Using SurveyMonkey, IPR conducted three polls from August 12-19 gauging reader preference for those running or interested in running for the Libertarian Party’s 2016 presidential nomination. With each individual listed in alphabetical order, readers chose between:
- Libertarian activist Jim “Libertarian” Burns (campaign website)
- Minerva Councilman Phil Davison (wikipedia bio )
- Retired judge Jim Gray (wikipedia bio)
- Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (wikipedia bio)
- US Parliament participant Kip Lee (campaign website)
- Progressive activist Robert Milnes (campaign website)
- Writer Darryl Perry (campaign website)
- Physicist George Phillies (2008 campaign website)
- Attorney Warren Redlich (wikipedia bio)
- Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura (wikipedia bio)
In the three polls, participants were asked to rate the viability of the above individuals, to rank each based on personal preference, and to select one (or none) as their preferred choice for the Libertarian Party’s 2016 presidential nomination.
Overall, 166 readers took part in the survey. Results are tabulated below.
Poll I:
Each named individual is ranked below according to the highest mean value for each viability gauge with “Poor” representing 1, “Below average” representing 2, “Average” representing 3, “Above Average” representing 4, and “Excellent” representing 5. For the purpose of this figure, “N/A” is not a factor.
The value beside each total shows the percentage each viability gauge made up of the total. Bold values mark the highest value for each viability gauge with all named individuals compared. Underline values mark the personal high for each named individual.
| 1. Based on your personal opinion, please rate the viability of the following individuals who have expressed interest in or are running for the Libertarian Party’s 2016 presidential nomination. | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Name |
AVG | Poor | Below Average | Average | Above Average | Excellent | N/A | ||||||
| Σ | % | Σ | % | Σ | % | Σ | % | Σ | % | Σ | % | ||
| Johnson | 4.27 | 8 | 5.19 | 9 | 5.84 | 10 | 6.49 | 34 | 22.08 | 93 | 60.39 | 0 | 0 |
| Gray | 3.92 | 6 | 4.03 | 8 | 5.37 | 26 | 17.45 | 60 | 40.27 | 48 | 32.21 | 1 | 0.67 |
| Ventura | 3.33 | 18 | 12.08 | 28 | 18.79 | 25 | 16.78 | 40 | 26.85 | 36 | 24.16 | 2 | 1.34 |
| Redlich | 2.60 | 31 | 21.83 | 25 | 17.61 | 42 | 29.58 | 27 | 19.01 | 4 | 2.82 | 13 | 9.15 |
| Phillies | 2.57 | 36 | 25.35 | 25 | 17.61 | 48 | 33.80 | 21 | 14.79 | 8 | 5.63 | 4 | 2.82 |
| Perry | 2.14 | 52 | 36.62 | 28 | 19.72 | 26 | 18.31 | 16 | 11.27 | 4 | 2.82 | 16 | 11.27 |
| Burns | 2.10 | 53 | 36.55 | 36 | 24.83 | 30 | 20.69 | 14 | 9.66 | 3 | 2.07 | 9 | 6.21 |
| Davison | 1.91 | 53 | 37.86 | 31 | 22.14 | 27 | 19.29 | 6 | 4.29 | 1 | 0.71 | 22 | 15.71 |
| Milnes | 1.56 | 90 | 62.94 | 25 | 17.48 | 10 | 6.99 | 3 | 2.10 | 5 | 3.50 | 10 | 6.99 |
| Lee | 1.50 | 75 | 53.19 | 29 | 20.57 | 11 | 7.80 | 1 | 0.71 | 1 | 0.71 | 24 | 17.02 |
Gary Johnson received the highest mean score with 4.27, higher than “above average.” Over 60 percent of those who rated, rated Johnson’s viability as “excellent.” Jim Gray trailed Johnson with a mean score just short of “above average.” He received the highest number of “above average” ratings, and lowest number of “poor” ratings.
Poll II:
Each named individual is ranked below according to the lowest mean value for each ranking corresponding to its numerical value.
The value beside each total shows the percentage of participants who ranked each named individual under such rank. Bold values mark the highest value for each rank with all named individuals compared. Underline values mark the personal high for each named individual.
| 2. Based on your personal preference, please rank the following individuals who have expressed interest in or are running for the Libertarian Party’s 2016 presidential nomination. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Name |
AVG | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||
| Σ | % | Σ | % | Σ | % | Σ | % | Σ | % | Σ | % | ||||||||||||
| Johnson | 2.31 | 89 | 58.94 | 23 | 15.23 | 12 | 7.95 | 4 | 2.65 | 7 | 4.64 | 6 | 3.97 | ||||||||||
| Gray | 3.06 | 15 | 9.93 | 63 | 41.72 | 32 | 21.19 | 17 | 11.26 | 9 | 5.96 | 5 | 3.31 | ||||||||||
| Ventura | 4.75 | 19 | 12.58 | 27 | 17.88 | 31 | 20.53 | 9 | 5.96 | 10 | 6.62 | 14 | 9.27 | ||||||||||
| Burns | 5.59 | 1 | 0.66 | 12 | 7.95 | 21 | 13.91 | 25 | 16.56 | 21 | 13.91 | 20 | 13.25 | ||||||||||
| Phillies | 6.24 | 10 | 6.62 | 7 | 4.64 | 16 | 10.60 | 18 | 11.92 | 11 | 7.28 | 13 | 8.61 | ||||||||||
| Davison | 6.26 | 2 | 1.32 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 4.64 | 27 | 17.88 | 24 | 15.89 | 28 | 18.54 | ||||||||||
| Redlich | 6.93 | 3 | 1.99 | 5 | 3.31 | 14 | 9.27 | 22 | 14.57 | 18 | 11.92 | 10 | 6.62 | ||||||||||
| Perry | 7.26 | 1 | 0.66 | 7 | 4.64 | 8 | 5.30 | 8 | 5.30 | 6 | 3.97 | 10 | 6.62 | ||||||||||
| NOTA | 7.46 | 7 | 4.64 | 5 | 3.31 | 8 | 5.30 | 15 | 9.93 | 22 | 14.57 | 7 | 4.64 | ||||||||||
| Lee | 7.80 | 1 | 0.66 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1.99 | 20 | 13.25 | 23 | 15.23 | ||||||||||
| Milnes | 8.34 | 3 | 1.99 | 2 | 1.32 | 2 | 1.32 | 3 | 1.99 | 3 | 1.99 | 15 | 9.93 | ||||||||||
|
Name |
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Σ | % | Σ | % | Σ | % | Σ | % | Σ | % | |
| Johnson | 1 | 0.66 | 4 | 2.65 | 1 | 0.66 | 1 | 0.66 | 3 | 1.99 |
| Gray | 5 | 3.31 | 2 | 1.32 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1.32 | 1 | 0.66 |
| Ventura | 7 | 4.64 | 4 | 2.65 | 7 | 4.64 | 16 | 10.60 | 7 | 4.64 |
| Burns | 19 | 12.58 | 9 | 5.96 | 9 | 5.96 | 9 | 5.96 | 5 | 3.31 |
| Phillies | 14 | 9.27 | 16 | 10.60 | 25 | 16.56 | 17 | 11.26 | 4 | 2.65 |
| Davison | 16 | 10.60 | 25 | 16.56 | 11 | 7.28 | 5 | 3.31 | 6 | 3.97 |
| Redlich | 5 | 3.31 | 10 | 6.62 | 18 | 11.92 | 30 | 19.87 | 16 | 10.60 |
| Perry | 27 | 17.88 | 36 | 23.84 | 29 | 19.21 | 12 | 7.95 | 7 | 4.64 |
| NOTA | 9 | 5.96 | 9 | 5.96 | 5 | 3.31 | 11 | 7.28 | 53 | 35.10 |
| Lee | 24 | 15.89 | 13 | 8.61 | 27 | 17.88 | 28 | 18.54 | 12 | 7.95 |
| Milnes | 24 | 15.89 | 23 | 15.23 | 19 | 12.58 | 20 | 13.25 | 37 | 24.50 |
Gary Johnson received the lowest mean score of 2.31. A clear majority of nearly 59 percent of the participants ranked him number one. The placement of personal highs for Jim “Libertarian” Burns, Phil Davison, Darryl Perry, George Phillies, and Warren Redlich, directly relate to the named individual’s alphabetical listing in comparison to each other. Such is not the case for Johnson, Jim Gray, and Jesse Ventura, who each received personal highs at the top of ranks, as well as Kip Lee and Robert Milnes, who each received personal highs at the bottom of the ranks.
Poll III:
Each named individual is ranked below according to the total number of votes received.
| 3. Which one of the following individuals would you most like to see as the Libertarian Party’s 2016 presidential nominee? | ||
|---|---|---|
| Name | Total | % |
| Gary Johnson | 87 | 53.70 |
| Jesse Ventura | 24 | 14.81 |
| Jim Gray | 15 | 9.26 |
| NOTA | 12 | 7.41 |
| George Phillies | 11 | 6.79 |
| Robert Milnes | 5 | 3.09 |
| Warren Redlich | 3 | 1.85 |
| Phil Davison | 2 | 1.23 |
| Jim “Libertarian” Burns | 1 | 0.62 |
| Kip Lee | 1 | 0.62 |
| Darryl Perry | 1 | 0.62 |
Gary Johnson received a clear majority with close to 54 percent of the total. Johnson, Jesse Ventura, and Jim Gray were the only named individuals to receive more votes than NOTA. Jim “Libertarian” Burns, Kip Lee, and Darryl Perry all tied for last place with one vote each.
As analysis continues, follow Saturn’s Repository for further statistics, including results by state.
With Johnson far and away the most preferred, rating, ranking, and choose-one voting all resulted in the same winner, but it’s interesting how the distant second place differs. In choose-one style voting (‘plurality voting’ as it’s called in vote-ology talk) Ventura is a distant second, but several percentiles above Gray at third. The numbers on the rating and ranking methods, though, both reveal that Gray is actually second most preferred, well ahead of Ventura.
Phew! Dodged a bullet!
However I think it’s sad that so many support Johnson after he wasted (or funneled) so much contributor money on consultants and spent nearly zero on ads or other methods of communicating to voters.
Make it a rule that whoever polls below Milnes gets no IPR coverage (until the next poll anyway).
The most notable feature of Jesse Ventura’s Presidential campaign, his statement that first a gazillion volunteers must collect the signatures needed to get him on the ballot, is that it clearly means that he is totally not interested. Alternatively, he does believe it, in which case he has found a campaign scheme that is much less realistic than Robert Milnes’ PLAS scheme. This is good for the party, because he is by report a 9/11 conspiracy sort, as noted on another thread by Unreality Watch.
@3 the ‘wasted’ point needs to be made regularly and emphatically.
@#6 Agreed. Gary Johnson? SERIOUSLY?
I would really like it if the Johnson supporters would explain why it is that they support Johnson.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Conspiracy theorizing is essential to free society. It is one of the main tasks of proper law enforcement and a just judicial system, and more.
The jumbo jet fiasco of 2001 has yet to be investigated. A call for an independent investigation should be written into the Libertarian Party Platform, because it remains enveloped in conjecture, and if it remains univestigated, we have only to await a similar eventuality.
Well said, Melty @ 8. I agree with you. If Libertarians don’t demand truth, who will? Certainly not those Rs and Ds.
“However I think it’s sad that so many support (substitute Ron Paul for Johnson) after he wasted (or funneled) so much contributor money on (substitute family members for consultants)…”
Perhaps the LP/liberty movement can learn from this.
I find the poll interesting, though flawed. And sine Saturn has been so generous to criticize and bash the polls I’ve done, it’s only fair that I do the same.
First, where’s Duensing? Surely a prominent truther activist and radio host should be included.
Second, why is Phil Davison included? He’s a registered Republican the last time I checked. Also, based on his claim to fame, Davison seems unstable.
As far as I know, Duensing has not expressed any interest in running. Davison has expressed interest and so he is included.
fair enough, also here’s a new poll for what’s going on in FL:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/J3P7SBR
It’s mostly for shits and giggles, but it should be fun.
I would like more info on Jim Burns. I heard he holds a political office. Is he functional?
Steve Scheetz @7
Why Johnson? Seems easy – he got our highest vote total ever without making any completely unacceptable (IMO) compromises on libertarian positions.
On the wasting funds issue, I can’t recall any LP prez campaign in the last 20 years where the same accusation was not made. If all 6 campaigns were really that bad, there must be something inevitable about it and I can’t fault Johnson in particular. If the previous 5 were just crying wolf, then you’ll understand if I don’t take it seriously this time.
Donors have (and had) the option of pooling their money separately from the official campaign and buying advertising directly if they truly believe that’s the only valid expenditure.
I don’t believe there were substantial criticisms of Badnarik’s Presidential campaign, in terms of wasting money.
looks to me that the LPPA leadership is out of touch with interested enough to participate libertarians. So Steve if Johnson were the nominee for the LP in 2016 are you prepared to support the parties candidate?
@17 It seems to me we are a bit early to be questioning party loyalty of people whose only interaction with the 2016 race is to invite a defense of teh merits of someone who has already indicated a disinterest in running. Mind you, that candidate is ahead of the fellow who said he would only run if volunteers first put him on the ballot in all 50 states, a campaign scheme that is *much* less realistic than the Milnes PLAS scheme, which only requires one Green Party billionairess to put it into effect.
Of course, the billionairess has to agree to support the plan.
My Friend & Fellow LP & LPPA Member Steve Scheetz is our new LPPA State Chair, and it is our job to rebuild the LPPA for this years local elections & The 2014 Pennsylvania Statewide & Federal elections as it is we the members of the LPPA that elect our officers & Candidates at our conventions for the next election cycle & Steve will be up for re-election at that time, so we have to deal with nominating our declared candidates for Statewide & Local & Federal Offices at that time in the spring of 2014 & run our Ballot access drive for that election cycle. Then after the 2014 general election The LP’s POTUS Candidates will start declaring themselves as candidates for 2016 & getting their campaigns up & running! So until then it is our job to build the LP in our States & bring in new registered Libertarians & LP & State LP Members to build the Party so we can truly compete against the R&D Ruling One Party of Personal & Economic Tyranny !
Mr. Agnew has also started a series of Facebook pages for each state that wants one. It’s called
PENNSYLVANIANS You ARE LIBERTARIAN LIVE FREE and CALIFORNIANS You ARE LIBERTARIAN LIVE FREE as another place for Libertarians and friends to discuss things and plan to expand our ideas. If you want him to set one up for your state, I’m sure he will if you ask him to here or message him on Facebook.
@18 it is also inappropriate for party officials to already be presenting a bias against a future candidate. Hell, Steve might as well be campaigning against Johnson… and that is inappropriate for a party official to be doing when they are supposed to be neutral.
I am sure that if it was an LNC member who was using their position to support a candidate for this office you would object… would you not?
So that breaks down to …
63% functional mainstream
24% functional radical
8% mainstream hobo
5% hobo radical
mainstream hobo is a contradiction in terms
Davison- leans functional
Ventura – functional but let’s be realistic, he’s not running
Redlich – leans functional
Johnson – functional loser
Gray – functional loser
Burns – ?????
Milnes – the original hobo, stereotype
Phillies – hobo
Lee – hobo
Perry – hobo
By your crude definition Burns would be a “hobo” as well.
New Federalist,
I think 90% of the population would be defined as being a hobo by that definition.
Dr. Phillies, a millionaire hobo.You should link to the 50’s song about that next.
Steve M,
I think the next book that I write will be titled Mainstream Hobo and libertarians everywhere will purchase it. It would also make a good magazine title.
I’m pretty sure that CLC’s definition of “hobo” is “any Libertarian candidate who is not an actual hobo of the particular type ‘carpetbagger from another party.”
@7
I support Gary Johnson because he did a great job for us. I don’t give a flying crap what he did or did not do with money, he got more votes than any prior LP candidate. He was actually a viable candidate. By nominating a former governor, our party looked more like an actual, serious, honest-to-god party.
Also, even if Ventura does run, he’s not a libertarian. I like him, but he’s not a libertarian.
How do you figure Johnson is less libertarian than Ventura?
Johnson ran and he lost. Ventura is the most libertarian governor out there and should be the presumptive frontunner. But in this poll, @30, etc, mainstream sheeplism runs ahead of realpolitik radicalism, as it often does in the LP.
However I think it’s sad that so many support Johnson after he wasted (or funneled) so much contributor money on consultants and spent nearly zero on ads or other methods of communicating to voters.
As of the last time I asked Ron Nielson, he told me they spent about a quarter million FRN on radio ads.
Gary Johnson? SERIOUSLY?
Yes, seriously.
I would really like it if the Johnson supporters would explain why it is that they support Johnson.
Well, I’m not sure whether I’ll be a Johnson supporter, but he has many good points. He’s got some name recognition, social media followers and so on from the last run, which he can keep building on, along with media appearances and contacts. He has some pretty compelling personal story as an athlete and self-made businessman, two term Governor Veto in a 2-1 Democratic state, etc. He emphasizes a lot of issues where liberals and libertarians agree, which I like. He has some mainstream credentials. Seemed down to earth and open to learning when I met him. On the other hand there are some downsides as well. With all the constant negativity here, I probably don’t need to elaborate.
Second, why is Phil Davison included? He’s a registered Republican the last time I checked. Also, based on his claim to fame, Davison seems unstable.
Good point.
Davison has expressed interest and so he is included.
I’d like some proof of this. Publicly verifiable contact information?
Donors have (and had) the option of pooling their money separately from the official campaign and buying advertising directly if they truly believe that’s the only valid expenditure.
Good point.
Ventura is the most libertarian governor out there
Except for little things like his record as Governor and his support for Obamacare.
The fact that at least two serious candidates — good candidates — weren’t even included on this poll makes this poll entirely speculative at best.
It was entirely not speculative. There was a completely objective criteria used as explained in the article text. The assertion that it is “entirely speculative at best” has no basis in fact. Cryptically alluding to “two serious candidates” does not support the assertion.
Mike , noone is suggesting the pol is scientific in any way lol
Steve M, I write as Steve Scheetz Libertarian, not as a party official. If I am writing official party view points, it will be specifically stated. However, I am entitled to my own opinion, and I will not forgo my freedom of speech because I am a party official. If you have a problem with this, then move to Pennsylvania and run against me.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz