From David Yee at the Independent Voter Network:
Vice President Joe Biden‘s comments on Election Day that independent Greg Orman was “with us” could have had a profound impact on the election. Before his comments, Democrats had remained mostly silent on speculating which party Orman would caucus with while Republican attack ads claimed Orman was a closet Democrat and would caucus with Democrats in the Senate.
In one, last-minute sentence, Biden threw a political bone that was devoured by the media, Internet news outlets, and the Roberts campaign. But just how planned was it?
…
Joe Biden’s eyes are currently on 2016. Very rarely does a sitting two-term vice president choose not to run for the White House. The next two years will be defined by Biden’s attempts to consolidate support as a credible candidate for the presidency.
A Republican Congress is probably one of Biden’s best tools. Democratic control of the Senate would have shifted too much blame and attention on his own party, but a Republican Congress will serve only as a target for Democratic strategists and advertisers.
Biden bucked every single major poll the last week of the election, emphatically declaring the Democrats would retain the Senate. I don’t think this was a moment of delusion from Biden, but a deliberate strategy. After all, reports indicate the White House was already preparing for a Congress fully controlled by Republicans before Election Day.
Read the full article here.
Those are independent variables.
I meant at the convention. The last time I voted in a government election was 2003, and the last time I voted in a government presidential election was in 1996. If I had voted in the actual government presidential election there’s a decent chance I might have voted for Barr. It was a close call between him and Cynthia McKinney, but when I talked to her in person she tried to persuade me to vote for Barr, not herself, basically.
“Tim Scott, or an Hispanic or a woman will be the GOP running mate.”
Scott is horrible. I’ve known him since his first run for the state senate back in the mid-90’s (lost miserably to Robert Ford).
He was horrible on county council, raising taxes and then bonding THREE TIMES the increase in the tax rate. (actually turned out to be almost four times, since revenue fell the next year)
He was horrible in the short term he served in the house, and he’s a complete vacuum in the senate as far as we’re concerned. We didn’t have a libertarian running against him this time (Victor was running against Graham). I tried to vote against Scott since there is no way in h*** I’ll ever vote for him for anything. The machine did not want me to vote for anyone but him in that race — imagine that! I heard similar reports from others around the state. I managed to trick the machine into letting me vote for the democrat, but it took a bit of playing around to find the small area on the touch screen that would accept the vote. The same location had worked on the prior list of candidates and it worked on the next list, so it seemed a bit odd that it didn’t work when trying to vote against Scott.
I’m sure he had nothing to do with it…ahem…yeah…
FYI: Victor was only a few hundred (.5%) behind Ravenel in Charleston County — Ravenel’s home town — and slightly over a percent behind him state-wide. Their net total was around 7% so if T-Rav hadn’t been in it we think he would have gotten around 5%. Our candidate for governor got 1%+, so Victor did very well. Most of our state-house candidates (the ones who campaigned) came in around 15%-20%.
“I’d have said that about Barr just before he joined the LP, too. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t vote for Cain, but then I didn’t vote for Barr either.”
Yep, that was my first year voting Libertarian, but I voted for Nader for president.
I’d have said that about Barr just before he joined the LP, too. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t vote for Cain, but then I didn’t vote for Barr either.
Herman Cain as a candidate? Where did that come from?
I have four words to say about that: no and definitely not.
I aim to please.
I think the LP would nominate an actual rodeo clown. Maybe this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/politics/missouri-obama-rodeo/
pf: Yes, I think the LP would nominate Palin or Beck if they came knocking, IMO.
me: Eww. Then again, it might somehow work out if either happened. And, to be fair, I really don’t know Beck’s work. I’ve watched his show maybe 5 times, and I do agree with him…he’s a rodeo clown, though I can see how knuckle-draggers might fall for his schtick.
pf: And what was Barr? Did you miss Borat?
me: For me, Barr and Ron Paul’s appearances in the Borat movies were embarrassing, certainly, but I’d say Palin has repeatedly said goofy, false things that lead large swathes of the population to think she’s intellectually too lightweight to be prez. Barr, who has done and said many unwise things, comes across as sober, bright and articulate. He’s also not a major news figure like Palin, who was in the big leagues, and pretty much flopped. Barr was maybe a double A player in 08, and now he’s stale toast.
pf: We ran Bob Barr, and probably would have followed that up by running Wayne Root, whom we did run for VP, if Johnson hadn’t crossed over.
me: Yes, and I’d say again Barr is not a classic high-profile gaffe machine like Weiner, Biden, and Palin. Root, OTOH, is a gaffe machine, thankfully a low-profile one. He’s maybe a single A, Ronco-like figure. His hyperbole was real hard to take, though I did try to give him the benefit of the doubt, with misgivings both about his caustic style and his hawkish views.
Right after James “Piggy” Norwood, though, I am grateful that Root gave me such memorable laughs involving L politics. When interviewed by Neil Cavuto and Matt Welch, Root was on this kick of saying he WOULD be prez, I think in 2016.
(Norwood was the first-eliminated L prez candidate in 83. He stood on the stage in NY with a stack of Mises-inspired tracts and said, “I have here…the psychological warfare…necessary to WIN this election.”
He got 1 vote, iirc, by a guy who seconded him by saying he didn’t support Norwood, but he felt he deserved to be nominated.
In the annals of the multi-decade experiment in challenging the cult of the omnipotent state, I must say that one’s etched in my memory banks. When I’m drooling and getting a morphine drip, I hope I still recall THAT one!)
Just don’t tell his wife. I don’t think that she would understand. 🙂
Paulie… you are such a silver tongued devil! 😉
This guy could be the next LP presidential nominee. It wouldn’t appeal to the white nationalist faction of the Libertarian Party, though.
Not to worry, the LP wouldn’t consider that to be a problem. And the CP would probably understand, although it might help if her daughter would kneel publicly at their convention and ask the Lord for forgiveness and testify how she has given her life to Jesus Christ now.
And what was Barr? Did you miss Borat?
Yep. There was a whole dust-up on the LNC and state chairs lists last term when someone on the facebook page had the gall to have posted the truthful fact that she is not a libertarian. The post was quickly removed, teeth were gnashed and there were calls for heads to roll.
We ran Bob Barr, and probably would have followed that up by running Wayne Root, whom we did run for VP, if Johnson hadn’t crossed over.
Yeah, maybe Anthony Weiner will discover that he’s really a libertarian next. You have a good point there.
Yes, I think the LP would nominate Palin or Beck if they came knocking, IMO. They would bring some of their supporters as delegates who had not been LP delegates before and convince some of the returning delegates that they changed and have become libertarian, that they will take us to the next level, blah blah blah…the same thing as happened with Bob Barr. While a few individuals may have learned a lesson from that, or never fell for it in the first place, I don’t think the party as a whole has learned a thing. I don’t think Johnson is nearly as bad, although some here consider him to be another example of this. Short answer: yes.
I’d draft him for speechwriter in a heartbeat.
It might be the same person as vermin Vernon, but it is definitely the same person as concerned citizen/functional fillmore/lazarus mudd etc.
It’s OK if you fudge it a little.
Hi Nathan Norman/FFF/CLC. Bye Nathan Norman/FFF/CLC.
Good idea. If nothing else it will keep Joe Wendt busy for a while 🙂
I wouldn’t put it past them, and he could win, since Americans are sick of Obama and the Clintons as well.
I agree with Jill. And since her daughter had a child out of wedlock I doubt even the CP would be crazy about her as a nominee.
I don’t think anyone would consider Sarah Palin as a candidate for the LP. Perhaps Libertarians in Alaska like her, but I don’t think anyone else does.
pf: If any bigger names (Ventura, Napolitano, Stossel, Palin on a party switch, etc)
me: I missed Palin on this list on my earlier read. Is this a serious prospect? Is it your sense that the LP would actually nominate her? Kinda scary, if so.
I mean, she does have her moments and sometimes sounds kinda lessarchist, but isn’t she just a huge joke nowadays? Other than perhaps Dondero, are there Ls who would want her to hold high the banner of challenging the cult of the omnipotent state?
She would attract media, but she’s more of a gaffe machine than Biden or Michele Bachmann.
Oh, here’s the ticket for infamy: Palin/Weiner. 😉
pf: A lot of people considered Reagan to be a laughingstock before he was elected.
me: Sure, but not to the extent of Palin or Quayle, in my estimation.
As for the Ls, has anyone from considered drafting Long?
“Chester Lee Craddock
November 8, 2014 at 12:29 am
Perhaps nominate David Macko, Vernon, or Robert Milnes if you want to appeal to the white nationalist faction of the Libertarian Party. I heard rumors they planned to dilute the convention with storm troopers. Just a rumor though.”
“Vern” is back.
Pack is the proper word rather than dilute. Anyways I think this a way to balance the ticket in case such rumors are true.
Perhaps nominate David Macko, Vernon, or Robert Milnes if you want to appeal to the white nationalist faction of the Libertarian Party. I heard rumors they planned to dilute the convention with storm troopers. Just a rumor though.
Out of Libertarian Party members who have run for office over the last couple of years, I’d like to see Adrian Wyllie run for the Presidential or Vice Presidential nomination.
“paulie
November 7, 2014 at 5:20 pm
I see the most likely Republican choices being Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush.”
Aren’t most Americans sick of the Bush family? Nominating another Bush would be a new low, even for the Republicans.
LOL
IMO, Sarvis would be better as Johnson’s running mate. I really hope it’s not Jim Gray again. Johnson would have my vote regardless, but Gray leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
He could be good if he wants to do that (a big if) and if Johnson doesn’t run. I don’t think he’ll run against Johnson, much less beat him.
What about Robert Sarvis for president?
Yes, but I don’t think they will be interested.
I would think Judge Napolitano could have the nomination for the asking. Probably John Stossel as well. I don’t see too many negatives for either.
A lot of people considered Reagan to be a laughingstock before he was elected. As I said, a little book tour to introduce his or her new serious image…
Maybe both. Susana Martinez?
My first guess is still Hillary. To be fair, I thought that eight years ago too.
Assuming he runs, and I believe he will, Gary Johnson will almost certainly beat any lesser known party activist types, although I hope it will be by a narrow enough margin to make him take the concerns of LP members about some of his stances such as the “fair” tax and Ron’s lack of transparency in the way the campaign is run seriously and make some changes in response. If any bigger names (Ventura, Napolitano, Stossel, Palin on a party switch, etc) seek the LP nomination they might well beat him for it, though. I think they probably won’t (seek it), but you never know.
PF, Palin or Quayle have far less of a chance than Romney, IMO. Laughingstocks are not the way to 1600.
Tim Scott, or an Hispanic or a woman will be the GOP running mate.
Waz yer crystal ball say for the Ds? And Ls, for that matter?
You may want to ask around then.
Many of the folks I have read and followed over the years who were of the Harry Browne “ilk” are already well informed as to what “real” money is and how wealth is created and/or destroyed. They already are very aware of how the Fed, Congress and the Administration can mess things up and are usually into free trade. Many may need coaching on social issues but can see how our bi-partisan foreign policy is a disaster. Most are well read and articulate which is a plus. Just my $0.02 worth.
Why that industry?
I wish the LP had a serious as well as truly libertarian candidate to start grooming. Harry Browne was a financial advisor. Are there any folks in that industry who come to mind?
I see the most likely Republican choices being Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush.
Second tier might include Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle (they’ll come out wearing serious looking glasses, memorize a few lofty phrases and sign off on a “deep thoughts” book written by someone else). Maybe even Dick Cheney himself, although I doubt that.
They might throw the VP to Rand Paul, especially if the presidential nominee is someone from the social conservative side such as Santorum or Huckabee.
Rand Paul himself is third tier (could conceivably sneak in because he is seen as successor to his father much as Duhbya was to his), but if so, he’ll have to make a lot of concessions and have a VP that reins him from the establishment/warmonger side who would be a “strong VP” along the lines of Cheney and Bush Sr. “under” (more like over) Reagan.
The latest thing I have been hearing, Romney Redux, seems unlikely to me. Romney is already a proven loser and those usually get discarded. He was never a very strong candidate for them to begin with so it would seem like a suicide mission for them to run him again.
The Republican loss in California in 1974 did not stop Ronald Reagan’s ascent to the Presidency for several reasons. His televised speech in 1964 on behalf of Barry Goldwater (A Time for Choosing) had made Ronald Reagan the most popular conservative in the country, alongside Sen. Goldwater.
At the same time, Ronald Reagan was a celebrity outside politics, and was always popular among people with no particular political views. There is no political figure today who has anything Ronald Reagan’s non-political celebrity and popularity. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 in some ways was more like Gen. Eisenhower’s election in 1952, and again there is no parallel today with any political figure.
Not Paulie, but personally I don’t think Ryan will run. He’ll defer to Walker, and he’s more interested in rising in the house anyway. The Republican candidate is difficult for me to even guess at. I will say that it won’t be Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.
Jeb Bush and Romney are my two current favorites to win the nomination. I suspect only one of them will run and they’ll quickly capture establishment support. Christie still strikes me as too damaged, though leading the RGA might revive his prospects somewhat.
P, largely agree. So are you making book on Paul Ryan as the R nominee?
Yes, I don’t see Anthony Weiner becoming president any time soon, I agree, LOL. But the bottom line is that Democrats, much like Libertarians and Greens, are not usually very predictable as far as their presidential nomination goes two years ahead of time, and they have lots of choices. Republicans tend to be a lot more predictable.
p, the percentages were bigger in MD.
But your main point I agree with…it’s not obvious that this hurts O’Malley’s prospect in significant ways. I see no evidence — historical or otherwise — that he’s toast because his successor lost in a low-turnout, wave-type election.
I played with my microscope here mostly because Dave seemed so certain, and such certainly naturally stokes my Inner Radical, which is predisposed to question authority and certainty of others when there’s reed-thin proof of their claims. Isolating on a few variables is not a good way to make assessments or decisions.
Pols — and we all — can bounce back from minor setbacks. Happens all the time.
I do think that Hillary semi-protege Weiner is electoral toast, though.
I’d love to see the Rs and Ds offer NOTA as their candidate most years, since their nominees all seem deeply confused to me. Sadly, that’s not likely to happen!
Hogan was O’Malley protege and handpicked successor, whereas Fluornoy had nothing to do with Reagan and came from a different wing of his party.
Ad Reagan did not win the presidency in 1976, he lost the nomination that year and didn’t win til 1980, as we all know.
I’d have to check the arithmetic whether those results are closer in percentage terms, but that seems besides the point.
I don’t know whether it matters if it hurts O’Malley or not. Unlike Republicans, Democrats have a track record of drawing from the bench, and they have plenty of “talent” on their bench. So do Republicans, but they pretty much always do the same thing – pick their last nomination runner up and/or previous VP or VP candidate, and/or a member of the Bush dynasty.
P, yes it was closer in MD.
Larry Hogan R 847,107
Anthony Brown D 770,511
Shawn Quinn L 23,801
Turnout was down this cycle, and MD has never elected an African-American guv.
There is spin out there saying this hurts O’Malley. The perception is that MD is solidly D, and yet O’Malley’s predecessor was an R. MD was the state that Spiro Agnew was guv.
Now I’m studying Ebola under a microscope!
Gene, thanks for the history. As I suspected the situation wasn’t entirely analogous to what just happened in Maryland.
Jerry Brown got 3,131,648 votes for Governor in 1974 and Houston Flournoy got 2,952,954. It was surprisingly close.
I was living in California in 1974, actively involved in politics, as part of the Libertarian Caucus of the Peace & Freedom Party. We nominated a libertarian in the PFP primary for Governor that year.
Ronald Reagan was leaving office after 8 years as Governor. He could have run again legally, there were no term limits then. But he had won in 1966 partly because Edmund G Brown was running for a third term, and Reagan had used that as an issue.
Also, 1974 was the Watergate election. Republicans lost badly across the nation. Ronald Reagan was almost totally absent from California’s election that year, and did not promote any kind of conservative to succeed him.
State Controller Houston Flournoy won the Republican primary, despite his long time affiliation with the Rockefeller faction of the Republican Party. Reagan gave no real support to Flournoy, who spent most of his time campaigning with a big Democrat fund-raiser who supported him against the Democrat Jerry Brown.
Early in the campaign, Jerry Brown built up a big lead, because of his name and because of the unpopularity of the Nixon era Republican Party, In fact, Brown was so far ahead, he stopped television and radio advertising because he decided it was a waste of money. On election day, Jerry Brown won with about 50% of the vote; the PFP candidate, a libertarian, received 75,000 votes.
On Tuesday, Jerry Brown was elected to his 4th term as Governor.
P, Dave seems to think this association with a loser somehow sticks to O’Malley. I’d be shocked if voters or primary voters will remember this in a year.
Some associations stick. Jeb is associated with W. Hillary with Bill.
And yet Hillary’s association with a notorious political failure, Anthony Weiner, is quickly forgotten.
This all feels like looking at bacteria cultures under a microscope!
He won the presidency six years later, not two, and I don’t know how closely Reagan was associated with Houston Fluornoy; I’d have to read up to find out.
The Clintons lost on Tuesday with the defeat of Alison Grimes in Kentucky and the Republican victories in Arkansas. It is a good possibility Hilary Clinton will decide that running the CGI is more fun than being ridiculed by Ted Cruz on the campaign trail.
Joe Biden has run twice before, so he definitely wants it. The Republicans may end up turning to Jeb Bush. So Joe Biden vs Jeb Bush in 2016 – JB will win.
The 2016 election will be brought to you by JB Scotch. If either of these guys win, you will need a stiff drink. No matter how you vote, JB Scotch is a winner!
We’ll see I suppose. I predicted Democrats would do a lot better in this past election, so I could very well be wrong. But if O’Malley the nominee, I expect it will mean that dems have thrown in the towel, imo.
D: A better candidate than O’Malley could move beyond these things, but he’s only polling at 1-2% and excites no one.
me: Eventual nominees often poll lowly 2 years prior. Obama I don’t think was on many radar screens for 08. Even W I don’t recall was highly touted for 00. I’m no O’Malley fan, but I simply challenge the idea that because his successor stumbled in a year when the Ds got whooped that he has no chance in 16.
O’Malley is articulate and looks presidential to me. Could be that if BHO keeps failing so badly, the Ds might be of a mind to more conventional and white bread next time. If the money Ds like the cut of his jib, one could imagine them cutting him some checks.
P, RR being termed out is irrelevant. His successor was a D, which is D’s point here. RR was succeeded by a D, and proceeded to win the presidency.
More like pipe dream for Paul-Amash. I’d rate Paul as low probability, and zero probability of having a “libertarianish” running mate.
Biden is too gaffe prone. Warren may be too polarizing, but it could happen.
The younger and lesser. His dad is retired from candidacy, and has no chance at an establishment party general election presidential nomination even if he ran for it, which he won’t.
“Dream tickets for 2016 major parties: Biden and Warren vs. Paul and Amash”
I kind of like Amash. Biden would at-least be entertaining. Hell no on Warren.
On Paul, it depends on which one you mean. If you mean Ron, then yeah I might vote for him. He’s pissed me off in the past but in general I like him. If you mean Rand, not just no; Hell no. I’d rather Hillary was president than Rand Paul.
Very, very unlikely I would ever vote for a major party ticket though. Even if I did like the candidates I don’t think I could bring myself to vote for them. We need more than two viable parties in the U.S., no other issue trumps that for me.
He was termed out.
And won a bunch after that, so that doesn’t count.
Jerry is too old. Democrats have tons of bench, so I wouldn’t worry about them.
Are you for 86? 🙂
Dream tickets for 2016 major parties: Biden and Warren vs. Paul and Amash
Oh, there are exceptions. But Reagan was a much bigger star in his party than O’Malley is in his. The loss of his state’s governor race won’t destroy his candidacy on his own. But the candidate was his lieutenant governor who ran on his legacy, and he was defeated in a very blue state by a significant margin. I think that will be read as a rebuke of O’Malley himself. Not to mention that as I recall his own approval ratings are underwater.
A better candidate than O’Malley could move beyond these things, but he’s only polling at 1-2% and excites no one. Maybe if Clinton, Warren and Biden all decline to run he’d have a shot, but if any of them run he’ll quickly be eclipsed.
I think that Elizabeth Warren is a more likely a Plan B than Biden. She’s got that “minority” thing going (as if women are really a minority), and, if I recall, she has some bonafide neocon credentials. Living in a Cherokee family, though, I say “no” to posers like her.
D, well, Reagan was succeeded by a D in CA, and went on to win the presidency.
Bill Clinton lost his first re-election campaign for guv in a state that had a 100-year stretch where only one R guv was elected.
If O’Malley’s tarnished, it’s rather minor, I’d submit.
I think O’Malley’s out. Apparently he’s only planning to run if Clinton does not. Even if she does not run, losing your home state governor race tarnishes any legacy you may have had.As for Cuomo, he’s too unpopular within his party. I honestly expect him to switch to Republican within a decade or two and attempt a political comeback with them.
I’m 95% certain Hillary will run, but if for some reason she does not, I think it would be Warren. Democrats would never nominate an open socialist like Sanders, and Biden is exceptionally weak for a sitting VP in polls. As far as I can see, there really would be no other option but Warren, though there’s always the possibility some darkhourse comes out of nowhere and surprises us all. Maybe Jerry Brown, who I confess to having a certain actual fondness for.
Part of me is hoping for a Bush Clinton race, just as a test to see how successful third parties do. If any race would really define the two party system, that would be it.
jp: Biden as the Presidential candidate?
me: Many felt he won most of the early prez debates in 08, actually. O’Malley, Cuomo, and Warren are probably more likely Plan Bs, since Biden is such a gaffe machine, and BHO is so unpopular.
Biden as the Presidential candidate? It’s hard to believe anyone would take that seriously. I’d much rather see him as the candidate, though, because Hillary is simply too wicked. It’s possible her health won’t hold up, though, so maybe there needs to be a plan B.
Orman is small potatoes. I don’t think Biden is that craft. This is just another example of Biden as gaffe prone idiot.
Political dirty tricks are nothing new, and it’s something you have to expect when you become a major political player. That said, I think it’s more likely that Biden, once again, stuck his foot in his mouth.