57 Comments
Comments are closed.
July 24, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
Jill Pyeatt is a small-business owner and jewelry designer from Southern California. She currently serves on the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of CA. She can be found on Facebook and Twitter.
Comments are closed.
I wanted to loop back and talk about this, but hadn’t had time until just now. Quoth Andy C (in discussion about who’s getting what kind of coverage):
“What do you get for ‘John McAfee?’ A bunch of headlines about the looming ‘cyberwar’ (that he wants the U.S. gov’t to fight) and how computer security is #1 most important election issue in 2016, alongside some musings about whether or not his major-party opponents use computers enough or are computer-literate. In other words, he hasn’t changed much of anything from the message he was running on as the ‘Cyber Party,’ and what changes have come have been only in response to Libertarian criticism.”
Just to be clear here:
On the one hand, I disagree with McAfee’s basic idea on how to deal with “cyber war.” He wants to eliminate the TSA (good idea) and use its former funding to create a new federal bureaucracy, the “Office of Digital Transformation,” which would get cyber warfare right by hiring “white hat” hackers” (bad idea).
My preferred strategy vis a vis cyber war is 1) radical decentralization of technologically dependent infrastructure (if there’s a vulnerability that lets someone shut down the electrical grid in LA, that same vulnerability shouldn’t allow them to shut down the water system in Chicago) and 2) heavy use of low-tech backup mechanisms (if there’s an exploited vulnerability that lets someone shut down the grid in LA with a computer virus, there should be ways of manually rebooting and running the grid WITHOUT the computers, at least in the short term). If the feds have a role in all that, it shouldn’t be hiring “white hat” hackers and turning them into sinecured, featherbedding bureaucrats. It should work through e.g. “bug bounty” programs and so forth.
Now, all that said, while McAfee’s emphasis on the problem of cyber warfare may not be viscerally appealing to libertarians, or to virtually anyone else outside a few establishment politicians who’d like to exploit it to enhance their own power, he also happens to be absolutely, completely, 100% right on its importance.
Two predictions:
1) Absent drastic and effective action to counteract the threat, at some time in the next couple of decades, there will be a cyber attack that racks up a body count of the same order of magnitude as 9/11. Think along the lines of Hurricane Katrina, only with no advance warning and with several levee failures instead of just the one.
2) In any future large-scale conventional war involving major powers with nukes and ICBM capability, the power with the least technologically dependent ground forces (China, Russia) will use an atmospheric nuke’s EMP effect to instantly and severely degrade the theatre-level command, control and communications of the power — almost certainly the US — with ground forces that have become far too dependent on tech to do stuff that used to be done with maps and compasses rather than GPS, pen and paper and plotting boards rather than microcomputers, wire and runners and reflective panels and even freaking semaphore rather than encrypted radios on every man Jack, etc. Tech has been a huge advantage to the US in its wars of the last 25 years. Over-reliance on it can and will become a disadvantage.
It’s true that neither libertarians nor most voters find either of those issues especially sexy, and I think McAfee may be tilting at windmills by putting them or something like them at the center of his campaign, but not because they don’t matter.
The belligerent arrogance should sink his campaign. We ought to expect better than this from people seeking to be top of ticket leaders.
Now I am ready to briefly tackle Petersen’s absolutely ridiculous statement that the Platform does not contain the NAP (and he seems ignorant that the Statement of Principles IS part of the Platform as required by our Bylaws). There are more examples, but these are the ones that are indisputable.
From the Preamble: [F]orce and fraud must be banished from human relationships…
From the Statement of Principles: [W]e support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others…
From the Statement of Principles: We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
From the Platform: No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.
From the Platform: The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.
His statement is ludicrous to the point of being a deliberate falsehood.
George Phillies @ February 8, 2016 at 16:13 wrote:
“Johnson’s debt at the end of December was $1,538,118.73. . . . http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00495622/1040920/”
When I met with Governor Johnson in his home in early July of 2015 he assured me that this was not true, that Ron Nielsen had “crossed every T and dotted every “i” and that all debts had been paid to EVERYONE other than Ron.
I suggested he double check. I also shared how Ron had misled me, and how I had reason to believe that what he had been told by Ron regarding the debt was not accurate.
Has Gary himself said anything about this debt since then? Has anyone asked him?
It seems to me to be a critical error from the 2012 campaign — not only the debt, but also the lack of transparency and what (at least appears to be) deception regarding it.
I’d hope the Party of Principle would not tolerate this in its platform, in government generally or in any of its candidates.
I have recently received Austin’s answers to my 13 questions. Just wait until you hear them, Caryn–
I should post the article within the next few hours.
Other comments were similar, but I do not wish to post screenshots of anyone else’s replies other than my own. Suffice it to say, they were not impressed with his trolling of Colorado.
Excuse me, my quote wasn’t a direct quote. Here is the screenshot.
==The reasons they have for supporting their candidate, and the complaints they have with Johnson, are pretty incompatible and in many cases coming from opposite directions.===
That doesn’t describe me. My reasons for supporting presidential candidates are generally not ideological, and I have become convinced it is a sideshow that we *have* to engage in. I look at who is, in my estimate, on the whole, be good for Party unity and moving forward. That is why I support Kerbel. Ideologically I support Perry. I would vote NOTA before a rank insulter and divider like AWP, and I dislike NOTA a lot.
AWP came into our Colorado affiliate group and said he was “amused” by the fact we had governing documents that protect the rights of Colorado Libertarians and that he doesn’t follow “rules” … “because he is a libertarian,” which to me, is just so utterly disrespectful of an affiliate and the whole libertarian enterprise of voluntary agreements, that it is repulsive. He then went and got himself removed from the Jason Stapleton group for rank insults. The wild erratic behavior of Sunday was … I just shake my head.
I wonder if Stossel has heard the crass comments referenced above. I seriously doubt he would be so eager to have him on again if he did. However, I don’t blame Austin one bit for removing obscene images from his page. His page, his property. Period.
The Johnson lootomatic is on the march.
Johnson’s debt at the end of December was $1,538,118.73. That’s the largest that I’ve ever noticed it being. See:
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00495622/1040920/
Yes, Johnson did file a proposal
docquery DOT fec DOT gov/…/201512…/201512310300036192.pdf
to pay off $750,000 of his alleged $1,332,172.05 in debt, by claiming an absurd price as the value of his mailing list, but even the FEC noticed
docquery DOT fec DOT gov/…/201602…/201602030300010285.pdf
that he was lying about how much he owed, namely $1,475,197.05,
and then they asked him for more information, in particular
“Please provide an explanation of the terms of the initial extension of credit by the
creditor(s) included in Part II (i.e specific terms of original contract, any amended
contracts and/or terms, payment plans, etc.). ”
which is the first step toward deciding whether he can walk away from all the money he owes people, including the people who have not agreed to be the losers at the hands of Johnson’s financial misdealings.
Note that the Receipt is that his proposal was received, not that it was accepted.
I don’t have a problem with Andy’s analytics. He’s right:
When McAfee announced he was running for president this time, he got about twice as much attention as Johnson did when he announced he was running for the second time.
McAfee’s initial spike of interest dissipated pretty quickly.
So did Johnson’s, but not quite as much as McAfee’s.
If you look at the trend since Johnson’s announcement, he’s had a little more sustained interest than McAfee.
Not a lot more, but a little more.
So, during the time period over which they have BOTH been running AS Libertarians, a former Republican governor and prior LP nominee, who’s had a campaign operation running full-tilt for five years now and seems to be hitting the media as much as humanly possible, has proven his ability to maintain a smidgen more sustained interest than a newcomer who’s been running blind for four months and is just now starting to get his shit together and run a public campaign of any significance.
And where that sustained interest is concerned, on one side that interest has NOT at any point centered on “public works to reduce unemployment,” while on the other side it has, at one point, centered on “hey, how about we ban burqas?”
Pardon me if I’m not terribly impressed by the Johnson juggernaut.
ac: Since both have been actually running, and since McAfee has been running as a Libertarian, (i.e. in the past month), Johnson’s still comfortably ahead by your own measure.
me: AC takes no prisoners, and no shit! Obviously flawed analytics get batted away with great insight!
@gp – Good point, though even then, like I noted the coverage he was pointing to wasn’t of the LP nominating process. It was of McAfee pre-LP. He did a better job promoting and getting news coverage for the Cyber Party, than he has since switching to the LP.
if you want to see past versions of a website try the wayback machine at web.archive.org
Craig wrote: ” I’ve not seen any indication that his general election candidacy would bring positive attention to libertarian ideas and LP candidates, as opposed to just a smattering of novelty-news coverage of his personal eccentricity and history. ”
the lead clause makes the statement radically different from the Tom Knapp quote ““a smattering of novelty-news coverage of his personal eccentricity and history.” I suppose you’re right there, if by “smattering” and “personal” you mean “according to Google Trends, John McAfee’s first presidential announcement generated about twice as much attention as Gary Johnson’s second.”
Craig was clearly discussing general-election coverage, which is not the same as Google Trends coverage of the nominating campaign.
“I suppose you’re right there, if by “smattering” and “personal” you mean “according to Google Trends, John McAfee’s first presidential announcement generated about twice as much attention as Gary Johnson’s second.”
And his second announcement– that he’s running as a Libertarian– got a good deal less than did the original “Cyber Party” announcement you’re pointing to, none of which mentioned the LP or libertarianism.
Since both have been actually running, and since McAfee has been running as a Libertarian, (i.e. in the past month), Johnson’s still comfortably ahead by your own measure.
There’s also the question of quality, not just quantity. Just a glance at the first page of Google News results: Johnson’s headlines are all about a third-party breakthrough, criticizing the GOP on the issues, pointing out his contrasts with his major-party opponents like Trump and Sanders. What do you get for “John McAfee”? A bunch of headlines about the looming “cyberwar” (that he wants the U.S. gov’t to fight) and how computer security is #1 most important election issue in 2016, alongside some musings about whether or not his major-party opponents use computers enough or are computer-literate. In other words, he hasn’t changed much of anything from the message he was running on as the “Cyber Party”, and what changes have come have been only in response to Libertarian criticism.
He was asked about signing the non-aggression pledge after he switched to the LP, and didn’t even know what it was, saying he’d have to look into it and decide if he agreed with it or not. (I guess he did find it acceptable, in that he has since officially joined the party. Then again so has AP, and his entire campaign is built on wanting to ditch the pledge and attacking the non-aggression principle.) His “I was libertarian before it was a word!” spiel sounded a lot like trying-too-hard pandering, too. It didn’t give an impression of somebody familiar with the history of the libertarian movement and what the LP advocates, beyond that we’re in some sense “pro-freedom.”
“If I was trying to make a case for McAfee”
If?
“McAfee has tended to be more famous, for longer periods of time, than Johnson.”
Maybe. I agree they’re roughly comparable, in that neither is by any means an A-lister but both probably have name ID I’d guess in the teens or 20s. But a key distinction is that most of what McAfee is famous for has nothing to do with libertarianism or politics. Most of it is personal scandals: Belize, DUI arrest, losing his fortune, having been a fugitive, having struggled with drug addiction, his personal lifestyle, etc. Even if he has good answers for all of those, he’d spend more time giving those answers than advocating libertarian policy ideas. That’s my fundamental objection to nominating him, and it has nothing to do with who would be my second or third or fourth choice after Johnson, except that it wouldn’t be McAfee.
“I’d like to AT LEAST go with someone who’s both more libertarian than Gary Johnson”
You are, from what I’ve seen, almost perfectly alone in the opinion that this describes McAfee.
“I’ve heard that Chris Thrasher is on board and my impression of Thrasher is that he’s quite competent to turn what has so far been not much more than a notional campaign into a very real one.”
Sounds about right, because if there’s a single previous campaign for the nomination that reminds me most of McAfee 2016, it’s Gravel 2008. In a lot of ways, I think it’s the most apt analogy.
Andy C,
“[McAfee’s] superficial interest in libertarianism and the LP is as recent as his realization that he couldn’t get the non-libertarian Cyber Party on the ballot.”
Even assuming that the interest is “superficial,” your dating is off by several years.
“a smattering of novelty-news coverage of his personal eccentricity and history.”
I suppose you’re right there, if by “smattering” and “personal” you mean “according to Google Trends, John McAfee’s first presidential announcement generated about twice as much attention as Gary Johnson’s second.”
If I was trying to make a case for McAfee, I’d start with looking at Google Trends and noticing that McAfee’s first presidential announcement got about twice as much attention as Johnson’s second presidential announcement, and that while the two are competitive with each other on the personal fame front, McAfee has tended to be more famous, for longer periods of time, than Johnson.
“His management of his nomination campaign so far inspires no confidence for how he would run a general election campaign.”
I agree. That’s been a problem. Not as much of a problem as the continuously disastrous management of Johnson’s campaigns, but a problem. My impression is that he’s fixing that now, though. I’ve heard that Chris Thrasher is on board and my impression of Thrasher is that he’s quite competent to turn what has so far been not much more than a notional campaign into a very real one.
At the end of the day, if we’re not going to sit it out with NOTA or nominate a “purist” like Darryl, I’d like to AT LEAST go with someone who’s both more libertarian than Gary Johnson and almost certainly less likely to run a clown car “campaign” than Gary Johnson.
Even though I disagree, I can understand why somebody pining for purist radicalism, or who doesn’t like that he ran in another party in the past, would be dissatisfied with Gary (and most other past nominees).
What makes no sense, is leveling that complaint and then supporting McAfee, whose long history as a “libertarian” (or rather “saying libertarian things”) is apparent only to his one supporter whose first choice is still NOTA. When his superficial interest in libertarianism and the LP is as recent as his realization that he couldn’t get the non-libertarian Cyber Party on the ballot. Johnson, whether you agree he is one or not, was widely known as a libertarian before 2012, and had been a member of the LP years before even being elected Governor (in fact, he’s been an LP member longer than anybody else seeking the nomination, by far).
More importantly though, all of these other candidates need to make the case for themselves, not just repeat whatever GJ-is-the-devil talking points they find floating around.
At this point, I don’t see myself supporting McAfee even if Johnson dropped out tomorrow. I’d be more inclined to vote for Jim Webb if both were on my ballot, and he’s no libertarian either. I wasn’t thrilled by the news that McAfee was seeking the nomination, and I’ve not seen anything since then to change my mind. I’ve not seen any indication that his general election candidacy would bring positive attention to libertarian ideas and LP candidates, as opposed to just a smattering of novelty-news coverage of his personal eccentricity and history. I also don’t find his myopic focus on “cyber-security” and computer issues to be a good or effective single-issue campaign theme. His management of his nomination campaign so far inspires no confidence for how he would run a general election campaign.
You’ve been very clear, and repetitive (and to me at least unconvincing), in why you don’t want Johnson. Fair enough so far as that goes, but it’s not a case for McAfee.
Bob,
I don’t think anyone was too hard on McAfee over public works. He wasn’t proposing public works as some kind of necessary infrastructure improvement, he was proposing public works projects (IIRC, he even used the prefatory term “massive”) to reduce unemployment.
Andy,
McAfee has a long public record of making libertarian statements in public.
There are several things I disagree with McAfee on. But he’s still a better candidate than Gary Johnson six days a week and twice on Sunday. If I can’t get NOTA or Perry — and I probably can’t — I’ll settle for McAfee.
tk, ya know, I think I was too hard on JMc on the public works issue.
Actually, at-the-edge lessarchism should be open to some forms of public works. In fact, I’d say even fringe Ls might not quibble that the State should at least fix its existing roads and bridges prior to transitioning to all-private roads.
“Thomas L. Knapp
February 7, 2016 at 23:44
“McAfee changed his web page because he heard Libertarian were calling him out for his anti_liberty views.”
Well, now, that’s an interesting claim. Do you have a spy in McAfee’s campaign or something? If not, how do you know his reasons?”
It is blatantly obvious as to why, and it sounds like you may have been the person to tell him to change it.
The conservation could have gone something like this, “Hey John, you need to take those anti-libertarian views off your website if you want to win the nomination. Yeah, that’s OK if you really believe that stuff, just change the site. A lot of Libertarian delegates are stupid and they’ll be easily impressed by your credentials in the field of cyber security. Just take the anti-libertarian stuff off your website now and most of them won’t notice. These are the same people who vote for Bob Barr in 2008. They are suckers.”
“There were points closer to the nomination than this when Harry Browne would float some idea that libertarians had a problem with, then withdraw it (e.g. his flat tax proposal that he revised under pressure to ‘repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing,’ his finally knuckling under AT the convention on matching funds when someone finally screamed ‘SAY IT! SAY IT!’ at him, etc.). In your opinion, did that disqualify him as a prospective nominee?”
A big difference between Harry Browne and John McAfee is that Harry Browne had a very long background as a small “l” libertarian prior to running for the LP presidential nomination. People could go back and read Harry Browne’s writings going back to the 1960’s or 1970’s.
Also, while Harry Browne did not join the Libertarian Party until 1994 when he decided to run for the LP’s presidential nomination, he at least campaigned for close to two years for the nomination.
Now contrast this with John McAfee, who has no background as a small “l” libertarian activist (and being a single issue computer privacy guy, while nice, does not qualify him as being a libertarian), and who was campaigning as the nominee of a new political party he was trying to start for several months before switching to the LP, ONLY AFTER HE REALIZED IT WOULD BE TOO DIFFICULT TO GET ON THE BALLOT UNDER THE BANNER OF THE CYBER PARTY, and who then carpet bagged his way into the LP, while still having non-libertarian issues on his campaign website, issues which display no understanding of free market economics, then ONLY AFTER LIBERTARIANS START CALLING HIM OUT ON THESE THINGS, does he change them. This strikes me as disingenuous, and I hope that convention delegates pass out flyers with McAfee real issue stances on them.
Also, in regard to Harry Browne, he proposed a temporary 10% flat tax or a 5% national sales tax to be used to pay off debt and liquidate entitlement programs IF it turned out that enough funds could not be raised to do this by selling off assets from government agencies he called for shutting down, which were agencies not authorized by the Constitution, as well as US military bases in foreign nations.
I do not consider calling for incremental steps that reduce government to be in the same ballpark as somebody who supports big government programs.
I disagree with Gary Johnson’s support of the Fair Tax, not so much because he is proposing a tax (although I am philosophically opposed to all taxes), but rather because he is proposing a tax that is no better than the current income tax system, and may end up being worse than it.
Rand Paul called for a 14.5% flat tax, and while this certainly is not an ideal libertarian solution, it is better than the plan being pushed by Gary Johnson, and at least moves in the direction of smaller government.
Getting back to John McAfee, he also wants to create a new government Department of Cyber Security (or something like that). While I do not doubt that cyber security is important, creating new government bureaucracies is generally not a good idea. Airline security is important too, but there is no need for the TSA.
I hope that Libertarian delegates in Orlando reject McAfee, and Petersen as well, but I do not have as much faith in LP convention delegates as I used to prior to 2008. Johnson really should not be nominated again either.
“McAfee changed his web page because he heard Libertarian were calling him out for his anti_liberty views.”
Well, now, that’s an interesting claim. Do you have a spy in McAfee’s campaign or something? If not, how do you know his reasons?
There were points closer to the nomination than this when Harry Browne would float some idea that libertarians had a problem with, then withdraw it (e.g. his flat tax proposal that he revised under pressure to “repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing,” his finally knuckling under AT the convention on matching funds when someone finally screamed “SAY IT! SAY IT!” at him, etc.). In your opinion, did that disqualify him as a prospective nominee?
Of course, there’s nothing WRONG with holding McAfee accountable for an anti-liberty view that his site kept up for four months. But he’s not the only one with that problem, nor has he had it for as long as Johnson has. Four months? Try five years!
The field of candidates running so far is extremely weak. I am still hoping better candidates emerge
Tom, McAfee changed his web page because he heard Libertarian were calling him out for his anti_liberty views. This strikes me as disengenuous, particularly since it is this close to the nomination convention.
I say hold him accountable to what has been on his campaign website up until now (and he started running months ago under the Cyber Party banner).
It’s his own words. He said he gets “pyramid piles of pussy. “
It’s absurd to expect a candidate for office to leave a lewd meme on his campaign page simply in order to show he has a “sense of humor”.
Steven,
You write:
“If Mcafee does win, then who will run as VP?”
The LP nominates its presidential and vice-presidential candidates separately, but the presidential candidate IS given five minutes if he wants to make a pitch for a particular candidate.
I seem to recall that there’s at least one announced candidate for the VP nomination, but I don’t recall who it is. Personally, I’ve publicly called for Steve Kubby to throw in for VP with whomever the party nominates for president. And I’ll add another good pick: Doug Stanhope. But I don’t know that either of them would be willing.
“Mcafee can benefit by having no political record by which a convention goer could rationalize as a check on his campaign rhetoric versus his voting record.”
The same could be said of John Hospers, Ed Clark, David Bergland, Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik. Doesn’t seem like much of a handicap, especially since records of that sort can cut in both directions.
In other news, McAfee’s issues page has changed (hint: No mention of “public works”), and I’d challenge anyone to find anything by Johnson that’s as libertarian as this, from about the 30-to-35 minute mark:
If Mcafee does win, then who will run as VP?
The convention goers of the LP seem to give into impulse buying, so Mcafee could easily win the Presidential nomination based on his name recognition and a fresh persona (like Barr and like Johnson.) Mcafee can benefit by having no political record by which a convention goer could rationalize as a check on his campaign rhetoric versus his voting record.
I still don’t see a VP attitude from any of the current candidates in the LP.
The only thing that could possibly hurt Mcafee is if a former politician from another party jumps in the LP race at the eleventh hour. It didn’t keep Barr from winning. He just showed up at the last minute.
If Trump wins the R and Hillary wins the D, then the LP needs a charismatic duo with money and wit to offer the voters a reason to vote. If Cruz or Rubio win the R, then it is a moot point for the LP.
The R’s know they need a unifying P/VP package. Hillary could take on just about anybody as her VP and win, especially against Trump.
The convention goers for the LP need to pick a winning team that can motivate the liberty voting base rather than getting them to compromise or stay home.
Richard Winger, Feb. 7,
“We need to constantly publicize that New Hampshire is not a state that cares about liberty when it comes to vote for the candidate of one’s choice, or to allow free competition in elections. The state has a terrible record on ballot access and is constantly making things worse.
It’s simple ‘geography’! People who watch the sun come UP over the ocearn rather than watch it SET
over the ocean are simply and chronically ‘disoriented’!!! :>)
Moses Austwin, Feb 7,
“Austin has no sense of humor. My friend posted the very popular pussy pile pyramid meme to Austin’s Facebook page and it got a lot of likes and funny comments. A couple hours later Austin deleted the meme from his page and defriended the poster.”
This reminds me WHY I don’t AND WON’T have a “Farsebook” page. Austin, clearly has better judgement than I had given him credit for earlier!!
steve m, Feb 7,
“Moses, you might watch the video to find out.”
WATCHING it ISN’T the problem! HEARING it IS!!!!
I tried to “de-mute” the dialogue 8-10 times
NEVER GOT IT !
Richard Winger said: ” in 2004, New Hampshire was one of only two states in which Michael Badnarik wasn’t on the ballot (and the other state, Oklahoma, has since then made things better).”
Getting the presidential ticket only on the ballot in New Hampshire requires 3,000 valid petition signatures, but it is deceptively difficult given the details of the requirement and the dynamics of New Hampshire, but even so, I was following this situation when it happened and I would say that a big part of the reason the petition drive to place Michael Badnarik on the New Hampshire ballot failed was due to Libertarian Party mismanagement of the drive (both state and national).
FYI, I offered to go to New Hampshire for that petition drive in 2004 and I was told not to go because they had it covered and did not need anyone else.
“Richard Winger
February 7, 2016 at 13:48
We need to constantly publicize that New Hampshire is not a state that cares about liberty when it comes to vote for the candidate of one’s choice, or to allow free competition in elections. The state has a terrible record on ballot access and is constantly making things worse. Remember, in 2004, New Hampshire was one of only two states in which Michael Badnarik wasn’t on the ballot (and the other state, Oklahoma, has since then made things better).”
Yeah, New Hampshire’s ballot access laws for minor party and independent candidates are pretty crappy. This, along with New Hampshire’s lack of an initiative, referendum, and recall process are among these reasons I have never been convinced that New Hampshire was the best state for the Free State Project.
I am not saying that New Hampshire was a completely bad choice, I just think that some of the other choices may have been better.
“When was the last time McAfee made the rounds on cable news?”
I’m not sure. I know that I saw a clip of him on Cavuto last week, but I don’t know whether that clip was recent or from long ago.
“How many state LP conventions has he ever been to?”
I don’t know — I do know that he is scheduled to appear at at least two in the next month or so, and probably more.
“When was the last time he was seen making a high-profile pitch for a libertarian policy position?”
The same time Johnson was — never.
“There’s no reason somebody whose complaint against Johnson is that he’s supposedly not libertarian enough, (or fiscally responsible enough!), would then support McAfee instead, when he has bigger demerits on both counts.”
So far as I can tell, McAfee far exceeds Johnson on both counts.
Yes, he lost quite a bit of his wealth in the 2008 crash, but he didn’t talk the LP into getting him a government welfare check and then fuck that check away and go another $1.4 million in the hole.
His platform certainly has some deficiencies from a libertarian point of view, but none of them seem to be as bad, nor as long-held, as “hey, on taxes, let’s completely crater the US economy and put every man, woman and child in America on a monthly federal welfare check.”
Even if it was possible to convincingly position McAfee to be as wildly financially irresponsible and fecklessly politically authoritarian as Gary Johnson, and it doesn’t seem to be very possible to me, it would still remain the case that if you’re going to make the same KIND of mistake twice, you still don’t have to make EXACTLY the same mistake twice.
“And like I said, it’s IF Johnson doesn’t get his majority on the first ballot that he’s done.”
Would radical-minded Kerbel and Perry supporters pick Petersen or McAfee over Johnson, or vice versa? I really doubt it. The reasons they have for supporting their candidate, and the complaints they have with Johnson, are pretty incompatible and in many cases coming from opposite directions.
“with additional candidates also knocking down an aggregate 25% or so”
This is the part I see as a lot less likely, and certainly not guaranteed. I also don’t think McAfee will hit the 25% mark on the first ballot, at least he would not if it were held tomorrow.
It’s also very likely that at least one or more of the candidates on your list will drop out before then, just based on historical precedent.
” Johnson MAY be more well-known than McAfee, but if so not noticeably. And I personally suspect the reverse is true.”
I’m pretty confident it isn’t. That Johnson is running again was deemed a lot more newsworthy by the media than any moment so far in McAfee’s bid. When was the last time McAfee made the rounds on cable news? How many state LP conventions has he ever been to? When was the last time he was seen making a high-profile pitch for a libertarian policy position? Even his social media presence is pretty meager, and his campaign management so far decidedly uninspiring.
McAfee the software might be better-known than Johnson, in a way (mostly not positively). Maybe even McAfee the wild ex-millionaire eccentric with that crazy story from Belize. But McAfee being known as a presidential candidate vs. Johnson being known as a presidential candidate? I don’t think it’s even close., and his campaign for the nomination so far has not been able to build momentum among Libertarians.
In the past two weeks, I’ve seen two candidates have any inkling of positive momentum, and that’s Johnson (after a rough start) and Petersen (mainly because he’s the only other one reaching a large audience). McAfee might turn it around, but I think right now he’d finish closer to 10% than 25%, and would not win on second-preferences either. There’s no reason somebody whose complaint against Johnson is that he’s supposedly not libertarian enough, (or fiscally responsible enough!), would then support McAfee instead, when he has bigger demerits on both counts.
Andy,
Counter-counterpoint:
Johnson was far more well-known than Wrights. Johnson MAY be more well-known than McAfee, but if so not noticeably. And I personally suspect the reverse is true.
In 2012, neither Johnson nor Wrights had previously blown through a giant government welfare check the LP got him, then run up $1.4 million in debt and proposed to carry on by screwing his creditors, all while campaigning as the candidate of “fiscal responsibility.” This year, one of the candidates does resemble that remark.
And like I said, it’s IF Johnson doesn’t get his majority on the first ballot that he’s done. I agree that unless McAfee can rack up 25-30% on the first ballot (in other words, do as well or better than Wrights, with additional candidates also knocking down an aggregate 25% or so), Johnson may very well slime his way in again.
“As long as McAfee can come in at 25-30% on the first ballot — and I expect that it he will — everything after that is an escalator going up for him and a freight elevator coming down for Johnson.”
Counterpoint:
Johnson 70.42%
Wrights 25.55%
What ego?
“What about Ventura?”
Hell-To-The-Fucking-NO.
His ego killed any chance he had of becoming the LP standard-bearer in 2016.
We need to constantly publicize that New Hampshire is not a state that cares about liberty when it comes to vote for the candidate of one’s choice, or to allow free competition in elections. The state has a terrible record on ballot access and is constantly making things worse. Remember, in 2004, New Hampshire was one of only two states in which Michael Badnarik wasn’t on the ballot (and the other state, Oklahoma, has since then made things better). New Hampshire is one of only 4 states that has partisan registration in which the state won’t acknowledge that people can register Libertarian, and won’t give us a tally. In the last 30 years, New Hampshire is the only state that has increased the vote test for party definition (from 3% to 4%, which has kept us from being a qualified party ever since it was passed). New Hampshire Secretary of State is dishonest. In the litigation around the 2008 election, the state said in court that if we did the very difficult 3% party petition, then we could have our own party column on the November ballot. So in 2012, we did the party petition, and guess what, the Secretary of State still wouldn’t give us a party column. Instead he made a column for us and all other non-major party candidates. And in 2013, to make sure we never did the party petition again, the legislature cut our petitioning time in half.
What about Ventura?
My prediction at present would be that all candidates combined (including NOTA) other than Johnson and McAfee will top out at about 25% max (rough guess: NOTA 5%, Kerbel 8%, Feldman 5%, Petersen 3%, Perry 2%, all others combined 2%).
Johnson’s strength is that he’s the past nominee, so the delegates all know who he is and (if they care) what he’s about.
That’s his weakness, too, though. He starts at his own ceiling. Unless he wins on the first ballot, he doesn’t win.
As long as McAfee can come in at 25-30% on the first ballot — and I expect that it he will — everything after that is an escalator going up for him and a freight elevator coming down for Johnson.
McAfee?
You can’t nominate a candidate who won’t take the position. The VP candidate has serious constraints against ‘running his own campaign’ because he cannot raise money independently. Note that Barr left Root with debts that were never covered., leaving Root out of pocket.
Petersen might run a competent campaign, though he might consider the position that philosophy is a social disease, rather like AIDS except that it has killed far more people, and therefore he will not argue with philosophy types.
At this point I see Petersen, Kerbel, and Johnson as the plausible candidates. Perry and Feldman are disqualified from plausibility by their fundraising. Folks with no money and no organization appear likely to have no political future.
Austin held his own. His poise and knowledge of possible foes is indicative of a candidate prepared for the long battles ahead.
The one issue I have with the current set of LP candidates deals with which combination President/VP is going to motivate voters?
Johnson has his camp and Petersen has his own camp. The LP convention will have to interview candidates as a team concept before they vote or they could find themselves with a President and Vice-President running two separate campaigns.
I don’t see Johnson taking a step backward from 2012 and taking VP. Petersen has not openly admitted he would take the VP spot eagerly. Petersen’s maturation needs to be illustrated before the LP votes for a VP who might spend six months pouting.
Sorry, make that an L approach, not the, since there are many.
AP was too harsh on NHers. Rather than berating them for supporting Trump, why not suggest that the people of NH have a strong tradition of liberty loving, but EVEN IN the live free or die state, many are turning their backs on liberty in favor on a potential American tyrant.
Invite them to look at his campaign, and the L approach.
Austin has no sense of humor. My friend posted the very popular pussy pile pyramid meme to Austin’s Facebook page and it got a lot of likes and funny comments. A couple hours later Austin deleted the meme from his page and defriended the poster.
I specifically quoted the “that” I was referring to.
Nope, no pussy on the show. It was a complete sausagefest.
I still haven’t watched so was the “that” you mention happen to be the “pyramid piles of pussy?” Does that fall under the pursuit of happiness?
Petersen: “That must be covered under the pursuit of happiness under the Constitution.”
Pursuit of happiness isn’t in the Constitution.
Other than that, pretty damn good job.
Donald Trump is a candidate for President, and so is Austin Petersen. That;s what they are called.
If someone claims he is the Libertarian nominee, then there is an issue. Did he do that? Until then, saying he is a candidate is correct.
Moses,
you might watch the video to find out.
So did he talk about his “pyramid piles of pussy?”
https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/12651300_480519108823523_3632372265342474981_n.jpg?oh=a4268e075ba736f653a708cb23c1f8d3&oe=573D56F3
I think Austin Peterson did a very credible job of presenting himself and the libertarian party.
I am thrilled we have at least two candidates appearing on national TV.
Austin needs to stop presenting himself as the Libertarian candidate for President. He is NOT our candidate. He is a candidate to be our candidate.