Topics discussed include the Fair Debates lawsuit, Gov. Jesse Ventura’s statements about possibly seeking the nomination or to be Johnson’s running mate, the LP nomination process, immigration, terrorism, and the potential that a Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump election could help provide a breakthrough for the Libertarian Party.
222 Comments
Comments are closed.
Good question.
Thanks, Darcy, for answering my question about a candidate you might be able to support. I didn’t limit it to only Libertarian candidates, though.
Anyone else you might be willing to support?
Darcy, I hope you enjoy the essay. I’m going to bed very soon, but if you want to discuss it sometime later, I would be glad to do so.
“I would encourage Darcy and anyone else reading this who believes that government “safety nets” are the only things keeping people alive to read this essay:” — langa
Thanks, langa. I’m reading it now.
“Also, Darcy, is there someone you currently support for President? If you’ve said so, I missed it.” — Jill Pyeatt
Hi Jill,
While I admittedly haven’t voted for a Libertarian Party presidential candidate since ’96 when I supported Harry Browne’s first bid for the White House, I’m sort of intrigued by John McAfee’s candidacy. He’s a really fascinating guy and appears to be quite knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects. He’s probably the most interesting candidate in any party this year. I liked, for example, how he responded to a recent question about abolishing Social Security. His response was both pragmatic and thoughtful, essentially saying precisely what you stated above.
From what I’ve been able to ascertain, McAfee seems pretty solid on privacy issues, reckless military adventurism, immigration, the war on drugs, etc. As somebody on the left, I also like what he’s had to say about unemployment. He clearly recognizes that widespread joblessness and underemployment (issues directly tied to growing income inequality) are serious problems that have to dealt with. I’m anxious to learn more, particularly some of his other views on the economy.
When people talk about making the transition away from entitlements, one thing that is often overlooked is the boon to private charity. Every dollar that goes to funding government welfare schemes is a dollar that’s no longer available to private charities, which are far superior to their government counterparts, not only morally (as real charity doesn’t involve putting guns to people’s heads), but also from the standpoint of efficiency, as government wraps everything it does in thick layers of bureaucracy. Personally, I believe that many people would be willing to donate a lot more money to private charities, if they weren’t struggling to make ends meet, because of the government “charities” to which they are already being forced to “donate” so much.
I would encourage Darcy and anyone else reading this who believes that government “safety nets” are the only things keeping people alive to read this essay:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
It’s over 150 years old, but it’s every bit as true, and the wisdom in it every bit as overlooked, today as it was the day it was written.
[I even linked to a different location of it than I usually do, since some people get so upset when I link to anything that happens to be hosted at Mises.org — even if the same article is hosted in a thousand other places!]
“”. I do some retirement planning in the course of my profession. Even middle-aged people are counting on social security for their retirement. It’s hard to imagine an economically sound way to stop the system without taking many years, like 20 or 30, in my view. It’s an enormous problem.””
This is true. I don’t know of any serious proposal that suggests doing it on a shorter timeframe. Typically no change at all for those over 55 or 45, and only a marginal or incremental change for those younger, with the full plan not coming into effect at all except for those who haven’t paid in at all yet.
It’s a big complicated mess to unwind, but it can be done with relatively manageable haircuts, not screwing anybody out of 100% of what they’ve paid in.
I’ll take it. 😉
Better than the average duck.
This is an interesting thread, and there are several things I would like to comment on. I’ll just make these two points, and ask one question:
. I am equally alarmed about Trump as Paulie is. I think he’s a bad human being, so much a narcissist that he could never get past what’s best for Trump (not even what’s best for Trump’s family) to be able to lead a country, even with our admittedly weak systems of checks and balances. It especially concerns me that he seems incapable of admitting he was wrong. What if he insults another country’s leader with his usual unthinking rhetoric? He’ll just make everything worse regarding our already horrible foreign policy.
. I do some retirement planning in the course of my profession. Even middle-aged people are counting on social security for their retirement. It’s hard to imagine an economically sound way to stop the system without taking many years, like 20 or 30, in my view. It’s an enormous problem.
Also, Darcy, is there someone you currently support for President? If you’ve said so, I missed it.
“Andy Craig has never struck me as a Republican pretending to be a libertarian, but if you dislike his comments that much, the only thing I can suggest is scrolling past them.” – Paulie
Andy ain’t all that bad…
Means-testing is the only way to change that, but it requires admitting to the people who’ve already paid into the system that it was never really for their individual retirement, it’s about providing a safety-net welfare system of transfer payments. And if that’s what it is, then we can ax it for most people and focus on helping those who actually need it at a much lower tax rate, maybe even out of regular taxes and the general fund instead of a special regressive income tax.
That’s why it is always justified in terms of helping the poor and disabled and elderly, not “this is a better deal for you on your retirement savings.” — because it isn’t that, at all. This is not that radical an idea, either. We give means-tested food stamps, we don’t force everyone to shop in government grocery stores. We provide means-tested Medicaid, we don’t force everyone to go to a government-employed doctor. Increasingly, that’s how the school system is going to work too.
Redistribution for the sake of welfare is not something Libertarians would implement starting from scratch. But if we’re going to have it, the poor are better off being subsidized into an otherwise functional free market, than destroying that market for everybody.
Yes, but I never said that all people would or could be entrepreneurs, only that a lot more would become and succeed as entrepreneurs and provide more human scale jobs than the dehumanizing overly large and complicated systems all too many people are herded into now.
“It’s supposed to be earned benefits, and in fact right now Social Security takes from the relatively poor and gives to the relatively wealthy.” — Andy Craig
I couldn’t agree more.
“Thanks for your condolences; this was quite a few years back now. I just use it to demonstrate the point: Social Security screws over those who die young.” — Andy Craig
Thank you. I meant that sincerely.
I didn’t, but there have been in fact Trump attacks at rallies on protesters who merely showed up to demonstrated peacefully (not even heckle, just stand there and wear items that identified them as Muslims).
http://thegrio.com/2016/01/10/muslim-woman-kicked-out-of-trump-rally-they-asked-me-do-you-have-a-bomb/
It may have been at a different event than the one where Trump demonstrated his professed love for torture by demanding that anyone who dares to express disagreement with him should literally by stripped and thrown out to freeze in the cold.
I should also clarify: she was not our primary provider, and that may have been relevant. But she paid into the system just the same, and got effectively nothing for it.
‘millions of whom died before they ever saw a fucking penny of their contributions. ‘
And you think this is a *good* thing?” — Andy Craig
No, I don’t, but I think it’s a societal obligation. After all, we’re at least some extent, our brothers (and sisters) keepers. It’s what mature societies do.
“Did you and your siblings receive any monthly survivors’ benefits after her passing?”
No.
“If you or any of your siblings were under age 18, you would have been entitled to them.”
No, we were not, because she worked less than ten whole years. Less the death payout of less than $300, every nickel she paid into Social Security went to somebody else.
“Did anybody apply for them?”
Yes, we inquired about it.
Thanks for your condolences; this was quite a few years back now. I just use it to demonstrate the point: Social Security screws over those who die young.
Exactly!
Andy,
I’m sorry — deeply sorry — to hear about your mother. Seriously. She was so young. My deepest condolences to you and your siblings. Did you and your siblings receive any monthly survivors’ benefits after her passing? If you or any of your siblings were under age 18, you would have been entitled to them. Did anybody apply for them?
I ask that because my best friend’s mother died when he was 13 and he — or rather his stepfather — received survivor benefits until he joined the Navy at the age of eighteen.
Again, I’m very sorry to hear that, my friend. God Bless you.
@09:48
“would never look out for the millions of Americans unable to provide for their own retirements, mostly hard-working middle and lower-income workers who never made enough to stash money into a 401(k), Individual Retirement Account, etc., on a regular basis.”
You mean the people whose retirement savings were diverted into a government ponzi scheme against their will? If you can’t save for retirement on what the government currently makes disappear into Social Security, then Social Security isn’t going to provide it for you either. Because, as you note, it’s not supposed to be a welfare program. It’s supposed to be earned benefits, and in fact right now Social Security takes from the relatively poor and gives to the relatively wealthy.
I agree, it’s pretty accurate, and if you study the history of how fascism came to power in a number of places, also pretty familiar and scary.
Just as an example: my mother passed away at a young age, 43. She was once a nurse, but because of sporadic ill health never clocked in ten whole years of full-time work. But every day she did work, she paid into Social Security: 12% (ignoring the fiction of ’employer contribution’) of every paycheck she ever earned.
What did we, her school-age children, get from Social Security? Less than $300. Barely enough to buy a pile of wet gravel to throw over the body.
Would I like to opt out of that system and direct that 12% of my income to something that I could leave to my spouse if I get hit by a bus tomorrow? You’re damn straight I would.
“Then how would you go about winding down the system?” — Paulie
I’m not in favor of eliminating or winding down the Social Security system, even in a totally free market economy. Private industry, to the extent that it offers any retirement protection at all, would never look out for the millions of Americans unable to provide for their own retirements, mostly hard-working middle and lower-income workers who never made enough to stash money into a 401(k), Individual Retirement Account, etc., on a regular basis.
Even in a libertarian society, we ought to have at least that minimal social contract.
“millions of whom died before they ever saw a fucking penny of their contributions. ”
And you think this is a *good* thing?
“Nonsense. We don’t believe every person can or will be an entrepreneur, and never did.” – Paulie
But you’re the one who said, at 7: 58, “That’s only true if you don’t realize that the so-called safety net actually does far more to hold people back than to help them, that a far larger share of government spending is used to redistribute wealth and opportunity upward than downward, that taxes and red tape cripple the economy and especially stop poor and working class people from striking out and making it as entrepreneurs…”
Then how would you go about winding down the system? I get that you are for a transition period, but a transition period is different from resisting and blocking all change. You never get to “a more vibrant economy, an economy fueled by jobs and opportunities in the private sector” if you leave the shackles it is under perpetually in place.
DGR @ 0906
Yes, we actually do agree on a lot, and I actually do realize it. Remember, I’m the guy who has been pushing for a left-liberal-libertarian reconciliation for decades. I’m all for transition but I’m also for meaningful change within a term of office because not only are those programs widely perceived as keeping some people alive, or in reality from exercising other options, but they are also helping kill us.
And yes, I agree that a lot of people are frightened and that Big Business, in bed with big government, is to blame.
Andy Craig has never struck me as a Republican pretending to be a libertarian, but if you dislike his comments that much, the only thing I can suggest is scrolling past them. There are some people I have implemented that approach with, such as Dave Terry and one or two others.
“On Social Security, he talked about raising the retirement age, means testing to acknowledge the SS is in fact the transfer-payment welfare program it’s always tried to deny being, and phasing in voluntary opt-out levels for younger workers.” — Andy Craig
Social Security is most definitely NOT a welfare program. Poor, working-class and middle-income Americans have paid into that system their entire lives — millions of whom died before they ever saw a fucking penny of their contributions. Voluntary opt-out for younger workers? What bullshit.
No, Independent Political Report does not have a way for you to block comments from the person whose post you are commenting on. Or anybody else.
“If you think there is an opportunity for libertarians here that is distinct from an opportunity for e.g. Greens and Socialists, what is it? What’s our unique proposition? If the answer is that there is a big opportunity for us to embrace Bernienomics while continuing to call ourselves libertarians, I don’t see that as plausible. Those folks already have parties and candidates representing them as it is.” — Paulie
No, I’m not suggesting that Libertarians embrace Bernie’s economic positions, but instead offer a less frightening transition to a truly private sector-based economy by dropping the immediate demands for massive cuts in social spending (Social Security, Medicare, disability, unemployment compensation etc., the very things keeping people alive). The American people are frightened — that’s what driving the Sanders and Trump candidacies — and need to be reassured that the country’s social safety net will be firmly in place while the country transitions to a more vibrant economy, an economy fueled by jobs and opportunities in the private sector.
Watching Corporate America selfishly sitting on several trillion dollars during the Great Recession, instead of investing it in the U.S. economy while millions lost their home and occupations, soured millions of Americans on the free enterprise system. This is a classic pocketbook election. That’s what’s driving the Trump and Sanders candidacies — and Big Business, in bed with big government, is to blame.
I think we agree far more than you realize. It’s just a matter of finessing the right message to an anxious electorate.
Is there a way to turn off Andy Craig? I really hate listening to Republicans pretending that they’re Libertarians.
@Darcy
He talked about balancing the federal budget in a year, which worked out at the time to a ~43% cut. The “$1.4 trillion” number comes from the fact that was, at the time, the *annual budget deficit.*
Yes, he did say Medicare and Medicaid would have to be reduced, but his proposal for that was to go to block-grants for the states. Not ax it immediately. That’s a pretty obvious idea that has been floating around for a while. On Social Security, he talked about raising the retirement age, means testing to acknowledge that SS is in fact the transfer-payment welfare program it’s always tried to deny being, and phasing in voluntary opt-out levels for younger workers. Never did he say he’d just immediately stop sending the checks to Grandma.
You said he talked about immediately abolishing SS/MC on Day 1 with no sort of transition, and attacked his supposed position on that basis. But it’s just not factually correct that he has ever advocated that.
Nonsense. We don’t believe every person can or will be an entrepreneur, and never did. We believe a lot more could and would be, and many more would succeed a lot more, without all the hoops and red tape artifically imposed by out of control monopoly government. And that they would create more and better jobs at a human scale for other people, as opposed to having those people rely on dehumanizing crutches of bureaucratic system handouts as the last bits of the sweat of working people to drip out after it is extracted under duress and pased through the absurdly elaborate machinery of the extortion-fueled bureaucratic monopoly wringer. And also as opposed to leaving them few other options than to be cogs in the likewise dehumanizing big corporate system thanks to big government cartelizing the economy on behalf of big corporations, propping them up and cutting their upstart competition off at the knees at every turn. Or cogs in the police-prison-industrial and military-industrial complexes.
We’d be happy to have a transition period. Ideally not one measured in millenia. But, yes, absolutely, there will be a period of years of adjustment.
Where does he argue this? As far as I know he has not said anything in favor of moving the economy in a libertarian direction at all, over any term, nor would anyone give him a dozen years or longer to implement his changes. Presidents still have term limits, as you well know.
Please show me where McAfee says he would eliminate them or even cut them back in any way at all regardless of how long it takes. And if you think Johnson could possibly eliminate them overnight even if he was somehow elected, that doesn’t speak well of your ability to gauge what risks we really face or your understanding of how things work.
More like half alive and comatose in a state of suspended animation, and you make it sound like the money to
fund them comes down like manna from heaven, or perhaps only or primarily from the rich with no costs to anyone else. That is very, very far from being the case.
Nobody would, if the big government – big corporate incestuous revolving door system of top down control from the one eyed pyramid of power didn’t tax and enslave us all by degrees.
I grant that there are plenty of voters with the delusion that government does more to help people than harm them, but there are far, far more than 750,000 that realize government is way too big, too nosy, too controlling, too murderous, and too costly. How effective the LP will be at reaching them will depend on a lot of things, but not on us suddenly making a U-turn on economic positions as if everyone agrees with you on those.
I’ve known lots of politicians and I know Gary personally. He has never struck me as a typical politician, nor has what I have read about him. Yes, he does struggle with ideas and clearly his recent musings about Sharia have taken him way in the wrong direction on that subject. Thankfully he pulled back somewhat on the Burka issue, but I’m still not happy at all with some of the things he continues to stand by as far as that goes. However, once you look at a bit of context, he’s way far from Trump or Trump’s supporters.
As far as the LP nomination… I see good and bad points with many of the candidates.
Gary Johnson is a dud when it comes to the issues, which should have been obvious to everyone following his disastrous 2016 declaration of candidacy.
“That’s not ‘unlike Gary Johnson’, that’s ‘like Gary Johnson’. Not even many radical Libertarians advocate immediate Day-1 abolition with no transition and no concern for the reliance costs; Johnson certainly does not and never has.” — Andy Craig
That’s not what Johnson said in 2012 when he called for an immediate $1.4 trillion cut in federal spending. I have his original statement. There was no such talk about “reliance costs,” — as though he would even know what they are.
By the way, has the former governor figured out the difference between the Chicago School and Austrian economics yet?
…and when the American people get a whiff of the clueless ex-governor’s call for an immediate $1.4 trillion cut in federal spending — and precisely what kind of impact that will have on their lives and the lives of their loved ones — the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket will be lucky to poll 750,000 votes in November.
“From the same interview with Reason that caused a stir with the Burka gaffe…” — Paulie
It wasn’t a “gaffe,” Paulie. Johnson knew exactly what he was saying — a typical politician trying to play both sides of the fence.
You can have him.
“”Unlike Gary Johnson, McAfee realizes that it would be utterly disastrous to immediately eliminate Social Security and Medicare, as well as many other programs that are keeping millions of Americans alive.””
That’s not ‘unlike Gary Johnson’, that’s ‘like Gary Johnson’. Not even many radical Libertarians advocate immediate Day-1 abolition with no transition and no concern for the reliance costs; Johnson certainly does not and never has.
Not everyone can or will be an entrepreneur. That’s where the Libertarian economic philosophy completely falls apart…
You’re right though, Paulie. We have a fundamental disagreement when it comes to the economy, especially since the LP apparently doesn’t provide for any kind of serious transitional period to a totally new and different economy — the sort of pragmatic approach John McAfee has been quietly articulating. Those sorts of changes, he argues, could take at least a dozen years or longer to effectively implement.
Unlike Gary Johnson, McAfee realizes that it would be utterly disastrous to immediately eliminate Social Security and Medicare, as well as many other programs that are keeping millions of Americans alive. Nobody wants to go hungry. It’s the reality of the world in which we find ourselves.
By saying Trump is completely crazy?
From the same interview with Reason that caused a stir with the Burka gaffe:
I don’t think he is playing to Trump’s crowd. If you want to play to Trump’s crowd that’s not how you do it at all.
I completely agree.
I agree with that too, if by leftward you mean putting more emphasis on social, cultural and civil liberties issues and peace, and phrasing our economic positions in terms of empowerment from the bottom up and cutting the government shackles that hold people back as opposed to making it sound like we are for more government welfare for the rich and big corporations, which we are not. If you mean turning leftward to embrace that same failed big monopoly government nanny state model that has been the big financiers’ partner in crime in wrecking the economy, no thank you. Please turn to the Greens, Socialists, Bernie Sanders et al for that, because that isn’t us, and expecting us suddenly to become that is completely unrealistic, to put it as nicely as possible.
If you think there is an opportunity for libertarians here that is distinct from an opportunity for e.g. Greens and Socialists, what is it? What’s our unique proposition? If the answer is that there is a big opportunity for us to embrace Bernienomics while continuing to call ourselves libertarians, I don’t see that as plausible. Those folks already have parties and candidates representing them as it is.
“Paulie,
You know you can’t say such things as a Libertarian activist until it has been approved by the Libertarian Skeptics Network, the mealy-mouthed, Republican-leaning gatekeepers who know what’s best for the party and the cause…”
Horseshit, and on par with insisting Senator Sanders demonstrates popular support for a non-officeholder.
None of what was being discussed here has anything to do with the sort of junk science and conspiracism that LSN opposes. LSN is in in no way “Republican-leaning” nor “gatekeepers.” We just won’t vote for and support, ourselves as members of the Libertarian Party, the celebrate-ineffectiveness tinfoil hat brigade. If others want to, we’re certainly not stopping them. We have not made, or even seriously discussed the possibility of making, a presidential endorsement.
…instead of nominating a guy who tried to play to Trump’s crowd in launching his second bid for the presidency.
That’s only true if you don’t realize that the so-called safety net actually does far more to hold people back than to help them, that a far larger share of government spending is used to redistribute wealth and opportunity upward than downward, that taxes and red rape cripple the economy and especially stop poor and working class people from striking out and making it as entrepreneurs, that even if you accept the false premise that a government “safety net” (really more like a trap) helps people that in reality most of the money ends up in the pockets of well off bureaucrats. I won’t have the time or blood pressure to debate all that but that’s libertarianism 101 and has been from the beginning. Plenty of people have explained it ably for many years and there is no need for me to reinvent the wheel.
I understand that you disagree with libertarian economic views, but for those of us who agree with them, it’s the out of control federal spending that has led us to this mess and failing to control it will lead to an even bigger mess, so the worse things get the more imperative it becomes to turn them around. Piling on yet more debt, keeping more people in a poverty trap even longer, and stifling a struggling economy with even more red tape is the absolute wrong prescription. Besides, you have other parties selling that snake oil, and it’s not realistic to expect or demand the same from the LP when it goes against our fundamental principles in a misdirected appeal to pragmatism.
There are indeed things to criticize Gary Johnson on from a libertarian perspective, but that’s not one of them.
Friendly fascism, as described by the late Bertram Gross, took hold in the United States during the Reagan Era and is now more overt than ever. No longer masked, it’s now out in the open as a growing number of Americans enthusiastically applaud the real estate mogul’s hatred.
Destroyed by Wall Street’s recklessness and growing income inequality, the stagnant American economy is the perfect breeding ground for a demagogue like Trump, not unlike Father Coughlin’s “social justice” crusade in 1934 and 1935.
As scary as it is, it’s also a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the Libertarian Party if the party dares to turn slightly leftward…
Thank you.
Why, yes, plenty of them, and we have been over this already. I don’t have to repeat the same things endlessly in every thread. I gave you more than enough links already in thread after thread after thread. The wave of populist authoritarianism and hatred that he is riding right now is uncontrolled and he has nowhere to go except to escalate and keep escalating. His first wife’s story about how he raped her is far more believable than her paid off and threatened retractions later. Look at how he treated Vera Coking, his creditors, protesters at his rallies, journalists who ask him questions he doesn’t like, any fellow candidates who even begin to call him out for being what he is.
Uncontrolled rage is the absolute essence of everything he is the spearhead of. He thinks very highly of himself and feeds off the crowd that feeds his ego. He doesn’t tolerate dissent and has no problem using government force whether it be for eminent domain abuse, rounding up and deporting millions of people, silencing journalists and protesters, scapegoating, harassing and spying on millions of other people on the basis of religion, starting trade wars as the first stop to actual wars, torturing people “because they deserve it” even if it yields no information…and that’s just for starters.
If you question his hate filled lies about thousands of Muslims cheering the 9/11 attacks, he distorts news stories to claim he was right. If the reporter who wrote that story steps forward to say he is being misquoted he makes fun of him for being handicapped. If a female reporter dares to ask him a completely accurate and very appropriate question about his many very ugly and disgusting statements about women over the years he will go on to imply that’s because she is PMSing. Another candidate, it’s “disgusting” because she used the bathroom. Seriously, WTF? This shit just goes on and on, but it gets stale as it gets old, so has to keep escalating to keep it fresh and entertaining.
We’ve seen this playbook before. This is how fascism starts.
We know what megalomania leads to when couple with power.
We know how he acts when anyone disagrees with him, and we know that he would be up against some world leaders with the same sort of personality defect and some very dangerous weapons on the world stage. To call him a loose cannon is an understatement.
I admire Paulie’s passion, and I agree with him entirely on the subject of Trump’s obnoxious treatment of hecklers and dissenters.
It depends on what you mean by tolerated. Fascists such as Trump supporters and fellow travelers who make excuses for them should be tolerated in the sense that they should be allowed to speak, write, publish, rally, protest, etc. Those are their rights. But they are despicable people and we should have every right to say so in the strongest terms possible, and should do so often.
I’m not going to make any common cause with him, his supporters, or those who waver about supporting him, and to the extent that anyone gives a shit about what I think, I strongly recommend everyone else to take the same approach. So, for me, the idea of supporting Cuban is out, because he goes back and forth about supporting Trump and making excuses for him and minimizing the danger he poses and saying he’s a good guy, which he is very much not.
If you are implying that I am for using government force or violate someone else’s property rights to keep people with other opinions from expressing their views, that’s ridiculous. And yes, that includes people with repulsive views such as Trump supporters. But I will not shy away from expressing my view that they are repulsive and very, very dangerous for freedom in this country and life on this planet in the strongest possible terms either.
Why the fuck does this have to be even explained to someone who calls himself a libertarian?
Bullshit. He has had protesters ejected roughly and then defended the idea and said it’s going to get even rougher. We’re just getting started. He is already “joking” about killing journalists. It’s not going to remain a joke. Or you know, maybe he’ll just have them roughed up or thrown in jail or sent outside in the cold without coats or something. Trump has been all about abusing power his whole life. Again, ask Vera Coking. Give him the power of the state, a fired up hate filled crowd full of anger at scapegoats and dissenters, and a national microphone, and watch what happens. It will get very, very ugly and keep getting uglier until there’s nothing left.
I looked up multiple accounts. None of them said it was a joke or that no one was actually thrown out without a coat. So as of right now, it’s not clear in any way that it was a joke. And even if it was a joke for now, he is escalating, and it won’t stay that way.
You’re simply not going to cut it with an austerity peddling ex-Republican governor who four years ago advocated an IMMEDIATE $1.4 trillion cut in federal spending, decimating an already skimpy social safety net for millions of Americans, especially in a piss-poor economy like ours. Be pragmatic for once. Just saying…
To paraphrase Horace Greeley, one might say,” Go left, Libertarians, go left, and let the country grow up with you.”
That’s the country Americans have been waiting for.
…the same folks who, in a flight of fantasy, will probably squander the Libertarian Party’s greatest opportunity in a lifetime.
“However, should I happen to be wrong and you are right that it could be Johnson with a GOP VP, I would guess with zero specific but plenty of general knowledge that this VP would most likely be aided in assuming the presidency with shall we say a little bit of extra outside help before long.” — Paulie
Paulie,
You know you can’t say such things as a Libertarian activist until it has been approved by the Libertarian Skeptics Network, the mealy-mouthed, Republican-leaning gatekeepers who know what’s best for the party and the cause…
“Gary Johnson seems to be the one who has a problem with Muslim clothing. It was he who called for the burqa ban. And though he has retracted that statement, he has yet to retract his statement that a burqa ban would not violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.” — William Saturn
That’s a great observation, my favorite comment on this entire thread.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-supporters-big-tent-217481#.za0nm1u:AR37
This is one of the more accurate accounts I’ve read on the Trump phenomenon.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-carson-on-911-celebrations/
“So… if he walks like a d**k and quacks like a d**k he must be a d**k?” – New Federalist
Well, it’s not just any duck. It’s apparently a very delusional duck if you check out the link he posted yesterday at 22:07.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/donald-trump-muslim-woman-protesting-ejected/
so good to hear that stealing a man’s coat is only a joke..
I actually watched this particular Trump rally in Vermont. The person(s) was thrown out for heckling. Trump then made a joke and said something like “confiscate his coat.” It had nothing at all to do with Muslim clothing. So steve m is conflating two unrelated issues above. Gary Johnson seems to be the one who has a problem with Muslim clothing. It was he who called for the burqa ban. And though he has retracted that statement, he has yet to retract his statement that a burqa ban would not violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
if a person misbehaves? as in they are wearing Muslim clothing and that justifies rougher treatment….
you brown shirts… you all getting ready for your own kristallnacht?
Your dislike of other people doesn’t justify your use of violence against minorities.
Unlike you I will never be a good German!
Steve Meier
paulie> in a fit of uncontrolled rage and narcicistic destruction.
Is there an instance documented somewhere of Donald Trump engaging in a fit of uncontrolled rage? Past experience being the best indicator of future behavior.
paulie> No one who lends any kind of support to Trump or minimizes the danger he and his deranged supporters pose should ever be considered for political support, because at a minimum their instincts are way off.
So only one opinion is to ever be tolerated? That sounds rather fascist.
Next point: Thaddeus Russell talks on Joe Rogan Experience #740 about his preference that people avoid using the word crazy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUDwTM4j3y0
paulie> Trump rallies are turning increasingly openly fascist, and he vows they will get even rougher with protesters and dissenters.
When a person misbehaves at a private function it is no surprise at all that the owner of the venue may use harsh words to convey his displeasure. Were any people actually ejected without coats? I imagine we would have heard if so.
Both Trump and Sanders are playing the game of accusing the other side of being evil or naive and that they will let evil over run you. They both are about using big government to impose crony industrialism upon the country. In Trumps case it will be under the banner of capitalism and is Sanders case it will be under the banner of socialism. Same result…. big enterprise will prevent little enterprise from competing in the market place…. and it is for our own good.
Paulie Cannoli Isn’t that already Trump’s platform?
Like · Reply · 1 · 14 hrs
Trump isn’t trying to fuck the country. He’s trying to rape, pillage and murder the country. He is a dangerous evil scumbag cynically leading a movement of mostly much less intelligent but collectively just as dangerous evil scumbags. Cuban has been going back and forth about supporting Trump and thinks Trump has a “good heart.” That is completely delusional. Trump has the kind of heart to throw people out in the cold without their coats, try to confiscate Vera Coking’s house to build additional limo parking at a planned casino development, and a million other such things. No one who lends any kind of support to Trump or minimizes the danger he and his deranged supporters pose should ever be considered for political support, because at a minimum their instincts are way off.
Cuban is way too easy on Trump:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mark-cuban-on-trump-hes-trying-to-fk-the-country/
Mark Cuban would be the perfect Independent candidate: rich, famous, charismatic, and smart. Someone should start up a Draft Mark Cuban for President group.
That huffpo link is exactly on the money. Trump is leading a dangerous fascist movement, and that movement could absolutely propel him to win. It could propel him past all safeguards that put checks on and limited the power of past and present presidents in this country. And his insane megalomania could absolutely propel him to launch a global nuclear holocaust in a fit of uncontrolled rage and narcicistic destruction. It’s absolutely sickening and repulsive that any self-described libertarians would consider this evil fascist swill to be anything other than the absolute antithesis of liberty.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/america-trumpism-world_5695d449e4b09dbb4bad43fb
Will America Succumb To Trumpism?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265172-trump-tells-security-to-confiscate-protesters-coats
Trump rallies are turning increasingly openly fascist, and he vows they will get even rougher with protesters and dissenters. This is how fascism starts. And I think he can in fact actually win, not just the nomination but the presidency.
steve m> lots of people in the middle are going to wondering how evil do we have to accept?
I don’t posit that Donald Trump is any more evil than the other Republican candidates for President. I rather think that he could be rather good.
“Why Donald Trump will Ruin the World” (but really not)
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/132408086396/why-donald-trump-will-ruin-the-world
Sure, that could make things interesting, but I still don’t see much chance at all that the Democrats will nominate Sanders, although Trump does now seem plausible at this point.
AC @ ODL
Webb, Bloomberg, King, Cuban, Ryan, Romney could be plausible. I don’t think it will be Jeb!? or Rubio due to the newly reinterpreted sore loser laws and declarations by various states in anticipation of Trump going independent. But then again if it’s their guy going independent chances are all that goes out the window no matter what the rules say, so maybe it could be them. But I don’t think it will be. They have other players on their bench aplenty. Nikki Haley looked impressive last night, for example. I already said why I don’t think it will be Johnson or I should anyone from the LP or GP or any existing alt party.
And I think they can get a lot more than 16% of the vote and electoral votes from three small population states. I would not rule out an outright win without resorting to this House scenario, even.
However, should I happen to be wrong and you are right that it could be Johnson with a GOP VP, I would guess with zero specific but plenty of general knowledge that this VP would most likely be aided in assuming the presidency with shall we say a little bit of extra outside help before long.
ah think (always dangerous and often leads to head aches) that this election could be very interesting if the Republicans nominate trump and the Democrats nominate Sanders….. lots of people in the middle are going to wondering how evil do we have to accept?
(BTW, nice to see you here. How have you been?) – New Federalist
Hi NF,
I’m doing well. Thank you for asking. By the way, I preordered a copy of my latest book for you earlier today. You should receive it in the next couple of weeks.
http://www.amazon.com/Lowest-Ebb-Norman-Americas-Parties/dp/0692316809/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452743285&sr=1-4&keywords=darcy+g+richardson.
I think you’ll really enjoy the four chapters devoted to the Prohibition Party’s biographically-neglected Claude Watson and the SLP’s little-remembered Edward Teichert.
With best wishes.
BTW thanks for teaching or reminding me how this works in one of your prior comments on an old thread. I don’t remember which one. I’ve been mulling the scenario since then.
I’m slightly more optimistic than you about that, but not much. But just to demonstrate the scenario, Johnson works as well as any other hypothetical third candidate.
I don’t think the basic premise in your ODL article is that farfetched. I don’t think Johnson would be that third candidate. Some of the others you name seem a lot more plausible. Even as watered down as a lot of LPers find Johnson to be I think he would still be too libertarian for the folks I am thinking about. And if he runs as the LP candidate, even if the platform is watered down some more, it would still be a problem for them, as would elevating the LP and as a secondary result its downticket candidates in such a big way. If this were not so, Johnson would have been the AE candidate in 2012, and he did go for it…but he is not what they want.
But yes, the basic scenario is plausible, and not as unlikely as you end up concluding, unless you mean that the third candidate being sworn in would be Johnson, in which case it is unlikely indeed.
https://olddominionlibertarian.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/how-the-constitution-could-let-the-house-stop-both-clinton-and-trump/
I would not rule out 1st or 2nd.
“What a d**k.” – Darcy G Richardson
So… if he walks like a d**k and quacks like a d**k he must be a d**k? Perhaps a dr*ke!
(BTW, nice to see you here. How have you been?)
” is no reason the Vermont lawmaker should be portrayed as some sort of establishment Democratic figure. He isn’t.”
I never said he’s establishment, in fact I said the exact opposite already, more than once, which you seem intent on ignoring. Just that he’s both 1) for all intents and purposes, a Democrat 2) a long-time officeholder. You keep trying to torch a strawman. I already said, at the start of this conversation, that Sanders is (at least positioned as) an anti-establishment candidate, and that’s not the same thing as being a political outsider. I don’t know if I can dumb down that distinction any more without drawing a picture.
For example, Fiorina would be an “outsider”, but she’s also an establishment-wing candidate. They just aren’t the same thing. A candidate can be one, or both, or neither.
“”You can believe that all you want, but you have obviously never looked closely at his voting record in the House””
The fact that he even HAS a voting record in the House proves all I’m saying.
@5:01
You made a ridiculous statement and got some well-deserved ribbing for it. If all you want to do is hurl insults at an argument that’s only being made in your head, there are plenty of soft padded rooms available where one may do so.
But like I’ve already explained umpteen times, and which you seem determined to either ignore or not understand, I’m not actually making the argument you keep angrily trying to disprove. You like Sanders, great. You think there is somehow some daylight between his voting record and that of every other Democratic Senator on the left flank of the party, fine. None of that changes my original point: a man who has been running for office since the Ford administration, and been in office since Reagan’s first term, is not a novice, not a newcomer to politics, not an “outsider” of the sort that you were asserting. The kind that means some third-party would somehow benefit from nominating a non-officeholder.
Because that was original context here, was you insisting it doesn’t matter that Gary Johnson was Governor of New Mexico, because voters aren’t looking for officeholders. How, exactly, does the support for *Senator* Bernie Sanders prove that case? Answer: it doesn’t, at all.
“You are assuming two things, neither of which will necessarily be true:
1) That they will be in third place in popular votes
2) That they will care how bad it looks”
I don’t assume 1), the scenario I laid is that it would be most difficult for the House to elected the ind.R candidate, if he’s in third place. It would be probable but costly if their guy is in 2nd, and not controversial at all if their guy is in 1st.
And they absolutely do care about #2, at least insofar as it effects their chances for re-election. If they make some wildly unpopular choice (which is not necessarily the same as picking a lower vote-getter), then there will be political costs to that for them. Maybe in primaries, maybe in the next general, but either way they would care.
Nikki Haley. Bloomberg. Romney. Paul Ryan. Jim Webb, maybe. Some CEO or General. Use your imagination. There are dozens of people they could conceivably tap. Also, there are plenty of Republicans who could reposition themselves on a few issues to get votes that would normally not go to Republicans because they are Republicans. Again, see the initial support for Perot and the actual success of Ventura. It can be done. It’s possible that Jim Webb could claim a lot of votes that would never be available to him in either the Democratic primaries or if he had somehow become the Democratic candidate if he gets a large infusion of money to promote him.
The dynamics of a three way race would change what votes may become available to such a candidate. People who would normally vote for A because B is worse or vice versa, or not bother to vote, may feel empowered that C is a real alternative if C is treated like a real alternative by the media, is all over the airwaves with news coverage and ads, is asked about in the polls and appears in the debates, and has the background that people think is presidential.
I lost you there. All of which things? It’s all one thing. They have to have someone who has the correct background, is presentable and knows how to debate. They have plenty of people like that. More or less conventional ideology but without being beholden to the “special interest groups” of impassioned activists of the left and right that exert disproportionate control in the duopoly primaries, maybe a mix of conventionally conservative and conventionally progressive or moderate views that would not survive one establishment party’s primary or the other. There are any number of candidates who can fit that bill.
Like who? The same people who are turned off by the cultural baggage of one party are even more turned off by the substantive positions of the other party. That’s the whole reason they put up with the cultural baggage to begin with. It’s easy to find a candidate who appeals to disgruntled Democrats. It’s easy to find a candidate who appeals to disgruntled Republicans. It’s even possible (although not as easy) to find a candidate who appeals to the vast majority of people who consider themselves neither Democrats nor Republicans. But it’s very difficult to find a candidate who appeals to two of those groups, and it’s virtually impossible to find a candidate who appeals to all three.
“Ooh, well Bernie Sanders called himself an “outsider”, so it must be true! And John McCain is really a Maverick, and Scott Walker really is Unintimidated! Their publishers said so!” — Andy Craig
What a d**k.
“But you are right about one thing, the anti-establishment status of Bernie Sanders, has faded to a mere aura, a spectral vestige of what once was. It was something that he had earlier his career, and that has steadily faded to the point of being practically nonexistent by the time he ran for and won a Senate seat with party establishment support.” — Andy Craig
Millions might disagree. An individual who spent his entire political career outside the duopoly, but who is now seeking a major-party presidential nomination, can still reasonably be called an outsider — at least by most objective observers.
Just because Vermont Democrats realized after the state’s 1988 congressional campaign — a year when Bernie finished a close second, ahead of Paul Poirier, the endorsed Democratic candidate — that they couldn’t defeat him and stopped actively recruiting candidates to run against him, is no reason the Vermont lawmaker should be portrayed as some sort of establishment Democratic figure. He isn’t.
You can believe that all you want, but you have obviously never looked closely at his voting record in the House — or the Senate, for that matter. From NAFTA to President Obama’s nominees for Secretary of the Treasury, to mention but a few, Sanders — a guy who has always been just as comfortable working with Ron Paul and other conservative lawmakers as with Democratic progressives, depending on the specific issue — has vigorously opposed the Democratic leadership on a number of crucial issues…
The whole red/blue state thing is based on 2 plausible candidate scenarios. In a 3 candidate mix the third candidate’s most likely electoral votes would probably be in the non-coastal west, upper New England, and “purple states” such as Florida. A lot of other states could be in play. Trump would get the deep south, Clinton would get the deepest blue states on the east and west coasts, and everything else could be in play. Including maybe even California.
Keep in mind that not all of the Democrats’ support is solid either. A lot of it only comes from the Republicans being seen as the only other option that has a chance.
You are assuming two things, neither of which will necessarily be true:
1) That they will be in third place in popular votes
2) That they will care how bad it looks
I lost you there. All of which things? It’s all one thing. They have to have someone who has the correct background, is presentable and knows how to debate. They have plenty of people like that. More or less conventional ideology but without being beholden to the “special interest groups” of impassioned activists of the left and right that exert disproportionate control in the duopoly primaries, maybe a mix of conventionally conservative and conventionally progressive or moderate views that would not survive one establishment party’s primary or the other. There are any number of candidates who can fit that bill.
Get this person a lot of money and endorsements. They have that covered. Get them included in the major polls and line them up lots of media attention. They have the strings to pull that off. Flood the radio and TV and everything else with ads, and pay a bunch of supporters to post all over social media and comment sections. Ballot access, not a problem, they have money. Hit over 15% in all or most of the polls, get included in the debates, start polling competitively. At this point “spoiler” logic no longer applies.
Lots of people dislike both Trump and Hillary, so with enough money, media and endorsements, a presentable candidate with a top notch resume in government, business and/or warfare can get in the polls, get in the debates, peel supporters away from both Donald and Clinton, get some people who would otherwise stay home to come out and vote, and, yes, quite possibly win.
I really don’t see why this seems so implausible to you.
Had Perot actually wanted to win he could have pulled this off in 1992. Instead he did the weird dropping out and dropping back in thing and even with that managed to go from 7% back up to 19% but before he dropped out he led both Clinton and Bush. For a state level example see Ventura for Governor. In other words it can be done and the support being locked into the Ds and Rs for fear of the other only lasts as long as there is no third choice in the mix with a conventionally electable background, lots of personal money and/or wealthy backers, and views that are not too extreme to be dismissed out of hand.
Paulie, all those things you mention are certainly possible, and each one of them may individually have a decent likelihood of success. But in order for an independent to actually win, they would have to have all those things happen, and at that point, you start getting into conditional probability, and while it is certainly possible that everything could break right for an independent to win, in my estimation, it is highly unlikely. I would say the chances of such a candidate winning a three-way race against Hillary and Trump might be as high as 10% — maximum. I think the GOP establishment knows that, and so, they are unlikely to adopt such a risky strategy (although as I said on the other thread, I wouldn’t rule it out entirely — AC’s estimate of 35-40% seems about right to me, although if anything, I’d say it’s a little high).
Because otherwise they don’t get to 270 EVs, and because I don’t see them winning many if any blue states to make up for any states lost to Trump.
The slight wrinkle in that, is the possibility of it being thrown to the House because no candidate gets 270 EVs, where the Republicans would be guaranteed to control the outcome, but may or may not find it politically viable to hand the victory to their choice depending on the popular vote standings. I think it would be very difficult for the House to award the White House to a 3rd place candidate in that scenario, a 2nd place candidate maybe, and 1st place candidate guaranteed.
Why?
Perot polled above both Bush and Clinton before withdrawing and later jumping back in back in ’92. So I would not assume they can’t possibly win the popular vote.
But supposing they don’t win 270 electoral votes, as long as no one else does either, they get into the weird one vote per state system in congress, where they may have the strongest hand of the three. Maybe.
There are a lot of people who are neither the Republican or Democratic base, who end up voting for one or the other of the two either for fear of the one they don’t vote for or after carefully weighing which one they think is less bad. Or, in many cases, not voting at all. These are not by and large folks who will seriously consider voting for a candidate who does not have a lot of money, is not polling competitively, is not included in the general election debates, does not have the aforementioned background credentials to be seen as a plausible winner, etc. But if there is such a third candidate, they could draw large numbers of such votes that would otherwise go to Democrats, large numbers that would otherwise go to Republicans, and large numbers that would otherwise not vote at all as well as a relatively much smaller number that would otherwise go to other alt candidates such as LP or GP. So, yes, those votes exist and could add up to a win.
The only way I see it happening, is if they do what they’ve failed at so far, and knock Trump down to <10% of the popular vote and off the electoral college map.
I disagree. I think there is a very good chance [a GOP establishment-backed independent] can win.
I’m not sure where such a candidate’s support would come from. As someone (maybe you) pointed out on another thread, the GOP establishment has long ago grown weary of the social conservatives in their midst, but they continue to not only tolerate, but even court, those same so-cons, because without them, they just can’t put together a big enough coalition to compete with the Democrats.
If they pick a candidate who is a traditional Republican, except without the social conservatism, then they and Trump will split the GOP’s old base, and Hillary will win. On the other hand, if they pick a Hillary clone, then those two will split the Democratic base, and Trump will win. It’s your basic Catch-22.
Those are significant for e.g. LP and GP, but not for those willing and easily able to spend eight figures on it, which would be the ones I am talking about.
Nope. I have discussed this with Richard Winger and iirc we estimated March.
I disagree. I think there is a very good chance they can win.
I disagree with that as well. I think he could absolutely win in that scenario, especially if the economy tanks and/or terrorist incidents see an uptick.
I thought that was in the original list. I may have mixed up similar discussion on other threads. Yes, general is another one.
I’m relying on personal knowledge, not sources. Like I said, I can’t go into details. You’ll just have to decide whether to take my word for it that there is in fact plenty of fire behind all that smoke. I am not saying it will bust wide open before the election, only that it could. Other things could change the dynamic too, like health issues. A lot of the leading contenders are older than most leading contenders in the past and some have already had serious health problems previously, Hillary Clinton included.
Maybe. If there are only two plausible contenders and Trump is one of them, neither of which is a done deal. And maybe not even then.
Again, maybe. See above re: plausible 3 way or 4 way races, etc, etc.
Also, there is a point where it becomes too late to replace a candidate. New laws have moved that point further back from an election, mostly due to concerns about absentee ballots not getting to and back from troops deployed overseas.
Ooh, well Bernie Sanders called himself an “outsider”, so it must be true! And John McCain is really a Maverick, and Scott Walker really is Unintimidated! Their publishers said so!
You’re just obfuscating the terminology, which I already clarified. Anti-establishment /= outsider who’s never held office before. Whether you think that’s what “outsider” should mean or not, that’s what we were talking about, and it’s a distinction I’ve already explained. And by the standard you’re articulating, Gary Johnson was and is an “outsider” as well. Elected Governor coming from outside politics, often clashed with his own party, etc.
But you are right about one thing, the anti-establishment status of Bernie Sanders, has faded to a mere aura, a spectral vestige of what once was. It was something that he had earlier his career, and that has steadily faded to the point of being practically nonexistent by the time he ran for and won a Senate seat with party establishment support.
“Bernie is an anti-establishment candidate, granted. But by no stretch of the imagination is he a political outsider. Those aren’t the same thing.” — Andy Craig
You ought to tell his publishers, those who titled his 1997 autobiography “Outsider in the House,” and his more recent “Outsider in the White House” (published in September 2015).
Like him or hate him, if you look at his entire political career, Bernie Sanders has been as much of a political outsider as anybody who has served in Congress in our lifetime. You should really take the time to read about how he was routinely shunned and ostracized by Democrats in the House during his first term. He was the classic definition of an outsider — and still maintains that aura in the eyes of many of his supporters.
History has shown a lot of “outsiders” or candidates that try and claim that title (whether it is worthy or not), have flamed out after Iowa. Let’s face it, Howard Dean was flying high in early 2004 and Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum notched victories in 2008 and ’12. What happened to them?
Not saying that will happen to Trump, nor should the media write him off if Cruz pulls off the victory. But it is still way to early. As for independent campaigns, one only needs to check Ballot Access news to see the myriad of hoops and deadlines one would need to mount an independent campaign. I doubt Trump would try, while Bloomberg would actually have to start pouring in money now.
“But in Andy’s world, the polls have been wrong all along. The American people are secretly clamoring for the next “Governor of the United States.””
In the Democratic primary the supposed “outsider” candidate has been in Congress for over 20 years, and a professional politician practically his whole life. Bernie is an anti-establishment candidate, granted. But by no stretch of the imagination is he a political outsider. Those aren’t the same thing.
On the Republican side, you have Trump 35.0; Cruz 19.0; Rubio 11.3; Carson 8.0; Bush 4.7; Christie 3.0; and Fiorina 2.7 (in the national polling average from RCP). Like I said, the Republican nominee will be either 1) Trump 2) A senator or 3) A governor.
What other polls are you talking about, where there is massive demand for an “outsider” (as in, not held office) candidate not named Trump?
“”But maybe Andy Craig is right. It’s really the year of “former governors,”””
That’s not what I said, or anything close to it.
Someone will do that in 2016. Maybe Bloomberg, maybe Webb, maybe Romney or some other establishment Republican running as a nominal independent, maybe Trump if he is denied the Republican nomination. But I think it will happen one way or another. No way the power players will let the Libertarians and Greens be the leading opposition this year. Too much dry kindling on the ground.
I’m not so sure about that. The possibility of Trump being the GOP nominee certainly makes it a lot more likely than it would be in most years, but it would still be a risky strategy for disgruntled Republicans. For one thing, there’s very little chance such a candidate could actually win, and even if the GOP establishment would actually prefer Hillary over Trump, there’s no guarantee that their hypothetical spoiler would take more votes from Trump than from Hillary. Substantively, Hillary isn’t all that different from the GOP establishment on a lot of issues, and Trump could simply identify all the issues where Hillary and the hypothetical spoiler agree, and “go opposite” on all of them. In fact, Trump seems shrewd enough and Machiavellian enough to do exactly that. If he did, then there’s an excellent chance that the spoiler could end up helping him, maybe even enough to result in a Trump win, which I view as virtually impossible if he faces Hillary without a major third party or independent candidate in the race.
Anybody who can’t see that this is clearly shaping to be a year of the “outsider” is living in some sort of alternate universe.
But maybe Andy Craig is right. It’s really the year of “former governors,” as evidenced by the strong campaigns waged earlier by George Pataki, Rick Perry and Maryland’s Bob Ehrlich — the latter of whom didn’t even get to the starting gate — and the current campaigns of Jeb Bush, Martin O’Malley, Mike Huckabee and Virginia’s Jim Gilmore, all of whom are languishing in the low single-digits.
But in Andy’s world, the polls have been wrong all along. The American people are secretly clamoring for the next “Governor of the United States.”
General was on my original list of positions held by past presidents.
“A major CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, is just about the only experience outside government that might plausibly fit the bill, and all the ones who’ve come closest have been in that mold.”
Paulie: “Yes, I would expect that to be the other plausible background for a serious contender.”
One could be a retired general. (Or an admiral, I suppose.) Dwight Eisenhower was the last general to win, but Douglas MacArthur and Norman Schwarzkopf were considered contenders. Several generals won the presidency in the 1800s, most famously Ulysses Grant. And then there was George Washington.
“”That’s a different point altogether.””
It’s the one I was originally responding to. 😉
“”More potential with the Clintons, and that’s all I will say about it right now.””
Maybe. But tales of what awful murdering evil sociopaths the Clintons are (with attendant cover-up conspiracy) has been a thriving niche industry since 1992, if not before going back to Arkansas. Most if it is about as veracious as Obama’s mother covering up how he was secretly born in Kenya, and I take all of it with a very large grain of salt until it’s at least being reported on by more objective and reputable sources. Sure, there’s plenty of dirt, but is it going to stick any more than all the other umpteen alleged felonies they’ve supposedly committed in past “scandals”, up to and including some alleging murder? I doubt it.
And even if something like that did happen, I can still see her running a successful ‘vote for the crook, it’s important’ style campaign against Trump. I can also see the DNC swapping her our for some acceptable Governor or Senator (either a progressive Senator, or centrist-leaning Governor, or most likely I think: Joe Biden), who would still be favored to defeat Trump even after all that.
Now, if it breaks before Hillary beats Sanders, and Sanders actually wins the nomination and goes up against Trump…. that’s a much more interesting (/depressing/scary) possibility. I’m not that convinced Sanders even actually wants to beat Clinton in the primary, though. He intended to run as an shape-the-debate raise-the-issues candidate a la Ron Paul, and I think was taken by surprise that he ended up being the only not-Hillary left in the race (barring an unlikely O’Malley resurgence, but that could happen too. Bill came from similarly low poll numbers to win in ’92.)
More potential with the Clintons, and that’s all I will say about it right now.
That’s a different point altogether. I wouldn’t suspect that such a hypothetical outsider will actually be elected but I do expect they could plausibly do a good job of energizing and firing up latent supporters and getting them actively involved with a party or movement. However, that’s far from easy.
“Yes, I would expect that to be the other plausible background for a serious contender. Just because they haven’t won yet doesn’t mean they won’t.”
So to take it back to the original point- this is no reason for a third party to nominate somebody without relevant experience (either holding office or some substantial equivalent), and expect voters to flock to support that candidate because of their supposed “outsider” status. That’s what Darcy was asserting, and that’s what I see no reason to think is the case.
Point taken that there could be some other Hillary scandal yet to break, but that’s true of any of them.
But I don’t even think her being indicted is necessarily the end for her. Rick Perry ran for President under indictment, and while he didn’t go anyway last year, that wasn’t why. If the charges are minor enough, I can totally see her surviving it (and beating the charges). This is the couple who managed to survive the first impeachment since Reconstruction— and walked out of it with higher approval ratings than they went into it with. Bill has lost civil suits left and right.
Republicans have been trying to bring down the Clintons with “scandal” for going on a quarter of a century. It’s never worked, I don’t expect it to suddenly start working. At this point, all it does is play into her well-established narrative about how the GOP can’t oppose her on issues and so tries, time and time again, to attack her personally.
It will have an impact, but more on lowering the ceiling on Hillary’s support, not causing the floor to drop out.
And if push comes to shove, the DNC will name another candidate, who will still probably beat Trump if he’s the GOP nominee. Short of a major third-party campaign pulling near-exclusively from the left, there’s no way Trump gets to a winning plurality. The electoral math just isn’t there, even if he does try to tack to the left/center in the general election.
“”Someone will do that in 2016. Maybe Bloomberg, maybe Webb, maybe Romney or some other establishment Republican running as a nominal independent, maybe Trump if he is denied the Republican nomination. But I think it will happen one way or another. No way the power players will let the Libertarians and Greens be the leading opposition this year. Too much dry kindling on the ground.””
Maybe. I’m pretty sure they’re going to try to make Webb into that, but I think he’s going to fizzle and not get ballot access. As for Bloomberg, here’s a theory I’ll toss out there: he won’t run, because he knows he won’t win and will pull almost exclusively from Hillary. But he is using the possibility as a threat, to get a Cabinet position or some other concession in the still-likely Clinton administration. e.g. “Make me Secretary of the Treasury (or maybe even State or Defense), and I won’t run against you.” That scenario seems more likely to me, than Bloomberg actually running.
An independent Republican against Trump is the most likely possibility, but I still think the odds are against it. Not after they made such a show of demanding Trump promise to not do the same thing, and more importantly not when they need to stay in the party to control its post-Trump future and recovery.
“”Calling himself a socialist in public is all in itself a significant enough difference to qualify as different. So is running as an independent as his official ballot label.””
That he calls himself a socialist says something about the direction the Democratic party is headed, sure, though really not that much since by it he doesn’t mean any more than what the rest of us would call a typical left-wing progressive Democrat.
That he calls himself an independent on the ballot is little more than a curiosity and technicality, like Nebraska having a “nonpartisan” legislature, meaning they have a conventionally partisan legislature without party ballot labels. And it’s debatable whether that “independent” label is even technically accurate anymore, since he has more than once have to officially affirm that his partisan affiliation is “Democrat” in order to run as one for President.
Votes accrue upticket as well as downticket so while it is true that 0.3% and 3.0% are of no difference in “adult” politics we are not there and are unlikely to be there no matter what we do, at least in the immediate future so it’s a very significant difference in how it affects all our other candidates up and down the ballot, etc, etc. And there are other potential gamechangers – not likely but potential – such as megawealthy running mate/PAC funder(s), debate inclusion and so on.
As far as I know Alabama/Mississippi combo on Feb 27-28 but maybe there is something before then that I am not remembering without checking first.
Calling himself a socialist in public is all in itself a significant enough difference to qualify as different. So is running as an independent as his official ballot label.
I doubt it. He isn’t a leftist and doesn’t give a shit about splitting the left, which is not necessarily what he would split anyway. Also, he could actually win, say if the Republican establishment prefers him to Clinton and Trump and the election goes to the congress with one vote per state. Or, to take another scenario, suppose Trump runs as an independent; maybe Bloomberg would also run as an independent to counterbalance him. All sorts of possibilities out there.
So was Trump.
He would be less beholden to government employees unions, the rainbow coalition and former Sanders supporters than any Democratic nominee, even Mrs. Clinton. He could have the aforementioned anti-Trump Republican support if Trump is the nominee.
Someone will do that in 2016. Maybe Bloomberg, maybe Webb, maybe Romney or some other establishment Republican running as a nominal independent, maybe Trump if he is denied the Republican nomination. But I think it will happen one way or another. No way the power players will let the Libertarians and Greens be the leading opposition this year. Too much dry kindling on the ground.
I think more different than both of them.
Not entirely true. In a normal year Jeb would have been the leading Republican, and even putting Trump aside he would not have been behind Cruz, Rubio, etc. And a 70-something self proclaimed socialist senator from a small state would not have been in double digits as a contender for the Democratic nomination either … until now.
Yep.
You’re going way, way off on a tangent. “Potential Clinton scandals” is a much, much broader category than “Clinton scandals that have already broken assuming no new information comes out about them.”
Thanks Bo.
Didn’t see your comment before I posted my last one. An order of magnitude difference between Browne and Johnson in NM is, I would say, significant.
Depends on compared to what.
Look it up yourself, but I’m willing to bet it was significantly less for Browne.
I disagree, and I don’t think that is even close to being the only Clinton scandal that could potentially bite them in the ass. There are other personal issues that could come into play too – health, for example.
Yes, I would expect that to be the other plausible background for a serious contender. Just because they haven’t won yet doesn’t mean they won’t.
I agree.
A reason for picking some one who may pull 1% over another pulling 0.5% is the additional voter registrations that the higher performing candidate pulls in. In California Barr and Badnarik added under 5,000 newly registered libertarians while Johnson added about 15,000.
Bo, Umm, it’s quite a difference.
Umm, yourself.
I stand by my original statement. Three percent? No real difference at all, really. Perhaps a big deal in the pee-wee league, but not in the world of adult politics.
If that’s The Johnson Difference! then we may as well ignore who can get votes (no significant difference among the candidates) and nominate the best — most dynamic, colorful, eloquent, intelligent, and accurate — spokesperson for libertarian principles.
ac: But that’s still the gist of the story most people will hear, and not care about.
me: I agree, but that’s a separate question. Yes, if it gets to the generals and it’s only a minor controversy about mishandling emails, it’s a non-issue.
If, as I think is possible, she is criminally indicted, that’s another thing entirely. That could be a game changer, possibly forcing her out of the race. And, in this cycle, I think the unthinkable becomes thinkable.
Out of the former Governors who ran for President in 2012, Johnson had the highest approval ratings in his home state. I also don’t think there was any particular focus on campaigning in NM in 2012, so that result was mostly from name recognition and slightly more local media coverage. Perhaps they should focus more on NM in 2016, just because the state and local media is pretty much always going to cover him and that’s a nice boost over other states.
But the thing is, there just isn’t that much play between state and national results. You’re not going to see a candidate get to 35% in a single state while getting 1-2% in the rest of the nation. It’s a national race, if you aren’t competitive nationally you aren’t going to be competitive in a single state, even as a popular ex-Gov. The sort of regional campaigns that once could have occasionally delivered small blocs of (usually Southern) states to a third party, are obsolete. Regional concerns are not as important in national campaigns as they were historically. It’s also why regional “balancing” has become less of a consideration in picking a running mate.
A relevant comparison: In 1980, Illinois GOP Congressman John Anderson put popular Wisconsin Governor Patrick Lucey (Dem.) on the ballot as his running mate for their independent ticket. They got 6.6% nationally (after Reagan debated him and tried to force Carter to). In Anderson’s Illinois, they got 7.3%. In Lucey’s Wisconsin, they got 7.1%. So in both their home states, where they had both higher name ID and popularity, the impact on their vote total was marginal to non-existent. The best result for this Illinois/Wisconsin ticket was actually in Massachusetts (15%), with the rest of New England being the next four best states (all 12%+).
The “favorite son” effect just isn’t that strong. Most people are going to pick a candidate from who they’re told their bona fide viable choices are, and the linchpin of that is the debates and the national media coverage surrounding it.
@19:28
People care a lot more about “Sitting President orders petty burglary and obstruction of justice.” vs. “Presidential candidate broke office policy on use of personal e-mail.”
And yes, if you dig into the details, what she did was worse than that. But that’s still the gist of the story most people will hear, and not care about.
Umm, it’s quite a difference.
New Mexico results:
Johnson in 2012 — 3.55% (27,787)
Barr in 2008 — 0.29% (2,428)
Badnarik in 2004 — 0.31% (2,382)
Browne in 2000 — 0.34% (2,058)
Browne in 1996 — 0.54% (2,996)
Paul in 1988 — 0.63% (3,268)
Clark in 1980 — 0.96% (4,365)
George Whitfield: “Gary Johnson has something that Browne didn’t have: a track record as an elected official that will appeal to voters….
Johnson has a track record of appealing to under 4% of voters in his home state in a presidential election.
Not a very impressive track record.
What percentage of New Mexico voters did Browne appeal to? More or less than Johnson? Couldn’t have been that much different.
“Gary did better in New Mexico than Eugene Debs did in Indiana (except for 1912).” — Richard Winger
I’m not sure exactly what your point is, but since you brought up Eugene Debs, it’s worth noting that in 1912, shortly after New Mexico gained statehood, the longtime labor leader and spokesman for socialism garnered a relatively impressive 5.9 percent of the vote in the Land of Enchantment — a relatively impressive showing given the fact that the only appearance made by the Socialist Party’s presidential ticket in that state occurred in late October when former Milwaukee Mayor Emil Seidel briefly stopped in Albuquerque on his way to Arizona and California.
As you know, that was the only time in his five bids for the presidency that Debs’ name appeared on the New Mexico ballot.
ac, perhaps. I dunno, if a office break-in can take down a president — an unlikely event — then I say Hillary’s scandals COULD take her out. A lot of bad karma there, and at some point the boomerang comes back to smack her upside the head.
Personally, I’d prefer an HC presidency to a DT one, in part for the reasons you cite generally about out preferences for president.
While wildly distorted and confused, the LM sprung up from the ashes of Vietnam and Watergate, and so upheaval could present unanticipated opportunities for lessarchism to ascend as a major political POV.
I also expect nothing to come of the “Hillary scandals.” I’ll sooner fly to the moon that she’ll be indicted for anything, and on the political merits the story is an eye-roller that nobody will care about, no matter what the law technically says about storing classified information. If anything, the release of all these emails rebounds mostly to her benefit, because they do a better job humanizing her than her campaign operatives ever could. Benghazi has become a joke, too. Nothing’s coming of that, no matter how hard Congress tries to grasp at straws. (Not saying I don’t think she did anything wrong, just that I don’t expect her to seriously suffer for it).
You’re right, I did point that out recently, but we both agreed the sillyness is how superficial or random such observations can be, and that more substantive/relevant ones do still tell you something meaningful. In this case, the unbroken trend of electing holders of high office, is just the manifestation of the deeper trend, which is a demand for some relevant experience and record to judge. A major CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, is just about the only experience outside government that might plausibly fit the bill, and all the ones who’ve come closest have been in that mold. But it’s the exception that proves the rule. If a candidate hasn’t been a Gov/Sen/etc., they need something else in lieu of that to be taken seriously.
Even something like Ambassador, or IRS Commissioner, isn’t likely to cut it, and hasn’t for those who have tried it.
“This is America, anybody can run for President!” is a charming fairy tale, but only technically true. In reality the pool of people who could plausibly run a serious campaign for President, is less than 5,000, and even that’s probably overstating by a zero or two.
Only made it as far as Jan 10 at 08:38 in this thread so far. Thus far to that point I generally agree with Andy Craig and disagree with Darcy Richardson.
However, on the following point:
“….said people about every election, ever. And yet we’ve still to see one, in the entire history of the republic, that produced a President who wasn’t previously a Governor (most of them), Vice President, Senator, General, Cabinet Secretary, or in just two cases, at least a member of the House of Representatives. Everybody wants “something different” — and that’s great, they should get it. But at the end of the day the majority of the American people recoil at the prospect of turning over the nuclear codes and a few million employees to a rank amateur with no relevant experience and no record in public office. Which is why it has never happened, and probably never will– particularly as a third-party candidacy. ” – Andy C
Actually, it was Andy C who pointed out to me recently with a graphic that every election breaks long standing trends. This may be the one broken this election.
I think Trump has a decent chance at both the nomination and the general election, especially if the economy tanks or there are increased levels of terrorist attacks in the US or both.
Also, if the Republicans nominate Trump and the Republican establishment backs a well-funded nominal independent, that candidate could have a real chance, and may or may not fall into those traditional categories – he or she may instead be a business leader as well. Or, if Trump is denied the nomination he may be the one to run as an independent, and could have a real chance as well by changing his issue emphases to show his “progressive” side more and cut into what would otherwise both Democratic and Republican votes as well as non-voters. It’s plausible that Clinton scandals will catch up to Hillary at a point when it would be too late to replace her on the ballots, wreaking havoc with expected results.
sf: She’s got to have stuff that can take down the administration and they know it.
me: Gangland!
If true, and it’s not just HC but BO’s entire administration, this could turn into another Watergate-type event. Could be cleansing, if so.
Well, that’s true, but unlike Gene Debs, Gary Johnson was governor of the state for eight years.
Gary did better in New Mexico than Eugene Debs did in Indiana (except for 1912).
“Dear Darcy, Gary Johnson got 3.55% for president in New Mexico in November 2012. Since you were rounding off to whole percentages, you should have said “96% of New Mexico voters ignored his candidacy”, not “97% ignored his candidacy.” — Richard Winger
Sorry, Richard. I didn’t mean to slight the .55 percent fraction, the other 4,310 New Mexico voters who supported their former two-term governor in 2012.
Johnson seems like a bit of space cadet. Is there someone just as credentialed but less spacey that the LP could nominate?
Hi Darcy, I am glad that Gary Johnson has announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination and I send his campaign a donation the same day.
Andy and Stewart, I think you expressed my thoughts about Johnson well. Thank you for explaining it.
Gary Johnson is not a perfect candidate. No one is. I really admired Harry Browne who was a wonderful communicator but Gary Johnson has something that Browne didn’t have: a track record as an elected official that will appeal to voters who are concerned about a bloated and wasteful government.
Dear Darcy, Gary Johnson got 3.55% for president in New Mexico in November 2012. Since you were rounding off to whole percentages, you should have said “96% of New Mexico voters ignored his candidacy”, not “97% ignored his candidacy.”
Good one. But to most people they will just see someone with a gun to his head, and a somewhat colorful life as a fugitive, as well as the name tied to the anti-virus software that everyone hates and can’t uninstall easily. 🙂
The gun to the head is symbolic. It represents the NAP, and therefore the self sabotaging nature of the LP….
Good point, Bo. Good point. A gun to his head is not an image we want the media using all summer and through November.
Who would be better than Johnson? McAfee has some name recognition, but for chrissakes when someone Googles him they see a picture of him with a gun to his head. Plus all the weird Belize stuff. He would seem more a return to the fringe candidacy third parties are mainly known by.
And now my largest printer blew out the heater insulation. Crud. Going to have strip it down and rebuild the print head assembly. Lost the cooling fan on one of the others yesterday, so I’m down to three working printers until I can get spare parts in.
Ugh…few minor technical slip-ups there…I keep forgetting that the Rs took back the Senate. They all look the same to me these days.
I’ve been reading stuff here today while trying to keep all the 3D printers going. Too many fumes in the building… 🙂
But the AG can delay things. They are releasing her email messages in small batches. Even if they find clear and unavoidable evidence, the White House might find a way to delay it until she’s elected.
She’s got to have stuff that can take down the administration and they know it. They can’t allow her to be prosecuted. I’m not sure how they’d stop it, but stranger things have happened. If they delay it until after November then they have a chance.
And they only get hearings in 2017 if the Republicans retain control of Congress. If Clinton is elected, the odds are that they’ll have enough momentum to swing 15 seats, which is all it would take. If they take the House and retain the Senate, then she’s won a get out of jail free card. And if she’s not prosecuted, the “legacy” of the current administration won’t be tarnished.
Stranger things have happened.
Of course we’ll all be cheering in the streets if they indict her for something while the election is still under way.
True dat!
Agh…sorry. I was doing a bunch of research yesterday and with all the references to him in what I was looking at I forgot for a minute when I was posting here that he’s gone. Well he still will never file charges, that at least is undeniably true! But the current AG won’t either. 🙂
I’m no expert in federal prosecutorial discretion, but if there’s a smoking gun of significant import, the AG’s ability to machinate might be significantly hampered.
Imagine how disasterous it would be if HC clearly committed a felony, then gets elected through coverup. Imagine the endless Congressional hearings. Would the Ds really want that?
Holder no longer is the AG.
“And then there’s the possible prosecution of HC hanging out there. Were that to happen, we’ll likely see some pretty serious scrambling on the D side of things.”
I can’t see the Democrats letting that happen. Holder will never file criminal charges, and the only way that Congress can get her is if they can charge her with perjury or contempt of Congress.
This is a question of optics, AC. Sanders — I agree — is pretty much in line with the “progressive” wing of the Ds. But he uses the terms “socialist” and “social democrat,” and he’s holding his own in this D primary cycle.
I can’t recall a D in previous cycles who used such labels. Optically, that’s different, even if substantively it’s less so.
And then there’s the possible prosecution of HC hanging out there. Were that to happen, we’ll likely see some pretty serious scrambling on the D side of things.
My impression from those I have discussed the burka issue with is that they are taking the walk-back much better than I expected. If they heard about the whole thing after it happened it appears to have less negative impact than it did on those of us who learned of it before the walk-back.
I’ve also seen a lot of support for Johnson running again. Outside of here the only other LP candidate I’ve seen mentioned is McAfee, even amongst self identified Libertarians who are probably not closely following the nomination race as many of us here.
And Johnson’s results in 2012 were better than most of the LP’s presidential results. We can debate by how much and if it was worth any hypothetical “watering down” of the message, but it seems to me that he did pretty well at appealing to the electorate for a Libertarian , even if he was “washed up.” Which I think is arguable, since he was polled in running for the senate in I want to say 2008 and he was leading the field of Republicans. So had he wanted to, he would have stood a good chance at continuing his elective career in his home state.
I thought that was who you meant.
Kerbel.
@Andy Craig: Who was the candidate “whose first foray into politics was showing up at his county LP meeting for the first time to announce he’s running for President, and to ask who he should make his membership dues check out to”?
That’s significant. And his audience won’t be all hard-Rs.
For the record. The Alan Colmes radio show weekly audience is about 1.75 million. And he is on 6 days a week so just under 300K listeners for this interview.
Sanders was elected to the Senate as an independent-in-name-only, and likewise to the House before that. The only sense in which he wasn’t the Democratic nominee in all of his congressional elections, is that he refused to take the ballot label, as an exercise more in branding than any real statement of partisan affiliation. There has either been no Democratic nominee, or a paper nominee only because they couldn’t stop somebody from running, but the party’s full backing was always behind Sanders. Some years Sanders has even won the Democratic nomination as a write-in, but refused to accept it (but still thereby preventing there being any other Dem on the ballot).
When he was elected Mayor of Burlington, that was as more of a genuine independent. Before that he’d run multiple times as a Liberty Union candidate, with typical third-party results. But not by the time he ran for House a decade later. By then he’d already made his deal with Vermont-Dems, in exchange for which he caucuses as a Dem., always endorse the Dem. pres. nominee, and never campaigns against Democratic nominees for other office.
I don’t have any sort of schedule, but I do recall seeing that Texas has confirmed Johnson to be at their convention. They’ve been on of the main states to put on debates in the past. Johnson has also mentioned that he welcomes many debates with the other LP candidates.
I’m sure we’ll be seeing some at state conventions announced soon.
I dunno, BS was elected to the Senate as an independent. From a mainstream perspective, that’s fairly outsider.
Of course, from a NAP plumbline perspective, there is no difference between any of them, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot. Statists all.
Yes, overall it was a good interview. He didn’t give Colmes anything controversial to run with, and I think he avoided the suggestion of Ventura as a running mate the right way.
He was also very careful to say that he’s seeking the nomination, with none of the arrogant statements that candidates usually make. That stuff works in the Democratic or Republican Parties, but doesn’t in the LP.
I hope that we get a chance to see some debates between the main candidates. I’ll identify them as Johnson, Kerbel, Petersen and McAfee for the sake of discussion. Where is the next major convention going to be? Whoever has it should put on a REAL debate. Let them dig into it and give us something more to talk about on IPR other than stupid email messages and gorky answers in interviews.
@14:53
Interesting trial balloon, but nothing new. Bloomberg is a perennial maybe-candidate, and every time he runs up against the same brick wall: he is much more well-known than well-liked, there isn’t a whole lot of demand for his platform, and he doesn’t want to run unless it looks like he’d win, which he wouldn’t. He might be a nominal Republican turned nominal independent, but ideologically he’d occupy a very similar space to Hillary. One neoliberal New Yorker with a nanny-state reputation and who’s cozy with Wall Street, is probably enough for this election.
Downside if he does run, is it probably sucks a lot of the air out of the room for other third-party candidates. But the prospect of jumping into the race only to do a mediocre job of splitting the left, and thereby getting blamed for President Trump, will keep him on the sidelines I think.
And Sanders is an “independent socialist” only in his own head. He’s just another progressive Democratic Senator from the left wing of the party, and there’s nothing special or “outsider” about that.
I am happy that Gary is running again and I think he did a fine job is this interview.
ac: Let’s be real here: the only thing that unusual about it is Trump. That’s not nothing, it certainly matters a lot, particularly if he’s the GOP nominee.
me: At this point, sorta agree. This CYCLE, however, is different in that Trump+Carson+Fiorina+(to some extent, now)Cruz have swamped the “establishment” Rs. And Sanders has gotten far more interest than an independent socialist would have in previous cycles.
And then there’s this trial balloon:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politics/michael-bloomberg-2016-president-campaign/
It’s different by mainstream standards, although perhaps not as different as 1992, more different than 1980, in my judgment.
“Darcy,You said above that Libertarians should run an outsider. Who do you propose that could be?.” – Jill Pyeatt
I would love to know Darcy’s “outsider” candidate as well. I believe he is right but I am not smart enough to know who such a candidate would be.
Darcy, I’m very active on Facebook, more so than IPR. I agree with Andy Craig that thousands of people have been asking when Johnson was going to announce. It’s been going on for months. Every time I go somewhere, people would ask me when he was going to announce. Is it possible that you don’t care for Johnson so much that you’re seeing things differently than others of us do? Or perhaps you’re not reading and/or talking to as many people as some of us do.
That’s not meant to be an insult. Lots of us have pet issues that influence our perception of things.
You said above that Libertarians should run an outsider. Who do you propose that could be?.
“Seems obvious that something else is at play….”
Are you suggesting a conspiracy? 🙂
@12:22
“This year is different, very different.”
Different, yes. Very different, no. Let’s be real here: the only thing that unusual about it is Trump. That’s not nothing, it certainly matters a lot, particularly if he’s the GOP nominee. But one data point does not a trend make, nor is it evidence that whatever scenario you want to posit is now suddenly more plausible.
The only outpouring of demand for an “outsider” (by which is meant somebody who hasn’t held office, whether they’re an ‘outsider’ or ‘anti-establishment’ or not) has been on the GOP side this year, and really it’s only been Trump. Carson had his 15 minutes and is done. Fiorina’s not doing much better, and she is both establishment-backed and a recent (unsuccessful) GOP candidate for Senate, and is primarily running on having been a Fortune 500 CEO. (Note that the only other non-officeholder who has ever come close to winning, was also a billionaire with experience as the executive of a large company. If anybody could do it without government experience, that’s the mold it could be done in, but even then it’s a long-shot and hasn’t happened yet.) If the GOP nominee is not Trump, it will be either a Governor or Senator.
Other than Trump- the billionaire who was been a household name for decades- where is this demand for a candidate whose first office will be the Presidency? Much less any indication that a third party can ride such a wave of support to higher vote totals or potential victory?
One thing that the candidate might try for a change is to get some facts out to the public such as how many troops we have deployed abroad and what it costs. People vote for pocketbook issues more than the do for vague generalities. Ron Paul did well when he made a point of saying that we have troops in 150 nations (or whatever number he used). LP candidates need to get specific on some of these issues. Maybe even call for a trial for Bush and Cheney.
dgr: The honest answer — not that Johnson recognizes that fact or would have ever admitted it, even if he did — might have been because the LP, a party that was never intended to be politically Left or Right, keeps running washed up Republicans for the presidency.
me: Sounds like you are inventing facts. Many L candidates have not been “washed-up Rs,” and the results have all been about the same…+/-1%.
Seems obvious that something else is at play….
“Agreed, but what’s even worse is a presidential candidate — a politically experienced one, at that — who seemingly doesn’t even understand the basic tenets of the party he’s supposedly representing.”
Which candidate(s) are you referring to? 🙂
“I’m not against running an “outsider”, but he or she has to be presentable and capable of intelligent debate with the media that might be covering the campaign. That’s a difficult person to find, especially if they’ve never run for office before.” — Stewart Flood
Agreed, but what’s even worse is a presidential candidate — a politically experienced one, at that — who seemingly doesn’t even understand the basic tenets of the party he’s supposedly representing.
“You may be correct about the lawsuit, but I hope that you aren’t.” — Stewart Flood
I’m not. There’s no way on God’s green earth that the LP nominee will appear on the presidential debate stage this coming autumn. That’s a fact and the Libertarian Party should be preparing for that likelihood by nominating a dynamic, colorful candidate capable of generating serious media coverage outside of the contrived two-party debates.
I’m not against running an “outsider”, but he or she has to be presentable and capable of intelligent debate with the media that might be covering the campaign. That’s a difficult person to find, especially if they’ve never run for office before.
“Colmes: ~15:30 I’m amazed that L-ism hasn’t done better. Why do you think that is?” — Robert Capozzi.
The honest answer — not that Johnson recognizes that fact or would have ever admitted it, even if he did — might have been because the LP, a party that was never intended to be politically Left or Right, keeps running washed up Republicans for the presidency.
It’s a party with an inferiority complex and obviously infatuated with the idea of running former GOP officeholders, regardless of how mediocre they might be.
America wants an outsider in 2016.
It’s too bad most Libertarians can’t see that…
Time needs to be leveraged, but maintaining a sense of accessibility is important, too.
Getting throngs out would be neat, but I don’t think throngs will come out unless there is a sense of winnability. Until that happens, GJ’s strategy sounds about right.
I agree that we don’t need a lazy nominee. And you certainly need to “press the flesh” a bit — but national media coverage is the most important part.
But does anyone honestly believe that candidates wearing century old military uniforms or refusing to take donations about $5 — or even in currency — are going to get national coverage other than a few times to be laughed at and ridiculed? We have to have a credible and presentable candidate. That’s just part of politics.
You may be correct about the lawsuit, but I hope that you aren’t. It really is a monopoly, and it shouldn’t be allowed.
Colmes: ~15:30 I’m amazed that L-ism hasn’t done better. Why do you think that is?
me: GJ attributes it to the debates and lack of media coverage, which is a fine answer as far as it goes. But the commitment to fringy plumblinery seems the truer answer. Ls don’t seem interested in the nearer term challenges of the day with sensible, measured steps in toward lessarchy.
“’Contrary to what Andy Craig contends, this is unlike other presidential elections.’”
I don’t contend the contrary of that.” — Andy Craig.
But, Andy, you did say at 8:38, in response to my suggestion that the American people were looking for something completely different in 2016 presidential election, that it was the same thing people have said “about every election, ever.”
Not by a country mile, my friend.
This year is different, very different.
As a longtime third-party advocate, I hope the Libertarians make the most of it — and they can do so by rejecting an almost completely detached ex-Republican governor who, like spoiled milk, wants to continue a political career that ended shortly after his governorship nearly fifteen years ago, a guy whose understanding of libertarianism leaves a lot to be desired.
“The Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee will never be invited to the presidential debates this autumn”
Not with that attitude, they won’t.
“so the party’s prospective nominee should be working vigorously now to assure at least a decent amount of national mainstream coverage this fall. ”
….which is exactly what he’s been doing these past few days, and much more successfully than any other candidates for the nomination.
“You can’t accomplish that without a tremendous amount of retail politics…”
Nonsense. Plenty of candidate get bupkis from retail, and plenty of candidates do well despite eschewing it. Stewart is exactly right: successful retail *follows* mainstream coverage, it rarely precedes it.
“and that can only happen if the party nominates a truly interesting — and colorful — candidate, qualities in which Gary Johnson comes up woefully short.”
Compared to who? Howard Stern? Oprah? Certainly not compared to any of the candidates the duopoly will be coughing up. Compared to the other candidates for the LP nomination? Looking at the field, who else would you have us nominate?
“The Libertarians need a hard-working candidate, somebody willing to press the flesh at every opportunity. The Green Party’s Jill Stein, by comparison, is out-hustling every candidate for the presidency at this point — and has been for several months now. It’ll pay off in the long run…”
If only there was some past election where they were both on the ballot we could refer to for comparison…..
“The last thing the Libertarian Party needs is a somewhat lazy nominee — a candidate with an inflated ego, somebody who thinks he’s automatically entitled to national coverage.”
Agreed. That’s why I’m not particularly impressed by the idea of a candidate whose first foray into politics was showing up at his county LP meeting for the first time to announce he’s running for President, and to ask who he should make his membership dues check out to. To pick just one example. Though, that’s still three days timelier on joining the party than was McAfee.
Near as I can tell, Gary is the only candidate (except maybe McAfee and maybe Petersen), whose media strategy isn’t that they’re “automatically entitled” to national coverage once we make them the Libertarian nominee. Because if they have some other strategy, it sure would be to their benefit if they could demonstrate it before the convention.
The Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee will never be invited to the presidential debates this autumn, so the party’s prospective nominee should be working vigorously now to assure at least a decent amount of national mainstream coverage this fall. You can’t accomplish that without a tremendous amount of retail politics and that can only happen if the party nominates a truly interesting — and colorful — candidate, qualities in which Gary Johnson comes up woefully short.
The Libertarians need a hard-working candidate, somebody willing to press the flesh at every opportunity. The Green Party’s Jill Stein, by comparison, is out-hustling every candidate for the presidency at this point — and has been for several months now. It’ll pay off in the long run…
The last thing the Libertarian Party needs is a somewhat lazy nominee — a candidate with an inflated ego, somebody who thinks he’s automatically entitled to national coverage.
The party should make the most of this unique opportunity, one of the few periods in American history in which discontent with both major parties is so widely apparent.
It will one day be said that the relatively expensive lawsuit for inclusion in the debates, one of Gary Johnson’s few talking points — a delusional one at that — was an enormous waste of donors’ hard-earned money… It’s never going to happen.
“Contrary to what Andy Craig contends, this is unlike other presidential elections.”
I don’t contend the contrary of that.
The primary season debates are clearly market driven. That is why the networks competed to hold them, and at times gave in to some of the candidates’ demands.
But the general election debates are a monopoly. They are run by a government sanctioned and regulated entity, with no other debates taking place. If one or more of the major networks offered to pay the candidates to debate in a forum outside of the commission’s control they would decline. Not because they wouldn’t want the money, but because they are bound to the rules and the commission created by the government — controlled by Democrats and Republicans and run by bureaucrats!
While not completely fair, the League of Women Voters ran much better debates, with at least a chance of third party and independent candidates being included.
I watched the clip of Governor Johnson’s interview. I though it was interesting that Colmes did not comment when the subject of the closed debate system was brought up by Johnson. He knows who pays his salary. Overall, I thought it was a good interview.
Yes, Libertarians want someone to shout “fire and brimstone” at the public over the problems with the federal government that they fail to see or understand. To a Libertarian, he is mush and, as mentioned by someone earlier, a “snooze button.” But is he? He gets on national programs, he is given the chance to present his views, and certainly tens of thousands of people heard it.
Whether they listened isn’t the issue until next November. But they heard it.
As I’ve said before, Johnson isn’t perfect. And his campaign was horribly mismanaged last time. Johnson seems to understand some of that. He mentioned spending countless hours on Internet Radio — a mistake that at least some of us were already aware of and commented about here and elsewhere back in 2012.
Johnson said that he’ll be avoiding “retail politics” if he’s the nominee. Retail only works if you’ve got media pumping up the public to attend and covering it before, during and after the event. That won’t be likely to be the case in a Libertarian campaign.
Whether you like it or not, the odds are that Johnson will win handily on the first round. My guess at this point would be 60-65% of the delegates. Predicting how the opposition tally will go is a waste of time.
Of course that could change. Some of the candidates way in the back of the pack may drop out and throw their support to competitors they feel hold similar views. But even then it would take an extremely effective GOTV to win. Will we have a low turnout or a high turnout, and which of the political “wings” of the party will show up in strength?
I agree with Root’s Teeth Are Awesome. I don’t dislike Gary Johnson, but if there’s an alternative to Unisom commercials and other sleeping aids, the former New Mexico governor would be the perfect salesman.
Contrary to what Andy Craig contends, this is unlike other presidential elections. The American people are yearning for something completely different. They just might be receptive to a genuine libertarian message.
If one looks at it objectively — and honestly — even Alan Colmes seemed kind of bored by the above interview. He spent most of the interview scratching his head and trying to get Johnson to say something original. Of course, it never happened.
“”Yes, I know the Presidential Debate Commission monopoly (or whatever it’s called) runs the final debates.””
That’s sort of the key point you’re glossing over. The primary debates don’t work anything like the general election debates.
“But Trump especially has shown that TV debates aren’t the big deal they once were.”
Has he? That and unearned media is basically all he’s been doing. If he’s proven anything obsolete, it’s traditional advertising budgets, not debates, and he’s been bragging to that effect. Though even that’s probably not really true, he just figured out a way to not have to pay for his advertising.
“Johnson can’t dictate to the networks….”
Who do not sponsor or run the CPD debates.
“”Johnson’s not being covered by much by the news media, because he isn’t news. The free market has ruled that he doesn’t attract an audience. People don’t care to see him. Of course, some libertarians will whine, “No fair, no fair!”””
When they are actually asked if third-party candidates should be included, the answer is always a super-majority ‘yes.’
“I didn’t vote for Johnson in 2012. I wrote-in Ron Paul.”
Which was the exact same as not voting.
” I don’t hate him. But neither do I like him. Not the man. Not his boring style. Not his libertarian lite principles.”
I thought this was about picking a President, not a life partner.
Andy Craig: if you ever want to break the system where the American public is presented with only two major-party choices and every other candidate is ignored, then you’re going to have to break up the debate collusion monopoly…
Is it a monopoly? The debates are increasingly free market driven.
When Trump and Carson didn’t like the rules for one upcoming debate — on NBC or CNN, I think — they threatened to boycott the debate. The network caved in to Trump/Carson’s demands and changed the rules. Why? Because the network knew that Trump and Carson were the big TV ratings draw.
Yes, I know the Presidential Debate Commission monopoly (or whatever it’s called) runs the final debates. But Trump especially has shown that TV debates aren’t the big deal they once were. That star candidates can dictate to debate commissions. They can demand inclusion, and even demand rules to their liking.
Johnson can’t dictate to the networks because he isn’t a star. He’s a barely known ex-governor. A real snooze. And his ideas aren’t all that exciting, or even libertarian,
Johnson’s not being covered by much by the news media, because he isn’t news. The free market has ruled that he doesn’t attract an audience. People don’t care to see him. Of course, some libertarians will whine, “No fair, no fair!”
I didn’t vote for Johnson in 2012. I wrote-in Ron Paul. I doubt I’ll vote for Johnson if he’s the LP candidate this year. I don’t hate him. But neither do I like him. Not the man. Not his boring style. Not his libertarian lite principles.
“This just shows you really don’t know much about how Facebook works.” – Andy Craig
I guess I don’t, but it looks like quite a few of the positive comments are from the same people. Admittedly, I’ve never cared much for Facebook — it isn’t a real measure of anything.
Gary Johnson, popular on Facebook, but not at the ballot box.
Have fun living in your fantasy cyber world.
The link I posted had 8,842 “likes”, 4,438 shares, and 1,270 comments, the vast majority of them in support. You asked for evidence of thousands of people supporting him and making statements to that effect, there you go. And that was just one post, 4 months ago.
“There seems to be huge discrepancy between the number of comments and followers…”
This just shows you really don’t know much about how Facebook works.
It is absolutely normal for a page with that many likes, if anything it’s well above-average. The Libertarian Party page has ~500k followers, and most of its posts get much, much less engagement than that. Most people who see something on Facebook, don’t click like or share or comment at all (as is true anywhere online.), and Facebook does not show all posts from a page to all persons who have liked that page.
“”OAI probably purchased many of those “followers” — a common trick by those fraudulently trying to build up their on-line presence in this day and age.””
Utter hogwash, which shows to me you don’t care for an accusation being true or even plausible before you toss it out there.
Call me skeptical. Isn’t there a Libertarian caucus of such folks?
“’Trust me.’
Not particularly inclined to.” — Andy Craig.
We’ll leave it at that. I just looked at it. By the way, his Facebook page doesn’t appear to have thousands of comments urging him to run — at least not as far as I could discern. There seems to be huge discrepancy between the number of comments and followers… OAI probably purchased many of those “followers” — a common trick by those fraudulently trying to build up their on-line presence in this day and age.
Then again, that shouldn’t be surprising given how his 2012 presidential campaign treated donors like mushrooms, never really accounting for how their contributions were spent.
“Trust me.”
Not particularly inclined to.
The only place where you’re likely to see thousands of comments on anything. His Facebook page has almost 350,000 followers, which is almost as many as the party itself.
https://www.facebook.com/govgaryjohnson/posts/10152726504759364
I talk to many more people than your typical AP stringer/writer.
…and there’s much more to the Russell Means story than revealed in the superficial Amarillo newspaper article. Trust me.
If they’re really out there, then I’m totally mistaken. And — no — I don’t live in an “echo chamber bubble.” If you’ve seen thousands of such comments, then maybe you do.
“I’ve actually seen the comments, in the thousands, both before and after the announcement.” — Andy Craig.
Please point us to the thousands of comments urging Gary to run again. Seriously, I haven’t seen them.
“”Based on your postings, you’re head over heels for the guy,””
I’m happily married, and not to Gary Johnson. However, I make no secret of the fact that I think he’s the best candidate, both for the nomination and for the actual job.
@09:25
I’ve actually seen the comments, in the thousands, both before and after the announcement. Just because they aren’t in your echo-chamber bubble, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
“”Well, they’re a pretty astute bunch then.””
Mixed bag.
“”You’re obviously not aware of Gary’s record as governor.””
I’m aware of both his record and the smears. Like this one:
“”For starters, why didn’t he pardon Russell Means when he had the chance? And, yes, he most certainly had the opportunity to do that while governor of New Mexico. “”
Russell Means was never convicted of anything in New Mexico. The incidents which got him a felony record took place in South Dakota, which, if you’re keeping track, is not New Mexico.
However, when Russell Means announced he was going to run for Governor (initially as a Libertarian), Johnson *did* offer to give a certificate declaring him eligible to run for office, which it was in his power to do. Means declined, because he thought his exclusion wasn’t actually constitutional under the NM constitution and intended to fight it.
As reported at the time:
“Gov. Gary Johnson cannot pardon Means for his South Dakota conviction, but could issue a certificate that would allow Means to hold office, a spokeswoman said.
But Means said Wednesday he has no plans to request such a certificate.
The Libertarians contend that because the state constitution specifies only that candidates must be U.S. citizens, state residents and at least 30 years old, any requirements beyond that are unconstitutional.”
http://amarillo.com/stories/2001/06/01/usn_indian.shtml#.VpJovPkrKUk
“”His vetoes — his one claim to fame — also hurt quite a few poor and working-class residents in the Land of Enchantment.””
If one is not a fiscal conservative or libertarian, you might see it that way. Obviously we do not.
“People have been begging/demanding he run again for months…” – Andy Craig
Give me a break.
In fact, the last person I encountered who said that he was hoping Johnson would run again — a guy who voted for him in 2012 — thought he was the former governor of Arizona. I mean that seriously, Andy.
“That’s simply flat-out untrue. People have been begging/demanding he run again for months, and a great many of them were very excited about it when he announced he is.:
Who? And how many?
Based on your postings, you’re head over heels for the guy, but who in the general population is clamoring for a second Gary Johnson candidacy? I’ve never encountered one…
“Mostly because it’s not a fact, though there are plenty of Libertarians fond of repeating it. They mostly hang out in these comment threads.” – Andy Craig
Well, they’re a pretty astute bunch then.
You’re obviously not aware of Gary’s record as governor. For starters, why didn’t he pardon Russell Means when he had the chance? And, yes, he most certainly had the opportunity to do that while governor of New Mexico. His vetoes — his one claim to fame — also hurt quite a few poor and working-class residents in the Land of Enchantment.
The state wasn’t so enchanting back then, which is why nearly 97 of every 100 New Mexico voters ignored his presidential candidacy in 2012.
I’ll gladly debate you on his record if you wish.
“”No, I’m not supporting anyone at this point. Let’s be honest. The debates are vastly overrated. A majority of Americans — even a majority of the voting population — don’t bother to watch them. That’s a fact.””
It is, and that’s also not the point. The impact is much broader than just those who actually watch the whole thing. It is about signaling. The debates are when the American people- whether they actually watch it or not- get told “OK, these are your choices, and nobody else really counts.”
Getting into the debates is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to make a larger impact and win a competitive vote total. Any third-party candidate not serious about getting into the debates, isn’t serious about getting elected.
“”Except for a couple of thousand Libertarians who were naively impressed by Gary’s very modest showing in 2012 “”
There’s nothing naive about it (nor is your numerical estimate anywhere close). Would we have all liked to see more votes? Of course. But it was the best third-party showing since Nader’00, and the best result for the LP in decades if not ever (depending on which metric you use.). It was also more than every other alt-candidate in 2012 combined.
” a year in which a viable third-party candidate,…”
There was nothing special or unique about 2012 in that regard.
” the most heavily federally-subsidized state”
It’s Gary Johnson’s fault that New Mexico has a lot of military bases, a huge federal research facility, a very large Native American population living on reservations, and has historically suffered from high rates of poverty (and thus high rates of means-tested federal programs)?
“almost no one is clamoring for a second act by the ex-governor on the presidential stage.”
That’s simply flat-out untrue. People have been begging/demanding he run again for months, and a great many of them were very excited about it when he announced he is. You might not be one of them, but they absolutely exist. It wasn’t just “a couple thousand Libertarians” that made his announcement the #1 trending topic on Facebook all day.
“If one really looks closely at his record, Johnson, moreover, was something of an unimpressive governor, at least in terms of his so-called libertarianism. Most Libertarians ignore that fact.”
Mostly because it’s not a fact, though there are plenty of Libertarians fond of repeating it. They mostly hang out in these comment threads.
“Voters are looking for something altogether different this year. ”
….said people about every election, ever. And yet we’ve still to see one, in the entire history of the republic, that produced a President who wasn’t previously a Governor (most of them), Vice President, Senator, General, Cabinet Secretary, or in just two cases, at least a member of the House of Representatives. Everybody wants “something different” — and that’s great, they should get it. But at the end of the day the majority of the American people recoil at the prospect of turning over the nuclear codes and a few million employees to a rank amateur with no relevant experience and no record in public office. Which is why it has never happened, and probably never will– particularly as a third-party candidacy.
“a particularly enlightening interview.” Sorry, typing too fast.
My point is that the Libertarian Party should try something bold and new by fielding a genuine “outsider” in what is clearly shaping up to be a year of outsiders, or at the very least someone who understands libertarianism.
A stale, ex-Republican governor who has been out of office for nearly fourteen years — and who obviously has not paying attention close attention to politics during that period — simply won’t inspire anybody.
Also, I don’t think it was particularly enlightening interview, even if it was conducted by Fox’s “house” liberal.
No, I’m not supporting anyone at this point. Let’s be honest. The debates are vastly overrated. A majority of Americans — even a majority of the voting population — don’t bother to watch them. That’s a fact.
Except for a couple of thousand Libertarians who were naively impressed by Gary’s very modest showing in 2012 — a year in which a viable third-party candidate, particularly a former governor, should have been able to amass at least 2 or 3 percent of the vote nationally against Obama and Romney —and continue to marvel at the fact that he was a two-term governor of one of the most heavily federally-subsidized states in the country (trailing only Alaska), almost no one is clamoring for a second act by the ex-governor on the presidential stage.
If one really looks closely at his record, Johnson, moreover, was something of an unimpressive governor, at least in terms of his so-called libertarianism. Most Libertarians ignore that fact.
Voters are looking for something altogether different this year. They’re not looking for a warmed-over ex-Republican, or even current, GOP governor…and there’s a slew of them can attest to that fact.
I thought it was a pretty good interview, and Colmes is usually pretty decent at asking thoughtful and relevant questions. As for debate inclusion— aren’t you supporting Jill Stein? You know she (and Honkala and the Green Nat. Cmte.) are co-plaintiffs on that too, right?
And if you ever want to break the system where the American public is presented with only two major-party choices and every other candidate is ignored, then you’re going to have to break up the debate collusion monopoly one way or another. It is the make-or-break moment when third-party candidates either slide off into losing most of their support to “wasted vote” syndrome, or continue strong through election day as a “legitimate” bona fide candidate drawing substantial vote %. It’s not a panacea or a silver bullet, but it’s absolutely true that no candidate is going to win without getting on that stage.
It’s amazing how uninspiring Johnson comes across. He rarely, if ever, has anything original or substantive to say. It’s been true in interview after interview. It’s almost as though he’s just going through the motions.
Even more damning, as evidenced in this interview, he seems almost clueless when it comes to the Trump and Sanders candidacies, phenomena largely driven by pocketbook issues — something Johnson has yet to address.
Nobody cares about the staggering national debt when they’re struggling to pay their own bills.
The former New Mexico governor, moreover, seems to think the panacea of being included in the presidential debates — something that will never happen — will turn the tide in his favor when in reality it would only demonstrate just how ill-informed and irrelevant his candidacy really is…