Libertarian Party: Louisiana and Wisconsin Straw Poll Results (Edited)

12993433_10157483380085377_370086040460466711_nThis weekend, Louisiana and Wisconsin had their conventions, and this IPR editor was given their straw poll results as follows in the candidate order that they were reported to me (I added first names to the LA results):

Louisiana:
0- Austin Petersen
9- Gary Johnson
2- John McAfee
28- Darryl Perry
9- Jack Robinson
1- Rhett Smith
0- Thomas Clements

Wisconsin:
6- Gary Johnson
3- Undecided
2- John McAfee
1- Darryl Perry
1- Austin Petersen

4/18/16 Update: Andy Craig from Wisconsin provided the following clarification: The State Party did not conduct an official straw poll. This was a tally (poll) of the delegates present from the floor as to their preferences conducted prior to any candidate or representative speaking. Only Gary Johnson personally attended after the poll. Austin Petersen sent a representative. They didn’t feel it was fair to take a post-speech poll with only Gary Johnson having personally been present.

34 thoughts on “Libertarian Party: Louisiana and Wisconsin Straw Poll Results (Edited)

  1. Thomas Knapp

    Anyone know if there’s video of the debate in Louisiana? I love Darryl to death, but I suspect that if he got three times as many votes as Johnson, it means that Johnson had another public meltdown rather than merely just being out-debated by Perry (that happens every time, but doesn’t usually result in those kind of poll results).

  2. Dave

    Who’s this Jack Robinson fellow who managed a tie for second place in LA? I don’t recall hearing of him before.

  3. Thomas L. Knapp

    Perry’s originally from Alabama, but now lives in New Hampshire (where he is a regular co-host of Free Talk Live, a libertarian talk radio show carried on more than 170 stations and rated 38th on Talkers magazine’s list of Top 100 radio US radio shows).

  4. Michael Iafrato

    Perry was the only major candidate at the LA convention. That is why his numbers were so high. Johnson was in MN and WI.

  5. Shivany Lane

    Congrats to Perry!!
    That is an awesome number of votes right there.

    And Thomas, I would love to see a video of the debate. I believe that it would be the same old, same old, The adults in the room being adults. Austin baiting Johnson. Johnson melting down or turning into “Angry Republican uncle at Thanksgiving who pounds the table so hard that some food falls and the dogs are happy!”

    BTW, I have one of those which is why we are not allowed to discuss politics while eating. Afterwards, when we are all in a turkey and wine induced coma, he can rant all he wants. I usually just raise my glass of nog (w/brandy) and say cheers to all.

  6. AMccarrick

    Thomas. Yep, he’s the only major candidate that is a diehard purist that will ensure that the general public as a whole will never give the LP any credibility.

    You want to win an election and get to the point where a Perry style candidate can get elected? You have to do it incrementally like the progressive movement of the 1900s did. An ideologue will never get elected as long as this country exists, without getting there in incremental stages. Why do you think the progressive movement didn’t put up a socialist in the early 1900s? Because they knew they couldn’t win with that of abrupt change. First it was the income tax and IRS, then 20 years later social security, then later Medicare, then later other taxes, then later an expansion of the healthcare system. Anybody with the least bit of understanding of history would see how this was done and how to repeat it to get their ideology in the door.

    Perry style candidates guarantee the party continues to get less than 1% of the vote. A Johnson style candidate gets us 5%, then 15% and some congressional seats, then 35% and a third of congress.

  7. Thane Eichenauer

    For those with an interest in Jack Robinson, Libertarian Presidential Candidate 2016, you can visit the following:
    http://www.robinsonforpresident.com/
    https://www.facebook.com/JackBRobinsonJr

    “Jack introduces a new grassroots economic model powerful enough to end poverty and provide universal healthcare for all Americans. America will again become a beacon of hope as we transform the globe with our new anti-poverty and universal healthcare proposals.”

    That sounds awful to me.

  8. Thomas L. Knapp

    “You want to win an election and get to the point where a Perry style candidate can get elected? You have to do it incrementally like the progressive movement of the 1900s did. An ideologue will never get elected as long as this country exists”

    Actually the progressive movement of the 1900s won precisely by running ideologues like Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, until they forced one of the major parties to co-opt, and the other major party to accede over time to, major parts of their agenda.

    If you want to talk about something that has never, ever, ever, so much as a single time, happened in the history of US electoral politics, that thing is a new party coming along and succeeding incrementally.

  9. Thane Eichenauer

    AMccarrick comments “A Johnson style candidate gets us 5%”

    As has been mentioned elsewhere here at IPR, there is little reason to think that Johnson 2016 will receive any more votes than Johnson 2012 did.

  10. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    ===If you want to talk about something that has never, ever, ever, so much as a single time, happened in the history of US electoral politics, that thing is a new party coming along and succeeding incrementally.===

    THAT.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Perry style candidates guarantee the party continues to get less than 1% of the vote. A Johnson style candidate gets us 5%, then 15% and some congressional seats, then 35% and a third of congress.”

    We’ve already seen what a Johnson style candidate gets us. The last Johnson style candidate — Johnson — got 1%, not 5%. And there’s no particular reason to believe he’ll improve on that this year with less money and in a more hotly contested election.

    Absent the intervention of factors that we have little or no control over, the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate will get somewhere between 0.3% of the popular vote and 1.3% of the popular vote. I don’t see polling toward the top of that tiny range as a worthwhile reason for throwing our principles overboard just so we can nominate a Republican carpetbagger who can’t balance a fucking checkbook yet again.

  12. George Phillies

    “Why do you think the progressive movement didn’t put up a socialist in the early 1900s?”

    Eugene Debs. Debs ran as a Socialist candidate for President of the United States five times, including 1900 (earning 0.63% of the popular vote), 1904 (2.98%), 1908 (2.83%), 1912 (5.99%), and 1920 (3.41%), the last time from a prison cell. He was also a candidate for United States Congress from his native Indiana in 1916.

  13. Andy Craig

    Who reported these numbers from Wisconsin? We didn’t have any straw poll.

    What we did have, was our selected national delegates were asked their preference as a question from the floor. We went down the line, and this sounds like a correct tally of those answers. However, that wasn’t a straw poll (we had many more people than that in attendance), nor was it our complete delegation (some couldn’t be at the state convention).

  14. sparkey

    Am I correct in assuming that the Louisiana debate lineup was: Perry, Robinson, Smith, Clements?

  15. Darcy G Richardson

    “What we did have, was our selected national delegates were asked their preference as a question from the floor. We went down the line, and this sounds like a correct tally of those answers.” — Andy Craig

    Thanks for that clarification, Andy.

    It’s somewhat encouraging that a majority of Wisconsin’s delegates — or at least those who were asked their preference on Saturday — seemed to express some reservations about nominating a proven political deadbeat in a year that holds such promise for the country’s nationally-organized third parties.

    That’s particularly true for a candidate who has said some pretty bizarre and embarrassing things during this election cycle, ranging from a burqa ban to repeal of the seventeenth amendment (the popular election of U.S. Senators).

    A heavily-indebted candidate, moreover — one who currently owes the U.S. Treasury some $332,000 as a direct result of a poorly-managed campaign four years ago — probably shouldn’t be given a second bite at the apple.

  16. robert capozzi

    tk: If you want to talk about something that has never, ever, ever, so much as a single time, happened in the history of US electoral politics, that thing is a new party coming along and succeeding incrementally.

    me: Stipulating that the past doesn’t necessarily dictate the future, there is precedence for a major party failing. The successor party proceeded pretty much incrementally.

    According to Wiki: “Since 1877, there have been 111 third party U.S. Congress Representatives….”

    Socialists by and large were and are incrementalists. NAPsters are at best grudging incrementalists, holding high the banner of abolitionism but haltingly acknowledging that maybe outright abolition of the State — although morally correct — might lead to cataclysmic outcomes.

  17. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    The classic case in the US of a major party failing is the Whigs. The Republicans did not incrementally replace them.

    The Republicans quickly superseded them on the basis of a fairly radical platform for its time, one outside the mainstream consensus which, in its breakdown, destroyed the Whigs. That breakdown occurred over slavery — the pro-slavery Whigs ended up moving over to the Democratic Party, the anti-slavery Whigs to the Republican Party (that had been going on for awhile with e.g. Free Soil, Liberty Party, etc.).

    The Republicans said “no more expansion of slavery, and we also want a protective tariff and a federal public works agenda.” Within four years of their first election they had a president in office and a war to fight (a war which, not coincidentally, resulted in the direct implementation of their agenda on slavery and then some!), and their tax and public works agendas went immediately into full swing (including the government-backed Transcontinental Railroad, which began construction smack in the middle of the war.

  18. Robert capozzi

    Tk, yes, it took two cycles for the Whig to implode. Other 3rd parties have sometimes elected people to Congress, raising their and their ideas to the broader public.

    L ideas are mostly filtering into the masses mostly via the Paul’s and through alternative media. This strikes me as inefficient and filtered, refracted.

    At what point would you say that the cadre building experiment has failed? Another 40 years? Perhaps never, since your deontologically derived Truth is universally True?

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    So far as I can tell, the “cadre building experiment” was abandoned no later than 1988, and I’ve not come across anyone who’s especially interested in resurrecting it.

    Nominating candidates who stand for what the party claims to want, instead of constantly trying to triangulate what’s on — to steal a Tom Woodsism — the index card of acceptable opinions this week isn’t “cadre building,” it’s politics.

  20. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Andy sent me some additional comments that I added to the end of the article for reader clarification as I thought they were additional relevant facts not initially given to me.

  21. Jeremy

    There’s a bit of confusion regarding the progressive and socialist movements here — it was the Socialists who ran Debs and Thomas. The Progressives, who were a lot more diffuse, ran candidates such as Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette, and Henry Wallace, all of whom were very different from one another, and also ran candidates in major parties, such as Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

  22. robert capozzi

    tk, I’d describe the LP’s center of gravity as somewhere in engaging in actual politics and cadre-building. Not as extreme as the earlier days of fetuses as parasites and private nukes, but nowhere near a realistic lessarchist agenda, either.

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    Well, the party is the people who show up.

    If you want to move the party’s center of gravity, get involved again and work to get other people who agree with you involved too.

    With enough effort, you might even be able to amass a 7/8ths majority and modify the Statement of Principles.

  24. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    ===With enough effort, you might even be able to amass a 7/8ths majority and modify the Statement of Principles.===

    LOLOLOLOL. That was good.

  25. robert capozzi

    tk: you might even be able to amass a 7/8ths majority and modify the Statement of Principles.

    me: Nah, the 89 20-somethings put in a very effective booby trap, in my estimation.

  26. Bill Hall

    Does this mean the Wisconsin poll is an actual poll of elected delegates to the national convention? If so, the political scientist in me is thankful for the Wisconsin poll results. In almost all of these straw polls, a pool of persons other than actual delegates to the national convention are being polled. If so, that is real news!

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    Yes, polling of actual delegates is interesting.

    But other types of polling are worthwhile too.

    Presumably the delegates themselves will be interested in the results of polls of their fellow LP members, and of the public.

    Not that popularity in the larger party or the whole electorate is the ONLY consideration for a prospective nominee. But it’s reasonable to consider it one such consideration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *