inclusive as opposed to just looking for natural Libertarians.
When I was new in the party back in 1997 I was taught how to do the booths by long time libertarians, and their focus was on trying to find the 20% who score LP.
Well a few us found that many more people were still open to our views, but they needed a bit of explanation. One thing we do is if you notice people scoring yes on several questions, but no on questions “2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet” “3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.” 4 and 8., it is a good idea to double check and rephrase it for them. Many people miss the double negative of question 2 and many don’t know what the word repeal means. (This has been fixed on some newer quizzes)
Another thing we found is unless you are very good at “political cross dressing” (learning to use words and phrases that appeal to various personality types) and at using the The Ransberger Pivot (http://archive.suite101.com/article.cfm/libertarian/106540) you can very easily get stuck debating with people on 1 or 2 issues.
Having worked booths with well over 100 different libertarians I have also found that many libs like to let people know they are socialists or (derogatorily) Liberal or statists if they score liberal or below, or fascists if they score below the line conservative. This is very counterproductive also.
What Doug Scribner and myself have tried to develop is a way to explain the Diamond Chart to people, no matter what their score is.
Here are some ideas:
Have you heard politics described as “left wing” or “right wing”…you know, liberal or conservative
Couple: Yes.
Well people on the “liberal” end of the spectrum tend to favor personal freedoms, like privacy and the right to live, love, and use your body in any way you choose. But these same “liberals” tend to put restrictions on economic freedom, they restrict what you do with your money.
People on the ‘conservative’ side of the spectrum tend to want economic freedom, the free market, even though that (usually just means for corporations) and fewer economic regulations. But they restrict what you do with your body and personal life.
Couple: oh yeah I’ve heard of that…These folks [points to liberals] tend to be Democrats, and these folks [points to conservatives] tend to be Republicans.
Libertarian: Basically. However, “liberal” and “conservative” are names of philosophies whereas “Democrat” and “Republican” are political parties. You see this chart plots political philosophies. Now down here we have what is called “authoritarian” which would be people who want very little personal freedom or economic freedom. These folks would rather have all decisions be made by politicians or leaders. Some examples would be fascism from the right or socialism from the left.
Now up here we have “libertarian”. These people believe in the most personal freedom and the most economic freedom. Libertarians believe that politicians sole job is to make sure these freedoms are not taken away.
Couple: Isn’t that what the Constitution says?
Libertarian: Yes. Now you and I may not like what some people do with this freedom, but as long as no one else is hurt, we can’t force people to do what they normally would not do. People may even decide to do stupid things….that makes that person an idiot…but they should not be a criminal.
Couple: As long as they don’t hurt others.
Libertarian: Right. If they hurt someone else, they are criminals, and should be forced by the government to pay back their victims.
Couple: I thought you didn’t want the government to do anything.
Libertarian: Oh no, we WANT the government to protect our rights. That means we need a court system, a common defense, and a few other things. Libertarians WANT strong laws protecting us from real crime and locking up real bad guys, not jus people who commit victimless crimes.
Then I show people where they land on the chart, as opposed to saying “you are, or aren’t a libertarian” I ask them what are the odds that you will get 51% of the population, and 51% of the politicians to vote for exactly the 3 things you want the government to do, and the 5 things you don’t want them to do. What we end up with is you get your 3 things, and your neighbor gets his 3 and this group gets their 3 and so on. (point to different points on the chart) So we end up with the government involved in everything. What we would like to see is simple laws and an even playing field.
That is all for now
@40
Reaching out to the young is a good idea … Reaching out is a good idea …
Very little of either has been done since Clark 1980 …
Operation Politically Homeless operations such in the video posted by Paulie are a great way to build slowly. We are not just talking about targeting the young, but the young college student … These are future voters, future leaders, future public officials, future high income earners, potential future LP members and donors. It is essential for the future of the LP to reach out to them. It would be nice to have a well funded campus organzation … So, who are the target donors to fund this on campus outreach.
We need to reach out to the established, working older individuals in America who have been missed or lost since 1980 – first. These are the immediate potential supporters, voters, members and donors who can help pay for our campus outreach to find our future members, donors, supporters and voters.
In addition, quite a few college students actually watch TV along with their parents, brothers and sisters.
No way around it. We gotta get on major network TV first. Market by market. State by state. Starting small and growing as our donor base grows.
We’ve wasted 30 years of growth opportunity – from Campaign 82, gutted by party infighting, through June 1, 2012.
All indications are that the LP will move quickly to follow the same well worn path with the same well worn excuses to undertake the same well worn POTUS campaign strategies with the same well worn results.
I’ve seen this movie before, and I don’t like the ending.
It’s time to try something new.
Let’s make our own movie and try for a different ending.
Even if the ending is the same, it’ll be more fun doing something new.
And for many, including me, if all you want to do is trudge down the same path to see the same old movie, I’ve got better things to do.
Opportunity is knocking.
Will anyone open the door?
Buchman: “I’m wondering if you could list your top 5 or top 10 things that could help back up selling voting Libertarian in the media and/or if you found any of the ones I suggested useful in your campaign.”
I think your suggestions in post 9 are all good.
The Wasted Vote Syndrome (WVS) is a very widespread phenomenon. I think many Libertarians don’t think about it enough.
We can debate the best way to present libertarian views (and that’s important), but here’s a fact: many people who fall somewhere in the libertarian quadrant and have heard of the LP still won’t vote Libertarian. They believe that voting for a new party candidate is a waste that detracts from electing a “not terrible” old party candidate who has much more money, much more exposure, and a much better chance of winning.
IMO, addressing this issue deserves as much attention as how “radical” or “moderate” the LP should be or how the LNC should be raising & spending money. Unfortunately, as long as we have a winner-take-all electoral system (and I don’t think that’s going to change), then WVS is a big problem that needs to be deftly handled.
From @39: “You need to convince them that a vote for a Libertarian has a huge impact. It really does. If the D’s and R’s start to notice that the Libertarians are getting 8% of their vote when they are virtually splitting the rest, they are going to start acting more libertarian. If not, they are paving the way for a third party.
Which could happen if this party could differentiate itself by standing strong on principles. If we go the root of a water downed message, you will never get enough people in your base to get the revolution started. There simply isn’t a reason to vote for someone who is kind of like the other guys, but not as bad.
The media tells these people there is a difference, there is not. That needs to be part of our sales pitch. Combined with actually being different.”
– John Jay Myers
Right on …
Write on …
I don’t really buy that Romney is going to beat Obama. And I think the argument that the media is reporting that is difficult to attribute to them being “in the tank” for him. I mean, Romney, bland new england style conservative, doesn’t exactly scare anyone, mostly because he keeps changing positions.
Every poll I see shows Obama at a point or two ahead on average. And Romney can’t really run on the economy. Guy who’s party oversaw a recession VS the guy who failed to get us out of it? Not exactly going to win over independents.
Gary Johnson will probably win equal parts disillusioned republicans and democrats but realistically get what 3rd parties traditionally get, about 1-3 percent of the vote. I have to Agree that if they wanted to split the right wing vote, Virgil Goode is the way to go.
Johnson tried to legalize Marijuana I believe, and actually promises an end to the war. But he also partially privatized the prison system which had at best mixed results http://archive.epinet.org/real_media/010111/materials/greene2.pdf
http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Too_Good_to_be_True.pdf
So probably roughtly equal left-right-center
appeal
That said, I hope he and Jill Stein and Virgil Goode all break the 1 percent mark.
38 ah, could be that – to the extent that a L prez campaign can target- it may be that the “young” might be an optimal demo. My understanding is they vote at a lower rate than mid and older brackets, so that’s a challenge.
I wonder what Zapper thinks of this. I seem to recall that the young watch network TV at lower rates than mids and seniors. If so, it’s an even leakier demo….
Joe, you have to convince people they are worse off than they know. And they are.
You have to make the case that the two parties are the same, that in the end the banks will get theirs, the war machine will get theirs, and you will end up with less money and less freedom.
You need to convince them that a vote for a Libertarian has a huge impact. It really does. If the D’s and R’s start to notice that the Libertarians are getting 8% of their vote when they are virtually splitting the rest, they are going to start acting more libertarian. If not, they are paving the way for a third party.
Which could happen if this party could differentiate itself by standing strong on principles. If we go the root of a water downed message, you will never get enough people in your base to get the revolution started. There simply isn’t a reason to vote for someone who is kind of like the other guys, but not as bad.
The media tells these people there is a difference, there is not. That needs to be part of our sales pitch. Combined with actually being different.
The entire youth demographic is the target audience.
Not all, or most, of them are self-IDed libertarians. Some are, and still represent a lot more support than the LP has ever had. Some are libertarians, but not self-identified. At a typical OPH, most people who score libertarian have never thought of themselves as such until then, and at least a few walk away thinking of themselves as libertarians.
You will notice that the video does not just show the people who scored libertarian. It shows all the people and where they land. The biggest clusters are in the left, libertarian and centrist areas. Some score conservative and authoritarian, but relatively few.
That seems like a pretty good target audience, given that they are more likely to be politically independent than older people and that Ron Paul has done pretty well with this audience (I don’t think it’s because of his views on abortion, immigration or gay marriage, either).
p, young, self-IDed Ls? That’s nice. I wonder how big that target audience is….
There are Democrats who likewise will not vote for Obama and his evolved position on same-sex marraige, and that is fact #2….
Not a large group. IMO. Most socially conservative white Democrats have already left that party. There are still a lot of socially conservative non-white Democrats, but they will almost all vote for Obama for other reasons.
There are a lot of Republicans who have a problem with Mormons, but they have a bigger problem with Obama. A red meat conservative on the ticket as VP will reel them in to vote for the Republicans. Their friends and family will hammer them that a vote for anyone except the Republicans is a vote for Obama. It’s BS, but it works.
Jill Stein has no experience in creditable political office. Johnson and Goode both do. That puts her on a lower tier in the credibility sweepstakes.
What will matter is how many states she is on the ballot in, and which ones. If her ballot access is comparable, Romney would almost certainly demand that she be included in the debate if Johnson or Goode is.
It would be interesting to see Johnson debate Obama without Romney 🙂
30 jjm: This furthers my point that our target audience does not lie in the far right.
me: I certainly agree. But what is the target audience?
Top things to media:
1. Polling – if you are a third party candidate (especially if you’re the only one), getting 5% or more gets attention
2. Credibility – if you make a decent case for your issues or have been in the spotlight before, it helps
3. Supporters – ardent supporters that hit the streets, send emails or create events draws the media in
4. A Touch of Class – if you surprise media folk by being decent and reliable, they come to you when they need something to fill the gaps – not the greatest stuff – but it works
5. Scandal – do something stupid, not so great in the long run, but might get you some temporary attention
John Jay — I suggested some specifics in my remarks @9 — hoping Wayne and others might benefit from them.
I’m wondering if you could list your top 5 or top 10 things that could help back up selling voting Libertarian in the media and/or if you found any of the ones I suggested useful in your campaign.
Maybe some brainstorming here could lead to some more effective literature, talking points, website design and ultimately advertising?
I think the most telling thing here is how the people Wayne was addressing feel about his article (see the comments).
If you know people are going to have sharp, knee jerk reactions to what you say, you might want to include better back up to your theory besides “I am voting Libertarian, you should too” if these are the people who Wayne plans on winning over, he has a lot of work to do.
They love him as long as he is not trying to get them to vote third party. When you mention “third party” his base disappears completely.
This furthers my point that our target audience does not lie in the far right.
“I think there are a lot of 2008 Obama voters who don’t want to repeat their mistake, but also don’t want to vote for the Republican, and yet feel a civic duty to vote….”
#5? …You said that right, and I don’t, I won’t and I do….
Here is how I see it. There are Republicans who view Romney’s Mormonism as unacceptable, and will refuse to vote for him. That’s just the way it is, and I say this is Fact #1.
There are Democrats who likewise will not vote for Obama and his evolved position on same-sex marraige, and that is fact #2….
As both of these groups are more conservative than liberal, that is going to leave Mr. Goode the candidate of choice over any of the other independent or 3rd party candidates. I’ll not say this is Fact #3, because that might not be true, but then again, it just might.
At any rate, an Independent is going to fill this vacuum because those voters are going to vote. It will be interesting to see how many of the “party faithful” bolt both parties in November. Fact #4? America is ripe for the election of an Independent candidate for president. No, that is just my opinion, but I’d love to see Virgil Goode and his Southern drawl take on smooth-talking President Obama in an open debate! And oh yes, I suppose it would be polite to invite the Republicans too….
@22 – Jill Stein has no experience in creditable political office. Johnson and Goode both do. That puts her on a lower tier in the credibility sweepstakes.
I think we should bet on how low Facebook will go. Any takers at 14?
As I’ve been saying for the last couple of years, I fully expect Obama to lose, but I would be very surprised if it was a landslide (in either direction).
I’m not going to lie – reading through the comments in the article and parsing comment after comment of, “If Obama wins again, we’re doomed, never to return!” were disheartening. I’m not saying this because I’m a nihilistic libertarian that thinks we’re doomed no matter who wins (I’m not). I’m saying this because, when a large portion of the electorate seriously believes millenialist end-of-days garbage, they will do absolutely anything to keep the sky is falling. Anything at all.
Suddenly I have a renewed appreciation for Obama’s traffic-stopping, city clogging, seemingly arbitrary security measures whenever he visits Reno.
Intrade has Obama to win.
@20
Hopefully correct. Hopefully there will not be a Paul endorsement of Goode.
Obama is substantially in the lead in electoral votes, especially in swing states. Romney’s campaign has associated itself with the Republican war on contraception, and now with the birthers. He also had a peculiar issue in the Republican primaries, which may reassert itself: The more he advertised, the less people liked him.
Romney has political advisers who are quite astute enough to insist that Jill Stein be included in any debate that features other third party candidates.
Johnson would be better off debating Stein and Goode, say once a week.
I like Wayne’s statement.
Paulie @ 11:
You’re correct that in hindsight, based on exit polls, Perot did not cost Bush the 1992 election. That was a sloppy statement on my part. However, during the campaign leading up to the election everyone assumed that Perot would draw more votes from Bush than Clinton, and hence the main-stream media was happy to shower publicity on Perot. Bush lost because of his “read my lips, no new taxes” broken promise. And if Perot hadn’t inexplicably dropped out of the race before dropping back in, he might even have become President.
I don’t see Virgil Goode and the Constitution Party as offering the same opportunity to split the vote, at least in the minds of the pundits and media. Ron Paul has elevated the term “libertarian” into popular usage, which should make the Libertarian Party the obvious third-party alternative this year. There’s a good chance that Johnson will poll in a 3% to 10% fluctuating range over the next four months, with a substantial gap between him and the next lower third-party/independent candidate.
If Wayne is correct, and Obama’s prospects start looking really bad down the stretch, I can easily envision the liberal media / Democrat leadership trying to use Johnson as a wild card to try to shake things up and change the subject away from Obama. Romney, on the other hand, is very risk averse. I see Romney objecting to Johnson’s inclusion in the debates, but not countering by trying to include additional candidates.
While I hope Obama loses, I don’t think he will. The support that he has in the big electoral vote states don’t appear to be changing before the election.
I really appreciate that Wayne gets us out in the press, especially when he does a great job of representing the whole party and when he promotes our candidates with confidence.
Not sure what that test measures. It seems to interpret “left” and “libertarian” as strongly correlated. See
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
@15
“Obama and Romney are the same candidate.”
I agree. See
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
Johnson could play a serious factor in the race.What if he wins New Mexico and takes a few electoral votes from Obama? What if he wins New Hampshire and skims a few from (I guess) Romney?
The race will be close and I think Johnson could sway it either way.
I hope he rains on someone’s parade. I don’t care whom. Obama and Romney are the same candidate.
I agree. Did I say something to lead you to believe I don’t?
@11 I would be surprised if Stein or Goode were not on the ballot in enough states to win, and then some.
The serious current state-by-state analysis all show Obama has the electoral votes to win. That’s assuming, of course, that the election matches the current polling numbers, and without assuming that Obama carries Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, or Colorado.
I call interested readers to electoral-vote.com and pollster.com for the details. Note that the electoral-vote Senate numbers are a placeholder, showing the 2006 states.
Daniel Wiener:
Not so. 38% of Perot voters in exit polls said their second choice was Bush, 38% said it was Clinton, and the remainder said they would not have voted for either Clinton or Bush even without Perot running – that is they wouldn’t have voted, or would have voted for an alt party.
For those seeking to defeat Obama by splitting the Republican vote, Virgil Goode is a far more reliable pick that Johnson, since as you note
Obama’s team will probably be aware of this, and thus wouldn’t want to promote Johnson too much. Goode/CP would serve their goals in this regard more reliably, and will most likely be only a few states behind the LP in ballot access – although those states will include TX and quite possibly CA.
They are also aware that the LP or CP being included in the debates would shift the national dialogue going forward. It may be for this reason that they have never pushed for such a thing.
Anderson did not really change the national debate at all; Perot did help focus people on the debt issue for a few years, but that was about it.
Lastly, if Johnson/Goode were to be included in a debate, and if splitting the vote outweighs changing the debate, Romney could credibly demand that Jill Stein be included so that every candidate with a chance to win could be heard.
I really doubt Johnson, Stein or Goode will be invited, and it’s too bad that Johnson is apparently not interested in debating Goode and Stein if Obama and Romney don’t participate.
If one is likely to view Root’s call through a prism of bias, its that he made the call to dispel the “wasted vote” fears, by in effect saying (and I’m cribbing this from a prior campaign, I don’t remember what one…)
…Romney doesn’t need your vote, and Obama can’t use it.
The comments below the article explicate the challenges a Libertarian faces when making these arguments to this audience.
I’d suggest reading the comments in addition to the article.
A far better case could have been made for why a Libertarian vote is NOT a “wasted vote” (it moves the parties toward Liberty far more than a “wasted” R or D vote will (especially in the “already-decided–in-terms-of-electoral-votes” states — there are really only about 8 to 10 states that matter between now and November, the rest should feel free to vote Libertarian as a way of sending a message); or the argument that we’re building for a future of Liberty beyond 2012; or the argument that Penn Jillette (among others) has made that: “voting for the lesser of two evils . . . will always leads to more evil.”
As GP notes in #5, it is about electoral votes not popular votes. Every state by state comparison I’ve seen shows Romney, at best, squeaking by
in the electoral college. With five months to ago until the election, the incumbent has plenty of time to pull a “Tonkin Gulf” style incident.
And don’t tell me the so-called progressives have too much integrity to try it.
Historically, “it’s the economy, stupid” is a pretty safe platform to run on, and that’s certainly Romney’s card to play in this cycle. Also, the GOP appears to be uniting behind Romney much more solidly than the Democrats are around Obama, which will make this race that much more interesting. That said, I agree that Paul and C4L are wildcards, and I look forward to seeing when those cards hit the table.
As for Johnson, it’s refreshing to see Wayne solidly offer his support, just as it’s refreshing to see that Wayne has learned how to better finesse his position as a “political oddsmaker” and his responsibilities and role in the LNC. I wish Wayne well on both of his endeavors.
Right wing analysis not supported by serious polling.
There is an outcome of President Obama having endorsed gay marriage. Polling shows radical changes in opinion among African-American churchgoers, from anti- to accepting of gay marriage. pollster-com and electoral-vote.com both have state-by-state electoral vote counts based on large numbers of polls, and Obama at this date is clearly winning. The same polls, incidentally, show Americans inclined to blame the Bush depression on Bush. Romney also has a long record of political ineptitude, most recently by hanging with birther crackpots.
Of course, the CatsForRomney, showing pictures of Romney mounting dog cages on the roof of a car, his private plane, and a space shuttle, may still make a hit with cat-owners.
I tend to agree with Wayne’s prediction, and I also think it bodes well for Gary Johnson. Since the main-stream media are in the tank for Obama, they are going to get desperate for ways to help him as the election approaches and their fears of an Obama loss increase. So they may very well begin to publicize and effectively promote Johnson’s candidacy, in the hope that he’ll siphon votes from Romney. That effort could include pushing for Johnson to participate in the debates.
The same thing happened in 1980, when the press latched onto John Anderson in the hope that he’d hurt Reagan, and in 1992, when Ross Perot helped defeat Bush. I continue to believe that if John Anderson had not run as an independent candidate, the press would have turned to Ed Clark to fill that role. And in that case the trajectory of the Libertarian Party in U.S. politics would have been very different.
Who else can the liberal media turn to this year? Americans Elect has flamed out. Trump is trumpeting Romney. Bloomberg isn’t doing anything. Ron and Rand Paul are staying in the Republican Party. No other third parties or independent candidates have the interest or ballot access. So the LP is it as far as 2012 challengers go.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if, come September, Obama responds to the drumbeat of liberal pundits who are urging Johnson’s inclusion in the debates by pseudo-reluctantly agreeing that Johnson should be invited. That would be Obama’s “game-changer” if his internal polls look really bleak.
But this is an instance where Johnson could confound the perception that Libertarians are just more radical right-wingers. I think there are a lot of 2008 Obama voters who don’t want to repeat their mistake, but also don’t want to vote for the Republican, and yet feel a civic duty to vote. They’d be very happy to switch to an honest candidate like Johnson who supports civil rights and fiscal responsibility. The net impact on Obama and Romney is thus likely to be a wash, or a minor shift at most. But it could have a major impact in favor of the LP.
I note the general publication title in the opening of the IPR article. I think my headline is more directly of interest to IPR readers/subject matter.
I’ve been saying for months that I wasn’t certain that Obama being re-elected was a sure thing in November. However, I think Ron Paul is still a factor in the election and I’m a little surprised Wayne didn’t adknowledge that. The military and youth categories have been very strong for Dr. Paul, and I just don’t see many of these Paul supporters supporting Romney. I don’t think the November election will go that smoothly for Romney.
I was pleased to see him endorsing Johnson at the beginning of the article.
Suggested title: “Wayne Root calls general election race for Romney.”
Well, he’s harder on Obama than he is Romney but at least he said he will vote for Johnson. The prediction of a Romney landslide is gutsy in my view. Overall much improved.