From Richard Winger at Ballot Access News:
On September 22, supporters of Evan McMullin protested his exclusion from the Florida ballotby dropping off 300 muffins at Governor Rick Scott’s office. Unexplained is why the McMullin campaign has not sued Florida over its unconstitutional ballot access laws for president. Florida won’t print the presidential nominee of a qualified party on the ballot unless it is recognized by the Federal Election Commission as a national committee, or unless it submits 119,316 signatures by July 15. UPDATE: also see this story, which says that Governor Scott’s office refused to accept the muffins.
The problem with using FEC recognition to determine ballot status is that there is no correlation whatsoever between whether the FEC recognizes a party as a national committee, and how much voter support it has. The FEC will not recognize a new party until after it has gone through a presidential election, so the Florida law discriminates against new parties. Also, even after a party has participated in its first election, the FEC rules for recognition have no objective standards. The FEC rejected the Green Party for national committee status in 1997, even though the Green Party had polled 685,040 votes for President in 1996. The FEC rejected John Anderson’s National Unity Party request for national committee status in 1981, even though it had polled 5,720,060 votes in 1980. But the FEC recognized the Socialist Party in 1980, even though it only polled 6,898 votes for President that year. The FEC recognizes the Reform Party as a national committee, even though it polled 820 votes in 2012 in the entire nation, and 481 votes in the entire nation in 2008.
The existing Secretary of State in 2011 acknowledged the flaws in Florida’s law, but last month he reversed the 2011 ruling. The Party for Socialism & Libertarian, and America’s Party, so far have not been able to find an attorney who will file a lawsuit. But Evan McMullin’s campaign has two attorneys in Florida, and inexplicably they refuse to sue Florida on behalf of McMullin.
And I say there’s a reason Bill Clinton’s phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” has such political currency. Not, “it’s the economy in Ohio and gun rights in Kentucky and abortion in California.”
If we as a nation ever get to the point where the differences in why people vote the way they do in different states becomes as different as you suggest, then I would suggest to you that electing a Libertarian president will have become quite besides the point, and the point will be to begin hoarding bullets and gold.
AD: ” . . . Generally speaking, what changes the mind of a Montanan will change the mind of a Floridian. The correlation may not be perfect, but it’s perfect enough that there is ZERO point in targeting a particular state. This is true even IF you believe certain states will flip LP before others, as I do. . . . ”
Gotta disagree with you again my friend.
Maybe if you target the Montanan and Floridian when they are both 16 or 17 years old. I was first exposed to libertarianism I 1992 when I was 18. I was already a democrat (and still am) but I saw Andre Marrou speak on C-SPAN and was intrigued.
The way the Montanan and Floridian see the role of government in general differs due to many factors.
The George Wallace analogy is apt. There is a reason why his support was only in southern states. Its not because he couldn’t convince New Yorkers about the great benefits of segregation. It was that New Yorkers (due to many factors) were never going to see those benefits
Nonsense AD. The Wallace example alone is enough to prove you wrong. Of course with only two effective parties it’s hard for YOU to see the trend. But it’s much more clear with third parties.
Wallace’s lowest state came in a bit over 1%, his highest at 68%.
The LP can do something similar, although we have a greater nationwide appeal than Wallace, we also have obvious states and regions where we do far better already without targeting, others with average results and very low areas. Wallace’s best region is our worst.
A well-targeted LP campaign with $200 million to spend mostly on TV advertising, with a better public speaker, former governor as a candidate, could win the White House with 270 + electoral votes while coming in third in the popular vote.
There are states a Libertarian ticket is more likely to win than others. That’s make us no different than the duopoly tickets.
The mistake is in thinking it’s going to be any easier convincing voters…at the margin…in one state more so than in another, to vote Libertarian. Or for any ticket for that matter.
List state by state polling results in a column from most likely to vote republican all the way down to most likely to vote democratic, then put that next to a graph of the “who would you vote for?” poll. As that national poll moves one way or the other, all the state polls will move in the same direction. They may not move by the same amount, and they certainly won’t flip from red to blue or vice versa at the same time, but move together they will.
Generally speaking, what changes the mind of a Montanan will change the mind of a Floridian. The correlation may not be perfect, but it’s perfect enough that there is ZERO point in targeting a particular state. This is true even IF you believe certain states will flip LP before others, as I do.
The LP has target states that we can carry while losing in other states with less than 5%.
That is the way electoral politics really works in the US. We need to target our states and make a beachhead landing. We should start now for 2020 and beyond.
“So, trump has a chance to win California and New York? No, he has ZERO chance.
Having lived in New York for my entire life, I can tell you that New Yorkers are MUCH less likely to vote for a Libertarian than someone in Montana or Idaho. They are VERY different people, but all Americans.” – Tony
*
Yes, Tony. You get it. There is a difference in states and a difference in which ones can be moved to support a given candidate and which cannot.
The George Wallace example of winning 46 EVs with 13% of the vote nationwide is a good example. He came close to carrying several additional states which could have thrown the election into the House. He did this because of targeting his strong states. His state totals ranged from 3% to 65% of the vote.
There are states that are better for each of the four significant paties. These of course can and do change over time with demographics, current issues, regional issues, changes in the stances of the parties etc.
Clinton and Trump are known by virtually everyone, so it takes a lot of money to make a small move. There is no point in running nationally – and they don’t, nor can they afford to do so. The political science shows that the national vote totals are not relevant to the state by state outcome.
In the case of a little known third party or independent. a small amount of money can make a big change in polling and election day vote totals. There are known states that are receptive to LP candidates and independents, where high vote totals or victories are common for poorly funded and lesser-known LP, third party and independent candidates. We know where to target and we can learn and revise our planning over time as we learn more and conditions change. By targeting we can elect lower level office holders over time to build the LP in the more favorbale states. With a good team like Johnson / Weld and hated Ds and Rs, it was possible to carry some of those states this year. The opportunity was missed.
haha. I agree.
There is nothing trump can do to move more than maybe 1 or 2 points in California or new York. He’s a clown who relies on the “poorly educated” (as he has stated). He is a master manipulator and a national embarrassment.
Trump has no chance to win either state.
However, the swing in state-by-state polls is uniform. That is, as Trump’s national poll number goes up, his polling numbers in all the various states goes up as well. He may not WIN California, but if he makes an effective, general, nationalized case that he is the best man for the job, his numbers WILL go up in California, South Carolina, Texas, and Maine at the same time.
You make a case that you are the best candidate for chief executive of the United States. The days of the “united States,” that is,50 distinct cultures ended a long time ago.
So, trump has a chance to win California and New York? No, he has ZERO chance.
Having lived in New York for my entire life, I can tell you that New Yorkers are MUCH less likely to vote for a Libertarian than someone in Montana or Idaho. They are VERY different people, but all Americans.
It’s a national election. People in different states just aren’t as different as you think they are. Convince an Oregonian to vote LP, and you’ve quite likely convinced the Iowan, the Ohioan, and the New Yorker.
Targeting states is pointless.
First off, Anthony, it is NOT a national election. The national popular vote is completely useless.
Second, Rational, I get your argument, I just don’t agree with your conclusion. Whether or not Johnson won Utah, Hillary will win this election by a substantial electoral margin (despite what the polls say today).
Egg McMuffin was and is a #NeverTrump guy. HIs handlers and volunteers are all #NeverTrump people. Almost no one (including most Libertarians) expects Johnson to win a state. If anything, he would have given Utah to Hillary – which would have been HILL-arious. We all know that Utah is a liberal bastion!
Please do not click the link from “Kareem Caliente.” It takes you to a pornographic site.
Oh, I get your argument, it’s just wrong.
Presidential elections have been nationalized. The ticket didn’t have enough money to do what you wanted anyway. The effect of advertising are short-lived. The advertising would have had to be continuous.
I’m not suggesting that an LP ticket wouldn’t catch on in certain states more so than others, thus creating a media story to follow about the LP ticket possibly winning electoral votes and affecting the outcome.
I’m suggesting that it does not follow that targeting certain states is going to cause that to happen. What is going to cause that to happen is the ticket catching on nationally. Certain states will then be the first ones to become three-way swing states. But pinpointing those states for taegeted advertising wouldn’t have been effective.
The presidency is a national election, electoral votes notwithstanding.
Tony,
Although AD doesn’t get it, many professionals do.
If a third party of independent candidate starts to do well in a state, any state, threatening to win that state and carry its Electoral Votes, that becomes news – very big news in an election where the race is in any way close, the victor in doubt, and taking away three or more EVs could prevent anyone from making 270.
If a candidate threatens to carry more than one state, then the likelyhood of denying 270 EVs to anyone rises. The national news coverage would be intense. Gary Johnson, despite being included and often ridiculed on talking head shows, has been blacked out on the national evening news on the major networks – he didn’t earn or merit coverage according to the normal news standards for POTUS candidates.
Johnson could have earned this coverage early by advertising in targeted states at a level significant enough to move the vote beginning just after, or better, before the nomination. Saturation works – and it works for the LP. With saturation ads we can raise our performance state by state. We had enough money this year to target a small group of states from June through November 8. The campaign squandered this opportunity.
Enter McMullin. He’s on the ballot in several western states where Johnson could have done well with early targeting – (and without his various gaffs which are eating into his popularity). Utah turned out to be a particularly good opportunity for Johnson, and the campaign has advertised there, (although much too late and a lot of money was wasted on radio). McMullin’s 12% could have been added to Johnson’s 13%. Being at 25% would have put the state into play and would have ended the wasted vote excuse. It’s not a wasted vote if your preferred candidate is on his way to victory.
If Johnson started to show in any state, the nationwide major news coverage, additional support and donations, increased attention and credibility would have put him in the race. So, the duopoly needed a McMuffin to stop Johnson. They inserted McMullin into key, easy states as insurance policy. They don’t need Florida, so they have no need to take any legal action there. At this point, the Johnson campaign has derailed itself by not targeting key states on TV with saturation advertising, so the McMullin insurance policy is no longer a priority and it will not need nor receive any significant infusion of additional resources.
Rational: “This is why McMullin was brought in and this is why his campaign doesn’t care about Florida. His purpose for running is to stop Gary Johnson.”
I’m not following you . . . stop Johnson from what? Coming in second in Utah? Winning a state but still having Clinton Elected? I highly doubt that was his purpose in running.
We’d need a billion dollars of advertising money, to “convince” Americans to vote Libertarian, and I don’t care what strategy you’d choose to employ. And even then its likely that it won’t work.
All we can do is nominate the most qualified candidate and cross our fingers, essentially,
FIne, we disagree.
Targeting certain states as far out as your suggesting wouldn’t have a made a difference.
I’ve seen that before. He’s clueless. He’s reversed the cause and the effect.
Nope, you’re wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-swing-states/2012/06/08/gJQAnXxCOV_story.html?utm_term=.6202451a0387
“1. Swing-state polls are the key to predicting the winner.
In fact, the opposite is true, especially this far from November. Generally, elections are determined by a “uniform swing.” That is, if the Republican candidate does a little better overall, then he’s going to do a little better in close states such as Ohio and Nevada, too. So even though the candidates will spend most of their time and money in the states they expect to matter most, it won’t make much difference.”
AD you are completely wrong about elections and the popular vote, and there is no “political science evidence” to support your misunderstanding . The fact is, the national parties focus on targeted states because it is the key to winning the election.
In our usual two-party dominated contests, the popular vote follows that targeting effort generally for a variety of reasons – it wouldn’t have to – so the popular vote is nearly meaningless. It comes out the way it does because the voting drops off in non-competitve states for both parties in close elections which means the target states dominate; and because in blowout elections the winner will naturally win both.
In a competitive 3-way race it is highly probable that a winning 3rd party candidate in the Electoral College will not be the winner of the popular vote. We should take advantage of that likelyhood and use it to win.
The political science evidence is pretty clear: while the Demopublicans like to focus on swing states, they really don’t have to. As national polls move, the polls in individual states move in the same direction, by and large.
Point being, its a national election, despite having an electoral college. Win the national popular vote, and you are almost always gonna win the electoral college. We can’t use Bush vs. Gore as a way to win. That’s actually going the harder way.
Obviously, I don’t agree.
I definitely agree that voters aren’t ideologues. But they are not the blank slates you are implying. Its mostly the inertia a VERY large object.
The targeting you are talking about is unnecessary, and a fools’ errand. Wallace is the exception to the general rule. And he’s a bad exception at that, since he represented the death rattle of segregation.
The rule is, if we are a threat to win Electoral Votes in ANY states, we’ve become a threat to win Electoral Votes in all states. Voters aren’t as different that you suggest. The Governor Johnson that is a threat to win in several Western states, for example, will be a threat to win the White House.
Most voters are not yellow dog voters. Most actually make up their mind based on a myriad of factors. They pay attention at some point in the cycle and choose. They are not ideologues, so most will never vote Libertarian based on principles – why should they, they don’t vote for Democrats or Republicans based on principles either.
So, we have to reach them early, before they lock in. We have to let them know that we exist before it’s too late in every cycle. We have to win their votes by appealing to the interests they hold that correspond to the positions that we hold.
The GJ/WW campaign had the funds available to advertise early, but failed to act.
*
When we do run a POTUS candidate, we have to recognize and make use of the great advantage the EC gives to third parties. The George Wallace example: Wallace 68′ won 46 Electoral Votes with 13% of the popluar vote by targeting. Ross Perot 92′ won zero Electoral Votes with 19% of the popular vote without targeting.
But, you have to target early – the POTUS race should begin targeting key states with saturation TV ads before the nominating convention if possible since we don’t have noisy, public primaries.
The National LP should begin targeting much earlier – NOW in fact for the 2020 elections. (If anyone on Natcom wants to know what that means and how to do it, I’ll be happy to explain to them.)
Once we are a threat to win Electoral Votes in targeted states, we will earn the free media we need to reach the country nationwide, to go past 15%, 20% or more in the polls, make the debates, grenerate a massive increase in fundraising alllowing us to advertise in the rest of the states needed to win 270 electoral votes, and, if we have an attractive candidate who is a good speaker, sincere and convincing, we will be in the race and have a fair shot at winning.
should read:
You just AREN’T convincing that many people of anything in 20 weeks or so. Or 20 months. Or 20 years.
Be Rational,
No, I don’t work for the campaign.
But let me explain my position: I don’t think there is much of anything that the campaign…or any of us, to be honest, could have done to get Johnson-Weld into the debates, or get the polling high enough to be a threat to win or win electoral votes, more generally speaking. Really, the only thing the Nielson and a professional staff can do is just make sure the ticket is getting into the MSM, getting the coverage, arranging the speaking engagements, etc.
There were 125 million votes in the 2012 presidential election. Lets just spitball here and say a campaign with a 3rd party that catches fire ups that vote total to 135 million. To win a three-way race in that situation would require 46,000,000 “votes.” (34%). To get in the debates would require 20,000,000 “votes.” Roughly speaking.
For the sake of this argument, let’s agree that polling DOES accurately reflect the underlying positions of those 135 million voters. Thus, getting to the necessary polling actually would require changing the minds of 20 million people at a bare minimum, or really 46 million people. The reason I say really 46 million people is because once you’ve convinced 20 million, you’ve likely convinced 46 million. And really, the actual figure here is probably higher than the 46 million, because what we are really talking about is convincing a significant majority portion of those 135 million votes to CONSIDER voting LP, since not all of them will.
So my point is this: there is just no damn way to “convince” that many people to change their minds in that short of a time. That mass of grey matter is too big, too slow. Ultimately, all we can do is nominate a qualified ticket, then hope that mass of voters gets upset enough to consider us. Other than that, we could have just closed up shop post-nomination and sat back and crossed our fingers. You just are convincing that many people of anything in 20 weeks or so. Or 20 months. Or 20 years.
We’re stuck waiting for the unwashed masses to get upset enough. That’s my opinion.
Their faces where red.
The Governor’s office was sure a riot was at hand.
22 people – all of them looking very grumpy.
The protesters grabbed something behind them.
Security was warned.
Suddenly the truth was revealed.
BOOM!
Muffins Appeared.
Breakfast was served.
You have to win supporters before they lock in to other candidates; most voters lock in before September.
Saturation ads run early are essential. For the LP, this means no later than late May or early June following the convention, but running before the convention is more effective and can have better results due to both time leverage and Electoral College leverage.
(The EC gives 3rd parties a great advantage, if they choose to use it. No one has used this since Wallace ’68.)
When you start with low or zero name recognition, when you can win the LP nomination without any public campaign or public awareness or public name recognition beyond, you cannot win without running early saturation advertising.
At this point in time – late September – the debate polls are over and the voting has begun. By September it’s too late to begin advertising if you want to run an effective campaign or achieve the best possible results.
Don’t you work for the campaign, AD? – it’s no surprise that you’re trying to whitewash this total failure by Nielson to understand POTUS campaign advertising.
Saturation ads that early would not have worked.
Latest Salt Lake Tribune-Hinckley Institute poll for Utah:
Trump ……. 34%
Clinton ……. 25%
Johnson ….. 13%
McMuffin … 12%
Stein ……….. 1%
This is why McMullin was brought in and this is why his campaign doesn’t care about Florida. His purpose for running is to stop Gary Johnson.
Of course, the GJ/WW campaign’s failure to run early saturation advertising in a small group of target states on major network broadcast TV has done more to stop Johnson than the difficluties posed by any other candidate or any other obstacle.
Chuck,
PA has not changed its stance, in fact, in most counties, the write ins are simply discarded….
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Egg McMuffin actually has supporters? Are they just paid CIA goons?
Richard Winger claims that “the Party for Socialism & Liberation, and America’s Party, so far have not been able to find an attorney who will file a lawsuit,” but that’s not entirely true.
In keeping with his running mate’s sincere and deeply-held commitment to create a more open political process in this country, Tampa attorney Michael Steinberg, Rocky De La Fuente’s vice-presidential running mate, generously offered more than a week ago to represent at least four of the minor parties — the America’s Party of Florida, the PSL, the Socialist Party USA and the nascent American Solidarity Party — currently being excluded from the Florida ballot, but apparently none of those parties took him up on his offer.
I know that for a fact because I’m the one who asked him.
Excellent! My running mate is from Cypress.
Mike,
Texas. You are 1 of a dozen approved candidates in my state.
In the states where a slate of electors is necessary, we have filed such. In those states where the votes are not individually tabulated (like New York), there is no need to file them. In the off chance that we would win one of those states, we would provide electors after the November contest.
The votes WILL be reported individually in those states IF the total number of write-ins would make a difference in the outcome of the election. Plus, I suppose, a candidate could file suit to have his/her votes counted.
Mike Maturen wrote:
In Pennsylvania for years we’ve been fighting for the commonwealth to tabulate statewide write-in votes. Unless something has changed very recently (the last 6 years), they don’t do that.
Wouldn’t you have to file a slate of electors? Or do you expect voters to write-in all the electors?
Yes. We have currently achieved ballot access in Colorado and still holding out hope for a miracle in Florida. We have achieved write-in status in Texas, Ohio, Michigan and Georgia, with paperwork currently filed for 5 more. We will be continuing to file the paperwork in states where it is required to do so. Write-in status is automatic in Alabama, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.
There are also 9 states that do not allow write-in votes at all.
What state do you live in?
Mike,
Yeah, I found your FEC # in their system. See you’ve achieved write-in status in some staes (including my own).
It’s called opposition party suppression and until the so-called, Third Parties, start working together to demand reasonable ballot access, it will continue.
The American Solidarity Party was also shut out from the Florida ballot. I AM, however, registered with the FEC. They, at first, rejected our by-laws. After revision, they have been dragging their feet on review, effectively shutting us out of ballot access.
Did me mean all 22 of his supporters, or on September 22nd . . . 🙂
McMulliln’s insiders don’t care about Florida because McMullin was not inserted into the 2016 election to win, nor to make a point on any policy, issue or philosophy, nor to hurt or take votes from Trump, and not even as a more appealing outlet for never-Trump Republican voters.
McMullin, whether he knows it or not, was inserted as a firewall against Gary Johnson catching on in a small number of states that might have swung to the LP in a tight race with three strong candidates in those key states.
” McMullin Supporters”
So Kristol and Bolton, then?
There aren’t any others.