Two Montana state representatives endorse Gary Johnson for president

danielnick (1)

GOP State Representatives Nicholas Schwaderer and Daniel Zolnikov

Matt Welch at Reason.com has reported today that two members of the Montana House of Representatives, Daniel Zolnikov and Nicholas Schwaderer, both Millenials and Republicans, have endorsed Libertarian Gary Johnson for president. The two state representatives issued a joint statement, published on Schwaderer’s Facebook page:

Representatives Daniel Zolnikov (R-­MT) and Nick Schwaderer (R­MT) announce their support for the Libertarian Party nominees for President and Vice President

Full statement from Reps. Zolnikov and Schwaderer:

As state representatives, we have solemnly sworn to protect and uphold our State and National Constitutions. These documents do not have expiration dates and we must uphold them for the rest of our lives; we take them seriously.

As local elected officials, we have seen first hand the consequences of government overreach: lost jobs, abuses of civil liberties and the taking of freedoms. Our constituents call us when something is going wrong in our communities.

The policies, regulations, and agencies that harm good, honest Americans most often originate in Washington, D.C. This goes to show that a higher standard must be applied to those who are
chosen to serve as federal officials, and the highest standards must be expected of our presidential nominees.

After careful review of the presumptive three candidates who will be on the ballot in all 50 states this November, we have decided to throw our support behind Gary Johnson, former governor of
New Mexico, for President of the United States.

Having served on the House Taxation committee for the past two legislatures, we know that one of the most important issues facing any government is a balanced budget. We are both in our 20’s, and we know that our generation will bear the heaviest brunt of a spending­-crazed federal government. Johnson has the best credentials to fight for fiscal responsibility, based on his record of standing strong against out of control spending while Governor of New Mexico.

Johnson is also not alone in offering executive experience. He chose another former successful governor, Bill Weld of Massachusetts, to be his running mate for Vice President. In an
unprecedented set of circumstances, these two are truly running as a “team” and will rely heavily on each other’s expertise and knowledge to run our country in an efficient and effective
manner. One example of this is Weld’s experience as a federal prosecutor, which gives him unique insight into how we can combat the scourge of ISIS, without sacrificing the constitutional
rights of American citizens.

With the still unknown consequences of Brexit, one of the top American priorities needs to be establishing a Free Trade Agreement with the United Kingdom, which now has the sovereign
ability to negotiate for itself. This opportunity is most likely only possible with a Johnson presidency, as the other candidates have tied themselves strongly to anti­ free­-trade positions.

Montana, a state of great natural resources, benefits immensely from having markets opened up for future exportation.

The Snowden revelations of 2013 revealed yet again that we have federal agencies going far beyond their constitutional authority to surveil the private affairs of millions of Americans. This surveillance is purposely done in secret without adequate oversight by elected representation. If serious action is not taken by the next administration to curb the surveillance state, an Orwellian future awaits America. Johnson is the only candidate who has vowed to uphold our 4th Amendment rights and he is our best chance to preserve privacy in communications.

The leader of our country needs to be a fierce negotiator and must defend the entire Bill of Rights. When political debates are reduced to name calling and despicable rhetoric, We the People lose. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have made a positive case for themselves based on policy and issues, and that’s the way our campaigns should be. While we do not agree with every single policy stance expressed by Johnson, we recognize that he has by far the best record of any candidate and has the best vision for the future of our nation.

Our generation will be most affected by the outcome of this unprecedented presidential election. Gary Johnson is the only serious presidential nominee who stands for policies that will lead to growth and opportunity for young Americans.

We do not want another war. We do not want more deficit spending and debt. We do not want increased surveillance and violations of Americans’ rights. We want a sane, intelligent government that lives within its means and governs according to the Constitution. Governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are clearly the best choice to lead our nation toward prosperity and freedom, and we are proud to support them for President and Vice President of the United States.

BIO:

Representative Nick Schwaderer, 27, is a two term member of the Montana House of Representatives. He is most noted for writing and passing HB 330, which is the strongest anti­ police-militarization legislation in the Country.

Representative Daniel Zolnikov, 29, is a two term member of the House of Representatives most noted for carrying and passing the first state law in U.S. history requiring a warrant before cell phones could be surveilled by law enforcement. In the most recent session, he carried and passed the strongest press protection bill in the country.

Forbes ranked Zolnikov as one of the top “30 Under 30” policymakers in the nation, and Red Alert Politics recognized him as one of the “Top 30 Conservatives” under 30 in the country. He represents a district in Billings, the largest city in Montana.

http://reason.com/…/gary-johnson-endorsed-by-two-more-gop-st

https://facebook.com/DanielZolnikov/

https://twitter.com/danielzolnikov

https://www.facebook.com/RepresentativeNicholasSchwaderer

https://twitter.com/schwad4hd14

From Zolnikov’s Facebook page:

Today, Representative Nick Schwaderer and I are endorsing the Johnson/Weld ticket.

Daniel Zolnikov
Representative Zolnikov, 29, is a two term Republican member of the House of Representatives most noted for carrying and passing the first state law in U.S. history requiring a warrant before cell phones could be surveilled by law enforcement. In the most recent session, he carried and passed the strongest press protection bill in the country. Forbes ranked Zolnikov as one of the top “30 Under 30” policymakers in the nation, and Red Alert Politics recognized him as one of the “Top 30 Conservatives” under 30 in the country. He represents a district in Billings, the largest city in Montana.

 

 nick
Representative Schwaderer, 27, is a two term Republican member of the Montana House of Representatives. He is most noted for writing and passing HB 330, which is the strongest anti-police militarization legislation in the Country. He represents Mineral County, one of the least populated and poorest areas along the western edge of Montana.

28 thoughts on “Two Montana state representatives endorse Gary Johnson for president

  1. Trent Hill

    The LP currently has 3 sitting legislators and at least 3-4 others have endorsed their Presidential campaign, which is polling double digits nationally.

    But yeah, nominating GJ was a real mistake.

  2. dL

    “The LP currently has 3 sitting legislators and at least 3-4 others have endorsed their Presidential campaign, which is polling double digits nationally.

    But yeah, nominating GJ was a real mistake.”

    They are not polling double digits nationally. They are polling near or even beneath where Johnson was polling pre-convention. They have raised roughly 1/2 million dollars since the LP convention.

    If you make electoral politics the primary consideration you have to better than the above and a few GOP dog catchers converting over to the LP. Otherwise, it is the epitome of Losertarianism. You are not even selling out for 30 pieces of silver. You are selling out for a few defective pieces of cubic zirconium.

  3. steve m

    DL,

    In June Johnson and Weld Raised $660K. Five times more then what Johnson raised in June of 2012. Till now through the end of June they have raised 1.36 million. There is a “money comet” online fundraiser which has raised above 215K in the last 10 days.

    Gary Johnson pulled 12% in the CBS poll released today.

    Apologize for busting your bubble. Please check your facts in the future.

  4. Jim

    Johnson was only in 5 polls before the convention (4% PPP, 5% Quinipiac, 10% Fox News, 10% Morning Consult, and 11% Monmouth University.) He averaged 8.0%.

    The game changes if a candidate is allowed in the debates. Only 5 polls count toward that. In 2012 those polls were from: ABC News/The Washington Post, NBC News/The Wall Street Journal, CBS News/The New York Times, Fox News, and Gallup.

    Johnson’s most recent poll from those pollsters are:

    8% ABC News/The Washington Post
    10% Fox News
    11% NBC News/The Wall Street Journal
    12% CBS News/The New York Times

    Gallup doesn’t seem to have done any polling. Assuming Gallup is replaced by CNN/ORC, that would include a 9% poll and the average of the five is 10.0%.

  5. dL

    “Apologize for busting your bubble. Please check your facts in the future.”

    Please take a prob and stats course before chirping about noise that falls within the margin of error.

  6. George Whitfield

    This is great news for the Libertarian Party and for the Johnson-Weld campaign. Thank you to Reps. Zolnikov and Schwaderer for their courageous and principled endorsement of Gary Johnson for President. Are we starting to see a trend here?

  7. steve m

    I have been following Real Clear and they seem to arbitrarily include polls, exclude polls and how many days that their “average” covers.

  8. steve m

    DL, Let me check… hmm degrees in electrical engineering with a focus on digital signal processing backed by more course in math then most Masters of Physics students… 30 years of professional work. How about you just cut out the BS and provide the data for your incompetent estimates.

  9. dL

    “DL, Let me check… hmm degrees in electrical engineering with a focus on digital signal processing backed by more course in math then most Masters of Physics students… 30 years of professional work. How about you just cut out the BS and provide the data for your incompetent estimates.”

    MS in physics implies a much more advanced background in mathematics than a BS in EE. EE math requirements are Calx I,II,III and maybe one another level 300-400 math course. Calc-based Prob and Stats course, statistical Methodology generally are not part of a EE curriculum. And if by chance you do have that background, then you should know better.

    Btw, BS mathematics, several passed SoA exams.

    Refer to a survey like RCP, throw out the top and bottom outliers, look at the trend over time to measure momentum. For TeamGov, the trend is stationary. Referring to singular polls that show minor blip from the last sampled poll is just margin of error noise in the random sample.

  10. Jim

    George Phillies

    Not all of realclearpolitics’s polls matter. The Commission on Presidential Debates only selects data from 5 polling companies. And Steve m is right that RCP seems to arbitrarily include polls. For example, there have been 8 weekly NBC/Survey Monkey polls, but only 2 are listed on realclearpolitics. I have no idea why the other 6 were left out.

    The other thing that irritates me about RCP is that the 3 way polls include all of the 4 way polls – they just leave Stein out. So the RCP average of 3 way polls actually is 3 way and 4 way polls combined, which, of course, makes Johnson poll lower.

    If you want to see a compilation of large numbers of polls, Wikipedia includes far more than RCP, and it actually separates them into 2, 3, and 4 way races. It also has charts which include the margin of error.

    3 way races
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Three-way_race
    Johnson averages 10.0% for all of them, and 11.2% in the last 5.

    4 way races
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Four-way_race
    Johnson averages 7.5% for all of them and 7.0% in the last 5.

  11. steve m

    DL,

    I would have thought that a math major would know that polls from different organizations use different methodologies and formulas to correct their data. Sample sizes are different, land line, cell, on-line. registered voters or likely voters. Did the polling ask about all 4 candidates before they ask about just two? did they only ask about other then two if the person being interviewed said none of the above.

    So taking a collection of polls treating them as similar and throwing out the outliers is silly. It would be like taking weight measurements of watermelons, weight measurements of apples, weight measurements of oranges, weight measurements of cherries and weight measurements of grapes. Then throwing out the heavy and light outliers.

    Far better to take each single polling org and look at their individual trends then compare these trends to the other polling organizations. At this point you can throw out the outlier trends if you like.

    Another problem is when dealing with the integer precision low value numbers such as 5% if it was a 5.49% or a 4.51% or anywhere in between.

  12. dL

    “I would have thought that a math major would know that polls from different organizations use different methodologies and formulas to correct their data. ”

    Yeah, that’s why you look at the survey compilation of different polls, Einstein.

    “So taking a collection of polls treating them as similar and throwing out the outliers is silly.”

    Who said they are similar? A survey compilation merely assigns them EQUAL WEIGHT with the top and bottom thrown out as outliers. This gives you an accurate picture of weekly momentum that reasonably compensates for sampling error. Standard practice.

    You, on the other hand, are obfuscating things. Whether its intentional or not is another question. However, when you begin repeating TeamGov talking points:

    “Did the polling ask about all 4 candidates before they ask about just two? ”

    I would suspect the former. Then again, perhaps it could be the case that you have merely voluntarily rented your brain out for free.

  13. steve m

    DL,

    If you had significant quantities of different surveys say at least 30 and understood the differences between their mythologies then you could make the corrections between them. We don’t in this case.. We have sparce data sets with unknown collection means and unknown additional filtering and you still insist on treating them as equals other then those for some arbitrary reason that appear to be outliers.

    You suspect? you don’t know and yet you want to make arbitrary decisions. You would never make it as an instrumentation engineer. Your data would be unusable.

    Repeating TeamGov’s points? No DL, I am talking about how to deal with real world measurements. Forget it being presidential polls. You appear to have no clue on how to evaluate measured data.

  14. steve m

    DL,

    If you have any real interest in the subject try looking up articles on the subject such as this one.

    http://www.people-press.org/methodology/questionnaire-design/question-order/

    Once the survey questions are developed, particular attention should be paid to how they are ordered in the questionnaire. The placement of a question can have a greater impact on the result than the particular choice of words used in the question.

    When determining the order of questions within the questionnaire, surveyors must be attentive to how questions early in a questionnaire may have unintended effects on how respondents answer subsequent questions. Researchers have demonstrated that the order in which questions are asked can influence how people respond; earlier questions – in particular those directly preceding other questions – can provide context for the questions that follow (these effects are called “order effects”).

  15. dL

    “You suspect? you don’t know and yet you want to make arbitrary decisions. You would never make it as an instrumentation engineer. Your data would be unusable.”

    Random sampling of public opinion and Spec quality control is not the same thing. Somehow you think your career as an instrumentation engineer has any relevance to the discussion. It doesn’t. It has absolutely nothing to do w/ statistical methodology of political polling. And other than yourself, no one gives a rat’s ass whether I would be good at your job. LOL.

  16. steve m

    dl,

    You proposed a method for analyzing trends of a collection of political polls that fails to take into account the different polling methods and data processing between these polls and as such your method is nonsense. My education and experience became relevant because you claimed to be an expert and insisted I didn’t have a knowledge base. Now I have suggested you look into the issues. They are well documented.

    But I expect you will continue your ad hominem attacks rather then justifying or improving your methods.

  17. dL

    “You proposed a method for analyzing trends of a collection of political polls that fails to take into account the different polling methods and data processing between these polls and as such your method is nonsense. ”

    No, you claimed expertise. I only claimed sufficient expertise to debunk your claim of expertise.

    What exactly is your argument? That the 7.2% compiled average by the likes of RCP is not an accurate measurement of TeamGov? Take it up with RCP. You can argue that your career as an electrical engineer trumps their career as professional paid pollsters. The bottom line is that I’m employing the same standard as the Debate commission that will take the average of 5 polls and require that number to be min 15% as one of the minimum requirements to be included in the debate(the other min requirement is one the LP has already satisfied).The Debate commission AFIK has not published what those 5 polls will be. The determination point for calculating that statistic is roughly 3 weeks from today. Hence, to get an accurate picture of where things stand, do your own running average calculation, drop the outliers. TeamGov is not close to qualifying and shows no momentum to suggest that they will qualify. Sorry to burst your bubble. You can rationalize it at you want to. My guess is when the debate participants are officially announced and TeamGov is not included, you will whine and moan about polling methodology, just like TeamGov will be doing. And no one is going to care? You know why? Because TeamGov only has 500K in the bank. If they had 50M, people would take them more seriously as electorally viable ticket.

  18. steve m

    DL,

    No you said I needed to take some stats classes. I demonstrated I had.

    You are still arguing that all you have to do is drop the outliers to get a meaningful average of the polls.

    You defend doing so because you claim that is how the Republican and Democratic controlled Debate Commission is going to do.

    They may very well do that. But a math major you should at least be honest enough to say that isn’t meaningful.

  19. steve m

    In 2012, the polls relied upon were: ABC News/The Washington Post, NBC News/The Wall Street Journal, CBS News/The New York Times, Fox News and Gallup.

    ABC Johnson 8%
    NBC Johnson 10%
    CBS Johnson 12%
    Fox Johnson 10%
    Gallup has done no polling so far in 2016

    The first debate is on September 26, 2016

    CPD has not announced which Polls will be used or the date they will make the determination of the Polling data.

    DL, claims there are approximately 3 weeks until the polling data is analyzed. But, the CPD says it will happen “after labor day 2016, but sufficiently in advance of the first-scheduled debate to allow for orderly planning.” Which is Sept 5th. Or no earlier then 5 weeks from now. Again DL doesn’t check even the simplest of facts.

  20. dL

    “DL, claims there are approximately 3 weeks until the polling data is analyzed. ”

    yeah, sorry, 4.5 weeks. Other than that, everything else stands. You are quoting 3 out 5 polls used in 2012. NBC news/Survey Monkey is not NBC /WSJ. Gallup has not reported. In fact, the commission has not announced the 5 polls that are going to be used. The simple, indisputable fact is: there is no official determination where TeamGov stands. So you have to estimate it. How do you that? You do it exactly like i said you do it. It has nothing with “meaningful” as a standard. It has to do with the most accurate way to get a guesstimate by equaling weighting the the data we do have then dropping the outlier data points for each snapshot. This gives you a best guess guesstimate and gives you an idea of momentum week-to-week. To me, this is elementary stuff that is being needlessly obfuscated by nonsense. Like arguing whether grass is green with you digressing into a red herring over the meaningfulness of “green” as a primary color vis a vis the CMY color model. Silly. And I’m finished with the nonsense.

  21. steve m

    DL,

    More wrong info. You are so good at bad data.

    5.5 Weeks at a minimum probably 6 to 7 weeks in reality.

    I think it is safe to use NBC News/ Team monkey at 10% but if you insist we could use NBC News/Wall Street Journal at 11%.

  22. steve m

    DL,

    This where you really are absurd. If you want to know about momentum, then what you care about is the slope. But that is where you run into all the issues I have talked about previously. Such as trying to average different polls that are using such different methodologies and lack of precision in values.

    So for momentum or slope better to use multiple polls from the same organization and average the slopes just keep in mind that precision in reported numbers probably swamps the results.

    If you are just going after are they close to the threshold then use the polls the CPD are most likely to use… either way… being so close to the Democratic and Republican Conventions movement is likely to be swamped in the noise.

    What will in my opinion most likely determine the Johnson Weld making the debate is how badly the Clinton and Trump efforts hit efforts.

  23. Starchild

    Great news, and excellent statement from these two representatives. And from the sound of it, they have been doing terrific work in the Montana legislature too!

    As a member of the Libertarian National Committee, I welcome and applaud Daniel Zolnikov’s and Nicholas Schwaderer’s support for Gary Johnson as the next president of the United States, and hope they may consider joining other sitting legislators in Nevada, Utah, and Nebraska this year who have switched to the Libertarian Party.

    Taking such a step would draw more attention to their endorsements of Johnson, and add to the growing momentum behind getting him into the debates with Clinton and Trump.

  24. Starchild

    As to Trent Hill’s implication (July 25, 2016 at 15:18) that Gary Johnson is doing better than another Libertarian Party presidential nominee would have this year, that is pure speculation. We will never know what would have happened with John McAfee or Austin Petersen or Darryl Perry or someone else as our nominee. Or even the late Marc Feldman, which could have meant the LP presidential slot now being wide open.

    But there are definitely forces at work here more powerful than any particular Libertarian candidate for president. We knew this was a very opportune year for us going into the national convention in Orlando – and we weren’t the only ones who knew it. That’s why the convention drew about ten times more credentialed press (over 250) than we attracted in 2012.

Leave a Reply

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