The latest Johnson/Weld video asks “Are you paying attention? . . . Are you in?”
https://youtu.be/RPD8kPiOygA
TITLE: ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?
V/O: Donald Trump launched a new attack . . . Hillary Clinton unleashing a blistering attack . . . Donald Trump is taking aim at both Clintons . . . If you thought the race for the White House couldn’t get any nastier . . . I do not have to relax . . . It is my turn. No! Hang on, hang on . . . The security does not have a handle on the situation here; It is total chaos . . . Excuse me! Don’t touch me. Don’t touch me! . . . Hold on! Everybody take a breath. We have got to take a break; we will be right back. . .
JOHNSON: This is the most crazy election that any of us have ever seen.
PETERS: I am disgusted with both the candidates.
REP. RIGELL: And I cannot in good conscience support him.
MADDOW: So there has been an effort to try to find some sort of Plan C.
STOSSEL: Is this the year when an outsider will finally crash the stranglehold of Republicans and Democrats?
CNN REPORTER: There is already a Third Party running right now.
MAHER: For President, Gary Johnson.
JOHNSON: All this talk about “Third Party?” Well, I’m it.
TITLE: GARY JOHNSON IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
JOHNSON: So our strategy is to win this thing outright
TITLE: AND IS THE ONLY INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT IN ALL 50 STATES
JOHNSON: and some extraordinary things have to happen but has there ever been a more extraordinary political year in our lives? Maybe we’re the different candidates who are going to say, “Look, if you tell the truth, that means you will admit mistakes. And there is no quicker way to get after fixing something than first acknowledging . . .”
COOPER: Which . . . I haven’t heard a politician say that in a long time.
V/O: You have a message that has resonated with more and more people . . .
JOHNSON: That unique combination of being fiscally conservative, smaller government and individual liberty and freedom. You know I would not be doing this if there weren’t the opportunity to win. But the only opportunity that I have of winning is to be in the presidential debate.
CNN REPORTER: You get 15 percent, you’re going to be sitting on stage with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
MADDOW: Gary Johnson is polling at 10 percent nationwide.
UNKNOWN: There is no better time to give voice to independent candidates than this election.
MADDOW: How hard would it be for him to get to 15 (percent)?
BEHAR: At this point, nobody is checking for Gary Johnson.
SYMONE: I am.
RIGELL: The more you know about Governor Johnson; He’s the real deal.
UNKNOWN: You can definitely stand up for equal opportunity. You can definitely stand up against gaming the system.
JOHNSON: This is a huge opportunity. Give us a chance and we will make a difference.
TITLE: “Let us. . . regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety” Thomas Jefferson
TITLE: YOU IN? PAID FOR BY GARY JOHNSON 2016
TITLE: PLEDGE TODAY AT JOHNSONWELD.com (LP TORCH LOGO)
“Me: Apparently MY bad. I’m not sure how you get “platform too long” from “The LP’s language is too specific for lofty goals.”
The English language can be tricky, but maybe you can explain this obvious disconnect.”
Platform too long is mocking satire. An appropriate satirical response to your answer, which was a complete joke. I asked: What is about the LP platform that is too extreme for you? What parts about Personal Liberty, Economic Liberty, Securing Liberty are objectionable to you?. I merely exempted the objection to the IRS from consideration in order to avoid the easy, cop-out response.
Your Answer: “The LP’s language is too specific for lofty goals.” LOL. By definition, that’s what Political Party platforms are: Expressions of lofty goals(what they would consider ==lofty) backed by some specifics/elaboration. Your answer more or less is: the problem w/ the LP platform is that it is a platform.
The obvious implication of your answer is that you simply want mainstream respectability. Well, two problems with that: (1) The mainstream establishment is thoroughly corrupt. (2) No one outside of being gainfully employed by the mainstream establishment respects the mainstream establishment. Joe six-pack can give a rat’s ass what Anderson Cooper thinks.
Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump were considered 2%’ers at the start of the cycle by mainstream respectable opinion. If you cut through the culture war garbage,in many ways both are accurately diagnosing the problems. However, their solutions are dead wrong. “Hardcore libertarianism” diagnoses the same problems. But the solutions are better. Much better. Instead we get 1996 Bob Dole who likes to smoke pot. From a pure electability/strategy perspective vis a vis of a 3-way race, Bob Dole w/ 5 million dollars in the bank is about as brain dead as it gets. Political strategist should not be your day job.
Now I understand the public choice reasons why the Reasonoids and the Cato GOP carpetbaggers would spin a pot-friendly Bob Dole. But unless you have your hand in that cookie jar, I have no clue how you could be so duped.Unless, of course, you are a Bob Dole republican.
tk, which 99% do, given they’ve not been given a reasonable choice in year’s past. D or R morearchy has been their options, slightly different angles of change. J/W are offering lessarchy, which is a considerably different angle from the status quo, but not a high-risk break from the current situation.
“For the most part, voters don’t desire massive change, but rather directional change.”
Presumably if they wanted either, they would vote for one or the other.
tk: Democrats are, by definition, never anything less than completely, respectably mainstream no matter what they say or do.
me: Somewhat true. Yes, their ideas ARE “mainstream,” but mainstream thinking is dysfunctional and decades of R and D excesses are coming home to roost. For the most part, voters don’t desire massive change, but rather directional change.
“When Libertarians say they seek to ELIMINATE something, they’re whackjobs. When Democrats say they seek to eliminate something, I don’t put it in all caps or think they’re whackjobs, because Democrats are, by definition, never anything less than completely, respectably mainstream no matter what they say or do.”
Fixed, no charge.
tk: The Libertarian Party aspires to eliminate taxation….Those are equally lofty and equally unlikely long-term aspirations…..The LP says it would repeal one law (the income tax) and pass another (a balanced budget amendment).
The LP’s platform is much shorter, far more pragmatic and far more realistic than the Democratic Party’s platform.
me: We do agree they are equally unlikely.
Perhaps we have different definitions of “pragmatic” and “realistic.” Which is it: Unlikely or pragmatic?
There is also a matter of tone. To say we seek to ELIMINATE taxation comes across serious as a heart attack, and a bit wacky. To say we seek to eliminate violence against women seems less specific to me, and more benevolent.
Shivany,
I don’t object to Johnson receiving briefings. I doubt he’s especially lest trustworthy than the other candidates.
I was just having a laugh at the notion that Johnson/Weld are serious contenders for the presidency/vice presidency. Their chances are the best an LP ticket has ever had — but still so close to zero as to require an electron microscope to detect.
RC,
It’s not complicated.
The Democratic Party aspires to eliminate violence against women.
The Libertarian Party aspires to eliminate taxation.
Those are equally lofty and equally unlikely long-term aspirations.
The Democrats get a lot more wordy and utopian about how they’ll go about reaching their goal than the LP does, though. They’ll completely end campus sexual assault by telling people not to do that and so forth, end domestic violence by throwing money at VAWA (which doesn’t seem to have had much effect on violence against women in the years it’s been in place — it’s probably in the platform because it’s one of vice-president Joe Biden’s “accomplishments”)
The LP says it would repeal one law (the income tax) and pass another (a balanced budget amendment).
The LP’s platform is much shorter, far more pragmatic and far more realistic than the Democratic Party’s platform.
Or, to put it differently, the Democratic Party’s platform is plainly a repudiation of your eternal argument that one of the LP’s major problems is a long, detailed, impractical platform.
“I like commenting while high, too.”
Oh Thomas, you know I do not partake of such things.
I am serious. If we can trust Trump with security briefings, why not Johnson?
If Trump stays on his current trajectory, he won’t win either.
Interestingly enough, Clinton is a weak candidate because she is not “shellacking” Trump.
dL: Hardcore, libertarian purism== platform too long. Got it.
Me: Apparently MY bad. I’m not sure how you get “platform too long” from “The LP’s language is too specific for lofty goals.”
The English language can be tricky, but maybe you can explain this obvious disconnect.
dL: hardcore purism is anything opposed to stick your finger in the damn wind. Interestingly, that practice by politicians is the one most despised by the so-called joe six-pack, and it would be political suicide for any politician to admit doing it, particularly if that politician admitted to doing as a matter of principle.
Me: Yes, your comic-book worldview may lead you to this idea that it’s either A) blurt out the most extreme interpretation of the State and call for smashing it tomorrow or B) sticking finger in the wind.
dL, don’t know about your observations, but for me the idea that the truth shall set you free is validated over and over again. So called “hard-core” Ls seem to sincerely believe that they carry this mantle of truth, and everyone else is an lilly-livered equivocator. Oddly enough, they can’t seem to avoid equivocation when their opening salvo of “truth” — the cult of the omnipotent state — is exposed as a false statement.
It’s important to get things right from the start. If an error is made at the start, it’s important to fix the error before proceeding.
Get that? Or don’t.
So, IF one believes in NAPsterism and one feels the need to have a political party dedicated to espousing NAPsterism, I would think that such a party would build a thorough case for nonarchy before launching a series of extremist planks in a platform. The way the platform reads now, it abruptly goes to the punchline…abolish this, abolish that.
In short, the platform is ill-conceived in theory and inappropriately abrupt in practice.
“the Johnson/Weld campaign are serious contenders for the Presidency, Vice Presidency”
Presidency, Vice Presidency of what?
Of the United States?
I like commenting while high, too.
langa –
Whacko is Whacko, the words may change however the extremism doesn’t.
Now that Trump has hired a mirror image of himself, things are liable to get even crazier on that side of the fence. I guess the teleprompter speeches were too boring and sedate for him. He wasn’t able to lather up his crowd until they were ready to start assaulting the media, or protesters, or anyone else he deems unworthy of his words.
He was a powder keg and he just hired a fuse. I may have to step away from politics if things get worse.
In a different direction, the Johnson/Weld campaign are serious contenders for the Presidency, Vice Presidency. Wednesday, Donald Trump received his first security briefing. Clinton’s camp has not said if she has had hers yet, though she will get one. Is our candidate for President also going to start receiving security briefings? I think of this as being on par with being taken seriously like being in the debates. If Johnson is truly gaining support at the level you need to in order to be in the debates then he should also be getting security briefings.
For us to be taken seriously as the large party that we are, we should be treated that way in the eyes of the current administration. Just my opinion, I am curious about your opinions.
…particularly when those positions start sounding more or less indistinguishable from christian fundamentalism.
Indeed. Consider this article I ran across the other day, written by Bible thumper (and frequent LRC blogger) Christopher Manion: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/08/10/porn-and-the-predators/
With a few very minor changes, it reads exactly like the kind of thing you’d get from Long’s feminist friends. It’s amazing how often the wacko left and the wacko right sound like two sides of the same (broken) record.
“Those are general statements. The LP’s language is too specific for lofty goals.”
Bluff successfully called…
Hardcore, libertarian purism== platform too long. Got it.
This despite the LP platform being a fraction of the length of the Dem platform
https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf
and the GOP platform
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf
By this standard, both the Dems and the GOP are petal to the metal, kick ass, he hah,yippee ki yay MF !!!!!!!!!!
purists.
But here’s what you really mean. Hardcore is that which is NOT approved by people read from TV tele-prompters. If Anderson Cooper or Jake Tapper or Bill O’Reilly suddenly came on air and proclaimed “the state is the organization of plunder and the use of violence as means to achieve social ends is immoral,” then suddenly “hardcore” would be “sensible,pragmatic.” Conversely, if the same proclaimed private property is is against the values of egalitarian society, then suddenly hardcore would mean the legality of even owning your own TV set.
More bluntly, hardcore purism is anything opposed to stick your finger in the damn wind. Interestingly, that practice by politicians is the one most despised by the so-called joe six-pack, and it would be political suicide for any politician to admit doing it, particularly if that politician admitted to doing as a matter of principle. Talk about ridicule, no respect..your recommended course of action would be eternal fodder for the late night comedians.
“dL, I wouldn’t be so sure about that. As I said, I don’t read much Long these days, but a few years ago, I remember him linking approvingly to an essay by Charles Johnson, in which Johnson asserted that in a free society, there would be no sex industry, since being a sex worker was, in his view, inherently degrading. Now, he didn’t say exactly how such a society would prevent people from being sex workers, but it seems hard to believe it wouldn’t involve some sort of aggression/coercion.”
Yes, i recall. But its more like several years ago. And I only recall b/c we(“we” being johnson myself and another guy, name escapes), got into a bitter argument over at Freedom Democrats(old, long defunct blog) over the matter, and Johnson banned me from his site for about 2 years as a consequence. Make no mistake, even though I consider myself a “left-libertarian,” I have no truck with some of the social positions associated w/ some of the leading figures in that group(mainly over the patriarchy nonsense), particularly when those positions start sounding more or less indistinguishable from christian fundamentalism.
dL, I wouldn’t be so sure about that. As I said, I don’t read much Long these days, but a few years ago, I remember him linking approvingly to an essay by Charles Johnson, in which Johnson asserted that in a free society, there would be no sex industry, since being a sex worker was, in his view, inherently degrading. Now, he didn’t say exactly how such a society would prevent people from being sex workers, but it seems hard to believe it wouldn’t involve some sort of aggression/coercion.
“I don’t know that I would characterize either of them as libertarians.”
Absolute nonsense. Long’s Molinari Institute maintains one of the better online archives of the historical libertarian tradition http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm#heritage, he is an active translator of the 19th century French libertarians, and he has scholarly libertarian contributions. If I had top 5 of people I would choose to represent the libertarian position in a public debate, he would make the list.
Now it is true that Long favors a type of dialectical thickness that I don’t necessarily agree with(partial agreement perhaps). And I don’t have any truck with his sympathies for sex-negative feminist authors. However, Long has never advocated DHS enforcement of sex-trafficking laws(which they are now actually doing). If he was to do that, then yes, he would forfeit his claim to being a libertarian. But not bloody likely as the saying goes…
Hoppe, on the other hand, argues that in one and only one situation we must treat the state as our benevolent mutual property manager rather than as the gang of savage thugs he recognizes it as in all other situations.
But in making that argument, he doesn’t “set aside” the NAP. Rather he twists and distorts it beyond all recognition to try to support that position. I agree that his argument is totally illogical and contradicts almost all of his other positions, but he does at least try to justify it on libertarian grounds.
nor mine
RC,
Sorry, teaching Remedial Reading and English as a Second Language aren’t part of my skill set.
tk: It’s no less actionable in the next four years than the Democratic Party’s platform.
me: Having read your longer passages from the DP now, they are far less out-there and general than the full LP plank.
We simply disagree.
I’d wager that most non-L-idealogues would reach my conclusion.
RC,
The actual comparison would either be:
DP: “Ending Violence Against Women”
LP: “Government Finance and Spending”
or
DP: “Democrats are committed to ending the scourge of violence against women wherever it occurs
— whether in our homes, streets, schools, military, or elsewhere. We will continue to support the
Violence Against Women Act to provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to combat this
problem. We will support comprehensive services for survivors of violence and increase
prevention efforts in our communities and on our campuses. Democrats will fight to bring an end
to sexual assault — wherever it occurs, including on campuses — because everyone deserves a
safe environment where they can learn and thrive, not live in fear. We will provide
comprehensive support to survivors, and ensure a fair process for all on-campus disciplinary
proceedings and in the criminal justice system. We will increase sexual violence prevention
education programs that cover issues like consent and bystander intervention, not only in college,
but also in secondary school.”
LP: “All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a ‘Balanced Budget Amendment’ to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.”
Your complaints were that the Libertarian Party’s platform is “extreme in the sense that almost none of the planks are actionable in the next 4 years. It is not really a political document, with near-term recommendations that have any sort of chance of being enacted. It’s rather a long term document, one that gets far too specific …”
It’s not nearly as long as the Democratic Party’s platform. It’s no less actionable in the next four years than the Democratic Party’s platform. Like the Democratic Party’s platform it includes both extreme long-term aspirations and actionable short-term objectives.
Vis a vis your complaints, the Democratic Party’s platform fits them at least as well in all respects and better in some respects than the Libertarian Party’s platform.
tk: Was that what you were going for, or were you serious?
me: To the extent I take anything seriously, I was serious.
The deontological mindset may not see it this way, but let me give you a side-by-side example of what I mean.
DP: “Ending Violence Against Women”
LP: We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.
Try to imagine how the average person/non-idealogue might read these words. Ending Violence Against Women sounds noble, something almost everyone can and would agree with. It’s probably not taken as a literal thing, e.g., that in the next year, government action will somehow end this form of violence.
The LP’s plank, otoh, probably sounds strange, perhaps VERY strange. It will provoke a bunch of questions about how we’d pay for national defense, roads, education, etc. It provokes, and except for the anarchically minded, probably not in a good way. Many might say lower and fairer taxes, yes. None?
The LP’s platform requires much elaboration to not sound kooky.
At least, that’s how I see it. And, I suspect, how MOST see it.
langa,
Here’s the difference between Hoppe and Long in that respect:
So far, I have never even once seen Long propose that the non-aggression principle should be set aside for any reason whatsoever.
Hoppe, on the other hand, argues that in one and only one situation we must treat the state as our benevolent mutual property manager rather than as the gang of savage thugs he recognizes it as in all other situations. Unhomesteaded property illegitimately claims by the state magically becomes “our” property and the state’s job is to make sure that Juan, Svetlana and Mahmoud don’t walk on it without “our” permission.
That particular line of thinking would be odious and anti-libertarian if he didn’t mix it with his “race realism” vomit.
I don’t know that I would characterize either of them as libertarians, in the strict sense. In the broad sense, I’d include them both. As for the idea that Long is trying to “pull together” libertarianism and cultural leftism, that seems a little charitable. I would say he, like Hoppe, is trying to distort libertarianism, to make it compatible with his cultural views. Honestly, though, I haven’t read much by either of them lately. There’s just too much chaff, and not enough wheat, to make it worthwhile to do so.
“Well, mainly because the part that you posted, taken by itself, gives the impression that Hoppe basically agrees with Marx, while the rest of the quote makes it obvious that they have fundamental differences.”
Um, no. The rest of the quote says “I’m right there with Marx — I just got there from a different direction that I think is better.” Hoppe doesn’t “basically” agree with Marx, he agrees with Marx, full stop.
Yes, Hoppe and Long are a lot alike in that if they were both libertarians they would be “thick” libertarians. But I’d say Hoppe abandoned the libertarianism in favor of the thickness — not to mention Teh Krazy — a long time ago, while Long holds on tight to both the libertarianism and the thickness, trying (in my view unsuccessfully) to pull them to one another.
I’m not sure why you think the rest of the quote changes the context.
Well, mainly because the part that you posted, taken by itself, gives the impression that Hoppe basically agrees with Marx, while the rest of the quote makes it obvious that they have fundamental differences.
Personally, I would characterize Hoppe in much the same way that I characterized Roderick Long when he was mentioned here a while ago — as a smart guy who has written some good stuff, but who has a tendency to go way off the rails, mainly because he (like Long) stubbornly insists on conflating his cultural views with libertarianism.
RC,
“Those are general statements. The LP’s language is too specific for lofty goals.”
If true (hint: It isn’t — the Democratic Party’s language gets at least as specific), pretty good example of the moving the goalposts/shifting sands subsets of the fallacy of equivocation.
Was that what you were going for, or were you serious?
Those are general statements. The LP’s language is too specific for lofty goals.
Some selected planks from the 2016 Democratic Party platform:
“Ending Systemic Racism”
“Ending Poverty”
“Guaranteeing Universal Preschool and Good Schools for Every Child”
“Securing Universal Health Care”
“Ending Violence Against Women”
What was that you said? “Extreme in the sense that almost none of the planks are actionable in the next 4 years?”
“my feedback is almost the entire platform is extreme in the sense that almost none of the planks are actionable in the next 4 years. ”
So your objection to the platform is that it’s a platform rather than a program?
dL, my feedback is almost the entire platform is extreme in the sense that almost none of the planks are actionable in the next 4 years. It is not really a political document, with near-term recommendations that have any sort of chance of being enacted.
It’s rather a long term document, one that gets far too specific in the desire for liberty. If it were somehow to be enacted, it would most likely be severely dislocative to life as we know it.
“LP because the “hardcore” message is too extreme for me”
Well, time to call a bluff. What exactly in the LP party platform is too extreme for you?
https://www.lp.org/platform
Other than the obvious one, I suppose: The abolition of the IRS. Something that would require a constitutional amendment in order to overturn the 16th amendment.
“I did not know that he wrote that, and thanks for bringing that to my attention. However, if he was an actual Marxist, I don’t think the Mises Institute people would be so closely intertwined with him.”
I consider Hoppe to a type of anarcho-propertarian. Anarcho-capitalist would be a misnomer in his case. The Hoppean regime socialization of the liability of fraud and the use of property rights as a shunning mechanism against strangers would allow only for a very limited marker economy. It is almost like a type of Amish social order.
Hoppe however is not Marxist. Though, to be honest, libertarianism proper and Marxism are not as far apart as people might think. In part, this is because Marx ripped his class theory dynamic from the French laissez faire economists. That being said, ” the hard-core of the Marxist theory of history” has not proven correct. At least not yet.
Marxism proper is a scientific theory(a sociology if you will) of the inevitable progression of history. In many ways Marx didn’t even make moral judgements against capitalism. It was simply inevitably bound to by its own internal contradictions to transition into something else. On the role of the bureaucracy and the modern state, libertarians and marxists are identical in viewing each as tool of the ruling class.
It should be noted that marxism itself is a separate thing from communism. Indeed, the term “libertarian” first appeared as a description of a type of anarcho-communist social order. And frankly, Hoppe’s Anarcho-propertarianism in practice would have a lot of similarities to anarcho-communism.
That was me — my wife’s name appeared instead of mine because she used this computer the other day and her name is now in my form autocomplete and I clicked without looking.
It’s true there aren’t many who ID themselves as “old rightists” … NOW.
Circa 1970 there were still quite a few of them and they felt disenfranchised. Remember, this was only 18 years after the last lion of the Old Right, Robert A. Taft, lost the GOP’s presidential nomination to a political upstart by the name of Eisenhower — and it wasn’t nearly as one-sided a race as you might think. They had been written out of the conservative movement by Buckley and kind of shoved to the side in the Goldwater/Rockefeller feud. Some of them had floated off into e.g. the John Birch Society, but there were strong connections between the Old Right and the “Miseans” — and Murray Rothbard belonged to both groups. So it wasn’t at all strange for Nolan to think of them as one of the constituencies to target.
tm, take that up with TK. It was his quote.
Old rightists are also a tiny group. I don’t think there are many who ID themselves as “old rightists.”
RC,
One corrective: Nolan didn’t propose to recruit “radical rightists” into his new libertarian political party. He proposed to recruit “old rightists.” There’s a difference.
tk, a community is different from a constituency, as I see it. Unions have shared economic interests; Jews and blacks are ethnic/racial groupings who often share specific grievances. They also often live in clusters.
Distrust of the State is a grievance of sorts. A Randroid living in Nashua, a Misesian residing in Joplin and radical rightist living in the vicinity of Coeur d’Alene have a heluva lot of differences that don’t lend themselves to collective action.
Langa,
I’m not sure why you think the rest of the quote changes the context. He says Marx’s theory of history was correct. Then he says that Marx arrived at his correct theory from a false starting point, and that Austrian economics gives the RIGHT confirmation of the validity of Marx’s theory.
But, as I noted, I only call Hoppe a Marxist in order to tweak his cultists’ noses.
RC,
That’s one argument against Nolan’s approach. Personally I’d say it’s a poor one, insofar as small constituencies can, if inspired and/or organized, punch far above their weight.
I think your 5% estimate of the mentioned constituencies is very generous, but let’s go with it. That would make them, in aggregate, a little bit bigger than the total membership of AFL-CIO unions, about three times the size of the US Jewish population, and 1/3 the size of the US African-American population. Those happen to be three remarkably powerful political constituencies.
So presumably those three constituencies would have been a decent base around which to begin building a new political party if they could have been politically unified and organized by that party. But that didn’t happen, and in retrospect I don’t think it was ever in the cards for it to happen. I would say that Nolan’s vision on that particular count is not only outdated and in need of revision, but that in hindsight it was defective from the start precisely because the Randians and the Rothbardians were never going to coalesce. But that might not have been nearly as obvious at the time as it is now, so I’m not slamming Nolan for it.
Interestingly, libertarian class analysis actually predates Marxist class analysis. See here for example:
https://mises.org/blog/class-struggle-real
TK’s characterization of Hoppe as a Marxist is technically correct, in the sense that he was a Marxist before he met Rothbard. As for the quote, it is somewhat out of context. The next two sentences are:
“Then I will show how these true theses are derived in Marxism from a false starting point. Finally, I will demonstrate how Austrianism in the Mises-Rothbard tradition can give a correct but categorically different explanation of their validity.”
Source: https://mises.org/system/tdf/9_2_5_0.pdf?file=1&type=document
Krzysztof,
No need to be so serious about it 🙂
Hoppe was educated at the Frankfurt School (home of postmodern critical theory and “cultural Marxism”), and arrived at Austrian economics from that background. But no, I don’t really think he’s a Marxist.
Batshit insane and completely devoid of reason or logic? Yes (see Argumentation Ethics, bizarre statements on time preferences vis a vis sexual orientation, novel racial evolution theories as foundation for capitalism, etc.).
Marxist? No.
tk/dn: The constituencies Nolan identified in the article were “Randists, Miseists [sic], and elements of the old ‘radical right.’”
me: To state the obvious, these don’t strike me as “constituencies,” but rather something more like “micro-communities.” In aggregate, this might amount to 5% of the pop., at most.
I did not know that he wrote that, and thanks for bringing that to my attention. However, if he was an actual Marxist, I don’t think the Mises Institute people would be so closely intertwined with him.
Thanks for the polling information, Steve.
Krysztof, if you take issue with Hoppe being called a Marxist, you might want to take it up with Hoppe:
“I will do the following in this chapter: First, I will present a series of theses that constitute the hard-core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct.” — Economics and Ethics of Private Property, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2nd edition, p. 117
I have to take issue with the Marxist label being used to describe Hoppe (I concede I may have read into it too literally, but just in case). Hoppe is a senior fellow at the Mises Institute and he was, to say the least, tied with Rothbard until the latter’s death, if my understanding is correct. Here is a quote:
“[Hoppe] is the person I consider the greatest embodiment of Rothbard’s thought.” – Joseph T. Salerno, Academic Vice President of the Mises Institute
(Salerno says this in the 1:30 mark of the video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in3sacFHcck
I think that non-libertarian labels (besides libertarian ones) could perhaps be assigned to Hoppe with some merit, but Hoppe is like the polar opposite of a Marxist, unless someone created all of those “physical removal” memes out of thin air, which I don’t think is the case.
I need to finish this Hoppe book I started and set aside – the same 2012 book with a glowing introduction from Jeffrey Tucker.
These are the Poll sources that will be used in 2016 as announced yesterday
http://www.debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=62&cntnt01origid=27&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80
I thought that the CPD announces the polls they’re going to use a week before the debates. Has that changed, or is this “polls the CPD will use” stuff just a prediction based on past such decisions?
Using the polls that the CPD says they will use.
NBC-Wall Street Journal 7-31 to 8-3 10%
ABC-Washington Post 8-1 to 8-4 8%
CBS-New York Times 7-8 to 7-12 12%
CNN-Opinion Research Corporation 7-29 to 7-31 9%
Fox News 7-31 to 8-2 12%
51/ 5 = 10.2%
George,
The constituencies Nolan identified in the article were “Randists, Miseists [sic], and elements of the old ‘radical right.'”
IIRC, it was actually around the time of that article that Rand denounced libertarians as “hippies of the Right” and put organized Objectivism on an anti-libertarian/anti-LP footing which its cultish remainder maintains to this day. While there are a lot of Rand-influenced libertarians and LP members, their numbers and influence seem to be waning in the movement and the party in recent years (some of them have taken up residence in the GOP).
The particular “Miseists” Nolan seems to have been referring to are these days described as Rothbardians. At the time they were anarchists, but near the end of his life Rothbard, working with Rockwell and Paul, managed a merger of that movement with the old right called “paleoconservatism,” which is only tangentially related to libertarianism these days. Rockwell (through that Marxist twit Hoppe and some of the movement’s Chestnut Tree Cafe crowd who he managed to get a “do it to Julia!” out of after the Paul campaigns ended) still tries to milk libertarians for clicks and cash, but that’s about the extent of it.
Of course the LP started courting other constituencies a long time ago (Ed Clark’s “low tax liberal” characterization was part of what sent Rothbard sputtering back to the bat cave to look for a new vehicle), but it’s never really re-defined its target audience in any formal way.
” . . . .Tony, Ron Paul did have a more hardcore libertarian message than Gary Johnson, and he was able to amass s much larger following than Gary Johnson. This destroys your argument. . . . ”
Really? Hardcore? Ron Paul? I love Ron Paul. Have all his books . I agree with most, but not all of his core issues . . but he’s not nearly as “hardcore” as you and the Daryl Perry anarchy types. Ron Paul appealed to a small portion of the Republican base. About 33% of this country is republican and Ron Paul appealed to about 15% of THAT at most. And, yes, the messenger does play a part.
I’d love to see in November a comparison of Ron Paul’s cumulative vote totals from the 2012 primaries and Gary Johnson’s this November.
So, I didn’t DESTROY my argument. Maybe you misconstrued my argument, which is that Anarchist – Perry-type hardcore libertarianism is not appealing to the general public . . . hell, it’s not appealing to more than 10% of the Libertarian PARTY!
Tom,
Which were the constituencies?
George
Tony, Ron Paul did have a more hardcore libertarian message than Gary Johnson, and he was able to amass s much larger following than Gary Johnson. This destroys your argument.
tk: I know that you become offended and outraged at the idea of an organization being founded for Purpose X and sticking with Purpose X instead of turning on a dime when Robert Capozzi jumps out of the bushes and screams “DOMESTIC TRANQULITY! I’VE READ LAO TZU!” at it.
me: You “know” incorrectly. Outrage is anti-Tao! 😉
I have no expectations that my checking the NAPster premises will lead to anything in particular. I’m just a lessarchist voter sharing ideas. I do note that zealots seem prone to clinging to unworkable constructs longer than the open minded do.
This has been one wild year, politically. Making sense of all this nonsense is probably futile, like a defective Rubic’s Cube or something. Thanks for all your insights.
“If Mickey Mouse were in a poll, he’d be getting 30 percent” – Gary Johnson
Unlike Gereralissimo Trump, Gov. Johnson knows the difference between “sarcasm” and “hyperbole.”
“So, brah, my day job is quite safe. ”
For your own sake, I would certainly hope so…
I see no reason that the “hardcore” message can’t be softened and still be within the spirit of Nolan’s original intent. I couldn’t stay in the LP because the “hardcore” message is too extreme for me, but the idea of much less intervention in foreign wars, (relatively) welcoming open borders, and being more fiscally responsible, whilst still making sure that people of less means and opportunity are not left destitute appeals to me.
I’ve always said that we are all individuals, but we are all in this together.
As a side note, I’ve spent significant time with Nolan’s article recently pursuant to a project of my own, and I happen to agree that elements of his vision need re-tooling, if for no other reason than that, of the three groups he targeted as a libertarian party’s natural first constituencies, two have effectively merged into a non-compatible constituency and the third has, if anything, hardened its initial resistance to becoming such a constituency.
RC,
“Why should we care at this point what The Nolan called for?”
Because what The Nolan called for was formation of a political party on certain principles — principles which, as you never tire of moaning about, were codified in a difficult-to-alter foundational document of that party. Since the topic Tony and I are discussing is whether or not sticking with those principles has been an effective political strategy, the subsidiary question of whether or not the party HAS stuck with those principles is presumptively of interest to those interested in the broader topic.
I know that you become offended and outraged at the idea of an organization being founded for Purpose X and sticking with Purpose X instead of turning on a dime when Robert Capozzi jumps out of the bushes and screams “DOMESTIC TRANQULITY! I’VE READ LAO TZU!” at it. But believe it or not, the question of which is the appropriate behavior remains an open one for some of us.
tk: But going back to David Nolan’s original call for formation of a libertarian political party,
me: Why should we care at this point what The Nolan called for? Of course, it’s a subjective judgment, but it appears that the experiment failed. You may need another 4 decades before you deem it a failure as well, but the notion that adjustments should not be made feels foolish to me as more evidence piles up that NAPsterism (still have not a better, more accurate term) at best has a narrow appeal.
Jim, WHat are you prevaricating about?
Here are the actual recent polls featuring the four candidates, courtesy of RealClearPolitics.com, updated from yesterday
NBC News/SM 8/8 – 8/14 11 4
Bloomberg 8/5 – 8/8 9 4
Rasmussen Reports 8/9 – 8/10 8 2
Breitbart/Gravis 8/9 – 8/9 9 3
Bloomberg 8/5 – 8/8 9 4
Reuters/Ipsos 8/6 – 8/10 7 3
Economist/YouGov 8/6 – 8/9 9 2
Monmouth 8/4 – 8/7 7 2
ABC News/Wash Post 8/1 – 8/4 8 4
That’s an 11% , four 9%s, two 8%s, and two 7%s. To these, Huffington post gives us
in addition with no indication as to whether these were even four-way polls.
Morning Consult Aug 11 – Aug 14 9
Ipsos/Reuters 7
Huffington also gives us a graph. It shows for the last month something close to flat with no trend up or down.
Tony,
I’m not under any illusion that a “hardcore libertarian” message would be popular at all, even if widely broadcast in otherwise attractive terms.
But going back to David Nolan’s original call for formation of a libertarian political party, one of the main purposes was to get cracking on MAKING such a message popular with, as a kind of side note, “and finally, there is always the possibility that we might actually get some libertarians elected.”
The cart’s in front of the horse. In fact, it’s been in front of the horse for so long that the horse seems to have rolled over on its back and died.
Thomas: ” . . . I suspect it would be far less popular than “hardcore libertarians” would like, but probably not nearly as unpopular as their opponents claim. . . . ”
OK, I can concede that, but I still feel it would be less popular than even you think. Maybe if we cut the difference.
Tony,
Interesting you should use the bathtub analogy, considering it was first used by a very successful figure within a very successful political party.
Yes, it’s true that the content of the message is not the only factor in whether or not the LP is successful.
I’d say that not only is it not the only factor, it has yet to be a significant factor at all.
We really don’t know how the electorate would respond to a “hardcore libertarian message” if that message was presented in a manner that was otherwise excellent. I suspect it would be far less popular than “hardcore libertarians” would like, but probably not nearly as unpopular as their opponents claim.
Thomas, you are starting already with the fact that the huge majority of voters don’t want to vote for a “third party.” I was only 6 years old in 1980, so I can’t speak about the Clark campaign. However, Barr was such an easily dislikable and fake person that I don’t feel he had a chance to catch on even with better coverage.
You are likely correct that the “hardcore message” isn’t the ONLY factor, but from my experience from when I was a hardcore Libertarian kool-ade drinker was that people didn’t want to hear it. I speak well and present issues in a non-scary way. While people may want a smaller government, they don’t want one “so small you can drown it in a bath tub.”
“The LP has hovered at .5% for forty years because of a ‘hardcore libertarian’ message.”
If a “hardcore libertarian” message is why the LP hovered at 0.5%, then why did the LP remain at 0.5% when it ran distinctly non-hardcore-libertarian Bob Barr in 2008? And why is it that non-hardcore-libertarian campaigns like Clark 1980 and Johnson 2012 only move the LP up to the 1% range?
With Johnson, we have a pretty nice test case: He’s run before. Last time he got 1%. This time he appears set to possibly do a little better than that. What changed? In neither campaign did he run as a “hardcore-libertarian” messenger, so it’s obvious that that’s not what’s making the difference.
Andy : ” . . . . Yeah, I think Trump has something to do with it, but I doubt they would get as much coverage if they were promoting hardcore libertarian views. . . . ”
DUH!! You have just destroyed your own argument! The LP has hovered at .5% for forty years because of a “hardcore libertarian” message. People don’t like it and never will. So you nominate a ticket that is just a bit more palatable and are now receiving mainstream coverage. So, Andy, you can keep your .5% and bitch and whine about it every day. Or you can try to convert those who now have a new interest in libertarianism to your hardcore anarchist message. . . good luck with that.
I don’t get the impression that GJ/WW came in with nefarious motives. They didn’t scam us out of our ballot access. We gave it to them, with a pretty clear understanding of what they were going to do with it. I don’t think they’ve done anything different than what was expected. At least, it’s not different than what *I* expected.
With that said, many of us clearly hoped that they would do more to promote the party. But, hopes are just that. I’m not ready to say that their campaign has done any measurable damage to the party. And, even if it has, or if it does, we have so little to lose that it’s really not worth worrying about.
I’m going to continue to hope that they do a better job of building the party and the brand. I’m also going to continue to keep my expectations in check. I suggest everyone else do the same. Doing so basically eliminates any downside, while maintaining the possibility that we can be pleasantly surprised over the months to come
“The 2nd and 3rd Ron Paul vote totals you mentioned were in the Republican primaries, which are much more difficult to get votes in than the general election.
If you want to see a dismal performance, look back and see how Gary Johnson was doing in the Republican presidential primaries.”
Andy is right. Johnson polled a dismal 4,300 votes in nine Republican primary and caucus states in 2012. Granted, he had dropped out of the GOP race before the Iowa caucuses, but still…
“I hold Ron Paul in almost as high regard as Hans Herman Hoppe when it comes to influential libertarians”
Thanks for a “snorted coffee out my nose” morning moment, Krzysztof.
The Johnson campaign appears to be fairly successful as independent and/or GOP Tier 2 presidential campaigns go. But it’s probably time for LPers to stop pretending to ourselves that it’s an LP presidential campaign. They dropped in to scam us out of our ballot access and that seems to be pretty much where the connection ends.
I may have been wrong about Benton going to prison, though. Looks like he acquired of all of the most serious charges, according to Wiki.
Oh, I forgot about Campaign For Liberty. In the five years 2008 – 2012, CFL raised $19,939,209… and accomplished what? I stopped tracking its income after 2012, but they must have raised somewhere close to $25 million by this point. You can’t tell me that’s not competing at some level with donations to the LNC. Other than getting a handful of red light camera laws overturned, which I suspect could have been – and possibly was – done entirely without CFL, the group is a gigantic money pit. All it does is send spam emails and give ineffective petitions to Congress.
Should read, “Benton…”
Sure, there were some problems in the Ron Paul campaign. Some suspect Jesse Renton of having been an infiltrator. Regardless of this, Ron Paul’s 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 campaigns were a huge success in terms of waking people up, spreading the liberty message, and building the movenent.
Also, any problems with how the Ron Paul campaign was run pales in comparison to the lack of transparency and financial shenanigans of the Johnson campaign.
Yeah, Team Ron Paul was a disaster. Jesse Benton was widely criticized for his role as Paul’s campaign manager by pretty much everyone in the grassroots in 2012. He was convicted a few months ago of bribing Iowa state senator Kent Sorenson for an endorsement. There’s been no sentencing yet, but when it gets handed down, it won’t be a week long stay in a local holding cell.
Campaign for Liberty also turned out to be nothing more than a Facebook page, and I guess they also organize LPAC. That’s it. What do they need donations for?
RP One also did not reject his handlers when they told him to endorse Ted “Goldman Sachs” Cruz, and even appeared with him side by side at a “Tea Party” to make his endorsement.
Look, I hold Ron Paul in almost as high regard as Hans Herman Hoppe when it comes to influential libertarians, but that doesn’t make mean he’s perfect.
I would like this election to be over already, with Trump as president and the groundwork being laid for Tom Woods’ nomination as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 2020.
I don’t see how having a less expensive communication method (the internet) or having to spend less money on ballot access makes a bit of difference. After all, it is a well known fact, by some, that Gary Johnson spends all of his money on consultants and does not do voter outreach.
Paul had a huge name recognition advantage and the contact lists of a shared target group of supporters. There was only one way that was going to end and you’re laughing it up like Paul did something special after starting on a level playing field. The best Johnson could hope for after Ron Paul entered was to build some name recognition in preparation for a future run.
Yeah, and Ron Paul was blowing Gary Johnson away in the Republican primary. Johnson was barely a blip on the radar screen, which is why he dropped out and switched to Libertarian Party.
Another factor in 1988 as compared to 2008 and 2012 and 2016 is that Ron Paul came into a party that was in worse shape ballot access wise than the party was in going into 2012 and 2016.
There was no internet back in 1988. The internet has made it easier to reach a lot more people a whole lot cheaper than it cost in the past to reach people.
Also, Gary Johnson greatly benifitted from Ron Paul increasing name recognition of the word Libertarian.
“Johnson and Paul were competing for the same base of supporters in the 2012 Republican primary and Paul already had the contact lists.”
And Johnson dropped out of the Republican primaries weeks before the first state voted.
Re: “Government welfare check”
Doesn’t that money come from the Presidential Election Fund? If so, that’s a voluntary contribution. People voluntarily donated specifically to the fund knowing that it would go to Presidential candidates. That’s not welfare.
Or does the money come from somewhere else?
Should read, “pissing on….”
The Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket is irrelavent right now. Why? Because it consists of two washed up Republicans who are passing on the party’s platform and running away from the word Libertarian.
Andy “The 2nd and 3rd Ron Paul vote totals you mentioned were in the Republican primaries, which are much more difficult to get votes in than the general election. ”
I don’t think so. Paul did get in the Republican primary debates. If they are so much more difficult, why did Paul do so much worse in 1988?
Andy “If you want to see a dismal performance, look back and see how Gary Johnson was doing in the Republican presidential primaries.”
Johnson and Paul were competing for the same base of supporters in the 2012 Republican primary and Paul already had the contact lists.
If we compare Ron Paul’s 1988 libertarian run and adjust it for population increases, he would would have only gotten 556,000 votes in 2012. Johnson got 1,276,000.
That is Make The Libertarian Party Libertarian Again hats.
Ron Paul’s campaigns were a hell of a lot more effective, and transparent than Gary Johnson’s campaign, and at least Ron Paul did not run up a big debt, then lie about it, and then take a big government welfare check, and then run up another debt, and lie about it again, and then weasel out of paying it. Gee, I wonder who did that.
I have already thought about making that into a hat like the Donald Trump Make America Great Again Hats.
The 2nd and 3rd Ron Paul vote totals you mentioned were in the Republican primaries, which are much more difficult to get votes in than the general election.
If you want to see a dismal performance, look back and see how Gary Johnson was doing in the Republican presidential primaries.
“Wonder why he’s not out there campaigning for the Libertarian Candidate”
Ron Paul is purely pay to play. If they’re not employing members of the Paul family or kicking cash back to one of his goofy newsletter businesses, he’s not interested. That’s why he’s not involved in this campaign.
You then transition into complaining about how donations are spent inefficiently by a campaign? You realize the Ron Paul 2012 campaign pissed away much of their $40 million by flying around on private jets and paying extra-large salaries to family members… right?
“Make The Libertarian Party Irrelevant Again!”
You should order some baseball caps.
Joseph Buchman “The campaign makes a difference. Too bad it’s a tiny fraction of what Ron Paul was doing with a far more radical/purist message…”
What do you mean? Ron Paul got 432,000 votes in 1988, 1,145,000 votes in 2008, and 2,099,000 votes in 2012. If Johnson gets even 4% this year, he’ll get 5,000,000 votes.
It will make me feel better if real libertarians get organized and stage a coup in 2018 and retake the Libertarian Party, and make sure none of this bullshit happens in 2020.
Make The Libertarian Party Libertarian Again.
George Phillies “they have the Fox poll that is an extreme outlier, and assume that it will maintain itself.”
What the fuck are you babbling about? Johnson has polled at 12% repeatedly over the last couple of months. Investor’s Business Daily, CNN/ORC, CBS, and Morning Consult have all shown Johnson at 12% in addition to Fox. And NBC, Pew, and Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner have had him at 11%. And McClatchy has had him at 10%. 12% is not an extreme outlier and it has show that it is being maintained.
Austin Cassidy @ August 15, 2016 at 22:55
“Absolutely right, the candidate and campaign has made no difference.”
The campaign makes a difference. Too bad it’s a tiny fraction of what Ron Paul was doing with a far more radical/purist message – one he urged the Party to take in his video shown in Orlando. Wonder why he’s not out there campaigning for the Libertarian Candidate (maybe because in his view there isn’t one?)
“Oh yeah, the Johnson campaign raised $8,000 in the past 30 minutes.”
What good is done if one raises a ton of money and then wastes it, or spends it ineffectively? So will those donors know how these funds were spent? Do we know how the CPD lawsuit money was spent? or even how much was raised? Is it an attack on Liberty herself for us to ask for an accounting?
My impression is that the campaign could raise a billion dollars; and then spend a 1.1 billion on political and media consulting advice. and anyone demanding transparency, or complaining that the actual political activity was a small fraction of what was raised, would still be labeled anti-liberty or a trouble maker.
I hope Governor Johnson gets into the debates; I hope he does well; I hope each dollar donated by hard-working libertarians is efficiently spent.
I don’t have high confidence however in any of those hopes. There’s a real possibility he does get into the debates, or at least the first one, and does so poorly the LP never recovers. For that one I truly hope to be wrong.
Andy, you can write-in Darryl Perry if makes you feel better.
George,
Talking about fraud and yet you are intentionally distorting the polling numbers.
For the purposes of the Commission on Presidential Debates, Johnson is polling at an average of 10% in the five polls that matter.
The Fox News poll isn’t an extreme outlier, he’s at 11% there… 11% in the CBS poll… 10% in 2 others… and 8% in the fifth.
From Reason.com today —
“The good news for Johnson is that the five polls selected by the commission are some of the friendliest in the field for the Libertarian. They are:
* CBS-New York Times (11 percent average in four polls since June; high of 12%)
* Fox News (11% average in four polls, high of 12%)
* CNN-Opinion Research Corporation (10% average in four polls, high of 13%)
* NBC-Wall Street Journal (10% average in three polls, high of 11%)
* ABC-Washington Post (average and high of 8% in three polls)
So Johnson is starting from a base of 10 percent, which is certainly better than the 8.4 percent average he currently shows over at the RealClearPolitics polling page, and also the adjusted 9.0 percent he gets at FiveThirtyEight’s polls-plus.”
No, libertarian Libertarians lose interest when the party nominates candidates who are not really libertarian.
The Reason article claims that the polls that the Commission uses all skew high for Johnson, which is ludicrous. No, they have the Fox poll that is an extreme outlier, and assume that it will maintain itself.
The other problem, which was glaringly visible on the Town Hall appearances, is that in the debates Johnson will not have Weld to hold his hand. He will actually have to know something about, for example, defense policy. He will actually have to have a tax proposal.
Johnson/Weld still polling at 10%?
I urge readers who believe this nonsense to consult the pretty graph at
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton-vs-johnson
Hipster Libertarians lose interest in the LP when it starts getting played on mainstream radio.
I know, Andy… hopefully Johnson misses the debates and fails to win 5% in November. Then, THANKFULLY, the party can return to debate club mode and all this annoying media attention will go away.
“Some Libertarians believe that fraud is not an appropriate part of politics.”
I agree.
In the 5 polls that matter towards debate inclusion — JOHNSON IS AT 10% AS OF TODAY.
https://reason.com/blog/2016/08/15/presidential-debate-commission-criteria
Andy “Multiple Johnson/Weld supporters that I spoke to at the national convention claimed that Johnson/Weld would raise $200=$250 million if they won the nomination.”
Johnson and Weld never claimed they would raise that much. Who are these people you keep referencing? What made you think they were any kind of authority on Presidential fundraising? Put up some names. Let’s get them on here to explain themselves.
I wonder how many of the people donating are Never Trump Republicans who are not remotely libertarian and will not stick with the party long term.
George Phillies “Johnson/Weld still polling at 10%?”
You know damn well that only five pollsters count to get in the debates. Johnson’s average of the last poll from the five that count is 10.2%.
Austin, message may not be important to you, but it is to some of us Libertarians who are IPR regulars, and we think that Johnson/Weld’s message is weak, and not really all that libertarian.
If the messages sucks, what difference does it make what they are polling at or how many votes they get?
Also, how much of this is because of them, and how much if this is just because a higher percent of the population is not satisfied with the D’s and the R’s, and their being no higher profile minor party or independent candidates in the race?
Joseph Buchman “how much of that 10 percent is a result of campaign activity, and how much is a result of “anyone other than Trump and Clinton?”
I’m not buying it. People might tell a pollster that they’re voting for Johnson because he’s anyone but Clump, but answering a poll question costs nothing. Donating is a step beyond that. Donating means they actively sought out an alternative to Clump and made a commitment to him. Donating on a specific day means they’re following the campaign fairly closely, which they wouldn’t do if there level of commitment was as shallow as anybody-but-Clump.
It’s not as good as polling data, but the number of donors to a campaign is usually a pretty good predictor of how the race will turn out.
LOL @ the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker reference!
Johnson/Weld still polling at 10%?
Some Libertarians believe that fraud is not an appropriate part of politics.
Here are results aggregated by RealClearPolitics.com. The two numbers at the end are the Johnson and Stein percentages. The astute reader will note that the single “10” is an outlier. The average is about 8 and a half, and there has been little change in that in several months.
Rasmussen Reports 8/9 – 8/10 8 2
Breitbart/Gravis 8/9 – 8/9 9 3
Bloomberg 8/5 – 8/8 9 4
Reuters/Ipsos 8/6 – 8/10 7 3
Economist/YouGov 8/6 – 8/9 9 2
Monmouth 8/4 – 8/7 7 2
NBC News/SM 8/1 – 8/7 11 10 4
ABC News/Wash Post 8/1 – 8/4 8 4
Johnson/Weld still polling at 10%?
Some Libertarians believe that fraud is not an appropriate part of politics.
Here are results aggregated by RealClearPolitics.com. The two numbers at the end are the Johnson and Stein percentages. The astute reader will note that the single “10” is an outlier. The average is about 8 and a half, and thre has been little change in that in several months.
Rasmussen Reports 8/9 – 8/10 8 2
Breitbart/Gravis 8/9 – 8/9 9 3
Bloomberg 8/5 – 8/8 9 4
Reuters/Ipsos 8/6 – 8/10 7 3
Economist/YouGov 8/6 – 8/9 9 2
Monmouth 8/4 – 8/7 7 2
NBC News/SM 8/1 – 8/7 11 10 4
ABC News/Wash Post 8/1 – 8/4 8 4
Yes, Joseph. Absolutely right, the candidate and campaign has made no difference.
Johnson is at 15% in Colorado… Stein at 6%… and Darrell Castle is still presumably running for President.
Oh yeah, the Johnson campaign raised $8,000 in the past 30 minutes.
Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker were good at raising money too.
So how much of that 10 percent is a result of campaign activity, and how much is a result of “anyone other than Trump and Clinton?”
THAT percentage gives you a measure of value per dollar raised.
“If Mickey Mouse were in a poll, he’d be getting 30 percent” – Gary Johnson
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/never-trump-2016-elections-libertarians-213917#ixzz4HSjsl2ev
So, no, not all that much to cheer about, especially if the money raised goes to a consult whose million-dollar advice is, “We need to raise more money.”
And the irrelevant complaining continues.
Johnson/Weld still polling at 10%… collected almost $100,000 in new donations during the last couple hours, even though they already passed the $1.5 million goal.
What a disaster. lol!
Multiple Johnson/Weld supporters that I spoke to at the national convention claimed that Johnson/Weld would raise $200=$250 million if they won the nomination. They are nowhere close to raising that much.
Also, what difference does it make how much they raise if much of it gets squandered, and they are not promoting a solid libertarian message, and they are in fact running from and/or downplaying the Libertarian label?
The amount raised is irrelevant as well. The amount spent on actual political activity — things that cause higher poll numbers and/or more votes will be . . . well, what fraction would you estimate?
I’ll go with less than 100 percent to start. Anyone?
Also the odds that the revenues and expenses will be transparent, accurate, useful, timely . . .
Based on FEC filings in 2012, I’ll go with zero percent.
And while all this irrelevant complaining goes on and on, Gary Johnson’s $1.5 million one-day money bomb has surpassed the initial goal…
In the hypothetical case that Johnson and Stein get into the debates, I would expect that Clinton will target pounding Johnson into the ground, because he takes more votes from her than he takes from Trump. She will be nice to Stein, up to a point, emphasizing how many of their sensible issues really are the same, except she can put them into effect. And for Trump points, she will counter with quotes from Ronald Reagan and Dwight David Eisenhower, showing how much they differed with Trump.
Trump will spray and pray, possible without noticing that he was aiming at his own kneecaps.
If they were actually in the running for the presidency, then getting to 15 percent in the polls would be the laser focus of this campaign. Most of the money currently going to “political consulting” or to Joe Hunter @ (reported in FEC reports) $25,000/month for “media consulting” would be going to getting poll numbers maximized. I’m fairly certain neither Johnson nor Weld want the POTUS or VPOTUS jobs (nothing wrong there, who would?!? what a mess to be inherited), so the legitimate question is: What is the real goal of this campaign? Only 85 or so more days to go and, mercifully, it will be over, unless OAI continues to try to find ways to keep afloat. Fundraising for another lawsuit against the CPD perhaps?
Andy,
You may be right.
But even if they DID give a rat’s ass about the Libertarian brand, I think they would have done what they’re doing anyway when they lost their minds and started believing that they’re actually in the running for the presidency.
Tom, I think you are giving Johnson/Weld too much credit in regard to the Libertarian brand. Reality is likely that they do not really give a rat’s ass about the Libertarian brand.
Thomas and George,
“things like party building and party brand building take a back seat ”
I’m of the impression that the delegates in Orlando did not vote for the candidates best prepared/able to BUILD THE PARTY or the BRAND. This made me sad at the time.
It’s also the case that in 2012 Johnson/Grey did not use the LIBERTARIAN name in advertising (at least I remember hearing complaints about that) and surely they were not mesmerized by the idea they might actually “win.” Also what on earth were prospects left with after a presentation of the LP Brand by . . . BARR/ROOT.
Let’s hope 2018/2020 are the conventions where we create a LIBERTARIAN Libertarian Party (PARTY!!!) again (the second “party” being a tribute to Steve Kubby — this was to have been the FUN party).
Not having so much fun yet this year, and finding myself slipping into the hope that Gary Johnson does get into the debate, and comes alive as a hard-core (or at least Ron Paul level) competent LIBERTARIAN in the debates . . . but mostly trying to manage the fear about what happens if he does get into the CPD debates, and shows up like the guy Lee Wrights mopped the floor with, and then the damage that does to the brand.
Joe
Andy: “Funny how Ron Paul ran on a more radically libertarian platform than Gary Johnson, yet he was able to amass a larger following than Gary Johnson.”
Word.
Of course, it is marginally possible that most voters have heard of the Democrats and the Republicans, and many of those have even heard of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and already formed their opinions of them, so telling people that Trump is a Republican is probably not going to accomplish anything.
Joseph,
The party’s purpose in running candidates is to build the party and the party’s brand.
There’s a point at which candidates and parties go their separate ways.
That point is when the candidates believe they actually have a shot at winning the election. When they believe that, building the party and the party’s brand definitely take a back seat to winning.
For obvious reasons, that is the rule rather than the exception in the Republican and Democratic parties.
In third parties, it’s the exception. Most third party candidates realize they don’t have a chance in hell of winning and that therefore the best and most they can hope to accomplish is to build their party and their party’s brand.
Johnson/Weld (and/or their campaign staffs) appear to have broken Frank Lopez’s main rule: Never get high on your own supply. They seem to have convinced themselves they actually have a more than infinitesimal chance of winning the election, and therefore things like party building and party brand building take a back seat to winning (or more likely get wadded up and thrown out the window).
Yeah, I think Trump has something to do with it, but I doubt they would get as much coverage if they were promoting hardcore libertarian views.
Chuck Moulton @ August 15, 2016 at 14:54
“It’s not just his videos, yard signs, flyers, and bumper stickers that don’t include the word “libertarian”… his emails to supporters don’t include the word “libertarian” either. It disgusts me.”
Agreed.
I also looked at
https://www.hillaryclinton.com
and
https://www.donaldjtrump.com
no mention of either of the two old parties on their sites either.
So why do politicians in general, and why does political advertising especially, not mention the brand — the party name. Is there some brilliant reason for not doing this that I’ve missed.
I can see an appeal to all “independent” voters by claiming the “independent” or “I am the THIRD party” brands — and I gather the goal of a campaign is winning/maximizing votes.
But my goal, and my reason for supporting the LP, is advancing LIBERTY. That comes more from educating than “winning” and so far this may be the worst “Libertarian”campaign ever for educating Americans about why Liberty is best, the most moral/ethical, the right/true/good way to be.
I’m more sad/scared than disgusted. Dark times are coming/here it seems. And sharing about our “wonderful public servants” in the other parties, or calling the male opponent a “pussy” is going nowhere.
On second thought I am disgusted by that too.
Joe
ANDY: ” . . . . they are getting more coverage because Weld is CFR . . . . ”
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with his level of coverage . . . another of your conspiracy theories . . .
They are both former governors and the other candidates (particularly TRUMP) are unpalatable.
Hilary is unpopular but Trump is an American disgrace . . . hence more coverage for Johnson and Stein.
Everything is some sort of conspiracy . . . jeez . . . I feel sorry for you.
It’s not just his videos, yard signs, flyers, and bumper stickers that don’t include the word “libertarian”… his emails to supporters don’t include the word “libertarian” either.
It disgusts me.
They’re getting more coverage because:
Trump.
Period.
Full stop.
Matt, they are getting more coverage because Weld is CFR, and because they are running on a platform that is watered down that it trickles off in multiple non-libertarian directions, and because the mass media is in bed with big government.
I’m not crazy about GJ. I didn’t vote for him or Weld to be our nominees. But, I cannot argue against the fact that they’re getting unprecedented coverage for a L ticket.
They’ve not inspired me to work on their behalf. But, frankly, I’m a bit burned out on LP acticism anyway. So, I’m taking a break from serious activism, and playing the role of average LP member. As such, I am moderately excited by the amount of coverage they’re getting, and I am very curious as to how things will shake out as we approach election day.
Tl;Dr- At least this election has some entertainment value.
DL: ” . . . . Let’s see. Clinton v Trump. And Bernie Sanders would beat both in a 3-way race. Not the year for establishment “normal.” Don’t quit your day job, brah. . . . . ”
Umm, I voted for Bernie in the primary. He lost by a significant margin to Hillary. I don’t know what math you are doing, but if it were Clinton – Trump – Sanders – Trump would win. Both on their own would destroy Trump.
Your opinion that this isn’t the year for “establishment normal” really is misguided. That was applicable to the cult followers who drink the Trump-ade, but “establishment normal” won pretty handily on the Democratic side. Average American Independent voters are repulsed by Trump .
Johnson is a regular normal guy who many can relate to. Is he the most articulate? No. But will he go up there and attack his opponents? No. He will just say what HE wants to do. Many many many people appreciate that. He might do something pretty odd in a presidential debate – ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ASKED OF HIM.
So, brah, my day job is quite safe. 🙂
“Johnson was the most rational and “normal.”
Petersen was a right-wing blowhard
McAfee barely spoke above a whisper
Perry was just creepy and a complete fantasyland anarchist
Feldman was a decent guy. Nothing negative to say about him.”
Let’s see. Clinton v Trump. And Bernie Sanders would beat both in a 3-way race. Not the year for establishment “normal.” Don’t quit your day job, brah.
“what other average American voter would?”
If Bernie Sanders was in a 3-way race as an independent, he would have a legit shot of winning. There is no debating that. If an ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN leftist ticket was in the race, it is entirely a reasonable assumption that it could likewise win. It would certainly would stand a better chance than a moderate republican teamGov ticket in such a 3 way race.
“The recent action by the DEA does not signal to me that they intend on keeping Marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. They have loosened the grip on researching and testing Marijuana for medical purposes. Do we hate the government so much that we are unable to interpret it’s actions?”
From the horse’s mouth:
“Using established scientific standards that are consistent with that same FDA drug approval process and based on the FDA’s scientific and medical evaluation, as well as the legal standards in the CSA, marijuana will remain a schedule I controlled substance. It does not have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, there is a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision, and it has a high potential for abuse.”
I can forthrightly state that my hatred for the state has not affected my reading comprehension 🙂
Funny how Ron Paul ran on a more radically libertarian platform than Gary Johnson, yet he was able to amass a larger following than Gary Johnson.
Andy: ” . . . . . Johnson was the weakest debater out of the five main candidates for the LP presidential nomination (the others being Austin Peterson, John McAfee, Darryl Perry. And Marc Feldman). . . . ”
Johnson was the most rational and “normal.”
Petersen was a right-wing blowhard
McAfee barely spoke above a whisper
Perry was just creepy and a complete fantasyland anarchist
Feldman was a decent guy. Nothing negative to say about him.
Johnson is the ONLY one on that stage that I would have voted for. Now, before you go and call me a liberal statist, realize that if I (who has libertarian leanings and who has voted for Libertarians many times in the past) wouldn’t go near any of the others, what other average American voter would?
If Gov. Johnson is given the opportunity to be in the debates, one positive is that he would most likely be ignored by Clinton and Trump (though I can see Trump Calling him a “lightweight and a complete loser.”).
He can just answer the questions and let the other two bicker. Debating his not his strongest asset. We all know that.
The recent action by the DEA does not signal to me that they intend on keeping Marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. They have loosened the grip on researching and testing Marijuana for medical purposes. Do we hate the government so much that we are unable to interpret it’s actions?
They have the power to just remove it as a schedule 1. They need a reason for the other half of the country who still considers it a gateway drug and “addictive”. Any company who has been formed in order to provide legal marijuana within the 24 states that have legalized in some way will not be targeted if Clinton wins the Presidency. Trump is unpredictable and seems to not be able to tow the party line longer than 6-8 hours at a time.
As a country, we don’t use the term “Drug Lord” in a legal sense. Drug Kingpin is what we designate them as and it is the Treasury Dept’s duty to do that. Under Obama, the DEA has had a hands off attitude within the states where it is allowed. The dispensaries still can’t use federal banks, however they have been working with the feds on how to resolve that. I predict that within the next 2-4 years, Marijuana will no longer be a schedule 1 drug. If Gary Johnson should win, I predict we will still have to wait 2-4 years, plus he will do nothing about all the other drugs that we have a “war” on.
Trump hasn’t released his tax returns yet. Do you think that Gary Johnson will? I’m just curious because I have read quite a bit about how Hillary’s charitable contributions are to the Clinton Foundation. I would be curious to see if GJ donates to any charities. You know, the old people who live in glass houses…saying.
I would add that the Town Halls were a bunch of softball questions that should have been knocked out of the park. Instead, Johnson floundered during both. He looked weak, wishy-washy, defensive, apathetic, and out of it.
“I am not confident that Gary Johnson can handle himself in a debate against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.”
He would be crushed. Johnson’s biggest problem is that he can’t control a conversation and spends most of his time being defensive. It’s a losing combination..especially in front of a national audience!
Trump would eat him for lunch without getting a crumb on his bib.
What is the point in voting for a “third” party ticket if that ticket is a part of the ruling establishment club, the Council on Foreign Relations (note that Weld is an active member of the CFR)? This defeats the purpose of having a third party.
Vote for a third party candidate. This is the US presidential election, not a “horse-race”! “Vote your conscience”, not for a major party candidate you think will win. If you do not vote for a third-party candidate, you are a part of the political disaster that some think is a democracy. This includes local and state elections. Break the strangle-hold that the GOP and Dems have on our government!
People need to vote for third-party candidates!
No candidate is absolutely “perfect” in all regards. However, the CLEAR problem is the fact that people insist on treating the US presidential elections as a ‘horse-race’, where one only chooses the candidate they think has the best chance of winning. Where is it written in the constitution that this country needs to be run by Dems or the GOP??? The two-party system run by big-money lenders and advertised by the biased mainstream media has turned this country into a fascist state! “Vote your conscience” and choose a third party. DO NOT VOTE FOR EITHER A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN! If you do, you should seriously contemplate the fact that YOU are part of the problem in this country.
Robert, the Gary Johnson campaign should hire you to be a speech writer and/or debate coach.
And I have to wonder why you think anyone else lives in your special magical private universe of “cadre” and “NAPsters.”
If Johnson does get into the debates, he’d be wise to avoid talking about the construction company he founded unless he also wants to talk about the two UNM regents he tried to fire for not awarding sweetheart government contracts to his company while he was governor. If I know about that, the Trump/Clinton debate preppers will know about it too.
As previously discussed, GJ is not the slickest presenter. I do think he can be coached to a place where his lack of slickness could be turned to an advantage.
Should he get in the debates, he can even make rhetorical points along the lines of:
“I’ve been told I’m not the best debater, and you know what, I agree. I’m not a career politician, and I’m not a lawyer. Washington is FILLED with career politicians, and I’d say to you: How’s that working out for you?”
“After college, I started out as a one-man handyman for hire that I built into a 1000-person construction company. And, yes, against all the odds, I ran for guv, won, and was re-elected. Through it all, though, I maintained that same humble attitude as a handyman. ,,,,I fix things. ,,,,That’s what I do. ,,,,I’m the opposite of ‘all talk, no action’.”
“My opponents are world-class communicators. Secretary Clinton is a Yale-educated lawyer, and her ability to discuss world affairs and complex public policy is beyond awesome. Mr. Trump is a Wharton MBA, one of the best business schools in the country. And he’s a reality TV star, famous for firing people….I stand before you as a proud graduate of the University of New Mexico, a handyman entrepreneur, and a 2-term guv….What’s clear is: I am not the best talker on this stage. If you want a talker-in-chief, hire one of them. If you want someone who will roll up his sleeves to fix the mess in Washington, hire me.”
****
The “L” word is getting massive play from the J/W campaign. In many of his TV appearances, GJ explains the NAP, he’s even used the NAP term.
GJ has also said repeatedly he’s in it to win it. R and D candidates very often don’t show their affiliation in their ads, as the imagemakers apparently don’t believe that doing so helps.
More prospective cadre are being reached in this cycle than ever before. BUT…GJ is also reaching non-NAPsters, too.
I have to wonder whether the NAPster commentariat are mostly mortified this ticket so broadens the appeal of voting L to so many hopeless cases and outright “evildoers.”
“The recent decision by the DEA does not make him a Drug Kingpin.”
As mentioned, that statement was made in half jest. However, the fact is quite a few folk formed marijuana product companies on the expectation that the US govt would reclassify marijuana. Now that the DEA is aptly demonstrated that it is exactly what the radical libertarian “purists” say it is, it is just of matter of the discretion of the ruling regime whether these companies will be targeted for drug trafficking. Drug kingpin or no drug kingpin, the US govt has put people in prison for life for just operating a website. Purely on the grounds of making an example of them. I put it 50-50 that Clinton will federally crack down of marijuana but I put it at 99% that Trump and the Repubs would crack down on it. If Trump was elected and if I ran a high profile marijuana products company in the open, I would not be sticking around for inauguration day.
Here is where I get to put in a good word for my chosen candidate, John McAfee. John is an excellent debater who can quickly adjust to any situation. During all the Libertarian debates he was not being as assertive as I have seen him be. I mean why try and destroy your opponents arguments when they are in the same party. He would have handled Trump and Hillary, who tend to both suck all the oxygen out of the room, quite nicely and with his trademark smile. John never ran away from being called a Libertarian and he still wears it proudly.
Austin Petersen is still a little young, not in age but in temperament, to debate heavy hitters like Trump and Hillary. Though AP has done quite a bit to grow the party and he has never run from the Libertarian label. Darryl Perry would be able to hold his own with the two of them. His passion is scary to some people though. Dr. Marc, who I personally miss a lot, would have been entertaining and could have danced around them. His “no fear” includes the use of colorful language which America is just not really ready for. He embraced the label of Libertarian and made it part of his brand.
Gary Johnson stumbled over his own words in the Stossel debate over baking of a cake. You have all seen Hillary and Trump in action. Trump would call him an addict. Hillary would just dismiss him as not worth her time. Both of these actions would really trip him up. He would find himself having to defend his personal use of Marijuana and he would bring up the bills he vetoed. Hillary’s team probably has already done their homework and researched each and every one of those vetoed bills. She will use his own record against him.
The VP debates will not be as brutal since both VP candidates are relatively polite people. It would make Weld relax and go back to his Republican Governor mode.
It isn’t difficult to see how this would play out. A good campaign manager never lets his candidate be in a situation that will make him look bad or un-Presidential. A good candidate doesn’t run away from the party who put him there. This year is unlike anything I have seen in my lifetime so who knows what the next few months will bring. I am popping popcorn, you are all invited.
I agree with Shivany’s point about the debates. I am not confident that Gary Johnson can handle himself in a debate against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Johnson was the weakest debater out of the five main candidates for the LP presidential nomination (the others being Austin Peterson, John McAfee, Darryl Perry. And Marc Feldman).
I really do not want to see Bill Weld in the VP debate either as I am sure that he will continue to misrepresent the Libertarian Party to the public as he has done in multiple media appearances since the convention.
I looked up Gary Johnson’s pardon record. During his 8 years as Governor of New Mexico, he only pardoned around 128 people, and this was AFTER they had already served their sentences is jail/prison. So Gary Johnson did not release even one person from jail/prison who was in for a victimless “crime” the entire time he was Governor.
Note that Gary Johnson said that he was a libertarian before he became Governor, and that he had been a dues paying Libertarian Party member for at least one year before he ran for Governor of New Mexico as a Republican.
OK, I will toss in my two cents worth.
* At least he does a hat tip to us by using the color yellow.
* The opening of this video looked like something Judd Weiss would do, and did do for the John McAfee Campaign.
* Splicing together other people’s video clips is child’s play. The meteor video they did was not very well done at all.
* Johnson spends the bulk of his contributed money on Political Consultants (firms and individuals), I would expect more from them if I were running the campaign. One of the reasons he is getting the Millennial vote as he claims is because he supports the legalization of Marijuana. I have not heard him expand past that to any other drugs.
* The recent decision by the DEA does not make him a Drug Kingpin. In order to be designated that, you would have to profit from your enterprise. His company started losing money before he left to run for President. Also, he openly said that he doesn’t get the whole vaping controversy because he does not smoke marijuana, he uses edibles. Looking back at my youth, we created edibles originally so that we could enjoy the effects of marijuana undetected.
* He has gotten quite a bit of media coverage before and after he was nominated by the party. The before coverage was a preview of how he would conduct himself afterwards. The only reason why anyone knew he was a Libertarian was because he was introduced as one. The only reason why he got so much media coverage beforehand was because he was on the ballot for the Libertarians last time.
* I believe that by using the word Independent, they meant non-corporate owned, non-mainstream, non-fill-in-your-own-label. It is unfortunate that the video does not mention our party at all.
= I didn’t vote for either of these candidates as a delegate. I know people who did. As Libertarians, we all had the ability to vote our conscious as delegates, unlike the big 2 parties.
I believe very strongly in freedom of speech. I also am a parent so I am conditioned to point out behaviors and consequences rather than saying a person is bad or wrong. That being said, I also believe that we have the freedom to not speak as well. I have refrained from participating in publicly bashing any of our own candidates because I believe in Party unity. We are supposed to be the party of freedom. It is the responsibility of our party Leadership to carry out the wishes of the party. I suggest that any grievances be brought to their attention.
During the run-up to our convention there was much pearl clutching and hand wringing over the possibility of the Republicans hijacking our convention to run one of their own. As you can see, that was not necessary. One of their own was already among us. Actions speak louder than words. How many people in New Mexico or Massachusetts had their sentences commuted or even pardoned for non-violent crimes? Johnson loves to cite the bills he vetoed. Has anyone looked at those bills to see if he was just blankly vetoing everything and perhaps some of those bills should have become law? Inaction and not taking a principled stand for something is much easier than taking action and standing up for what you believe in.
Finally, Gary Johnson is very determined to be in the debates. He has placed the success or failure of his campaign on 3 events. Usually we call this, already making excuses for why you lost. I thi9nk that it is a mistake for him to want to be in the debates. Trump and Hillary are both very strong personalities and Trump is a bully. GJ could not handle a debate with John-McAfee and Austin Petersen, both of them conducting themselves like gentlemen. How do we possibly believe that trump will not wipe the floor with Gary and Hillary will wring him out? Having GJ there will allow both of them to have another focal point so they will not have to debate each other. Any way I play it in my head, the real losers are the Libertarian Party.
Johnson reminds me of a guy using a girl for sex, but since she’s not as pretty (or popular) as other girls he’s been with before, he’s ashamed to be seen in public with her. And when he hangs out with his guy friends (especially this one guy named Bill), they always talk down to her and generally treat her like crap. Of course, he lets them get away with it, and why wouldn’t he? It’s not like she ever stands up for herself.
“Perhaps it is an ad designed to be run in Ohio and other states where the Libertarian label will be missing?”
The radio ad they’ve been running on Free Talk Live isn’t in Ohio, it’s nationwide. It mentions two party affiliations — Republican and Democrat. It calls Johnson/Weld “independent,” not “Libertarian.”
Right around the time the national convention started — maybe a little before or maybe it was during the first day or two, Johnson did an interview (IIRC, it was with CNN) in which he said something like this (from memory, so the quote may not be exact):
“First, I have to get the Libertarian Party’s nomination. After that, it will stop being the Libertarian Party campaign and become the Gary Johnson campaign.”
A few people noticed that. A few people even tried to make an issue of it. But he got nominated, and guess what? He wasn’t lying. It’s the Gary Johnson campaign now. Presumably one reason the campaign is stalling on signing an information-sharing agreement with the LNC is that Johnson/Weld don’t feel like they need the LP any more now that they got what they came for (ballot access on, mostly, our dime instead of theirs).
They will appear on the ballot as Libertarian Party candidates in most states (all but three I believe), so yes, the ad is disingenuous.
Matt Cholko @ August 14, 2016 at 15:42 wrote:
“The ad lies . . . will appear on the vast majority of ballots as (Libertarian).”
Perhaps it is an ad designed to be run in Ohio and other states where the Libertarian label will be missing?
“Lies” is a bit strong here.
Joe
What’s with using Facebook as the video host? I went to embed it on or state party site and, upon realizing it was at Facebook, didn’t bother. The WordPress sites may have an easier time of it but I haven’t the time to write the code necessary to embed it into our drupal site. Between this and the lack of available vector graphics, the campaign is making it very difficult to promote them out here in the field.
The ad lies when it says that he’s an independent candidate. It’s one thing to not use name of the party (and this ain’t cool with me either). It’s really unacceptable to lie to voters and claim to be an independent when you are the nominee of a national party, and will appear on the vast majority of ballots as such.
Yeah, I’m paying attention. Sam Waterston/Unity08 left/right centrism has now morphed into standard republican boilerplate. Fiscally conservative..
But socially liberal–>socially tolerant–>socially accepting–>socially inclusive–>gone
And perhaps Gary Johnson should be paying more attention. Given the DEA’s recent decision, Gary’s former company is a drug trafficker. And that makes Gary a drug lord. When he loses this election, he may have to ex-patriate. I’m being half-facetious(though if Trump gets elected, I could be dead serious). But can anything light a fire under this turkey?
It’s there Andy. Fairly minimal, but it’s there.
It says: Johnson/Weld Libertarian at the bottom of each page.
I recently looked at the Johnson/Weld campaign website and I did not see the word Libertarian on it either.
Gee, these guys are really going out of their way to promote the Libertarian Party….NOT!
So another ad without the word “libertarian”? That says he is an “independent” on 50 state ballots?
The Johnson campaign team gets an A + for image making. Most of the ads and vids are top notch.
“Are you paying attention? . . . Are you in?”
I think this is what most of us are wondering about Johnson…