GP.org:
‘
One week before what’s shaping up to be an historic presidential election, Tavis Smiley on PBS will host a presidential forum featuring the third party candidates, Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.
This forum will be taped live Monday, October 31, 2016, in the show’s Los Angeles studio and air on Tavis Smiley over two nights next week on Monday evening and Tuesday, November 1 on PBS. An additional thirty (30) minute conversation, with questions selected entirely from social media will be available exclusively online at the Tavis Smiley PBS website.
Viewers may submit questions to the candidates via Twitter, Instagram and Facebook using the hashtags: #TavisSmileyForum, #AskJill or #AskGary.
Stein and Johnson were shut out of the official presidential debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, for falling short of the 15% polling threshold set by the Commission as a requirement for participation. The Stein/Baraka campaign considers the 15% polling barrier to be illegitimate, and has called vociferously for the debates to be open to candidates who are on ballots in enough states to achieve 270 electoral college votes.
“The arbitrary criteria set by the secretive CPD,” noted Stein in a recent op-ed for The Hill, “are not designed to exclude ‘non-viable candidates’, but rather to prevent any candidate outside the Democratic-Republican duopoly from becoming viable in the eyes of the public.”
A USA Today poll found that 76% of voters in the United States wanted a four-candidate debate that includes Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.
This breakthrough third-party forum on Tavis Smiley on PBS will be the first time Stein and Johnson will be featured together on broadcast television. It represents an unprecedented opportunity for the American people to hear about more voices and more choices in the presidential election, in which the extremely unbalanced nature of news coverage has resulted in an effective media blackout on third-party candidates.
“The two corporate parties have gotten literally 20,000 times more coverage than the Green Party and Libertarian Party. And even with that blackout, 57% of the American people want a new political party,” commented David Cobb, campaign manager for the Stein/Baraka campaign. “And it is easy to understand, because alternative political parties have played a critical role in US history – by advocating for the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, the creation of Social Security and Unemployment Insurance and Workers Compensation, the end of child labor and the 40 hour work week, the direct election of US Senators. The entire fabric of what we consider a just and compassionate society was woven thread by thread by alternative parties. So if Americans really want systemic change (and polls say they do), then they have to vote for the candidates who are advocating real change – and that is Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka.”
###
The job of a fundraiser is to raise funds. If she’s good and her commissions are reasonable, why should someone less competent and/or more expensive be hired just because they send $25 a year to the LNC and she doesn’t?
So another non-libertarian mercenary is working for the Johnson campaign. Why am I not surprised?
When are real Libertarians going to rise up and take our party back?
The registered agent of Avondale Finance LLC is former Romney fundraiser Mindelynn Young, who signed on to the Johnson/Weld campaign with some fanfare in September.
George, it is difficult to comment on the fundraising consulting fees above without having more data. How much money did they raise for the fees that were paid out?
How Johnson raises money
Avondale Finance, LLC 4 Longfellow Pl
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
10/04/2016 Fundraising Consulting Commissions 24152.00
Avondale Finance, LLC 4 Longfellow Pl
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
10/04/2016 Fundraising Consulting Retainer 10000.00
Avondale Finance, LLC 4 Longfellow Pl
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
10/04/2016 Fundraising Consultant Expense Reimburse 4421.93
Avondale Finance, LLC 4 Longfellow Pl
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
10/18/2016 Fundraising Consultant Expense Reimburse 2900.12
“Anthony Dlugos
October 30, 2016 at 15:25
‘There is something very wrong with our presidential tickets when the candidates selected are LESS libertarian than the average Libertarian Party member.’
No, there is not. That’s actually a good thing. The job isn’t philosopher in chief, its chief executive of the federal government.”
I’ve been a member of the Libertarian Party for over 20 years now. I have been to Libertarian Party meetings in 17 states. I would say that if Gary Johnson and Bill Weld had been present at all of these meetings (the only ones that they were at were the national conventions where I saw them), that they would be the least, or close to the least, libertarian people that were present at every one of these meetings. I’d say the same thing for any small “l” libertarians meetings/events that I have attended over the years (various libertarian college campus clubs, Ron Paul meet ups/Campaign for Liberty meetings, etc…).
It is pretty pathetic to have standard bearers for your party who are that much weaker on issues than the average libertarian.
“Governor Johnson has done a very good job of differentiating his answers from the establishment candidates.”
The fact that he hasn’t stood up on a chair and yelled “would you fucking idiots quit calling me GOVERNOR? That was a long time ago” says differentiating isn’t what he does.
Meanwhile the only specifics on the autosuggest list for William Weld are gun control and CFR. Once again SO Proud of the LP ticket!
“His dogwhistles are standard populist sh*t, too. High tariffs, walls, and bombing our “enemies.” Pretty standard stuff, despite the unusual messenger.”
Once again you miss the forest for the trees. No need to expound further on this since you have shown you know how to use search engines already.
“Right. I provide evidence the smaller government, individual liberty message is what is getting across, and you provide…nothing except your opinion.”
Auto suggests in google for Gary Johnson include TPP and Aleppo. In fact those are the *only* specifics on the list; everything else is generalities e.g. polls, wiki, memes, etc. Oh yeah, there’s also “Gary Johnson debate” which reminds me…will he be in any? SO Proud.
Right. I provide evidence the smaller government, individual liberty message is what is getting across, and you provide…nothing except your opinion.
His dogwhistles are standard populist sh*t, too. High tariffs, walls, and bombing our “enemies.” Pretty standard stuff, despite the unusual messenger.
Bad translation. Thanks for playing though. We have some lovely parting gifts…
Matt: “…which is what you get by not running candidates or by running candidates who fail to differentiate their ideas sufficiently from the establishment candidates…”
me: “Governor Johnson has done a very good job of differentiating his answers from the establishment candidates. ”
Matt: “Unfortunately, no.”
me: “Well then, lets look at the independent evidence/” I provide the evidence.
Matt: “After watching, listening to and reading hours of interviews with Team Gov, I’m pretty comfortable with my assessment.” Translation: The only evidence that matters is what Matt thinks.
His platform positions are less important than his dogwhistles in this regard.
Donald Trump’s platform positions are pretty damn conventional. No vision quests there.
“So, maybe you should rethink your assertion?”
After watching, listening to and reading hours of interviews with Team Gov, I’m pretty comfortable with my assessment.
“Its cockamamie to think they are looking at campaigns as exploratory vision-quests. If that’s your objective, drop some acid and go to open mic night at the local beatnik coffee house.”
And yet even mainstream campaigns do this. The Trump campaign for example is by far the biggest recruiter for white nationalists and the racist “alt right” ever, and that’s without openly marching around in jackboots, armbands or white sheets. This will bear poisonous fruit for many years to come, just as the efforts of the Libertarians, Greens, Socialists et al over the decades have born their own kind of fruit over time.
How do you think that an esoteric word like “libertarianism” has grown to be something that millions of people understand and identify with, whether they vote that way or not? How did the LP get in a position to be on in so many states to begin with? You still fail to understand that campaigns have a ripple effect which in the long run is much more important than who wins or loses, or even who is competitive in, any particular race.
me: “Governor Johnson has done a very good job of differentiating his answers from the establishment candidates. ”
Matt: Unfortunately, no.
So, to try and provide some sort of evidence as to who might be closer to the mark, I decided to just Google Gary Johnson to see what comes up.
Here’s the first “In the News” result, in big, bold letters, and the accompanying article:
Gary Johnson’s main proposal: Shrink government
Yahoo? – 10 hours ago
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gary-johnsons-main-proposal-shrink-government-133200316–election.html
Here’s the first paragraph of the article:
“Johnson’s campaign is founded on the principle that smaller government will mean greater freedom for citizens, both economically and in their personal lives. It’s the policy glue that holds together his fiscally conservative, socially liberal and noninterventionist message.”
Here’s the 2nd hit:
How Gary Johnson wants to transform America
Less government and more freedom are the underlying principles of the Libertarian candidate’s vision.
http://www.pressherald.com/2016/10/30/how-gary-johnson-wants-to-transform-america/
So, maybe you should rethink your assertion?
“Voters have jobs, mortgages, 401 (k)’s and IRA’s, student and car loans, kids in schools, health insurance payments, and concerns about ISIS. Its cockamamie to think they are looking at campaigns as exploratory vision-quests.”
Lots of voters sense something is fundamentally wrong. It’s the job of third party candidates to open their eyes as to what that something is and what ideas may change that. The long form answers can’t be given in campaign context, but that’s OK, because they provide the opportunity to direct those who are interested in directions where they are likely to find them. Or find a name for them and like minded people, or to organize rather than just grumble.
“The questions Johnson and Stein received throughout the campaign have been overwhelmingly questions of a pragmatic nature.
“What are you going to do about the debt.”
“What are you going to do about ISIS.”
“What are you going to do about undocumented workers?”
Not,
“Is health care a human right?”
“What is the cause of war?”
“Is taxation theft?” ”
Naturally. A rhetorically skilled candidate such as Ron Paul, Harry Browne, or (to take some other ideologies) Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader gets those same questions and uses them as openings to open some people’s eyes to possibilities they have not considered, starting them on a journey; and mobilizes other people who have long held similar ideas and spurs them to action.
“Well, tell that to Bill Clinton, governor of Arkansas,”
Which doesn’t mean he was well prepared to be president, or uniquely so. Actually, he got lucky because the war caused a huge spike in Bush’s popularity, causing better known Democrats to not run, and then the economy caused Bush’s popularity to crash as quickly and deeply as it rose, propelling him to win. Clinton did have some national leadership experience prior to that as head of the DLC, but even so, none of this proves that either Clinton or Johnson is any better prepared to be POTUS by virtue of having been governors than a physician or other non-politician is.
“. In the lawsuit, Johnson is making a SPECIFIC claim about the nature of the nonprofit entity known as the CPD and its debate, and the fact that that debate must be non-partisan due to its tax exemption. That’s it.”
You’ve zeroed in on the trees and have missed the forest. I’ve tried to get you to notice the forest on this. We will continue to disagree here. Johnson looks like a chump for not debating Stein when he is pushing to have himself AND Stein be allowed to debate Clinton and Trump. He also looks like a hypocrite and is throwing away a potential audience. But, the people who say he is afraid of being beaten and embarrassed in the debate may have a good point here. It certainly does not make him look good, and bolsters the argument of every future Duopolist who is being pressured to debate their Libertarian opponent. Technicalities aside this is just the last straw for an already very flawed LP ticket.
And really, no matter how crappy his policies, one thing Bill Clinton did have going for him as POTUS was the gift of gab and a slick sort of charisma that appealed to lots of people. Johnson, well, not so much.
” Less than 1%, easy.”
Which is huge in terms of growing an ideological movement and tiny party organization. These things have ripple effects over the years and decades. If they didn’t, Johnson would have never sought the LP nomination to begin with, and the ballot access that attracts candidates such as Johnson would never have been there to grab their attention.
“The races will be unwinnable because you nominate ideologues the voters are not interested in. ”
It’s still unwinnable even with your sellout, ever so qualified ticket that is polling at 4% and will be lucky to end up with 2% when all is said and done. Is that really worth selling out for?
“You want growth in market share? Nominate qualified candidates who convince voters they can do the job at hand.”
That would be great, if they were actually pushing to expand market share for the ideas that cause the party to exist at all. But I really do not see that happening here. Rolling government spending by 20% may be radical in the duopoly world, but it would only take us back to one of the Obama years. If you don’t think government was already way too big, way too powerful and way too intrusive well before that, we just aren’t pushing the same ideas at all and thus can’t grow market share together since we don’t have the same product. And that’s before we even get into things where Johnson/Weld are actually worse than the duopoly, such as the “fair” tax “prebate” program which would get most of the country used to getting a government check every month (among other things), expanding the profit motive in maximizing slavery in prisons, and the globally managed trade scheme of the TPP.
“If you want to turn off 120,000,000 voters, respond to question about the undocumented workers with some blather about how borders shouldn’t even exist.”
There are lots of ways to answer that question without going there, and in the process start a lot more people than previously were on it on a journey to finding out that “blather” on their own.
“Self-fulfilling prophecy, part 3. The person will never have a real chance of winning if they turn a campaign into and educational mission, and undertake a campaign thinking personal qualifications are less relevant, when they are ALWAYS relevant to the voters.”
That would only be relevant if there was a real chance of winning otherwise, and there isn’t. So no, it’s not a self fulfilling prophecy. The prophecy would be fulfilled regardless.
“Governor Johnson has done a very good job of differentiating his answers from the establishment candidates. ”
Unfortunately, no.
Should read, “you do…”
Anthony, why don’t you just go join the Republican or Democratic parties? You’d fit in better there than yo do in the LP, and you will no longer have to worry about dealing with people who are not shiny badge worshippers.
“She might as well promise everyone a pony.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RDLqb3umsw
“I want candidates who open people’s eyes to ideas which they may not have ever considered.”
That is so far off of what voters are looking for in elected officials, especially coming out of the mouths of the completely unqualified. Voters have jobs, mortgages, 401 (k)’s and IRA’s, student and car loans, kids in schools, health insurance payments, and concerns about ISIS. Its cockamamie to think they are looking at campaigns as exploratory vision-quests. If that’s your objective, drop some acid and go to open mic night at the local beatnik coffee house.
“For one thing, it doesn’t matter, since just about everyone knows neither of them will be POTUS.
No, it doesn’t matter, because she’s never held elective office. Check the record. The questions Johnson and Stein received throughout the campaign have been overwhelmingly questions of a pragmatic nature.
“What are you going to do about the debt.”
“What are you going to do about ISIS.”
“What are you going to do about undocumented workers?”
Not,
“Is health care a human right?”
“What is the cause of war?”
“Is taxation theft?”
The fact that Governor Johnson will not win does not change AT ALL what voters have always looked for in a president. They want pragmatic answers to the issues of the day. To repeat once again: turning a presidential campaign into a mission to promote an ideology becomes of self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. Not only will such a candidate fail to win, they will fail to get an audience for their message, because no matter how many times you insist on it, that’s NOT what voters are looking for.
” For another, being POTUS is a lot different than being Governor of a low population state, so really.”
Well, tell that to Bill Clinton, governor of Arkansas, ranked #32 by population. New Mexico is #36. Argument fail.
As different as POTUS is from Governor of a low population state, the two are a HELL of a lot more similar than POTUS and a practitioner of internal medicine with zilch in the way of elective office experience, to say nothing of Governor of ANY state, mayor of ANY city, or even town alderman.
“If you are making the case that both Johnson and Stein should be on the stage with Clinton and Trump, it makes absolutely no sense to say Stein should not be allowed on the stage with Johnson.”
Do you read what you write? Those are not even close to being related. In the lawsuit, Johnson is making a SPECIFIC claim about the nature of the nonprofit entity known as the CPD and its debate, and the fact that that debate must be non-partisan due to its tax exemption. That’s it. Its got nothing to do with Johnson being obligated to debate Stein SEPARATELY Not even close.
“I said both the ideology and the party. It’s true that many voters are not, but a lot are.”
Very few to none. Less than 1%, easy.
“The job of the LP candidate in any practically unwinable race is to grow the LP and the market share.”
The races will be unwinnable because you nominate ideologues the voters are not interested in. Market share will never grow. Self-fulfilling prophecy. You want growth in market share? Nominate qualified candidates who convince voters they can do the job at hand.
“If the job of that candidate was just to give voters what they want and nothing else, they should run in an establishment party…”
Suggesting the LP nominates candidates with experience in office who can answer questions on a pragmatic level will SUCCEED in delivering an ideological message. Governor Johnson is delivering a libertarian message because he is answering questions pragmatically and voters get a sense that libertarian answers are smaller government, and more individual liberty.
The way to answer the issue about undocumented workers is to give a practically solution to the problem, as Governor Johnson has done. The message WILL get across that Libertarians favor open immigration and limited government involvement in the process, and in dealing with that issue and others, they will gain an understanding of WHY Libertarians are for open immigration. THAT will grow market share, just as you want.
If you want to turn off 120,000,000 voters, respond to question about the undocumented workers with some blather about how borders shouldn’t even exist.
“That only begins to matter when that person has a real chance of winning. Otherwise, it’s a platform for something else, and their personal qualifications become a lot less relevant.”
Self-fulfilling prophecy, part 3. The person will never have a real chance of winning if they turn a campaign into and educational mission, and undertake a campaign thinking personal qualifications are less relevant, when they are ALWAYS relevant to the voters.
“…which is what you get by not running candidates or by running candidates who fail to differentiate their ideas sufficiently from the establishment candidates…”
Governor Johnson has done a very good job of differentiating his answers from the establishment candidates. He just doesn’t come off as a stark raving mad anarchist, which disappoints the small potatoes caucus.
” because they ain’t interested in being lectured about philosophy”
On this point you are correct. I don’t want candidates who lecture voters about philosophy. I want candidates who open people’s eyes to ideas which they may not have ever considered, inspiring some of them to dig deeper; and mobilizing people who already hold those ideas but have never been involved in any kind of organized activity on their behalf. Elections present a unique opportunity to reach a lot of people who will never be reached by books, seminars, websites, and other educational activities. Not that those other things should fall by the wayside either.
“I have to wonder if the Libertarian Party is ever going to get its shit together.”
Certainly a valid question.
“Matt, why are you still even considering voting for Johnson?”
I usually vote Libertarian and generally believe in much smaller government across a broad spectrum of issues. On the other hand, Johnson/Weld were already failing to advocate that anything like consistently, and the final straw eliminating them from consideration was the failure to debate even the Greens. I was already leaning towards Stein before that happened and will still be leaning that way if Johnson does agree to a real debate, but I will give him a fair chance to win me back IF he gets in a real debate with at least Stein. Otherwise forget it.
If none of the candidates whose votes will be tallied and reported on election night will advocate consistently for less government across a broad spectrum of issues, I will have to choose which ones do the best job on the issues I care about most, such as peace, freedom from domestic espionage, an end to the insane war on drugs, ending crony corporatism and corporate welfare and bailouts, freedom to cross borders without undue interference, ending the police/prison/”justice system” abuse of the citizenry and the massive injustice of prison slave labor, etc. Right now that is looking like Stein but I would be willing to let Johnson make his case if he gets on the stage with her. Stein has a lot of weaknesses from my perspective as well, primarily on economic issues and gun rights, so it would not be a slam dunk necessarily.
Unlike in a primary or convention/caucus, my vote in the general election is usually meant to send a signal to the government as a whole, not as a message to the party on what kind of candidates to nominate next time. It’s unfortunate that this time all of the candidates have messages that are so muddled that I don’t even see clearly who is the least bad among them. In the past that was the Libertarians in almost all cases but now, not so much.
” Its a justified fear on Johnson’s part because Stein has never held elective office before, she has no idea what she is talking about on a practical level.”
For one thing, it doesn’t matter, since just about everyone knows neither of them will be POTUS. For another, being POTUS is a lot different than being Governor of a low population state, so really..
” Listening to her talk about how she would put her policies into practice is like listening to a virgin masturbating to youporn videos talk about what he would do to a porn star he’s pleasuring himself to.”
Well, Johnson is certainly waaaay more credible on that score, because (to extend your analogy) his girlfriend let him feel her up a few times.
” Technically speaking, the lawsuit is to force an INVITE, not force participation. Johnson could win the lawsuit and then decline to appear in the debate. Of course he would not do that.”
So why do you keep bringing up this red herring which you admit as such?
” But none of this obligates Johnson to debate anyone. anywhere.”
I disagree. If you are making the case that both Johnson and Stein should be on the stage with Clinton and Trump, it makes absolutely no sense to say Stein should not be allowed on the stage with Johnson.
” its QUITE clear that voters are not interested in salespeople for ideologies.”
I said both the ideology and the party. It’s true that many voters are not, but a lot are. The job of the LP candidate in any practically unwinable race is to grow the LP and the market share for the ideas which cause the LP to exist as a separate party. If the job of that candidate was just to give voters what they want and nothing else, they should run in an establishment party, since voters have also shown that they are rarely interested in any other parties, especially at the presidential level.
“.. interested in voting for and hearing the message as to why someone is qualified for the office at hand”
That only begins to matter when that person has a real chance of winning. Otherwise, it’s a platform for something else, and their personal qualifications become a lot less relevant.
“no one listens to the message”
Obviously not true. Sure, lots of people don’t but some people do, and some is better than none, which is what you get by not running candidates or by running candidates who fail to differentiate their ideas sufficiently from the establishment candidates (and yet still have no real chance to win, despite any prior executive experience).
“Frankly, there are so few people who take this position, you’re not even worth worrying about. Vote for Stein if you want.”
Thanks! I was really worried about what would happen if I didn’t have your permission, but now that burden has been lifted from me. Much appreciated.
Matt, why are you still even considering voting for Johnson? He lost my vote a long time ago.
Libertarian Party members are reminding me more and more of the people in the old Harry Browne for President ad called The Battered Voter Syndrome, which compared how many Democrat and Republican voters were like battered women who keep going back to an abusive spouse over and over again.
“That may well be a justified fear on Johnson’s part. It would make a lot more sense than insisting he is in a different class of candidate because he has 4% as opposed to 2% in the polls and/or 50 states ballot access rather than 44. ”
A) Its a justified fear on Johnson’s part because Stein has never held elective office before, she has no idea what she is talking about on a practical level. Listening to her talk about how she would put her policies into practice is like listening to a virgin masturbating to youporn videos talk about what he would do to a porn star he’s pleasuring himself to.
B) I agree that the specific point of being on 50 states isn’t too relevant.
C) Johnson’s poll numbers compared to Stein’s also might not be relevant. Right now, if I were the Johnson campaign, my main rationale for participating in this forum would be to try and reach the 5% threshold, not to “beat” Stein in a debate. As I said, there’s no beating someone who’s never held office before who has no idea what governing is like. She can say whatever she wants to say, what difference does it make? She might as well promise everyone a pony.
“Particularly when both candidates are cooperating on a lawsuit saying they should both be included in the major party debates.”
Now THAT has absolutely no relevance, considering the fact that this is NOT one of the major party debates we are talking about. Johnson has no obligation to debate Stein anywhere, moral or otherwise. Technically speaking, the lawsuit is to force an INVITE, not force participation. Johnson could win the lawsuit and then decline to appear in the debate. Of course he would not do that. But none of this obligates Johnson to debate anyone. anywhere.
“It’s chief salesperson of libertarianism and the LP…”
No, its not. No matter how badly the Small Potatoes Caucus wishes this to be the case, its QUITE clear that voters are not interested in salespeople for ideologies.
“…until and unless you think the LP can actually realistically have a real chance to win the office without selling out the ideas than caused the LP to become a separate party in the first place. We both know the LP is nowhere close to that point. So running candidates who sell out libertarian ideals and do NOT have a real chance to get elected..”
Since, as I pointed out, voters are not interested in being “sold” a philosophy but are interested in voting for and hearing the message as to why someone is qualified for the office at hand, the insistence on nominating salespeople for a party and ideology has the effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy of ensuring that A) no one listens to the message, because they ain’t interested in being lectured about philosophy when choosing who they want to be president. B) keeping us far away from winning any offices.
“At this point, Stein has my vote unless and until Johnson actually debates her, or appears at the same time on the same stage in a joint townhall with both candidates so I can compare them. If Johnson won’t do this he does not deserve consideration. ”
Frankly, there are so few people who take this position, you’re not even worth worrying about. Vote for Stein if you want.
Yeah, Tom Knapp has it right when he points out that the LP is acting like a cargo cult when it nominates candidates like Johnson/Weld, but then Tom Knapp sells out his own principles and undermines his arguments by going out and voting for those candidates, therefore giving ammunition to the cargo cultist, also known as the Shiny Badge Caucus, to nominate more candidates like this in the future.
I have to wonder if the Libertarian Party is ever going to get its shit together.
“…crow about Stein destroying/annihilating/obliterating Johnson”
That may well be a justified fear on Johnson’s part. It would make a lot more sense than insisting he is in a different class of candidate because he has 4% as opposed to 2% in the polls and/or 50 states ballot access rather than 44. Particularly when both candidates are cooperating on a lawsuit saying they should both be included in the major party debates.
“..No, there is not. That’s actually a good thing. The job isn’t philosopher in chief, its chief executive of the federal government.”
It’s chief salesperson of libertarianism and the LP until and unless you think the LP can actually realistically have a real chance to win the office without selling out the ideas than caused the LP to become a separate party in the first place. We both know the LP is nowhere close to that point. So running candidates who sell out libertarian ideals and do NOT have a real chance to get elected, just because they have executive experience that hardly anyone thinks they have a chance in hell of applying by virtue of participating in this election, and then pretending they are on too high of a level to debate anyone who is actually willing to debate them to boot, is counterproductive (and that’s putting it kindly). Knapp has it right, the LP is acting like a cargo cult by falling for this, especially repeatedly.
At this point, Stein has my vote unless and until Johnson actually debates her, or appears at the same time on the same stage in a joint townhall with both candidates so I can compare them. If Johnson won’t do this he does not deserve consideration. If he does, I may reconsider, but he’ll need to win my vote at the debate if there will be one. If there isn’t, he forfeits. And no, debating in 2012 does not count here.
“There is something very wrong with our presidential tickets when the candidates selected are LESS libertarian than the average Libertarian Party member.”
No, there is not. That’s actually a good thing. The job isn’t philosopher in chief, its chief executive of the federal government.
“Anthony Dlugos
October 30, 2016 at 14:30
“Robert, it is stupid for the Libertarian Party to nominate candidates who cannot reasonably be considered to be libertarians (BY ANDY -editor’s note), which is what the Libertarian Party has done at its last 3 presidential nominating conventions.”
Fixed that for ya.”
I am not going by my standards, as in I am not advocating that the Libertarian Party must have candidates who line up completely with me on every detail of every issue. It would be nice if they did, but I am not going to automatically reject every candidate who does not agree with me completely about every detail of every issue.
What I mean is that our candidates ought to fall within a range for what is considered to be a libertarian within the Libertarian Party.
There is something very wrong with our presidential tickets when the candidates selected are LESS libertarian than the average Libertarian Party member.
Matt,
That’s the way I took it too. Plus, PBS calls it a forum, not a debate.
That would disappoint the Hysterical Caucus who are champing at the bit to crow about Stein destroying/annihilating/obliterating Johnson, and using it as yet another reason why Johnson is the worst sentient being ev’r existed, verily I say.
I only glanced at it for a second, but Travis Smiley’s facebook post seemed to indicate the town halls with these two candidates will be on two separate evenings. That doesn’t sound anything like a debate, more like two separate townhalls, which CNN already did with them as well.
lol.
I think Washington and certainly Eisenhower had a little more heft to their resumes. lulz
A 35-year old theater major blogger with zero elective office experience is not the sweet spot for any presidential election. That;s nutty.
Running for President with no elective office experience . . . Washington, Isenhower, etc.
George,
Before, during and after the campaign.
“Robert, it is stupid for the Libertarian Party to nominate candidates who cannot reasonably be considered to be libertarians (BY ANDY -editor’s note), which is what the Libertarian Party has done at its last 3 presidential nominating conventions.”
Fixed that for ya.
Robert, it is stupid for the Libertarian Party to nominate candidates who cannot reasonably be considered to be libertarians, which is what the Libertarian Party has done at its last 3 presidential nominating conventions.
tk: The last three presidential nominating conventions severely damage the credibility of that claim [that the delegates are not “stupid”.]
me: Why stop there? Was it UNstupid to nominate Badnarik? Browne? Marrou? Paul? Bergland? Clark? MacBride? Hospers?
What is your basis for assessing the relative collective wisdom?
Perhaps we need a whole new campaign and nomination system for POTUS.
Brainstorming:
The National LP could set up its own campaign management team for the 2020 POTUS race. The team should be in place beginning immediately after the 2018 LP convention. The LP POTUS team would begin to raise funds, advertise, hold debates etc immediately thereafter.
Candidates for the nomination would campaign, speak, raise funds and promote themselves any time. They could form their own nominating committees, but they would agree that if nominated they would run under the LP POTUS campaign with the LP managers.
Candidates for the nomination would, through their campaigns or individually, raise funds – net of any costs – for the LP POTUS campaign. Each candidate for the nomination would agree that all such net donations made would be non-revocable and non-refundable in the case of losing the nomination or for any other reason.
An account would be maintained recording the net donations for each candidate within the LP POTUS fund. All net contributions by each candidate seeking the nomination, or donations to the LP POTUS fund made in the name of or on behalf of a particular candidate for the nomination would be credited to that candidate’s accout balance. Other donations could be made directly to the fund without assignment if the donor wished. Candidates dropping out of the race would have the option of designating their funds be transferred to the account balance of another candidate. Individual donations once made would not be transferrable by the individual.
At the National Convention, candidates would continue to campaign, debate and raise funds. At the convention, the Presidential balloting would consist of:
1) A state by state vote of Acceptable or Unacceptable for all candidates requiring a 2/3 vote of unacceptable to remove any candidate from consideration. Any candidate receiving a 2/3 unacceptable vote would be removed from further consideration.
2) A state by state fundraising announcement of additional donations by cash, cashiers’ check, PayPal, debit card etc. made at the convention up to a final designated cutoff time for accounting and recording purposes.
The candidate for the nomination with the greatest balance of funds raised would win the nomination. The second place candidate by funds raised would be chosen for VP.
All funds raised and not already spent on advertising etc by the LP POTUS campaign would remain for the balance of the campaign. The LP POTUS campaign would then manage the campaign and candidates through the election, raise funds, advertise etc.
“severely damage”
I believe “reject” is fewer letters.
Also, Feldman was credible, and as our Presidential candidate Larry Sharpe if need be would be just fine.
Do the stock manipulation claims refer to events *after* the nominating convention?
“The delegates are not stupid.” – Anthony
“The last three presidential nominating conventions severely damage the credibility of that claim.” – TK
*
The failure of large groups to make rational decisions binding upon the whole body or a whole society is one of the primary reasons why free markets are more effiecient, produce greater wealth and a more equitable distribution of income and wealth than socialism and why liberty is preferable to democracy.
John McAfee would have gotten himself some press coverage, mainly because he’s engaged in a stock manipulation scam that has stolen millions from individual investors.
Quoth Andy,
—–
There ought to be a memo given out to every Libertarian National Convention delegate in 2020 that says, “DO NO BELIEVE ANY FUNDRAISING CLAIMS THAT HAVE NOT ALREADY HAPPENED PRIOR TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION.”
—–
Or, in the case of Johnson 2012, any fundraising claims that supposedly HAD already happened prior to the national convention.
Quoth Anthony,
“The delegates are not stupid.”
The last three presidential nominating conventions severely damage the credibility of that claim.
Andy,
The delegates are not stupid. They are well aware that ALL candidates exaggerate what they are going to accomplish as nominee.
You can write up any sort of memo you want, written as expertly as you want, distribute it as frequently as you want prior to an LP convention, and you’re not going to change the fact that the delegates are not stupid and understand perfectly well the ceilings of media attention/votes obtained various candidates have at any given convention. No amount of histrionics, fearmongering, and tales of woe by yourself and the rest of Small Potatoes Caucus can change that fact
Is it possible that the No Experience Candidates would have received SOME media attention/votes? Sure. Were their ceilings as high as the Johnson-Weld ticket? Not a chance, and this is obviously what the delegates were thinking.
Anthony Dlugos said: “None of the other candidates would have had a platform to deliver the libertarian message to the public. They would have been speaking to the converted only, as has previously been the case when the LP nominated the catastrophically unqualified.”
You can keep repeating this myth over and over again, but this does not make it true. All Libertarian Party candidates have received some coverage. Harry Browne was on The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, as well as some other national TV shows. He was also on a bunch of radio shows, both national and local, and he made some local TV shows as well.
We are living in a time when more people than ever on on the internet. The internet makes it easier to reach large numbers of people cheaply.
Also, given that lots of people are upset with the major party candidates, and lots of people are looking for alternatives, it is not unreasonable to say that any of the main candidates would have gotten more coverage than Libertarian candidates generally receive.
Maybe they would not have gotten some of the media coverage that Johnson/Weld have received, but given all of the gaffes, meltdowns, and non-libertarian statements from Johnson/Weld, it is not like they have made good use of this coverage.
Anthony Dlugos said: “There is titalating talk going on at ANY party’s convention.”
The translation for “titalating talk” is grossly exaggerating or outright lying.
Similar exaggerations/lies were told at the 2008 national convention, with multiple Bob Barr delegates going around claiming that if Barr was nominated, he’d raise $35-$40 million.
There ought to be a memo given out to every Libertarian National Convention delegate in 2020 that says, “DO NO BELIEVE ANY FUNDRAISING CLAIMS THAT HAVE NOT ALREADY HAPPENED PRIOR TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION.”
One would think that it would not be necessary to tell this to Libertarian convention delegates, but apparently it is.
lol. Define “some.”
It certainly would have been much less. And for 3 of them, the potential coverage would have done far more damage to the LP than Johnson-Weld’s NAP apostasies. (of course, the damage would have been in the more important aspects of, “can’t this party nominate even a minimally qualified candidate rather than a nut?”)
The other one (Dr. Feldman), was the only other candidate I considered even minimally acceptable. After that it woulda been NOTA for me.
“In my imagination, no one else would have received any media attention. Even though every Libertarian candidate in the last 20 years has received at least some media attention, this would have been a magical exception.”
Fixed, no charge.
“There were multiple Johnson/Weld delegates going around the national convention making the claim that the Johnson/Weld ticket was going to raise $250 million.”
There is titalating talk going on at ANY party’s convention. It’s been going on since political parties were created. You shoulda heard some of the outlandish claimed being made by Petersen supporters. Or some of the claims by the murder suspect McAfee.
The best thing to do is ignore the exaggerations and look to the history of presidential elections in this country to see what KIND of candidates CAN raise the money necessary to run a presidential campaign. Ex-Governor is a pretty damn good start in that regard.
Bloggers, murder suspects, M.D’s without elective office experience, and angry anarchists are not only horrific starts, they are fatal to any hope of running a legit campaign.
“Any of the main candidates for the nominations for President and Vice President would have done a better job at selling the Libertarian message to the public than Johnson/Weld have done.”
None of the other candidates would have had a platform to deliver the libertarian message to the public. They would have been speaking to the converted only, as has previously been the case when the LP nominated the catastrophically unqualified.
I guess one could make a fantasyland case that mcafee or feldman’s backgrounds MIGHT have garnered them SOME media attention, but it certainly would have been less than J-W got, both of them had decidedly anti-libertarian positions in their past, and at least McAfee would have had huge potential downsides, including his faked heart attack and his stripper/blow/weapons video.
No one else would have received any media attention.
George Phillies said: “The Weld promise — I was given this by a paid Johnson staffer — was for tens of millions.”
There were multiple Johnson/Weld delegates going around the national convention making the claim that the Johnson/Weld ticket was going to raise $250 million.
itdoesntmatterttomuch
October 30, 2016 at 09:27
“Johnson under-performed but none of the other candidates would have done better.”
Any of the main candidates for the nominations for President and Vice President would have done a better job at selling the Libertarian message to the public than Johnson/Weld have done.
Getting votes is meaningless unless there is a strong Libertarian message behind it.
Johnson under-performed but none of the other candidates would have done better. Now, one could argue (and many of you will) that it was not worth nominating a guy who would do marginally better in 2016 in light of whatever the perceived tradeoffs were. But not nominating Peterson, Perry, whoever, was not a missed opportunity as far as media coverage and vote totals in 2016 go. Things like newspaper endorsements and (positive) media coverage might not make a significant difference but I can’t see Peterson, Perry, McAfee getting any. If anything it would have been overwhelmingly negative and framed libertarians and unserious nutjobs, which is typical but this year could have been on a much higher scale. As far as Weld goes, I really don’t know if that helped or hurt with the general population. We know how that was received by Libertarians. I think Johnson may have done just as well without him.
It is beyond me why no one in discussing candidates mentions Marc Allen Feldman, whose trajectory perhaps did not involve death if he had been the nominee. and if he perished, the VP candidate (Sharpe) would automatically have been the VP nominee.
Actually, in a few cases it is not beyond me.
The current candidate convinces my friends of many political persuasions that when he is seen on TV he is stoned. Whether he is stoned or not does not matter; it’s all appearances.
The Weld promise — I was given this by a paid Johnson staffer — was for tens of millions.
The campaign couldn’t even sign an agreement with national until recently.
“Petersen was the sweet spot for this particular election. ”
A 35-year old theater major blogger with zero elective office experience is not the sweet spot for any presidential election. That;s nutty.
Petersen was the sweet spot for this particular election. I assume Petersen was many Radical’s second choice for the nomination after Perry, but unfortunately the Pragmatarians were split between Johnson, Petersen, and maybe Kerbel.
Johnson was able to suck up those delegates who only looked at Gary’s CV. Those delegates ignored the fact that unfortunately, in terms of getting votes and getting earned media emotions and speaking ability are a lot more important than your resume.
Look at Evan McMullin – he is getting votes that certainly would have been Petersen’s had Petersen been the nominee.
I suspect that Bill Weld is Gary Johnson’s minder, which means Bill promised millions of dollars in funding in return for Johnson not trying to take conservative votes from Trump. Of course I can’t prove that, but maybe LP members with better investigative skills than I have can prove that after the election.
Bravo, RTAA! That made my night.
Darcy G Richardson: Meanwhile, their candidate is looking more and more presidential every day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvhQvSoQGSQ
“I am not a crook.” — Richard Nixon, 1973
“I am not a dummy.” — Gary Johnson, 2016
Meanwhile, their candidate is looking more and more presidential every day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvhQvSoQGSQ
“How about this just being a better opportunity to a debate with a bunch of screwballs and kooks (the free and equal blah blah blah). — Anthony Dlugos
Why is it that so many of Gary Johnson’s supporters are so damn charming?
nice spin, Thomas.
How about this just being a better opportunity to a debate with a bunch of screwballs and kooks (the free and equal blah blah blah).
Great news!! I’m glad he’s finally stepping u to debate and earn the free media from that appearance.
Agreed. Of course, that applies to both Johnson and Stein.
http://www.uncoveredpolitics.com/2016/10/28/dignified-de-la-fuente-la-riva-castle-shine-in-free-equal-3rd-party-debate/
I admire a man who can realize he fucked up big-time by skipping the Free and Equal event and try to make up for it.