Press "Enter" to skip to content

CL Gammon: Prohibitionist Runs Strong In California

James Hedges

Originally published by CL Gammon on June 9th, 2016 at American Third Party Report:

Jim Hedges, Prohibition Party presidential nominee, ran a strong race in the American Independent Party primary in California on June 7. The American Independent Party holds the largest third party primary in California and in a very competitive contest, Hedges collected 3,223 votes (10.8% of the total).

In addition, Hedges carried Lake County and finished second in Glenn, Modoc and Napa counties. Perhaps ironically, Hedges ran strongest in California’s “Wine Country.”

Some important things we can take away from California:

(1) The Hedges vote in this primary was greater than the total Prohibition vote in any National Election since 1988. This is true even though the party was on multiple state ballots in most of those elections. The best showing in three decades is nothing to sneeze at.

(2) Hedges ran a competitive race. The vote was tight and Hedges was in the thick of it. This is true even though most of the other candidates had campaigned in California in previous election cycles or currently live in the state.

(3) Jim carried a county. It has been several years since a Prohibitionist has carried a county in a statewide contest.

(4) It is proof positive that Prohibitionists can compete if they can gain ballot access.

(5) The showing in California will undoubtedly provide Hedges and the Prohibition Party a boost as the campaign winds through the summer and into the fall.

Party activist Don Webb spoke the feelings of all Prohibitionists when he said that they are, “Very proud of Jim.”

About Post Author

Krzysztof Lesiak

I've been a contributor for IPR since January 2013. I consider myself to be a paleoconservative. I'm also the founder of American Third Party Report. Email me at clesiakcrusader@gmail.com.

6 Comments

  1. Constitutional Craig Constitutional Craig June 10, 2016

    I intended to ask, “Was Mr. Hoefling officially nominated at the IAP State convention?”

  2. Constitutional Craig Constitutional Craig June 10, 2016

    Politics1.com shows that the Presidential candidate for the American Independent Party is Tom Hoefling. Mr. Hoefling finished last out of 7 candidates in the California primary. Has the IAP had their state convention already and is to be interpreted that the will of the voters in California did not have a direct influence on him receiving the nomination?

  3. Michigan Voter Michigan Voter June 10, 2016

    I do not believe in Prohibition, but I really do like Jim Hedges. He is actually progressive on health care and the environment. I listened to an interview with him and found him very easy to like and it seemed like he has a good head on his shoulders. I am voting for Trump, but if I was casting a protest vote, I would consider Hedges.

  4. Dave Dave June 10, 2016

    I was about to laugh at the notion of the Prohibition Party ever becoming relevant again, but actually I suppose there could be a space for them. If the big parties ever accept the legalization of marijuana or really stop fighting to stop it, maybe Prohibition could experience something of a reinvention if they were the only party still crusading against it.

  5. Karl T. Knight Karl T. Knight June 10, 2016

    Good for Hedges! I’m not a Prohibitionist myself, but have followed the Prohibition Party due to their historical significance and have long believed that they could become competitive again if they could gain ballot access in more states.
    Good luck to Hedges and the Prohibition Party!

  6. NewFederalist NewFederalist June 10, 2016

    When I saw the election returns I was quite surprised at how well Mr. Hedges had done. Good for him! In this unusual (to say the least) election year I suspect a lot of records will be broken by alternative nominees. While I’m no Dry myself, I could see myself casting a protest vote for America’s oldest minor party just for the history of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

two − two =