http://youtu.be/67rfMbw-3e0
42 Comments
Comments are closed.
June 27, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
http://youtu.be/67rfMbw-3e0
Jill Pyeatt is a small-business owner and jewelry designer from Southern California. She currently serves on the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of CA. She can be found on Facebook and Twitter.
Comments are closed.
Thanks Jill, looking forward to it.
Martin, I’ll keep an eye out for Ben’s speech. It should show up in a few days.
“I did not hear him use the word registered in there. Did I miss it? He could have meant self-identified in polls or something else.”
Did anyone try asking him?
“Swann will be the keynote speaker at the Constitution Party National Committee meeting on Saturday”
Got video?
The list of states that have and don’t have LP registration has changed a little but not very much, so the proportion of the population that is eligible to register with us is not very different than in the other years listed. As a year to year comparison it’s fairly valid, but not exact. I haven’t crunched the numbers to see if it’s 50% or 40% or 70%, that’s just a very, very rough ballpark number.
50% is low. For starters, half of all voters live in places that do not have registration by party. That’s before we get to the state that does not use voter registration at all.
I love Ben Swann’s general approach, but he was off when he said 50% of the voters are not registered Republican or Democratic.
I did not hear him use the word registered in there. Did I miss it? He could have meant self-identified in polls or something else.
he was constantly surrounded by girls and women, so I never had a chance to meet him
You totally had me fooled, I completely thought you were a woman.
Mr. Swann is an excellent spokesman for our movement.
I agree!
. I especially like his closing comment: “Question More.”
Nice line, I like it too!
How about Ben Swann for President in 2016?
If he wants to run that would be great!
Swann will be the keynote speaker at the Constitution Party National Committee meeting on Saturday
Interesting discussion about why we enjoy the speculation, even quixotic speculation about the LP’s prez nominee.
In a word, “symbolism” would be my guess. Humans are driven by symbols. We deal in symbols all day long. Words and numbers are but symbols. Even tangible things are symbols, in that we value things less for their inherent utility, but more so because of what they mean to us.
For us, the Office of POTUS is symbolic of hope, a brighter future. The prez is our Moses, one to lead us out of the desert. Presidential campaigns are auditions for the next Moses.
In the case of Ls, we want to be left alone, and we bristle at being led, so we are conflicted in the Public Square. We want the power to abolish power, by and large.
Finding a chief exponent for that stance is no easy matter. It’s exacerbated by the schisms in the LM, where some play crypto anarchist, others crypto minarchist. The linguistic gyrations necessary to satisfy these constructs is daunting, to say the least.
“Third Party Revolution
November 11, 2014 at 11:17 pm
How about Sean Haugh for President?”
LOL!
This has got to be “Vern” or some other troll.
The numbers of registered voters are available, and those voters are not registered R or D. So, I think Swann’s statement is correct, except that he says “no longer” instead of “not”.
There is no data for those states.
But, Richard, what about those states that do not have partisan registration?
I love Ben Swann’s general approach, but he was off when he said 50% of the voters are not registered Republican or Democratic. The October 2014 figures will be in the Dec. 1 2014 BAN, but it will show Democrats 41%, Republicans 30%, independent + misc. 27%, minor parties 2.4%.
“How about Sean Haugh for President?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s
How about Sean Haugh for President?
Speaking of which:
https://www.facebook.com/Katz2016Exploratory/posts/360942197403580
https://www.facebook.com/Katz2016Exploratory/posts/363204133844053
True, that’s why I think it makes sense to keep running presidential candidates even though the chances of them winning are lower than being struck by lightning and winning the lottery at the exact same time.
There’s just something juicy about the presidential race, it’s what we all talk about. On paper it’s where minor party candidates do the worst, what with the struggle to get on the ballot in all 50 states & the national attention on the big two, but there’s just something about the presidency that makes it the race to watch, even for minor party & independent candidates. I enjoy speculating about who the parties, both major & minor, will nominate, and how they’ll do.
I guess if you throw out enough maybe one or two will stick.
I don’t think Wrights got much grief for his presidential run. The competition wasn’t nasty, unlike what happened in prior presidential nomination campaigns I remember in the LP, and Gary had good things to say about Lee when it was over and said he made him a better candidate, which I think is true. Wrights was widely well regarded after the convention.
His “stock” went down somewhat later due to his behavior and some of his votes on the LNC, which disappointed many people that voted for him both for the LNC and the presidential nomination. It continued to decline as he made his ignominous exits from the race for the TX gov nomination, the LNC, Casa Ruwart, and the state of Texas, with all the drama that accompanied that subchapter of his life.
Yeah, I don’t think its a bad thing. I’m just saying, Andy loves to throw celebrity names out there.
I’m on record calling for the same thing. Not because I have made up my minded on who I will or won’t support for the nomination, because I haven’t, but because I like having choices and believe the competition will improve all the candidates including whoever wins.
Paulie said “I think Mary Ruwart got little but grief for her run for the nomination”.
I suspect that’s true for Lee Wrights, also.
I’ll stick up for Andy and say that there’s nothing wrong with looking for recruits for the presidential campaign. Competition is a good thing, and I’d love to see Gary (assuming he runs again) have to compete with other fine candidates. Who knows? Gary Johnson might not be the best choice for us out there for us.;
A lot of people prefer their current career, or regret it afterwards. Steve Gordon told me that Bob Barr lost a lot of clients in his law practice thanks to his LP run, for example. I am surmising second hand that he expected to be a much bigger deal and that somehow he blames those of us in the LP who were not supportive enough post-nomination. I wasn’t slavish or fawning, but I didn’t really go after him while he was the LP nominee…I just didn’t feel too inspired to help in any way besides my usual (paid ballot access, volunteer coverage that I made even handed and factual to the best of my abilities and got some compliments for).
I think Mary Ruwart got little but grief for her run for the nomination.
For some people it makes sense. I think Harry Browne got a new market for his books and speeches. Wayne Root got more talk show appearances and book sales thanks to his VP run and his LNCC chairmanship.
But for a lot of people it is more trouble than it is worth.
Pretty much anyone who you think might be good has people pestering them about it already.
Paul said: “Why do people keep thinking that everyone would want to run for president or that they aren’t better off doing other things?”
I’m not assuming anything. I’d just like to see a good candidate recruited that can take the Libertarian Party to the next level. If nobody asks if a person is interested in running, then maybe said person will assume that nobody is interested in them running.
Ron Paul was reluctant to run for President each time he ran, including when he ran as a Libertarian Party candidate back in 1988. He only ran because a bunch of his supporters kept urging him to do it.
I do not know if Ben Swann is interested in running for President or anything else. I just think that he has the potential to be a good candidate.
Andy loves to speculate about libertarian celebrities running for POTUS. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it is definitely a thing.
BTW, I have hung out with Ben Swann a few times, he’s a cool guy and very down to earth. If the celebrity has gone to his head he does a good job of hiding that.
Why do people keep thinking that everyone would want to run for president or that they aren’t better off doing other things?
Try running for president yourself. I haven’t done it, can’t, and wouldn’t want to, but I have worked on a few campaigns, including some presidential.
It’s a very hard gig, with few rewards, many humiliations, many unreasonable expectations and much harsh scrutiny. People who do it often suffer career reprecussions, except for a few people for whom it benefits their careers.
I can certainly understand why not everyone who people think might make a good presidential candidate jumps at that chance.
Initials aside, how so?
Jill
Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded 🙂
BS is full of BS.
…unfortunate that it may be that his initials are “BS”!
I have no idea if he’s interested in running, and will certainly ask him if I see him again (he was at the United We Stand Fest in May, but he was constantly surrounded by girls and women, so I never had a chance to meet him). My friend told me he has something like 5 kids, so he may wish to get them raised first.
Mr. Swann is an excellent spokesman for our movement.
BS seems like someone to consider seriously. I especially like his closing comment: “Question More.”
How about Ben Swann for President in 2016?
“Then you win”
I’m going to save this video in my favorites and play it when I get discouraged. We really are getting somewhere, even if we don’t see immediate results.