Sarwark in New York; CPD “Afraid”

Test

Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark is in New York planning to attend “in some capacity” tonight’s two Old-Party, so-called, “Presidential Debate.”

In a letter received by IPR earlier today, he reports:
_____________________________________

Dear Libertarian,

Today, I am in New York, preparing to attend, in some capacity, the so-called Presidential Debate.

A vast majority of Americans (54-76%, depending on the polling firm) want Gov. Gary Johnson in the debates. Americans believe that debates are a critical opportunity to learn about their options, and they expect that these debates should be fair. Sadly, in reality, the Commission on Presidential Debates is anything but fair, and biased as ever towards the Rs and Ds.

The two old-party candidates are the most hated Presidential candidates in American history. In the days leading up to the debates, the attacks between them have become nastier and more juvenile than ever. No wonder their cronies at the Commission on Presidential Debates are so afraid to have Gov. Gary Johnson show the American people that they all have a third option on their ballot this November.

Gov. Gary Johnson has received signatures from over 1,000,000 supporters asking the Commission on Presidential Debates to let him debate. His support is national and it is growing.

Let’s hold firm. Let’s stand proudly today and remind everyone we know that this debate system is completely biased, unfair, and undemocratic. Let’s redouble our efforts to promote our candidates, today and everyday through Election Day. Let’s continue to awaken the American people to the reality of this situation and show them, that if they value liberty and justice in the slightest, then the only viable political home for them is in the Libertarian Party.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Sarwark
Libertarian Party Chairman

__________________________________________________________

The following PRESS RELEASE was received by IPR earlier today:

For immediate release
September 26, 2016

Contact: Carla Howell: Media [at] LP [dot] org or (202) 333-0008 x 222

Today, Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee, is in New York, preparing to attend, in some capacity, the so-called Presidential Debate.

A vast majority of Americans (54-76%, depending on the polling firm) want Gov. Gary Johnson in the debates. Americans believe that debates are a critical opportunity to learn about their options, and they expect that these debates should be fair. Sadly, in reality, the Commission on Presidential Debates is anything but fair, and biased as ever towards the Rs and Ds.

Sarwark says, “The two old-party candidates are the most hated Presidential candidates in American history. In the days leading up to the debates, the attacks between them have become nastier and more juvenile than ever. No wonder their cronies at the Commission on Presidential Debates are so afraid to have Gov. Gary Johnson show the American people that they all have a third option on their ballot this November.”

Gov. Gary Johnson has received signatures from over 1,000,000 supporters asking the Commission on Presidential Debates to let him debate. His support is national and it is growing.

###

The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 and is today the third largest political party in the United States. Libertarian Presidential nominee, Gov. Gary Johnson, will be on ballots in all 50 states and DC this November.

19 thoughts on “Sarwark in New York; CPD “Afraid”

  1. Darcy G Richardson

    “His support is national and it is growing.” — Nicholas Sarwark

    Really? The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, released yesterday, shows Johnson slipping to 5 percent nationally. Even Quinnipiac, which pegged Johnson’s support as high as 13 percent only a couple of weeks ago, is now showing that his support has dropped to 8 percent.

    It won’t be long before the gaffe-prone LP nominee is back in 2012 territory.

    If one listens really closely, somewhere in the distant yonder one can hear the faint voice of a fat lady beginning to sing…

  2. Be Rational

    Gaffe-prone or goof-prone, Gary Johnson may have to give up running and climbing – he has so few toes left from shooting himself in the foot.

    The campaign would have been much better off by spending all of its money on TV ads on major network broadcast TV in targeted states, where the ads can be written and edited, and broadcast during the early, morning, noon, evening and late news; keeping Johnson busy making ads, making totally scripted speeches at public events and fundraising dinners, and off the TV talking head shows. They could have saved much of their travel budget and media operation budget for goof-proof TV spots.

  3. robert capozzi

    Who knew? Yes, BR should have been the campaign manager. Who would the check have been made out to?

  4. George Dance

    Darcy Richardson: “The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, released yesterday, shows Johnson slipping to 5 percent nationally. Even Quinnipiac, which pegged Johnson’s support as high as 13 percent only a couple of weeks ago, is now showing that his support has dropped to 8 percent.
    It won’t be long before the gaffe-prone LP nominee is back in 2012 territory.”

    Today Reason looked at 16 polls, and found that (compared with their previous iterations) the campaign’s support has slipped all the way from 8.7% to 7.9%. What a failure! What a trainwreck!

    Of course, the anti-Libertarians were calling the campaign a “failure” and a “trainwreck” when Quinnipiac had him at 13%, too. Ideologues see what ideologues want to see; and that applies to the anti-Libertarian variety as much as to the Libertarian.

  5. Darcy G. Richardson

    Well, it’s nice to see Gary Johnson finally looking — and sounding — presidential.

  6. Be Rational

    Exactly RC. I knew in advance and posted concurrently with the campaign over the months and far enough in advance to make the correct campaign investments. I recommended changing campaign managers in advance of and as a condition of a Johnson / Weld nomination. I posted the better alternative plan in advance so that no one could claim these were “Monday-morning-quarterbacking” type comments.

  7. Kyle David Smith

    I am so tired of hearing that Johnson and Stein are not polling the 15 percent required to be included in the debates. The 15 percent threshold is an arbitrary bullshit standard put forth by the CPD to ensure that no one besides candidates with big money can qualify to debate. It’s real easy to poll 15 percent when you are considered by generations of Americans as the only serious political parties in this country. Add to that, that third party candidates like Greens and Libertarians don’t have the hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase and exclude others from major television airtime. Then you have pretty much a lock solid guarantee that no one other than Democrats and Republicans will take their predetermined place at the debates.

    Now why is the threshold at 15 percent national polling? Well that is quite simple. Because without national exposure at then Presidential debates it is quite frankly IMPOSSIBLE to garner anywhere near the 15 percent national polling numbers needed to be included.

    As far as I, and a HUGE amount of the American people are concerned America should have a four party presidential debate. The new (and quite frankly reasonable rule for inclusion) should be that. If a candidate has enough ballot access to secure the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency of the United States then they should be allowed to debate on a nation stage. With such national exposure not only could a third party candidate drastically improve their national poll numbers (Just as Jesse Ventura did in the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election, where he ultimately WON). The debates would no longer be simply two bought and paid for candidates simply trading personal barbs, giving media approved sound bytes. The inclusion of more than two candidates would force the two royal god-like candidates to have to answer about big issues that their campaign managers have instructed them to ignore and actually have to address them in front of the American people.

    Please by all means answer me if you feel my opinion is wrong in any reason. I would love to hear it.

  8. Be Rational

    RC, I think you’re too interested in money.

    One of the problems with LP candidates, campaign managers, staff etc is that too many people try to milk the LP for cash.

    I just want the party and campaigns to do the right thing so I can donate without wasting my money – many other potentially large donors feel the same way. I’ll advise and volunteer and make fundraising calls – free – I’ll even pay for the calls.

    But, there’s no point when the cash will be wasted.

  9. robert capozzi

    BR, once again, you leap to conclusions rather than asking questions. I don’t have nearly enough information — and there’s no evidence that you do, either — to make a definitive statement about how the campaign should have been run.

    I do think that GJ had to potential to really mix things up in an already mixed up cycle. Based on my fairly careful watching of his media appearances, I do think that it’s very possible that they under-spent in candidate handling. His sentence structure is often mangled and his off-message pronouncements have been numerous and sometimes embarrassing to me. I don’t think hiding him would have worked, creating a Potemkin candidate of sorts.

    You seem to have some very strong and very stubborn views about how this campaign should have been waged. What you have NOT shared is why you are so SUPREMELY sure of your perspective.

    All marketing involves some waste, so if that’s what you seek, good luck! Odds are very low you will find it. IF, in fact, you’ve got it all figured out, you should consider freely sharing it, as you seem to not be concerned with financial gain! 🙂

  10. Be Rational

    There is plenty of information and you do have enough facts, RC. That you are not experienced in the field and don’t grok the process doesn’t preclude the fact that others do.

  11. Be Rational

    “I do think that it’s very possible that they under-spent in candidate handling. His sentence structure is often mangled and his off-message pronouncements have been numerous and sometimes embarrassing to me.” RC

    *
    The thing that was underspent on GJ’s performance was time and education. Something that money wouldn’t and couldn’t fix.

    GJ had four years to get ready for this campaign. He could have spent the time preparing: watching the news for starters (Aleppo), staying current on issues, reading policy studies and books, reading libertarian policy books, consulting with leading Libertarians – such as David Boaz. He didn’t. As of the nomination it was a bit late to train up for a campaign. You can’t buy an education. You have to study and learn.

    *
    By advertising first, perhaps Gary could have learned to parrot his own ads – which would have helped a lot, if he had good copywriters.

  12. Anthony Dlugos

    Here we go again with the “targeted t.v advertising 6 months out when nobody is paying attention” idea.

    Where do I get this magic advertising from? I got some Florida swampland I need to unload.

  13. George Dance

    Darcy G. Richardson: “Well, it’s nice to see Gary Johnson finally looking — and sounding — presidential.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_azcqlYC2s

    Too bad Darcy lost his party’s nomination, winning only 4 of the 11 delegates’ votes.

    Maybe then we could see youtube videos of him making his pitch to libertarians:
    “LIbertarians should vote for me because Gary Johnson STUCK HIS TONGUE OUT!”

    He’d have had a podium at Hofstra, for sure.

  14. Be Rational

    Here we go again with the “targeted t.v advertising 6 months out when nobody is paying attention” idea. AD

    *
    This is how we know you have no experience and haven’t followed the electoral process closely.

    6 months out, voters are already locking-in to their candidate. The primary process does more than choose party nominees. The LP needs to advertise during the primaries of the other parties, even if we don’t have a contested nomination process before the convention.

    By the end of August, the overwhelming majority have all locked-in. Early voting begins in September. In 2012, one out of three voters cast early ballots.

    You need to get your support up in the early summer, then carry it through August into the debates. You have to go out and round up votes, beginning before the early voting starts: visiting retirement homes and communities, reaching out to shut-ins… helping them contact their voting precinct to register for absentee or early voting, helping them obtain their ballots, helping them vote, helping them mail in or deliver their ballots …

    Throughout October campaigns spend massive amounts of money to maintain their ongoing support and to win the close states by swinging tiny percentages of undecideds that will put them over or keep them on top …

  15. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Kyle David Smith

    The debates would no longer be simply two bought and paid for candidates simply trading personal barbs, giving media approved sound bytes. The inclusion of more than two candidates would force the two royal god-like candidates to have to answer about big issues that their campaign managers have instructed them to ignore and actually have to address them in front of the American people.

    You’re right on these points (and the rest of what you said), and that’s exactly why the debates are set up the way they are. The CPD is basically controlled by the Democrats and Republicans, who agree with everything you say–which is why they set the rules the way they do, because they know that helps keep them in power.

    @ Be Rational

    Exactly RC. I knew in advance and posted concurrently with the campaign over the months and far enough in advance to make the correct campaign investments. I recommended changing campaign managers in advance of and as a condition of a Johnson / Weld nomination.

    But did you ever make these posts in a place where the campaign could see them, or did you just put them all in the comments section of this blog where they wouldn’t?

    That aside, I do agree with BR that the advertising being so late is nothing short of embarrassing. The ads started in August… August! He had the nomination locked up two months before that! And while the money might not have been enough to do serious television advertising at that point, the money could’ve gone to other advertising venues. I think BR is over-obsessed with “targeted TV advertising” and do think that other venues, such as the Internet, are good places to buy ads, but the problem is that point is almost irrelevant because there weren’t, as far as I could tell, any real ads being bought anywhere until August, which seems downright shocking to me. I do wonder if, if the majority of money donated to his campaign had gone to PACs instead (who would have likely put all the money straight into advertising), would he have done better?

Leave a Reply

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