To participate, go here
It’s possible you may not be able to access the poll if you’re not logged into Facebook.
These are the people listed on the poll:
Jim Burns
Darryl Perry
George Phillies
Adam Kokesh
Jesse Ventura
Michael Badnarik
John Wayne Smith
Jim Gray
Disclaimer: This isn’t a poll sanctioned by the Libertarian Party. It’s posted here for entertainment purposes only.
It has nothing to do with the ideal selling, just insane state ballot access laws. We are not less popular in states with insane ballot access laws than in states with more sane ones.
There’s no opportunity cost, some people give money to ballot access that won’t give it to anything else. There’s no fixed pie of money available to the LP. But, the pie will shrink if we are on the ballot in fewer states.
No candidate for president who is not on the ballot in all or almost all states will ever be taken seriously by the media or voters. Debate access? No chance. Even missing one or two states, as small as that may seem, would make that already remote possibility that much less likely.
@108
Although according to you Nuts, the main issue you are not dealing with is that you are forcing the LP ideal, whatever that may be, onto states that don’t have the logistics to pull it off on their own.
If that is true, then the ideal won’t sell in that domain. You can’t project the findings on one onto another and believe that they will have the same outcome.
The American voter has a plethora of empirical data to prove wrong doing, but they continue to vote for the same person.
The national debate is crucial to any message due to the distribution channels. Every second a candidate is on that stage the viewers are seeing a comparison rationale just as they would in a store and that rationale cannot be duplicated per a campaign in any other way.
It is not worth it to pay for petitioning in states when the voters will never “know” the candidate options or their own beliefs.
Unknown choices are choices that don’t exist. Even if Candidate X is on the ballot, if the voter doesn’t know X, they won’t pick them unless the other options fail them completely.
The LP to function as a club and appear like a club serves no purpose if the national candidate for that club is unknown.
All of the items you listed have a opportunity cost. A cost that would be spent more efficiently on getting awareness for polling which would lead to a national debate appearance. Which MIGHT lead to higher vote totals if the voters buys into the candidate.
To maintain an LP with the same outcome every four years is identical to what the D and R voters do every other November.
Dogma is Dogma no matter what you do with a ledger entry.
If you want to change the outcome, you must alter the means.
I think the Aqua Buddha may have been consulted on that one 🙂
Rand Paul 2016 wrote:
So here is the plan. 1,000 Campaign for Liberty members will sign up as delegates to the Libertarian National Convention in 2016. We will vote for NOTA for President and all other offices external and internal and to dissolve the Libertarian Party once and for all….
LMAO and ROFLAMO
Very funny funny stuff. I hope you didn’t drive after writing that stuff. Not good to drink and drive…..or stoned driving…if that’s your vice.
Good one!
TTFN……………Mark Hinkle,
LNC At-Large & Retired LP Chair
Yes.
He needed time to build his name recognition and support. Apparently he doesn’t understand this, though.
He also should have had 30 second and one minute ads ready to go by the time he got the nomination, with the ability for contributors to run them on specific stations at specific times, and other project targeted fundraising and financial transparency. Full cooperation on giving any contacts gathered by the campaign to the LP and vice versa should have also been happening from the start of the campaign.
So no office, no employees, no website, no LP news, no social media, no support for any other candidates, no database, no press releases…that’s nuts.
Also nuts. The presidential race is the biggest advertisement for the LP every four years. We need candidates at all levels, though.
Many states don’t have adequate resources for this. With severely limited ballot access, the LP would get ignored by higher caliber presidential candidates, donors and the media and would circle down the drain.
@106 No. Some states have to have the candidates’ names on the petition and don’t allow substitution, so the petition can not be started until the candidates are nominated. Some other states have a petition period that doesn’t even start until after the LP convention.
If we had 50 state ballot access at the time of the nominating convention, maybe we could get a candidate with money. Would this be possible?
I can’t change the names on the list, it will erase the votes that have been cast already. That’s why I am going to restart it in August with an edited list, an additional question for a VP nominee, and ranking what will be the most important issue for 2016.
it seems rather then having to pick one from a list being able to rate each of the criteria for each question on say a 3 point scale. I might find two criteria for any one question that I like and the information is less complete if I am forced to pick from one of them.
@101 Not terribly well. “3” comes to mind. That’s why these are draft question.
I own presidentrand.com . I will sell it for $2,000, half of which will be donated to LP national.
@98 how would Jesse Ventura fit in question 3?
Readers may look up how much money each of our nominees and erstwhile nominees was willing to (or did) invest in their nominating and election campaigns.
Adam Kokesh has called off more marches than he has attended this year.
The first question for the poll should be
“Would you support a candidate who has no personal funds for their campaign?”
The first question for the candidates should be
“How much money do you have for your campaign for President?”
Gary Johnson arguably had the best resume we have ever fielded in regards to real politic experience. He got nowhere near 5% of the vote.
I see options for this 2016 season:
LP voters demand a seriously financed candidate with a media plan and force them to prove it with full disclosure to all state chairs two weeks before the convention.
The LNC surrender its annual budget for two years as a means of funding the campaign while individual state parties work on ballot access independently of the national.
The LP not bother running a presidential candidate and focus on Governor races with pre-existing ballot access as to lower the expenses per campaign.
Other points:
The LP needs to get serious about the logistics of a national campaign and how a person can fund one. If our ideals don’t sell then they don’t sell. But the media planning is crucial to the message being sent.
Money is needed to secure great polling as to get into the national debates. A media plan can help with that, but the opportunity costs for petitioning are needed for that media plan.
A media plan done properly can alter the reach/impression base prior to the polling numbers being gathered.
Individual states should work on access to the ballot while the candidate works on polling high enough to reach the debate.
1. Strategic National Media Plan
2. Polling
3. Debate access
All equal an improvement beyond a snow balls chance in Phoenix.
@58 I believe Kip Lee has already declared. At least one of these people is a Republican. Perhaps a group effort to design next month’s poll would be educational, given that there are ten or so questions allowed.
The following questions are meant as examples of the sorts of things that you might ask. You might phrase them very differently.
Type 1) Who are you? (mark the first that applies)
Delegate to last National Convention
State or national party officer, committee member, or the like
Activist
National or state party member
NOTA
Type 2) For the 2016 campaign, which issues would you like stressed most:
financial issues (taxes and spending)
civil liberties issues (taxes and spending)
social liberty issues (abortion, gay marriage)
classic libertarian issues (guns, drug legalization)
Repeat, but what would you like stressed least.
Type 3 What sort of candidate would you most like to see as our Presidential nominee?
Long-time activist with solid campaign organization
Former Democratic or Republican politician
Famous celebrity who was not a politician
Prominent party radical/editorialist
Type 3 What sort of candidate would you least like to see as our Presidential nominee?
Long-time activist with solid campaign organization
Former Democratic or Republican politician
Famous celebrity who was not a politician
Prominent party radical/editorialist
@92 Phillies2016 and Phillies2020 are currently parked.
With respect to changing names on a current poll, that’s probably technically impossible. If you launch a poll like this, and do not like the wording, in general you need to start over with a new poll..
RP16@94,
A very well laid out evil plan to steal the Libertarian Party and put it to work for an anti-libertarian Republican!
There’s at least one respect, however, in which place it can’t possibly work, and that is the plan to “keep ownership of the Libertarian Party name through a shell corporation and vigorously prosecute trademark infringement on anyone who tries to start a new Libertarian Party.”
In order to keep ownership of the Libertarian Party name, you’d have to get ownership of the Libertarian Party name, and that’s not possible. Nobody has such ownership now (the LNC’s trademark application was fraudulent and is void), and nobody’s going to get it.
Another respect in which the plan is defective is the idea that Republicans would, even if they could, “restore the Constitution,” or that the GOP could possibly survive a series of events in which traitors are “put on trial, convicted and hung until dead in front of crowds on live TV.”
@94
Unless Rand completely sell out to the New World Order, which he might, he isn’t going to win the nomination.
So here is the plan. 1,000 Campaign for Liberty members will sign up as delegates to the Libertarian National Convention in 2016. We will vote for NOTA for President and all other offices external and internal and to dissolve the Libertarian Party once and for all. Any remaining funds, internet sites, etc will be given over to Republican Rand Paul who will be the nominee of the Republican Party for President and the next President of the United States of America. We will keep ownership of the Libertarian Party name through a shell corporation and vigorously prosecute trademark infringement on anyone who tries to start a new Libertarian Party, run a state or local organization using that name, run as a Libertarian for any office or create any party with Libertarian as part of its name. We may even move up the plan and dissolve the Libertarian Party in 2014. From now on all Libertarians who run for office will run as Republicans and as Republicans only. We will restore the USA to the original Constitution of our Founding Fathers and repeal all subsequent amendments, executive orders, court rulings, etc. All the illuminati, traitors and stool pigeons will be put on trial, convicted and hung til dead in front of crowds on live TV. Pass it on!
DT@91,
While it would be a waste of my time to respond to you for the sake of responding to you, there’s always a chance that some naive young’un might not know you yet and make the mistake of believing you honest and/or knowledgeable; so I will respond to you for the sake of saving them the numerous possible future problems that might result from assuming credibility in anything you say.
1) You appear to misunderstand the concept of “noblesse oblige” and to think it means someone graciously giving up something they could have had because they are of a noble constitution. That’s not what it means, but it’s easier to stipulate to your mal-definition than to spend a lot of time on its real meaning.
2) I did not proffer the Shermanesque response in favor of some lesser light, believing that I could have the Libertarian Party’s nomination if I wanted it. I do not believe, nor have I held myself out as believing, that I would have any significant chance of winning that nomination should I choose to pursue it.
There are 13 names on Mr. Wendt’s list. My off the cuff guess is that were all 13 of us, and only those 13, to seek the LP’s 2016 presidential nomination, I would come in at sixth place on the first ballot, and that that first ballot finish would likely be my best.
But the fact remains that even if I thought I would or could come in first in that field or any other hypothetical field, or that I could secure the votes of 50%+1 Libertarian national convention delegates for the LP’s 2016 presidential nomination, I wouldn’t seek that nomination.
I am no longer a member of the Libertarian Party, I am no longer a public official (I resigned my federal appointment last fall), I am no longer a registered voter, and I have no intention of ever seeking public office again.
Those are the facts. They will remain the facts whether Dave Terry likes them or not, and they will remain the facts regardless of what Dave Terry makes of them. But if anyone wants to earn some easy money, go find your bookie and plunk down some cash on the bet that Dave Terry will, in fact, make something abysmally stupid of them.
At least one other has taken out a web site.
George Phillies
What’s the URL? Just parking it for now, or do you have a site made?
@90
Even MORE crappy to be removed for lack of support than to take the easy way out and resign.
Kinda crappy to keep someone listed in a poll as a candidate when they request to be removed.
DT @ 86,
Your pretense at having any fucking idea what you’re talking about is doubly so.
@ 86, In August your name will be removed, as will all other candidates who’ve failed to win a single vote.
@86
Your pretense at’ noblesse oblige’ is laughable!
@57,
Please remove my name from the list. If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.
GP @ 81; “You cold ask Lee directly if he wants to run again.”
We could also add Harold Stassen. All we have to
is exhume the body. I’m sure he’d be game for it.
He made stabs at winning the nomination in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1988,
@ 72; “Organic” :>)
GP @ 51;
“@45 I am reasonably sure that would be pointless.
I am absolutely sure that 3/4 of the names already suggested are “pointless”. At least Ruwart is interesting!
Mindful that you are allowed a bunch of questions, perhaps some more detailed poll design, even if you cannot get crosstabs.
Readers interested in my actual positions may follow me on LibertyForAll.net, where I am again posting with some regularity.
You cold ask Lee directly if he wants to run again.
WS 74, AH @ 70 took into account that Davison may be a libertarian. Nevertheless, it is extremely unlikely to say the least that he will be a serious candidate for the nomination. Sorry.
Wendt @73, there’s no doubts about it – Knapp clearly said he will not run and will not accept a draft.
Bill @ 75 Stossel would probably get the nomination if he wanted it, and it’s not completely impossible that he will, but it’s fairly unlikely. People have been asking him every election since at least the 1990s.
AP @ 76 Phillies is not a radical. People often mistake him for one because they have some of the same internal factional opponents in the LP.
I’m still waiting on the when and where Wrights allegedly said he won’t run again.
I am going to restart the Poll at the end of August, with more candidates and with an additional Question about VP candidates.
SurveyMonkey is not impossibly challenging to set up. You get several questions, they say in their ads.
I would suggest if you want other choices, waiting a month and setting up your own poll. And if you wonder if choice X matters, run two sets of questions.
I would also like to see Lee Wrights give it another go.
Mr. Phillies, I hope you will run. We need a radical nominee to re-radicalize this party.
What about John Stossel?
@70
Watch his video from Tosh.0. http://tosh.comedycentral.com/episodes/vlbhvd/march-8–2011—phil-davison
There he lays out some Libertarian positions. In the interview, he calls himself the “biggest liberal”, but based on his views, I’m thinking he means the “biggest civil libertarian.”
@ Jill Pyeatt, It is a bit late, so far 6 people have voted and I’m not sure if changing the options now will affect those votes. I don’t want to erase the votes that were already cast.
@ Ad Hoc, I doubt he’ll run, but if Knapp ran it would make the race interesting, lol.
@71 Bullshit 😛
Penn & Teller 2016.
Even if Phil Davison is a libertarian, and I haven’t seen any evidence on that, he won’t be a serious candidate for the nomination.
Phil Davison is a tea party conservative iirc. And Andrew Napolitano won’t run because Rand Paul will be running as a Republican. Why is Knapp on there? He has stated in no uncertain terms that he absolutely positively will not run and will not accept a draft.
I hope Phil Davison runs. I still remember his 2010 inspirational speech fondly.
Joe, if it’s not too late to add someone, William suggests Phil Davison. Also, I’d like to see Andrew Napolitano added.
“I’ve excluded NOTA because, well, NOTA isn’t a person and therefore couldn’t be the nominee. ”
NOTA could be the nominee, which would just mean the LP would not have a presidential candidate. There’s a real chance of it happening, for example if Rand Paul looks likely to win the Republican nomination. I don’t think that will happen, but it could.
@57 i checked pointless
Mary Ruwart will not run again after the way she was smeared in 2008. That’s why Wrights, not Ruwart, ran in 2012.
Napolitano will not run if Rand Paul is running, and Rand Paul will be running.
Judge Gray may conceivably run, but I wouldn’t bet on it just because he writes a column.
One of these days it might be nice to hear from Phil Davison himself rather than William Saturn being his spokesman. How do we contact him directly?
Gary Johnson may or may not run LP again, that remains to be seen. If he runs as a Republican again in the meantime I will oppose him.
Tom Stevens will once again be the Objectivist Party candidate.
@59 The critical date is a bit later than election day, but your point is well taken.
I didn’t like his comments about the end of his campaign feeling like the end of a prison sentence. I’m sorry, that just irks me.
Thanks, Joe. I’m curious about why you didn’t include Gary Johnson? Do you know something we don’t?
I’ve also created a surveymonkey version for anyone who doesn’t want to give out their Facebook info. It also includes Mary Ruwart and Tom Stevens. Here’s the link:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/K8QVGCS
I love the idea of Adam Kokesh for president, but he will be 34 years old on election day, 2016. However, I have heard from my friend that Kokesh is interested in running for president in 2020.
Judge Andrew Napolitano as well as GJ should be there. If Robert Milnes and Kip Lee can be on there, Gary should be as well.
Thanks for the imput, here’s an updated list:
Jim Burns
Darryl Perry
Robert Milnes
George Phillies
Adam Kokesh
Jesse Ventura
Michael Badnarik
Kip Lee
John Wayne Smith
Thomas Knapp
Jim Gray
Adrian Wyllie
Lee Wrights
I’ve excluded NOTA because, well, NOTA isn’t a person and therefore couldn’t be the nominee. I’ve also excluded Gary Johnson due some of his comments he has made. Let me know if there is anyone else that should be included. Here’s the poll, hopefully you guys will vote:
https://apps.facebook.com/opinionpolls/poll?pid=ACILcW8whPs
55 posts into this string and NOTA STILL looks best!
@23 Jill
Judge Nap should be in the poll for sure!! There is an active draft movement behind him, which I believe is led by the same people who were running Revolution Super PAC during the 2012 primaries. The Draft Judge Nap Facebook page has over 34,000 likes.
https://www.facebook.com/DraftJudgeNapolitanoForPresident
I have to say Judge Nap is my first choice if he decides to run. He’s articulate, principled and knowledgeable on the issues (SO much better than Johnson!). As of right now I’d vote for DWP.
@9 William
Thanks for your link. From it we also learn:
American Independent presidential primary
Three candidates were on the ballot of the American Independent Party, a state political party.
California American Independence presidential primary, 2008
Candidate Votes Percentage
Donald Grundmann 16,603 36.08%
Diane Templin 15,302 33.25%
Mad Max Riekse 14,099 30.64%
David Larson (write-in) 18 0.04%
Totals 46,022 100.00%
Nice job. Constitution Party, America’s Party, American Independent Party, whatever. Fuck them all. Clearly Grundmann’s views are pretty popular in these nutjob right-wing movements.
@45 make that 5
@4 thanks a lot Jill… 🙂 there are at least 4 on your list I would be compelled to make donations to pre-nomination….
@45 I am reasonably sure that would be pointless.
DWP, I plan this to be “potential” candidates. We’re so far ahead of the election that even if someone doesn’t seem interested today, they might still jump into the race.
@45 – If you’re making a poll of “potential” candidates, then yes. If it’s a poll of declared or “publicly stated interest” then no.
@44 yeah, for the Libertarians, I don’t know. I don’t follow their people very much – other then here at IPR.
Okay, William, I’ll add him.
Phil Davison just notified me that he is interested in running.
I asked if he wanted to run as a Libertarian in 2016 and he said:
“Would love to run. Think about it every day. Am approached every day about it. “
I’m thinking perhaps I should include Mary Ruwart. What do you think?
@43
You mean for the Reform Party nomination?
Darcy Richardson or Frank McEnulty would be my choice.
Any idea of the status of Judge Napolitano?
I know how to spell your name, George–sorry. I corrected it above.
I’d be really surprised if Jim Gray isn’t interested.
He’s putting quite a bit of effort into his weekly columns.
Also, Vince Vaughn has recently attended a BBQ with Ron Paul and family. I wish he’s start looking at our party.
When/where did Wrights decline? That’s news to me.
Kudos to Mr Wendt for getting the process under weigh.
If anyone else wants to do this again, consider SurveyMonkey, which gets you up to a fair number of questions.
wrto Jill’s list
By report, declared:
NOTA
Darryl Perry
Jim Burns
At least one other has taken out a web site.
George Phillies Please spell my name right
The recent people have perhaps said no
Jim Gray
Gary Johnson
or perhaps not.
Went back to the Republicans, so no
Bob Barr
Wayne Root
Lee Wrights – I believe has declined.
Kip Lee – Now with another party, I believe.
I suggest one poll with the celebrity candidates not in our party deleted, and another with the ones in our party included. Perhaps I will run a set for Liberty for America.
Waymire did leave, and I think Bill Still did too.
Ross Perot Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot,_Jr.
Not much mention of politics…….
In March 2007, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, seeking the Republican nod for U.S. President in 2008, announced that H. Ross Perot, Jr. would serve as a member of his Texas statewide finance committee
Not seeing anything that says he would have any interest in the LP.
Should I include Bill Still? I believe Joy Waymire has left the LP.
Listen to his speech in part one of my treatise. He is clearly a functional libertarian. There should be a FFFM candidate on the ballot since one will definitely run.
I’ll keep this thread open for a while, and start a new FB poll tonight or over the weekend. I’ll research Ross Perot to figure out where he is now.
Wise decision.
Also no Herman Cain or Billy Roper 🙂
I also went to Robert Milnes’ website, and he doesn’t talk about the LP, so I don’t think I’ll include him.
Show us something that says he has some interest in the LP. I don’t know if his views are anything like his father, who was not close to being libertarian at all.
How about Ross Perot Jr.?
OnTheIssues is not “left wing” and it does say he is borderline conservative-libertarian, which is probably true. More conservative than libertarian though, and certainly not big L Libertarian. Unlike his father, he has no use whatsoever for the Libertarian Party and will probably do everything possible to destroy the LP.
No, CC, I won’t include either Rand Paul or Newt Gingrich, since they’re both Republicans and undoubtedly wouldn’t be interested.
I think your afraid that he’d win the poll.
But even your left wing OnTheIssues lists him as a libertarian.
Rand Paul has no use for the Libertarian Party and has said that he is a conservative, not a libertarian. LPKY says he is not a Libertarian or a libertarian.
At least put Rand Paul…
You probably should not include Kip Lee. He’s another Milnes type. I wouldn’t include Badnarik either, I don’t think he has any interest at all.
We should make our own poll. This is who I think we should put on (in now particular order):
Darryl Perry
George Phillies
Jim Gray
NOTA
Gary Johnson
Lee Wrights
Kip Lee
Jim Burns
Jesse Ventura
Michael Badnarik
Any other ideas?
Makes sense now. Like Ufa Ma, I now also wonder why it didn’t include Billy Roper… or Herman Cain.
In my case, he told me.
There is now a search for an app that wants less personal information.
I don’t know if he put it up or not, but he did advertise it on facebook, and it includes choices that almost no one else would have included such as Phillies and John Wayne Smith, so maybe he did.
How do you know Wendt put up the poll?
Where’s Billy Roper? I thought Joe Wendt put up this poll. I want to vote for Billy Roper of White Revolution!
And why no love for Lee Wrights, the best choice in 2012? If I were choosing a 2016 LP candidate right now, my preference would be:
1) Lee Wrights
2) Jim Gray
3) Anyone else.
A dead politician is almost always better than a live one.
Thomas Jefferson and Grover Cleveland… dead doesn’t matter does it?
…Aren’t Libertarians or libertarians.
Rand Paul, Newt Gingrich, Ross Perot Jr.
Wrights is a lot more likely to run again than Badnarik.
Gov. Ventura, of course. He’s the only one with the resume’, and he’s the keenest observer of realpolitik on the list as well.
And WHY isn’t NOTA not on the list.
A lot of assholes voted for “him” in Vegas!
Milnes should be included since he is an announced candidate, and because he sought the 2008 and 2012 nominations. Notably, in 2008, he won 721 votes in the California Libertarian primary.
As far as I know, the actual 2016 Libertarian Party presidential candidates are:
1. Kip Lee
2. Robert Milnes
3. Darryl Perry
There may be others.
Thanks!
Sure, Paulie, I’ll post the names. I should have thought of that myself.
Jill, correct, Milnes is not a libertarian or a Libertarian, and not even close at all.
BTW would someone please list the choices here in text format?
Why would Milnes be present? Did he get any delegate votes in any of the times he supposedly “ran for president”?
I didn’t make this poll. I also noticed it doesn’t have Gary Johnson. It’s just a Facebook poll, and I posted it because it might be of interest to some IPR readers.
William, why would Milnes be included? I don’t know him to be a Libertarian. I’m not trying to start trouble, but I don’t think he identifies as a Libertarian.
Why is Milnes absent?
What half assed poll is this?
You also have to have polls installed in FB. What are the choices?