General Election Predictions Thread

As requested, and as we have done a number of times in the past, this post is for general election predictions. As always, our focus here is on alternative (“third”) parties and independents, but feel free to comment on duopolists as well, especially in races where they are not only running against each other. Unlike another recent thread I am not giving out any prizes, nor is the discussion meant to be limited to only the presidential race or only the Libertarians. The picture accompanying the post is from 2012 and not meant to be a comment or prediction about 2016 🙂 Please comment directly on the IPR website, not just on social media repostings.

234 thoughts on “General Election Predictions Thread

  1. JamesT

    My predictions are 70% Clinton narrow victory. 20% Trump. 10% EC shenanigans.

    I think Johnson gets 2-2.5% Stein gets 1-1.3%.

    I think Castle gets above 200K given the polls that have actually included him have him at 1%. If he even pulls off .4% in the states he is on he breaks the CP record.

    I think McMuffin gets 20% in UT and 5th in the election.

  2. Thomas L. Knapp

    Johnson: 2.3% +/- 0.3%

    Stein: 1.9% +/- 0.3%

    Castle: 0.5% +/- 0.2%

    Like JamesT, I’m only going to predict McMullin’s percentage result for Utah: 23% +/- 1%.

    I don’t think Stein will outpoll Johnson, but there are circumstances under which she might — for example if there’s a Wikileaks release of the “smoking gun that appalls progressives” type, bigger than any previous ones, today or tomorrow and if she’s prepared and able to exploit that. I do expect Stein’s cost per vote to be less than half Johnson’s regardless.

  3. Jonathan Makeley

    I predict Jim Hedges will substantially increase the votes for the Prohibition Party in 2016.

  4. Curt Boyd

    Thanks Paulie.

    I think Johnson will get over 15% in New Mexico and Alaska. He was polling pretty well in South Dakota and West Virginia as well, but I haven’t seen polls for those states in almost two months.

    Stein will get over 5% in Vermont, Rhode Island and Hawaii. She’s also polling pretty well in Alaska.

    Nationally, as I stated before in the open thread – Johnson 5%, Stein 2%, Castle 0.4%, De La Fuente 0.2%.
    McMullin second in Utah. 28 to 30% of the vote. I think he’ll get 10% in Idaho also.
    Gloria La Riva could get close to 80,000 votes, the bulk coming in California.
    Too bad Jim Hedges had some bad luck with ballot access. I think he’ll get 1,500 to 2,000 votes.
    Bernie Sanders should get quite a few write in votes.
    Clinton wins the EC 298-240. Order of finish: Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, McMullin, Castle, La Riva, De La Fuente.

  5. Tony From Long Island

    Last week I made the following prediction:

    Clinton 49
    Drumph 41
    Johnson 7
    Stein 2
    Other 1

    I would maybe change Johnson to 5 and move up the Emperor to 43.

    Clinton will win well over 300 electoral vote. McMuffin will come very close to or actually win Utah.

    Johnson will do best in New Mexico, Alaska, and Colorado, but that’s not really going out on a limb

    He will do worst in Florida and DC (thought I would love to see him beat Trump in DC)

  6. Tony From Long Island

    TROLL ALERT!

    None of those things are even remotely going to happen.

    Oh no, . . . is that blog thing who I think it is?

  7. Tony From Long Island

    Apparently I wasn’t the only one who caught that. . . it’s gone already!

    Johnson could get 5 or so in California, would would do a lot to get his national total over 5%. Libertarian’s don’t do well in New York though. I would not be surprised if I were the only person in my precinct to vote for him.

    I have to figure out how to get election results for each specific precinct so I can check that.

  8. Tony from Long Island

    Well thank you Jill for allowing me to post here. You and I may disagree on just about everything, but I have no nefarious intentions. You;ll see all of my posts are from the same IP. I don’t even have a computer at home and I have a flip phone! I only post at work 🙂

    Posting on here really is one of the most enjoyable things I do with my day. I do try my best not to be disrespectful (except to Andy) when I post. I’m sure that everyone on here has strong opinions!

    On topic. . . I am looking through 538 seeing which states Johnson could do best in and where those states rank in population. I always enjoy analyzing election numbers.

  9. Bondurant

    The political establishment has already selected Hitlery as the “democratically elected leader of the free world”.

  10. Jill Pyeatt

    Bondurant said: The political establishment has already selected Hitlery as the “democratically elected leader of the free world”.

    Well, let’s see what happens with Hillary over the weekend. I know she’s the Chosen One, but things appear to be moving out of her control.

    The information bottleneck appears to have broken.

  11. robert capozzi

    The sun will rise on November 9th, and the next president will be more of a morearchist than the current one, who is more of a morearchist than the previous one, who was more of a morearchist than the one before that. 1992 was the last time when the transition was possibly slightly lessarchistic…at least a case could be made for that result. (Perot had the potential to be more than slightly lessarchistic, but he careened off into crazytown during the campaign.)

    Not digging this trend.

  12. Anthony Dlugos

    well, to be honest. I just threw some numbers up without thinking, other than believing the race is gonna tighten right up to Election Day.

  13. Don Wills

    My crystal ball is starting to light up, kinda like the alien fighter plane in Independence Day.

    Rounded to nearest % :
    Trump 49%
    Clinton 49%
    Johnson 1%
    Stein 1%

    Trump wins electoral college and plurality of votes, but just by a whisker!

  14. hf

    Clinton 51
    Trump 44
    Johnson 3.2
    Stein 0.9
    McMullin 0.2
    All others combined 0.2

    McMullin 15% in UT, Johnson just short of 10% in NM, Stein just short 5% in VT

  15. Deran

    Clinton 48
    Trump 43
    Johnson 7
    Stein 1

    Clinton sweeps EC Trump supporters carry out various guerrilla attacks afterwords.

  16. Stuart Simms

    At this moment I believe the race is too close to call. I have the following:
    Trump EC between 241 and 312
    Clinton EC between 226 and 297
    McMullen and Weld will serve their purpose and prevent LP from attaining 5% nationwide.
    Johnson 4%
    Stein 1%

  17. Anthony Dlugos

    Wait…what?

    Now the purpose of nominating Weld was to PREVENT the LP from reaching the 5%?

    lol

  18. Stuart Simms

    Anthony
    It certainly wasn’t the purpose of the convention delegates. It just seems that way to me given Weld’s recent support of Sec. Clinton. When Nick Sarwark has to take to live FB to keep activists focused on the big picture after Weld’s comments, one has to wonder at least it makes me wonder.

  19. Anthony Dlugos

    He wasn’t a perfect candidate, I’ll agree there.

    Of course, there are no perfect candidates.

  20. Stuart Simms

    Charitably agreeing that Weld is an imperfect LP VP nominee.

    I will have a lot to think about on December 19th if Johnson/Weld somehow win the Maryland popular vote.

  21. Austin Cassidy

    Not saying who wins the actual election, because I just don’t know. If the Trump-trend continues I think he could get blown out in several big states like California and still win a bare majority in the electoral college.

    Just predicting popular vote…

    Clinton – 48.15%
    Trump – 46.95%
    Johnson – 2.85%
    Stein – 0.95%
    McMullin – 0.30%
    Castle – 0.15%
    La Riva – 0.05%
    Write-in/Others – 0.60%

    Best states…
    >> McMullin – Utah (20%)
    >> Johnson – Alaska (12%)
    >> Stein – Vermont (7%)

    Assuming 130 million for turn-out, which is pretty flat with the past 2 elections….

    Johnson – 3,700,000 votes
    Stein – 1,235,000 votes
    McMullin – 390,000 votes
    Castle – 195,000 votes
    La Riva – 65,000 votes

    It’s very possible I’m being too optimistic with all of these. I guess we will see. 🙂

  22. GreenDemSoc

    I wish I was younger and more optimistic. However, times are changing fast (who would have thought Donald Trump would be a real contender for the presidency, or that Bernie Sanders would have attracted so much support?) so I hope I’m wrong.

    Trump or Clinton…who cares, probably Clinton. Saw alot of probable Clinton voters in my conservative early voting polling station today. Turnout seems really high which is probably more likely to benefit Clinton than Trump.

    Johnson >2.5%. No more than 2.5 million votes. Official prediction is 1.8%.

    Stein >1% unfortunately. Official prediction is .80%. Just over 1 million votes.

    Gotta assume Castle will do better than Goode, although I’m not sure he’s on more ballots. About .2-.3%.

    Haven’t been following McMullin closely but it looks like he’ll be 5th overall.

    Who is on more ballots–La Riva or De La Fuente?

  23. Austin Cassidy

    “Who is on more ballots–La Riva or De La Fuente?”

    De La Fuente, but La Riva has the Peace and Freedom Party’s line in California. So I suspect she edges him out for 7th place.

  24. Austin Cassidy

    My order of finish by national popular vote…

    1. Clinton
    2. Trump
    3. Johnson
    4. Stein
    5. McMullin
    6. Castle
    7. La Riva
    8. De La Fuente
    9. Kennedy
    10. Hedges
    11. Moorehead
    12. Soltysik
    13. Duncan
    14. Vacek
    15. Kahn
    16. Skewes
    17. Smith
    18. Keniston
    19. Kotlikoff
    20. Jacob-Fambro
    21. Copeland
    22. White
    23. Giordani
    24. Hoefling
    25. Maldonado
    26. Scott
    27. Maturen
    28. Atwood
    29. Lyttle
    30. Silva
    31. Kopitke

    I feel pretty good about the top 7, the rest… who knows? lol

  25. robert capozzi

    HRC will win in a contested electoral squeaker. The Ds take the Senate by 2. The Rs retain the House. BHO will pardon HRC for various crimes. The House will conduct non-stop investigations for 4 years. HRC will be impeached in 2018.

  26. robert capozzi

    GJ will surprise with a 6% showing, mostly from deep red and blue state voters lodging easy protest votes.

  27. Thane Eichenauer

    robert capozzi,
    Why do you think the next US House will impeach Hillary Clinton?

    I read Bob Barr’s The Meaning of Is: The Squandered Impeachment and Wasted Legacy of William Jefferson Clinton. (Hardcover for $0.01 – a bah-gain!)

    I recommend the book to others.

  28. Thane Eichenauer

    Jonathan Makeley> I predict Jim Hedges will substantially increase the votes for the Prohibition Party in 2016.

    What factor makes you think that? I went to their website and even if I was inclined to like either the candidates or party I would be disappointed.
    http://www.hedgesandbayes2016.org/platform

  29. Mike Maturen

    I predict that Mike Maturen (American Solidarity Party) will do better than ANYONE predicted!

  30. Be Rational

    This race has tightened up a lot due to all the more recent bad news for Clinton, nothing good for Johnson and nothing at all for Stein. I expect voter turnout to drop slightly overall, especially in CA, although even or higher in some battleground states.

    My predictions:

    electoral college:
    322 Clinton
    216 Trump

    percentages:
    49% Clinton
    43% Trump
    4.7% Johnson
    2.3% Stein
    1% others

    Republicans hold on in the Senate with 51. (Very close to 50 or even 49, depends on GOTV for Rs.)
    Republicans keep the House but lose about 24 seats.

    The dropoff in turnout could be the biggest factor, and presents a significant wild card, with many voters staying home because both Clinton or Trump are so disgusting and upsetting that either voters don’t want to go to the polls at all, or that neither candidate is worth the effort.

    Breaking news could change everything again by Tuesday.

  31. Darcy G Richardson

    Donald Trump will win by 3.5 million popular votes and a 42-vote majority in the Electoral College. The Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson, who obviously couldn’t take the time to read a newspaper every now and then, squandered what might have been the most profound opportunity for a third-party presidential candidate in modern American history while the Green Party’s Jill Stein relied on David “Safe State” Cobb — remember him? — to wage one of the most boring and unimaginative presidential campaigns possible.

    Neither of them will come close to receiving five percent nationally. The welfare checks will have to wait.

    This was without a doubt the most pathetic presidential election of my lifetime, but I’ll sleep well for the next four years knowing that I voted for a guy who received almost no media attention yet is probably one of the most decent souls to ever seek the presidency — an individual who understands the economy and who has personally created far more jobs in the U.S. and elsewhere than anybody seeking to occupy the White House next year.

  32. NewFederalist

    Wow! That is really a bold prediction, Darcy. With all your experience from an historical perspective one has to take your prediction very seriously. The part about the lost opportunities for the LP and the Greens is almost obvious but the Trump part… wow. When this is finally over I hope you will share with us your thoughts and what you saw that so many may have missed.

  33. Thane Eichenauer

    Darcy G Richardson,
    Do you this that Rocky De La Fuente will be active in politics two years from now? Do you think he will have any lasting legacy?

  34. George Phillies

    I predict with near-100% certainty:

    America will lose the election.

    I do, however, have a source of unknown reliability who claims that Republican overnight polls have shown Johnson dropping rapidly, which is probably good for Clinton. I am not sure this datum weighs more than an electron in this transmission.

  35. Matt

    Knapp and Richardson’s predictions look pretty accurate to me. The momentum is in Fuehrer von Drumpf’s favor, and he will benefit from the same “shy” uncounted conservative/fascist/populist/nationalist vote that pollsters missed in the Brexit, Netanyahu, UK and other recent elections. The polling average is about +3 Clinton; with a 5% Trump bump that has him winning by 2%, with a relatively strong electoral college finish. I see him breaking through in states such as Pennyslvania and Michigan while holding all of the Romney states. The new all-mail voting system in Colorado is likely to work in his favor as well. I say this as someone who sees Drumpf as the absolutely worst choice in this election, even though I see Clinton as being an exceptionally terrible candidate as well. I think he ends up with 290-something electoral votes.

    So far, the Sunday shows seem to be blissfully Weld-free from what I have seen, so Johnson will get around 2-3%, as opposed to the 1% or less that he could have had if the rumors about Weld making the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to explicitly endorse Clinton had turned out to be true. Stein will likely end up close to or right at 1%. Castle won’t do any better than Goode. McMullin will underperform in Utah, as Republicans who are uncomfortable with Trump give in to their greater fear of Clinton at the last minute. If he breaks into double digits, it will be only barely. Nationally, he’ll be in 5th place behind Stein and ahead of Castle et al.

    Republicans will hold the Senate with 52% of the vote. Several more states, including California, will tax and regulate or medicalize marijuana; nationwide legalization is likely by 2020. Instead of marijuana, the drug cartels will turn increasingly to pushing meth, heroin and other hard drugs that will remain illegal, and the growing militarized police state will continue right on track with the greatly increased crackdown on “illegal” immigration, hard drugs and Islamic terrorism (which will also greatly increase in response) forming its raison d’etre du jour.

    Needless to say, the Libertarians won’t have to contend with whether to accept federal electoral welfare or how to spend the money. Instead, they’ll have to deal with much more mundane concerns such as fixing the new website that they put in to fix what wasn’t broken, maintaining morale as the relative influx of members and money that the party experienced this year deflates just as quickly within a year, and keeping non-libertarians from capturing the presidential and VP nominations next time around.

  36. Matt

    “I do, however, have a source of unknown reliability who claims that Republican overnight polls have shown Johnson dropping rapidly, which is probably good for Clinton.”

    Entirely predictable, but most likely to help Drumpf. Johnson had already shed the vast majority of what “Bernie vote” support he had earlier. At this point he is shedding the anti-incumbent vote that was uncomfortable with Trump and some of those “Never Trump” Republicans who are turning out to be “Trump After All” Republicans. He may still get 2% or at best 3%, but probably won’t slide all the way back down to 1% that quickly.

  37. Robert Capozzi

    M: Weld making the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to explicitly endorse Clinton had turned out to be true.

    Me: He was on CNN’s SotU. He didn’t explicitly endorse HRC, but did again say DJT is worse.

  38. Matt

    He has said all along that Trump is worse. The rumor that Knapp floated was that he would go beyond this to explicitly endorse Clinton, and would do so by appearing on all five of the biggest Sunday talk shows. That clearly did not happen. My working hypothesis is that natural attrition will claim about half of the remaining Johnson/Weld polling average, which is currently 4-5%. Had Weld gone through with what Knapp floated, I expect it would have peeled off about half of what’s left over after that.

  39. Darcy G Richardson

    “Darcy G Richardson,
    Do you this that Rocky De La Fuente will be active in politics two years from now? Do you think he will have any lasting legacy?” — Thane Eichenauer

    I’m pretty sure Rocky will be involved in the 2018 mid-term elections and I’m almost certain that he will seek the White House again in 2020, with a goal of achieving ballot access in all fifty states. Based on several recent conversations with him, I think he found this entire experience to be an exhilarating one. It was also something of an eye-opener for him and he learned a lot.

  40. Bob Allender

    Clinton 48.2
    Trump 45.8
    Johnson 3.7 (polls show him doing better than Nader in 2000 plus he is on all ballots so he should exceed Nader’s 2.73)
    Stein 1.2 (which will put her well over 1 million votes)
    Others 1.1 (McMullin, De La Fuente over 200,000; Castle and de la Riva about 150,000 each)

    Another election with a plurality President. This leaves FDR and Obama (and maybe Carter) as the only Democrats to receive a majority of the vote since 1852.

  41. William Saturn

    Here is my EC prediction:

    Trump – 270
    Clinton – 268

    (I would have predicted a larger margin for Trump but I think today’s Comey letter stopped the hemorrhaging from Clinton and will save PA and MI for her)

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/create_your_own_president_map.html?map=HI_2,AK_6,FL_6,NH_6,MI_2,VT_2,ME_2,ME1_2,ME2_6,RI_2,NY_2,PA_2,NJ_2,DE_2,MD_2,VA_2,WV_6,OH_6,IN_6,IL_2,CT_2,WI_2,NC_6,DC_2,MA_2,TN_6,AR_6,MO_6,GA_6,SC_6,KY_6,AL_6,LA_6,MS_6,IA_6,MN_2,OK_6,TX_6,NM_2,KS_6,NE_6,NE2_6,SD_6,ND_6,WY_6,MT_6,CO_2,ID_6,UT_6,AZ_6,NV_6,OR_2,WA_2,CA_2

    Popular vote:

    Trump 48.4%
    Clinton 48.3%
    Johnson 1.8%
    Stein 0.9%
    Other 0.6%

  42. Anthony Dlugos

    My brother’s offshore gambling site has:

    Johnson above 4% as -110
    Johnson below 4% as -110

    Johnson above 3% as -360
    Johnson below 3% as +300

    Johnson above 5% as +440
    Johnson below 5% as -580

    If you don’t know wagering odds, this and the more extreme odds at the site for higher percentages basically means at least that gambling site thinks somewhere right around 4% is most likely.

    The 5% magic number, given the odds of +440, imply a 18.52% probability.

  43. Election Addict

    Guess with FBI officially with nothing more to say (no sex islands after all, eh?), Clinton will win:

    Clinton wins Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, need i say wisconsin, new mexico, and virginia.

    Trump wins Ohio, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada*, need i say georgia, arizona, and iowa.

    297-241

    Johnson and Stein both pass 1%, just barely, Johnson slightly more.

    We wait 6 weeks for Florida’s official results.†

    *most unsure about
    †68% joking

  44. Matt

    The biggest effect Comey’s Oct 28 letter had was to remind people about the Clinton scandals. That effect won’t go away now. Between all the people that already voted or already made up their minds, all those who won’t hear or fully absorb the latest news before they vote, and the ones who discount the latest news from Comey in the same ways Trump does, it will have very, very minimal impact, probably far less significant that the transit strike in Philadelphia.

    The campaigns have polls that are more recent and accurate than the public polls. That’s why you no longer see Trump and Clinton in Florida and North Carolina as much anymore, since they both already know those states have swung outside the tossup range and are now pretty solidly in Drumpf’s column. It’s also why we see both Clinton and Trump campaigning hard in Pennsylvania and Michigan, since their polls are telling them those are the new tossup states (very recently considered heavily Clinton leaning), and Trump is expanding further into Wisconsin and Minnesota, which he would not do if they were more than a point or two out of reach for him.

  45. Election Addict

    You could be right, but from what I know Trump’s advisers have an understanding that Pennsylvania is likely out of reach, unless lightning strikes, which maybe it will.

    In any event, the popular vote overall may be much closer, maybe even 49 to 48.

  46. Tony From Long Island

    Stu: ” . . . . McMullen and Weld will serve their purpose and prevent LP from attaining 5% nationwide. . . . ”

    McMullen could care less about Johnson. His decision to run had nothing to do with Johnson and everything to do with Trump.

    To say that his “purpose” in running was to hurt Johnson is ridiculous.

    Let us look at your even funnier Weld statement. So . . . all of the LP delegates who voted for Weld said to themselves: “how can I help LOWER my party’s vote totals? Let’s nominate this guy. He will ensure we do porrly!” Yeah, OK.

  47. Matt

    “You could be right, but from what I know Trump’s advisers have an understanding that Pennsylvania is likely out of reach, unless lightning strikes, which maybe it will.”

    That was a week or two ago. Now they are targeting it for ads, having lots of candidate visits, and talking up their expectation that they can take PA.

    “In any event, the popular vote overall may be much closer, maybe even 49 to 48.”

    Trump has a comparative advantage in the electoral college, according to 538. That is, if there’s a split between the popular and electoral vote outcomes, the electoral vote is more likely to go in Trump’s favor.

  48. rj

    Clinton wins the Electoral College 318-220.

    Popular Vote: Clinton 48, Trump 45, Johnson 4, Stein 1.5, Other 1.5

    McMullin finishes 2nd in Utah ahead of Hillary Clinton.

  49. Tony From Long Island

    RJ: Your prediction looks pretty good to me, but saying McMullen will beat Clinton in Utah is REALLY going out on a limb eh? 🙂

  50. Stuart Simms

    Tony from Long Island

    Evan McMullen certainly gave Utahans someone to protest vote for other than Johnson, thereby assisting in keeping Johnson/Weld vote totals down in Utah and other heavy Mormon states. McMullen also clearly couldn’t attain 270EV and won’t (I predict) impact Trump in any state. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that McMullen had a greater impact on Johnson than Trump and that it was at least one of his purposes for entering the race and I believe possibly his primary purpose, irrespective of what he stated.

    “So . . . all of the LP delegates who voted for Weld said to themselves: “how can I help LOWER my party’s vote totals? Let’s nominate this guy. He will ensure we do porrly!” Yeah, OK.”

    As I stated in a follow up message: “It certainly wasn’t the purpose of the convention delegates.” It just seems to have worked out that way given Weld’s glowing remarks toward Sec. Clinton.

  51. Bob Allender

    Maybe this is a little off topic but I think Weld’s comments about Hillary Clinton were in the “David Cobb” vein of thinking. He wasn’t explicit about his intent but he may as well have been. Unfortunately the “Cobb” tactic makes it appear you have no confidence in your own Presidential candidate (not to mention yourself) and so his comments were “glowing” all right – like radioactive.

  52. Tony From Long Island

    Stu: While it’s true that McMullen is a much more attractive candidate for Mormons and 99& of what you wrote is accurate, to state that his PURPOSE for running was to lower the vote total for Johnson is just silly. The fact that his running may, in fact, do that has no relation as to whether that was his purpose in running. Words matter. McMullen could not care less about Johnson and saying otherwise makes Johnson much more important than he really is.

  53. Be Rational

    While McMuffin may be naive enough to believe that he was running to protect the conservative movement or even set up a new conservative party, it is quite clear that those who recruited and backed McMuffin were solely intent on diffusing the Libertarian threat in this election. There is an element in the mainstream Republican party that is afraid of a strong Libertarian Party because it will ultimately breakup and destroy the Republican party and lead America in a new direction.

    Keeping dissention going inside the LP also serves to derail the LP and prevent the party from achieving success. Unfortunately that are enough wackos and conspiracy nuts inside the LP that little outside help is needed to disrupt the party. However, if you wanted to hurt the LP, if you wanted to keep the LP down, there are several techniques that would work. Methods of paid outside agitators trying to harm the LP could include:

    * financially backing the fake Oregon LP nut group to keep the Oregon Libertarians busy fighting instead of moving foreward, and involving many activists nationwide and wasting vital resources,

    * driving away interested ousiders, donors and members by constant posting and screaming about nutty paranoid conspiracy theories such as the 911 Truth nonsense,

    * wasting time and driving away members by continual arguing and posting both for and against the NAP in a running battle

    *attacking moderate LP candidates who are doing the best they can for not being pure enough

  54. Tony From Long Island

    Rational . . . usually you are . . . . well . . . rational, but that last post screamed “Andy.”

    Jill, you might be right on the money for Johnson and Trump, but Castle will be lucky to get .25%

    Also, your emotions block your ability to be fair. Plus, your totals only add up 86%

    You can despise Hillary with an irrational level of weirdness, but she’s not going to get 35%

  55. Andy

    Be Rational, you forgot to mention sending establishment plants like William Weld into the Libertarian Party and getting them placed in high level positions and/or as candidates, in order to internally sabotage the party and to distort the party’s message.

  56. Tony From Long Island

    Jill, which one? Your totals still add up to 86 here. I refreshed a few times.

  57. Tony From Long Island

    Well, at least I see them add to 100 now. You just have the order of the first two wrong 🙂

  58. Tony From Long Island

    Clinton has led in Pennsylvania since day one . . . strike or no strike . . .

  59. George Phillies

    “* financially backing the fake Oregon LP nut group to keep the Oregon Libertarians busy fighting instead of moving foreward, and involving many activists nationwide and wasting vital resources,”

    The effort appears to be as successful as the Republican War on Iraq. LP Oregon has a large slate of candidates.

  60. Andy

    The LP of Oregon may have a (relatively) large slate of candidates this year, but they would be a lot more successful right now if not for all of the infighting.

  61. Austin Cassidy

    Bob: “Another election with a plurality President. This leaves FDR and Obama (and maybe Carter) as the only Democrats to receive a majority of the vote since 1852.”

    Yeah, Carter just barely topped 50%. And LBJ in 1964.

    In 1876, the Democrat won 50.92% of the popular vote but lost in electoral college.

  62. Stuart Simms

    Jill,
    Mr. Trump 14 points greater than Sec. Clinton is certainly a bold prediction. I tend to add to the GOP because I think that most polling is slightly biased against them in order for prig-regressives and the media to use as propaganda in an attempt to suppress the GOP vote. But I don’t see a move of 17 points in DJT’s direction from the current RCP average of polls.

    

  63. wredlich

    Okay, I half-assed my first comment. Here’s a broader set.

    I’m terrible at political predictions, but here I go:

    1. Hillary wins in a relative landslide, mainly due to Trump’s poorly run campaign and Republican infighting.

    2. Because of #1 leading to weak GOP turnout, Democrats retake the Senate or at least get to 50 (+1 for the VP).

    3. Trump waits a day to make a show of himself and then concedes. Hillary gracefully accepts his concession.

    4. Gary Johnson gets 2% of the vote nationwide and doesn’t break 10% in any state. Many Libertarians will celebrate this fiasco as a success, while others will continue complaining for another 4 years until they nominate Johnson again. Jill Stein gets 1% of the vote, maybe 3% in Vermont.

    5. William Weld (the faux-Libertarian VP candidate/traitor) gets appointed to a cabinet position, maybe Secretary of the Treasury.

    6. Trump joins with Breitbart (and with Roger Ailes in the background) and creates Trump TV. It will compete with Fox News while also offering reality TV shows like The Apprentice, real estate shows competing with HGTV, and business shows like Shark Tank.

  64. Stuart Simms

    wredich,
    #1 Don’t forget the Libertarian infighting!
    #2 I think HRC will scare enough GOPers to the polls and the GOP holds the Senate.
    #3 If close I agree, if a blowout Trump will surprise everyone with a humble concession speech. If Clinton loses the lawsuits fly and recounts are requested ad nauseam but only in Democrat precincts.
    #4 Johnson should get more than 2% but in any event he has stated this is it for him. No celebrating 2% but I would celebrate 5% plus ballot access and party recognition in the most states LP has had after an election.
    #5 If Clinton wins she offers Weld the vacant Consular position at Benghazi, he accepts! Tony from Long Island celebrates Libertarian foreign policy advancement.
    #6 Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner.

  65. Jill Pyeatt

    Stuart, I know my prediction seems unlikely. There are several reasons I think Trump may surprise us:

    1. I don’t believe the polls have been accurate due to oversampling. We can all see how the mainstream media only reports good things about Hillary and bad things about Trump. Along those same lines, the people being polled are from groups that would be expected to have a higher percent of Clinton supporters than a general poll should be.

    2. There are indicators that both blacks and Hispanics are changing to Trump;

    C. Even though the FBI says they’re not going to pursue Hillary at this time, Wikileaks has put out some absolutely terrible things about Hillary, the people who surround her, and the improprieties from the Clinton Foundation. Even though hard-core Hillary supporters don’t care if she’s corrupt or not, people on the fence might.

    D. I think the shy vote for Trump will be tremendous.

    We’ll find out soon enough, of course. The loser tomorrow will definitely be this country. I expect a couple of very bad years coming up.

  66. langa

    Duopoly: In the closest election since 2000, Hillary edges Trump, leading to long, loud accusations of election fraud from the Trumpsters, much like the “blame Nader” bellyaching in 2000.

    Non-duopoly: Johnson, in spite of himself, gets 2.3%. Stein gets 1.5%. Castle edges McMuffin for 5th place, while RDLF edges GLR for 7th place. No one outside of 3rd party circles notices any of this, except for a few angry Trump supporters, who blame Johnson for “stealing” the election from their guy.

  67. Matt

    If Trump loses as narrowly as langa says, the screaming about Johnson “stealing” the election will exceed anything ever thrown at Nader and Perot – combined.

  68. Tony From Long Island

    Stu: ” . . . .#5 If Clinton wins she offers Weld the vacant Consular position at Benghazi, he accepts! Tony from Long Island celebrates Libertarian foreign policy advancement. . . . .”

    I am honored that I am on your mind! Seriously, though, the LP foreign policy is one of the things that drew me to the party and it’s one of the issues that I still agree with after leaving the party. I am a pretty stanch non-interventionalist.

    I am perfectly find with consulates and embassies in every country. We should have peaceful relations with everyone, but I am against our dozens of military bases and insane amounts of foreign aid.

  69. JamesT

    I’m starting to think Trump will win. And not be a small margin. Even with Democrat vote fraud. Not that I don’t think the Rs aren’t committing fraud too. But who knows. I think if he does win she won’t concede and will try to flip some of the Electoral College voters.

    I voted for Castle and LP for everything else. Was glad to see the trouble maker Jim Babb on the ballot here in PA.

  70. paulie Post author

    Bernie Sanders is likely to get a substantial write-in vote and come in ahead of some of the balloted candidates. Although he asked his supporters to only vote for him in non-battleground states, the midnight voting locations in hotly contested NH show that not all of the swing state Bernie supporters are heeding that restriction. Granted NH is right next door to Vermont, but I’m still thinking hundreds of thousands if not millions of Bernie write-ins nationwide, likely putting him in fifth place overall. Anyone else want to guess how Bernie will end up doing? Romney or any other “Never Trump” write-ins?

    Meanwhile, channel-surfed to watch Trump get booed as he voted. As usual, the people who know him best like him least. Hotel workers at one of his properties in Las Vegas are also working hard to get Clinton elected after he has refused to negotiate with their unionization effort, illegally fired union organizers, etc.

  71. Shawn Levasseur

    Robert Capozzi: “Gary Johnson will run for Congress in 2018 and win as a L.”

    I’d love for that to happen (even just the running part), the question would be if he’s up for it.

    His whole backstory is one of being asked to run for a legislative seat instead of an executive one, but insisting on the Governor/Presidential runs. But he’s clearly stated he won’t be running for POTUS again, unless he wins, so there’s a chance.

  72. Shawn Levasseur

    Paulie: “Anyone else want to guess how Bernie will end up doing? Romney or any other “Never Trump” write-ins?”

    Bernie will probably get about as many votes as Ron Paul write-ins four years ago, whatever that number was. Different crowd but similar motivations, and same dynamic with a third party option that they could choose instead. Only difference, Ron Paul was a “non-combatant” after the primaries, whereas Bernie has campaigned for Hillary.

  73. NewFederalist

    Johnson would stand a far better chance of getting elected to the Senate from New Mexico than the House. I don’t know where his legal residence is anymore but the northern district is solidly Democratic. The central district (around Albuquerque) has a well entrenched Democratic incumbent whose uncle was a long serving Republican representative in the same district. The southern district has a pretty well entrenched Republican and Gov. Johnson has never lived in that part of the state to my knowledge.

  74. Shawn Levasseur

    “If Trump loses as narrowly as langa says, the screaming about Johnson “stealing” the election will exceed anything ever thrown at Nader and Perot – combined”

    Oh, I’ve made my peace with the fact Libertarians will be blamed for whoever wins. The only question would be if Greens or McMullen share the heat with us.

  75. Anthony Dlugos

    Notwithstanding Johnson’s chances of getting elected to the Senate, I don’t think the Senate is a good spot for him. That’s a place where I WOULD want a stronger philosophical Libertarian. He’s got the mindset of an executive. In the Senate, I want someone willing to muck up the works based on principle.

    Frankly, I’m sure he’d rather be hiking or biking anyway.

  76. paulie Post author

    Bernie will probably get about as many votes as Ron Paul write-ins four years ago, whatever that number was. Different crowd but similar motivations, and same dynamic with a third party option that they could choose instead. Only difference, Ron Paul was a “non-combatant” after the primaries, whereas Bernie has campaigned for Hillary.

    A couple of other differences are that Clinton and Trump have inspired more combined revulsion than any of the duopoly candidates any of the times that Ron Paul ran, and that Sanders this year got a lot more votes in the primary than Ron Paul ever did.

    Romney write-ins will be negligible. Few, if any, states will likely to report votes for him.

    I agree. The “Never Trump” vote, to the extent that it hasn’t morphed into a reluctant Trump vote, reluctant Clinton vote, non-vote or a vote for a balloted candidate, will be split between too many different Republicans for much of anyone to pay attention to or tally until well after the fact. Romney may well be the the top choice among those, but still a remote one, with probably no more votes than any candidate who is listed on the ballot in more than one or two states.

  77. Anthony Dlugos

    Good!

    Now you can join me in my mission getting the 2020 Convention to go to Havana, Cuba!

  78. Robert Capozzi

    Ad: stronger philosophical Libertarian

    Me: please define. And please comment on whether a “stronger” L is more electable than a “weaker” one.

    Is, say, Andy a “stronger” L and would I be a “weaker” one IYO?

  79. Matt

    Anthony – I have some other ideas you may like. Have you considered Antarctica? Bora Bora? Phucket, Thailand? DMZ, Korea? Phnom Penh? Yakutsk?

  80. NewFederalist

    “Have you considered Antarctica?” – Matt

    Would one have to wear a tux to meet the local dress code? 🙂

  81. Trent Hill

    I keep seeing people commenting that they expect Castle to land over 175k votes, which ranks as a “good-great” performance for the CP historically. But, they have less ballot access than in most elections, more ballot crowding by right wingers, most of their base is attracted to Trump, etc. Just seems incredibly unlikely. Im going with less than 150k.

  82. paulie Post author

    Agreed with Trent. I’ll be surprised if Castle does significantly better than Goode. I won’t be surprised if he does worse.

  83. Anthony Dlugos

    Robert,

    As you might expect, I don’t necessarily mean philosophical purity when I said “stronger.” I don’t mind some deviation from plumblime libertarianism if I can understand the thought process and why they are deviating.

    I think I meant stronger in the “intellectual rigor” sense. The ability to distill a thousand page bill and determine if it’s a good bill or not from a libertarian perspective.

    I see Justin Amash doing that regularly.

    As a Washington Post article that talked about Johnson’s governing style in New Mexico, he gave congresspeople 2 minutes to explain the benefits of some spending bill. If they could not, he did not want to hear about it and it wasn’t worth doing.

    To me, that’s a libertarian executive speaking.

  84. Trent Hill

    Regardless, Johnson should run for a statewide office in New Mexico as a Libertarian. Whether it’s Governor again, Senator, or some other office, it’d be interesting.

  85. Anthony Dlugos

    New Fox News report: Johnson is garning 3 times as much support from late deciders as the polling organizations originally predicted.

    Just mentioned on the tv show, The Five.

  86. Pingback: Election 2016: My Prediction vs. Actual Results - Thomas L. Knapp - Liberty.me

  87. George Phillies

    Johnson, national, is currently at 3%, but 5% in Massachusetts.

    Max Abramson, Libertarian, is currently at 4% of the vote for Governor in NH. This outcome actually matters.

  88. henrik Hansen

    It looks like over 3 % fore Gary Johnson.. Stein about 1 %. But its still early days.

  89. Curt Boyd

    Johnson already above 2012 vote totals at 9:50 pm this evening. Google shows he has 1.5 million votes, compared to a total of 1.2 million in 2012.

  90. Stewart Flood

    Close to 40% of the vote reported in Charleston County. Johnson is at 4.82% right now, which should be close to the end result. In 2012 he got 1.15% of the total votes cast in the county.

  91. Curt Boyd

    Jill Stein now over 2012 totals. Google reporting 553,000 votes at around 10:30 pm, as compared to 466,000 votes in 2012.

  92. JamesT

    Even with terrible ballot access I think Darrel Castle is gonna beat CP totals. Good for Johnson and Stein. I feel vindicated saying he wouldn’t get 5% but he did better than expected. God McMuffin…

  93. henrik hansen

    first figures from Utah Mcmullin can maybe beat Clinton after 8 % votes

    clinton22.5% 17,557
    mcmullin 21.9% 17,110

  94. Nvg

    Anyone got the Castle total vote yet?He seems to be doing pretty good.The write-in votes haven’t been counted yet.

  95. Andy

    JamesT
    November 8, 2016 at 22:38
    Even with terrible ballot access I think Darrel Castle is gonna beat CP totals. ”

    I voted for Darrell Castle for President today.

    I had a difficult time deciding whether to vote for Castle, or to cast a write in vote for Darryl W. Perry, or to write in None Of The Above. I decided to vote for Castle because I’d prefer to vote for somebody who is actually on the ballot and whose votes are actually going to be tallied. I could have written in Perry, but I know that there have been problems where I voted counting write in votes in past presidential elections, plus Perry did not have a slate of electors, so I do not know how that would be handled if he were to theoretically win the state.

    I voted for the Libertarian Party candidates who were on my ballot in down ticket races, but unfortunately there were not that many of them.

    I wrote in None Of The Above for the other races where it was just Democrat and Republican.

  96. Andy

    “George Phillies
    November 8, 2016 at 21:13
    Johnson, national, is currently at 3%, but 5% in Massachusetts.

    Max Abramson, Libertarian, is currently at 4% of the vote for Governor in NH. This outcome actually matters.”

    I think that if Abramson gets at least 4% of the vote for Governor, it will give the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire automatic ballot access for 2018 (not for 2020 though).

  97. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    4:11 PM (6 hours ago)

    to lnc-business
    Page 13 of LP News lists the important ballot access races:
    https://lpaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-4_LP_News.pdf
    Bob Johnson, Carla Howell, and Richard Winger credited for the article.

    I’ve copied and pasted the text below for easy reference on phones.

    AR 3% in the presidential race gets full-ballot access for two
    years. Would be the first time the party has ever retained
    ballot access. Removes need to petition to get on the ballot.
    CT 1% in the presidential race allows the state party to
    avoid having to collect 7,500 signatures to get the 2020
    presidential candidate on the ballot.
    DC Candidate for president, city council, or delegate to U.S.
    House must get 7,500 votes. Would be the second time party
    has achieved ballot access (last time in 2012). Signature
    requirements to get candidates on the ballot would be
    significantly less in 2018.

    GA Approximately 1.5% of votes cast (1% of registered
    voters) for any statewide candidate allows the party to run
    statewide candidates in 2018 without petitioning.
    IL 5% in race for president, U.S. Senate, or comptroller gets
    ballot access in 2018 for statewide candidates. Statewide
    candidates would still need to petition, but much less (5,000
    signatures instead of 25,000). Signatures needed for state
    Senate and House candidates would be cut in half (to 1,000
    and 500 signatures, respectively).
    IA 2% in the presidential race gets ballot access for two
    years. Would be the first time ever in the state. Signature
    requirement would be significantly less.
    KY 2% in the presidential race gets ballot access for four
    years. It would be the first time ever in the state. Would
    not have to collect 5,000 signatures for 2020 presidential
    nominee or other statewide candidates.

    MA 3% in the presidential race gets party status for two years.
    Signature requirement would be unchanged. “Libertarian”
    would be added as a choice on voter registration forms.
    MN 5% in the presidential race gets ballot access for four
    years. Would remove the need to petition.
    NH 4% in the race for governor or U.S. Senate (presidential
    vote has no effect) gets ballot access for two years. Would
    be the first time since November 1996. Would remove a
    significant petitioning requirement.
    NC 2% in the race for president or governor retains ballot access
    for four years. LPNC has retained ballot access through last
    two presidential cycles. If party loses ballot access, will have
    to collect signatures equal to 2% of votes cast in 2016 for
    governor (approximately 90,000 signatures).
    ND 5% in the race for president or governor retains ballot
    access for 2 years. Would be the second time in party
    history that party retained ballot access. Would remove
    the need to petition.

    OK 2.5% in the race for president retains ballot access for two
    years. Would be the first time in history for any party other
    than Democrats and Republicans. If LP gets 2.5% for
    governor in 2018, presidential candidate gets on the 2020
    ballot without petitioning.
    RI 5% in the presidential race gets ballot access for four
    years. Would be the first time in party history. Signature
    requirements would remain the same.
    TX 5% in any statewide race gets ballot access for two years.
    Would avoid requirement to collect approximately 80,000
    signatures in 75 days. Party has been able to retain ballot
    access for many years, but always had at least one two-
    way statewide race to get the 5% vote threshold required
    to retain access. There are no two-way statewide races this
    election. However, Mark Miller for Railroad Commission
    has received endorsements from the
    Houston Chronicle
    and the
    Dallas Morning News
    .
    WA 5% in the presidential race allows the state party to get the
    2020 presidential candidate on the ballot without petitioning.
    WV 1% in the race for governor (presidential vote has no
    effect) gives the party ballot access for four years.
    Otherwise, party will have to petition for president and all
    other candidates to get on the ballot in 2018 & 2020.


    Wes Benedict, Executive Director

  98. Andy

    “CT 1% in the presidential race allows the state party to
    avoid having to collect 7,500 signatures to get the 2020
    presidential candidate on the ballot.”

    Would the LP candidates for other offices in 2020 still have to gather petition signatures for ballot access?

    Ballot access law are pretty complicated. I am glad to see that Wes Benedict has released this information, but there is still a lot more to it that what is written above. Also, I know that there are some states where ballot access can be retained by an candidate for a state wide office (I think that Texas is one such state), so in these states ballot retention is not just reliant on the presidential vote total. There are also states that do not have vote tests for ballot retention, and there are other states where there is a vote test for ballot retention, but it apples to offices other than president. It should also be noted that Johnson is on the ballot as an independent candidate in Ohio, Tennessee, and Alabama, so he’s got no chance of retaining ballot status for the party in those states.

  99. Andy

    “Curt Boyd
    November 8, 2016 at 23:19
    NVG, Castle has about 96,000 votes according to Politico at about 11:15 pm”

    Wow, Castle is doing better than I thought that he was going to do. It looks like he might end up getting more votes than Virgil Goode got in 2012 (which was around 121,000).

    Just imagine what he could have done if he had obtained ballot access in more than 24 states.

  100. Vg

    I just counted 110659 votes for Castle on Politico.We still have many more votes to count. 11:33 PM I also suspect a large write-in vote total because on the grassroots facebook page ,of over 7000 members,many said they wrote in Castle including me.

  101. Andy

    “IL 5% in race for president, U.S. Senate, or comptroller gets
    ballot access in 2018 for statewide candidates. Statewide
    candidates would still need to petition, but much less (5,000
    signatures instead of 25,000). Signatures needed for state
    Senate and House candidates would be cut in half (to 1,000
    and 500 signatures, respectively).”

    Here’s a complication in Illinois. Candidates would still have to collect petition signatures to get in a Libertarian primary, and those statewide candidates would have to be on separate petition pages. Right now, since the LP does not have party status in Illinois, all of the statewide candidates can be on the same petition page. So the signature requirement gets reduced if the 5% vote test is met, but the statewide candidates would all have to be on separate pages.

    Right now the candidates for district offices and local offices have to be on separate pages anyways.

  102. paulie Post author

    Johnson is on the ballot as an independent candidate in Ohio, Tennessee, and Alabama, so he’s got no chance of retaining ballot status for the party in those states.

    If he had been on the ballot as LP, which would have taken about 7-8x sigs, he would have needed 20% in Alabama. He’s getting about 2%.

  103. GreenDemSoc

    I’m pleased to see that both Johnson and Stein have exceeded my expectations (Johnson at around 3% and Stein at around 1% atm).

    Obviously the electorate is in a rebellious mood! The Sanders phenomenon was no fluke–the American people are tired of the status quo (and that includes center-right pro-capitalist Libertarians and their billionaire backers) and they want to shake up the system and “drain the swamp”. The reason this is so close (and why Clinton may lose) is because Trump was considered the better candidate by working class voters in the MidWest. If Clinton had run with Sanders’ economic platform…this wouldn’t have been remotely close.

  104. paulie Post author

    Libertarians and their billionaire backers

    ROFL. Have you looked at any LP FEC reports since, oh, 1983 or so? Who are these billionaires? And please don’t name any billionaires who fund other libertarian movement organizations but have nothing to do with the LP.

  105. Andy

    Paul said: “which would have taken about 7-8x sigs, he would have needed 20% in Alabama.”

    Yeah, Alabama requires around 7-9 times as many signatures as compared to being on the ballot as an independent candidate for President (although it takes as many signatures to get on as an independent candidate for statewide offices other than President as it does to qualify a party), and there’s a 20% vote test for ballot retention, which is good for 2 years. The vote test for party ballot retention applies to all statewide offices. The petition deadline for the party status petition is in early March of the election year. The independent presidential candidate deadline is on August 18th, but prior to this year it was around September 6th or 7th (I think that they made the deadline earlier just to mess with us).

  106. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    10:47 PM (13 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    Miller is at 5.15% at this moment…. Go go go!

    I’m tracking the ballot access races tonight. LPKY got ballot access tonight for the first time in its history! Also NC has access from tonight.

    Looks like we’re almost certain to retain in CT, GA, IA, MA, NC, ND, OK, WV !

    A couple of others are real close too! AR, NH, TX !

    I built a spreadsheet from the LP News article….

    STATE NEED HAVE
    AR 3% 3%
    CT 1% 3%
    DC 7500 4200
    GA 1.50% 3%
    IL 5% 4%
    IA 2% 3%
    KY 2% 2.90%
    MA 3% 4%
    MN 5% 4%
    NH 4% 4%
    NC 2% 3%
    ND 4% 7%
    OK 2.50% 6%
    RI 5% 3%
    TX 5% 5% **RRC
    WA 5% 4%
    WV 1% 3%


    Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
    LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
    LPKY Judicial Committee

  107. Bondurant

    Ah, yes…the billionaire backed LP that has to spend precious limited funds on ballot access each presidential election. The delusions of socialists can by most unintentionally funny at times.

  108. Andy

    “I’m tracking the ballot access races tonight. LPKY got ballot access tonight for the first time in its history! Also NC has access from tonight.”

    I think that Kentucky has some kind of multi-tiered vote test retention. Like if they get 2% they get something, and if they get 5% they get something better. I’d have to look up the details.

  109. Andy

    Retaining ballot access in Massachusetts is deceptive (as George Phillies can tell you). If a statewide candidate hits the vote test, which I believe is 3%, the party gets major party status for 2 years, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO GATHER PETITION SIGNATURES TO GET ON THE BALLOT, AND THE SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT ACTUALLY BECOMES A BIT MORE DIFFICULT, AS ONCE YOU GET MAJOR PARTY STATUS, ONLY PEOPLE REGISTERED TO VOTE UNDER YOUR PARTY BANNER, OR REGISTERED UNENROLLED (AS IN PEOPLE WHO ARE REGISTERED WITHOUT A PARTY), CAN SIGN THE PETITION.

    The LP would have to have a candidates for statewide office in Massachusetts get at least 3% of the vote again in 2018 in order to retain ballot status, and if this was done the presidential candidate would be exempt from having to petition for ballot access in 2020, but candidates running for other offices in 2020 would still have to petition for ballot access.

    Major party status can also be obtain in Massachusetts through voter registrations (I believe the current requirement is somewhere are 36,000), but even if you qualify through voter registrations, all of your candidates except for President would have to gather petition signatures to be placed on the primary ballot.

  110. GreenDemSoc

    “And please don’t name any billionaires who fund other libertarian movement organizations but have nothing to do with the LP.”

    He probably has this guy in mind…

    David Koch (1980 Libertarian Presidential Candidate).

    No, billionaires do not fund Libertarian candidates (unless they’re Kochs) but they do fund the Libertarian think-tanks that shape the Libertarian message broadly and make sure that the Libertarians end up nominating people like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson.

    It’s honestly hilarious when you try to paint Libertarianism as some kind of grassroots oppositional movement that is standing up to the power of billionaires. Libertarians are on the side of the billionaries on the issue most important to them, which is the unregulated power of money/capital to lobby and control government.

  111. Andy

    “David Koch (1980 Libertarian Presidential Candidate).”

    The Koch brothers have not given any money to the Libertarian Party, or to any Libertarian Party candidates, since the candidate whom they were backing for the 1984 presidential nomination, Earl Ravenal, lost at the convention.

    “No, billionaires do not fund Libertarian candidates (unless they’re Kochs) but they do fund the Libertarian think-tanks that shape the Libertarian message broadly and make sure that the Libertarians end up nominating people like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson.”

    You are probably talking about the Cato Institute, and Reason, neither of which are considered to be hardcore libertarian organizations.

  112. Andy

    GreenDemSoc “It’s honestly hilarious when you try to paint Libertarianism as some kind of grassroots oppositional movement that is standing up to the power of billionaires. Libertarians are on the side of the billionaries on the issue most important to them, which is the unregulated power of money/capital to lobby and control government.”

    This is a popular misconception.

    Most billionaires are actually pretty hostile to libertarians, and to libertarianism in general.

  113. Curt Boyd

    As of 12:15 am EST, Castle with 131,301 votes nationwide, according to Politico. That surpasses Virgil Goode’s total in 2012.

    McMullin with about 270,000 votes. De La Fuente about 25,000.

  114. GreenDemSoc

    Would you not agree that Gary Johnson is an almost perfect example of a Cato Institute approved libertarian?

    From what I understand the Mises Institute also got its start (and probably a good deal of its budgets) via Koch funding. Even Rothbard was tight with the Kochs at one point.

    Anyway it’s hardly controversial that alot of rich guys have financially supported the Libertarian ideology and that is part of its prevalence in North American culture today.

  115. paulie Post author

    David Koch (1980 Libertarian Presidential Candidate).

    That would be the same Kochs that left the Libertarian Party in 1983, as in 33 years ago, haven’t given the LP a penny since then, and have long been heavily involved in the Republican Party.

    No, billionaires do not fund Libertarian candidates (unless they’re Kochs)

    Not since 1983.

    but they do fund the Libertarian think-tanks

    Those think tanks are libertarian, at least allegedly. They are most certainly not Libertarian.

    make sure that the Libertarians end up nominating people like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson.

    Think tanks don’t ensure anything like that. Look at our convention votes. A few hundred people voting, often by narrow margins (as in the cases of Barr and Weld). A dozen or two people deciding to attend the convention on their own dime or not, or to be on the floor for a vote or not, or to leave after they lose a certain vote or not, make those decisions.

    It’s honestly hilarious when you try to paint Libertarianism as some kind of grassroots oppositional movement that is standing up to the power of billionaires.

    That’s because I am deeply involved in those grassroots whereas you are reading and passing along propaganda that has no relation to reality.

    Libertarians are on the side of the billionaries on the issue most important to them, which is the unregulated power of money/capital to lobby and control government.

    Then why don’t billionaires in reality, as opposed to your fantasies, fund Libertarians? What billionaires want is a government that they can buy to give them favors and a leg up on any would-be competition that may displace them. Since Libertarians would make government too small to dispense any favors, and oppose doing so on principle, we don’t get the money that you imagine we get from billionaires.

  116. Andy

    “Curt Boyd
    November 9, 2016 at 00:20
    As of 12:15 am EST, Castle with 131,301 votes nationwide, according to Politico. That surpasses Virgil Goode’s total in 2012.”

    Wow, this is surprising.

    Now let’s see if Castle can beat the 199,000 and something votes that Chuck Baldwin got in 2008, which was the best ever for the Constitution Party.

  117. paulie Post author

    Anyway it’s hardly controversial that alot of rich guys have financially supported the Libertarian ideology

    You keep purposely and deceptively blurring the difference between the Libertarian Party and the think tank network that claims some sort of allegiance to libertarianism. They’re two different things, although there is some crossover.

  118. Andy

    Paul said: ” ‘No, billionaires do not fund Libertarian candidates (unless they’re Kochs)’

    Not since 1983.”

    I know of two billionaires who have given some money to either the Libertarian Party, or to a PAC that went to Libertarian Party candidates, over the last few years. However, it should be pointed out that the amount of money that they gave was not really that much in the grand scheme of politics.

    The vast majority of the Libertarian Party’s funding has come from regular middle class people.

  119. Andy

    Paul said: “You keep purposely and deceptively blurring the difference between the Libertarian Party and the think tank network that claims some sort of allegiance to libertarianism. They’re two different things, although there is some crossover.”

    Some of these thinks tanks are not even really all that libertarian.

  120. paulie Post author

    Retaining ballot access in Massachusetts is deceptive (as George Phillies can tell you).

    There’s automatic presidential ballot access, and other candidates can access the ballot through the easier method with another label such as Liberty. You’ll remember that Joe Kennedy did that when we got him on the ballot after the LP had qualified through Underwood’s Senate result in 2008.

    Also, no need to YELL IN ALL CAPS. That is generally considered rude. Please don’t do that again.

  121. paulie Post author

    The vast majority of the Libertarian Party’s funding has come from regular middle class people.

    And quite a bit from povertarians (poor libertarians) that scrape pennies. As for the billionaires (or multi-millionaires) that have given to the LP it has only been at most in the tens of thousands…not even close to the kind of “soft money” that flows to Demopublican PACs.

  122. henrik hansen

    I am a Dane so i dont now all election rules in United State, but if the Electoral College end 269 269 what happens ?

  123. George Phillies

    Johnson’s Massachusetts vote has zero direct effect on Presidential ballot access. Major Party status (there is also a legal term of art) due to the Johnson vote goes away with the 2018 election, and there is no Prsdiential election in 2018.

    Paulie is completely correct that the sensible candidates will run as “Liberty”, and to his great credit Dave Blau has already created the needed logo. And if Liberty and Libertarian are *both* major parties, well, there is also a “Freedom” logo.

  124. George Phillies

    Andy, Needed MA voter registration is 43,000+ at last report. Fortunately we are not currently moving in that direction. And thanks for reminding people about how our state laws work. George

  125. Bondurant

    @ henrik

    If neither candidate reaches 270 the House will vote for president and the Senate for vice president.

  126. paulie Post author

    If neither candidate reaches 270 the House will vote for president

    One vote per state until they get winner, or failing that the VP becomes the president.

  127. langa

    To the extent that rich plutocrats donate money to libertarian think tanks, they do so in hopes of getting them to abandon hardcore libertarianism, and such attempts frequently succeed, at least to some extent.

  128. paulie Post author

    Greg Faust
    November 9 at 12:11am

    As of 1am eastern Leip is showing Gary as having obtained 2,767,675 votes, or 3.11%, a pretty impressive showing. It won’t change the fact that a statist dictator will have won, but it gives us a lot to do in preparation of 2018 and 2020, and it starts tomorrow…

    I’m not sure it’s that impressive. I think Johnson could have done a lot more with a better run campaign and better candidate prep. As for 2018 and 2020, that rests on the assumption that we’ll have any terrestrial lifeform higher than a cockroach survive the Drumpf administration and that we’ll still have some sort of semblance of free elections in 2 or 4 years. I am rather skeptical.

  129. paulie Post author

    As for 2018 and 2020, that rests on the assumption that we’ll have any terrestrial lifeform higher than a cockroach survive the Drumpf administration and that we’ll still have some sort of semblance of free elections in 2 or 4 years. I am rather skeptical.

    That and the $^&%&^!! time change so it gets dark at 5 pm. I have some serious depression setting in.

  130. paulie Post author

    serious depression setting in.

    Much like what can be expected for the economy with Drumpf’s trade and immigration policies.

  131. GreenDemSoc

    “You keep purposely and deceptively blurring the difference between the Libertarian Party and the think tank network that claims some sort of allegiance to libertarianism. They’re two different things, although there is some crossover.”

    Fair enough, there is always going to be some difference between the actuality of grassroots activists and the MSM machine that influences the propaganda they advance.

    As far as the LP goes, all I’m suggesting is that the effect of Libertarian propaganda (generally) is consistent with the interests of billionaires, not that the LP is beholden to billionaires. The LP is “center-right” in that it, like the DP and RP, is pretty much in the camp of neo-liberalism (or something quite similar) when it comes to economics and the economic ideology that it promotes. Having 2 moderate Republicans in Johnson and Weld as candidates, and being the only ticket to openly support the TPP, further validates the “center-right” characterization. Sure, in some ways they are to the left of Hillary, who is also center-right in my book. Hell, I would have even voted for Johnson over Trump or Clinton.

    I don’t doubt you that the majority of Libertarian activists believe that they are standing up for the interests of middle class people. Hell, most of them probably want something like I want (liberty and self-determination within a healthy, sustainable, human-scale social/ecological framework). And the principles they advance are in many ways admirable.

    Unfortunately this (ideological) work has arguably resulted in the opposite of the intended effect, because (imo) the ideology doesn’t help us figure out what needs to happen for the corrupt apparatus to be overthrown. This isn’t the fault of LP activists, but while the LP has existed, America has seen 40+ years of ongoing and continued growth of the spy state apparatus and expansion of the powers of the executive. Corporate concentration has flourished.

    Libertarian and/or anarcho-capitalist ideology shrouds the true adversary (concentrated capital that controls most governments and owns most property) by scapegoating government(s). This is convenient for our rulers, who get to blame their mistakes on democracy. Yes, capital can’t rule without government. But you can’t get rid of government (or at least the bad features of government that Libertarians oppose) w/o combating the power of concentrated capital and its grip on us. To be the party the world needs, the LP (and/or other aspiring patriotic third party) would need the ideological and philosophical tools necessary to identify it’s adversary and craft a strategy to overcome it.

  132. paulie Post author

    Hmmm…did anyone on this thread predict a Trump win?

    Yes, several people. Knapp, Darcy Richardson, you, me…probably a few others.

  133. Stewart Flood

    One should never predict hell freezing over. It happens, but don’t try to predict it.

  134. paulie Post author

    As far as the LP goes, all I’m suggesting is that the effect of Libertarian propaganda (generally) is consistent with the interests of billionaires,

    We disagree.

    Having 2 moderate Republicans in Johnson and Weld as candidates, and being the only ticket to openly support the TPP, further validates the “center-right” characterization.

    They don’t represent all Libertarians. Check the convention vote or our discussions here.

    Unfortunately this (ideological) work has arguably resulted in the opposite of the intended effect, because (imo) the ideology doesn’t help us figure out what needs to happen for the corrupt apparatus to be overthrown.

    I’d throw that charge back at progressives and state socialists.

    Libertarian and/or anarcho-capitalist ideology shrouds the true adversary (concentrated capital that controls most governments and owns most property) by scapegoating government(s).

    They are symbiotic parasites. One hand washes the other.

    Yes, capital can’t rule without government. But you can’t get rid of government (or at least the bad features of government that Libertarians oppose) w/o combating the power of concentrated capital and its grip on us.

    If capital can’t rule without government, and I would agree that it can’t, making monopoly government virtually or completely powerless or non-existent takes away this power from concentrations of capital.

  135. paulie Post author

    Knapp, Darcy Richardson, you, me…probably a few others.

    Saturn, also. I’d have to check back if there were others.

  136. Austin Cassidy

    Looking like a split decision — Clinton wins popular vote, Trump takes Electoral College.

    Second time in five elections!

    Hopefully this sparks a discussion on changing or doing away with the EC.

  137. langa

    GDS, if as you propose, the LP agenda would benefit the rich plutocrats that control government, then ask yourself why virtually none of the LP’s platform (which has stayed almost the same for the entire 45-year history of the party) has been adopted, or even seriously considered? Or ask yourself why Ron Paul, who ran on a platform very similar to that of the LP, was not embraced by these plutocrats?

  138. Be Rational

    It will be great news to be rid of the Clintons – forever. I’m happy to be wrong and see Hillary lose.

    It will be terrible news to see Trump in the White House. We have to hope that somehow he’s not as bad as generally expected. Of course, with such low expectations, it will be easier for him to be better than expected.

  139. Andy

    I just saw somebody had this quote posted on another message forum:

    “I’ve known her for 40 years, I’ve worked with her, I know her well professionally, I know her well personally. I know her to be a person of high moral character, a reliable person, an honest person — however so much Mr. Trump may rant and rave to the contrary.”
    — Bill Weld Libertarian Party nominee for Vice President

    DISGUSTING!

    Bill Weld is an embarrassment to the Libertarian Party.

  140. paulie Post author

    It will be great news to be rid of the Clintons – forever.

    We aren’t rid of them forever. People are living later, so Clinton may yet run in 2020, if anyone does. And they have Chelsea coming up.

    It will be terrible news to see Trump in the White House.

    Well, he’s not there yet. There’s a very slim chance that absentee and provisional ballots can still flip PA, MI and WI, but that’s unlikely. The college of electors may yet rebel, although all that would lead to would be e.g. Pence or Romney being elected by the House. Something else could happen, but I won’t suggest it lest someone mistakes that I am suggesting it should. But again that would only mean Pence in office. Some national emergency could lead Obama to not relinquish power, although that is unlikely as well. Most likely, though, he will indeed be hanging his white sheets in the white house.

    We have to hope that somehow he’s not as bad as generally expected.

    Yeah, you can hope in one hand and shit in the other…

    Welcome to President Biff Tannen. Oy vey.

  141. Election Addict

    Young Turks: Hillary Clinton is the worst politician in recent history.

    1. She lost to a guy named Barack Hussein Obama.
    2. She lost a huge 60 point lead over a socialist in the U.S.
    3. She lost to Donald Trump.

    Incredible. XD

  142. George Phillies

    Clinton has conceded.

    Johnson is someplace near 3%.

    Max Abramson got 4%, getting us party status in New Hampshire.

    It appears that status has been saved in Texas, thanks to our candidate for Railroad commissioner.

  143. paulie Post author

    Small consolation for the Republicans playing Hindenburg to Trump’s nuclear-armed Hitler, but the Democrats’ powerbrokers who helped Clinton cheat her way to the nomination got what they earned.

  144. paulie Post author

    Of course, with such low expectations, it will be easier for him to be better than expected.

    Don’t forget all the people who expect him to make America great again. When he fails, they’ll be in a mood for something uglier. And about the only things that the poll-obsessed Trump can do to keep them happy when the economy falters will be to go for the sugar high of a war. That’ll be easy enough to gin up given how trade wars have a history of leading to real wars, how much resentment his policies will stir in Latin America and the middle east, etc.

  145. langa

    I think the good news about Trump is the same as the bad news about Trump — namely, that he won’t be as different as most people think he will. Already, he has talked of surrounding himself with a lot of the typical Establishment crowd — Gingrich, Giuliani, John Bolton, etc. Those are certainly bad guys, but just about any duopoly candidate could be expected to surround themselves with similarly bad guys.

    Also, remember that at the time they were elected, Reagan and Obama were believed by many people, including both supporters and detractors, to be radically “different” from the status quo. But ultimately, neither of them really changed all that much, for good or for bad, and I suspect the same will be true for Trump. He’ll probably turn out to be a little worse than Obama, just like Hillary would have been.

  146. dL

    “Unfortunately this (ideological) work has arguably resulted in the opposite of the intended effect, because (imo) the ideology doesn’t help us figure out what needs to happen for the corrupt apparatus to be overthrown. This isn’t the fault of LP activists, but while the LP has existed, America has seen 40+ years of ongoing and continued growth of the spy state apparatus and expansion of the powers of the executive. Corporate concentration has flourished.”

    Entirely fair criticism. Although libertarianism per se has not held political power(and certainly the LP never has), the same cannot be said of classical liberalism, particularly the Chicago school version of it. Particularly as it relates to institutional political economic power. Starting with Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand’s greatest disciple, lording over the Fed for two decades, the Washington Consensus and multi-lateral free trade, political liberalism in the US and across the globe, has gone to hell during the classical liberal institutional reign. So much so that the original premise of classical liberalism put forth in Milton Friedman’s early 1960’s book, Capitalism and Freedom–that Capitalism is a necessary condition for liberal political freedom–has been abandoned for a new meme, Capitalism and Prosperity. The new talking point is that Capitalism has raised global poverty…that it has not raised the the political rights, the liberal political freedom of people has been largely papered over and deemphasized. Of course now w/ the election of Trump, perhaps the emphasis on liberal political freedom will perhaps come to the fore again. But it is important to note that the political institutional means for Trump to act are already in place. There is no new law that needs to be passed…there is no new police bureau that needs to be created…there is no new executive power that needs to be claimed. It is all already in place. As such, it is the utter failure of classical liberalism.

    Finally, to note: Libertarianism and classical liberal are not the same things. But in the United States at least, they generally are treated as the same thing by libertarians.

  147. Stuart Simms

    Austin: “Looking like a split decision — Clinton wins popular vote, Trump takes Electoral College.
    Second time in five elections! Hopefully this sparks a discussion on changing or doing away with the EC.”

    Austin, as discussed previously on another thread, the problem isn’t so much the EC but the distortion caused by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

  148. Stuart Simms

    ‘if the Electoral College end 269 269 what happens ?”

    henrik, to be clear the House of Representatives would select the President and the Senate would select the Vice President. Only those that have received EV can be considered. The Representatives vote within their state’s delegation, the winning candidate then receives one vote for each state won in this manner. Tied delegations are not considered. A majority of 26 states are needed to win. The vote is taken by the newly elected House. Currently this method favors Republicans.

    There were at least two other scenarios that could have put the election into the House. One was that Evan McMullin, who was polling well in Utah, could have won Utah’s 6 EV it would then have been possible for Clinton to have had the most EV, say 268 and Trump 264, but not win as 270 are needed to win. Two, there is a phenomenon in the US system known as the “faithless” Elector. In the US, technically we are voting for a slate of Electors in each state for each candidate not the candidates themselves. Though quite rare an Elector for a candidate can decide against voting for the candidate that they were selected to vote for. In this election, two Washington state Electors for HRC had publicly declared that they could no longer support HRC if she won Washington which she did. Though it didn’t happen there was the possibility of HRC winning 270 to 268 on election night but on Electoral College day (19 December this year) the result could have been 268 to 268 with 2 for, say, Bernie Sanders. Both of these scenarios were extremely unlikely but within the realm of possibilities last night. All a moot point now!

  149. paulie Post author

    All a moot point now!

    Probably, but not necessarily, as a mutiny by a handful of Trump electors could still throw it into the House with a third candidate in the mix.

  150. paulie Post author

    Starting with Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand’s greatest disciple, lording over the Fed for two decades

    I’m no Randian, but I’ve read her books. Greenspan was indeed a Randian disciple, but his actions as Fed head were hardly in line with that training, unless he was trying to be d’Anconia… although not even then.

    classical liberal institutional reign

    I don’t see the modern welfare-warfare state, spending and borrowing trillions a year, with enough regulations to fill a library, millions of bureaucrats, volumes of tax codes, hundreds of foreign bases, domestic surveillance, militarized policing and prison industries to be in line with the ideas of classical liberalism about a nightwatchman state.

    that Capitalism is a necessary condition for liberal political freedom

    It depends on what is meant by the weasel word “capitalism.” If it’s the crony corporatism of wall street and bank bailouts, millions of drug war prisoners and millions more deprived of rights due to past convictions, the crony crapitalism of weapons industries, bombing and rebuilding countries and forced prison labor, and on and on, I don’t see it as very compatible with liberal political freedom. But then, as compared with what?

    But it is important to note that the political institutional means for Trump to act are already in place. There is no new law that needs to be passed…there is no new police bureau that needs to be created…there is no new executive power that needs to be claimed. It is all already in place. As such, it is the utter failure of classical liberalism.

    More like the victory of authoritarian classical conservatism, in the sense of the European Old Right.

    Finally, to note: Libertarianism and classical liberal are not the same things. But in the United States at least, they generally are treated as the same thing by libertarians.

    It depends on which libertarians, and if you’re going to blame the bipartisan policy consensus on a classical liberalism which it in no way resembles then I’d have to say no, that’s not treated as the same as libertarianism by most libertarians. Well, unless they’re named Bill Weld, anyway.

  151. paulie Post author

    I think the good news about Trump is the same as the bad news about Trump — namely, that he won’t be as different as most people think he will.

    I wish I could agree.

    Already, he has talked of surrounding himself with a lot of the typical Establishment crowd — Gingrich, Giuliani, John Bolton, etc.

    Their worst, most authoritarian instincts will be magnified by his own caudilloesque force and cult of personality. Makes for a really horrific feedback loop, especially with all the nasty toys on the table.

    Also, remember that at the time they were elected, Reagan and Obama were believed by many people, including both supporters and detractors, to be radically “different” from the status quo.

    Relative dry runs. By contrast, Trump is quite likely literally the Beast of Revelations, or at least a Hitler-like figure, albeit more dangerous.

    He’ll probably turn out to be a little worse than Obama, just like Hillary would have been.

    Hillary would have certainly been worse than Obama, but I see Trump as being at least an order of magnitude or two worse. Maybe even worse than that.

  152. JamesT

    Without write ins and a few states not at 100% Castle was at 170K+. So he’ll probably do 2nd best ever for the party with dreadful ballot access. Hope they take this and Baldwin’s “success” to be more a sign to become more libertarian leaning.

    Good for the LP and Greens, hope it helps their local parties.

  153. Matt

    “Matt
    November 6, 2016 at 12:35

    Knapp and Richardson’s predictions look pretty accurate to me. The momentum is in Fuehrer von Drumpf’s favor, and he will benefit from the same “shy” uncounted conservative/fascist/populist/nationalist vote that pollsters missed in the Brexit, Netanyahu, UK and other recent elections. The polling average is about +3 Clinton; with a 5% Trump bump that has him winning by 2%, with a relatively strong electoral college finish. I see him breaking through in states such as Pennyslvania and Michigan while holding all of the Romney states. The new all-mail voting system in Colorado is likely to work in his favor as well. I say this as someone who sees Drumpf as the absolutely worst choice in this election, even though I see Clinton as being an exceptionally terrible candidate as well. I think he ends up with 290-something electoral votes.”

    I was mostly correct. Trump is actually doing a little better than I expected in the electoral college, probably 306 or 310 electoral. He’s doing worse in the popular vote, possibly a very narrow loss or at best for him a very narrow win. I was right about Michigan and Pennsylvania, wrong about Colorado.

    “So far, the Sunday shows seem to be blissfully Weld-free from what I have seen, so Johnson will get around 2-3%, as opposed to the 1% or less that he could have had if the rumors about Weld making the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to explicitly endorse Clinton had turned out to be true. Stein will likely end up close to or right at 1%. Castle won’t do any better than Goode. McMullin will underperform in Utah, as Republicans who are uncomfortable with Trump give in to their greater fear of Clinton at the last minute. If he breaks into double digits, it will be only barely. Nationally, he’ll be in 5th place behind Stein and ahead of Castle et al.”

    Johnson did slightly better than I expected. Stein did about exactly what I expected. Castle did better than I expected, as did McMullin. I was correct, however, that McMullin would not come anywhere near winning Utah. Last I checked he was in 3rd place there, although with over 20% of the vote. Depending on the breakdown of the writein vote, he may or may not finish ahead of Bernie Sanders.

    “Republicans will hold the Senate with 52% of the vote.”

    I think I meant 52 Senators. It ended up somewhere very close to that iirc.

    “Several more states, including California, will tax and regulate or medicalize marijuana; ”

    All or almost all marijuana legalization initiatives were ahead when I checked late last night, some by more comfortable margins than others.

    “nationwide legalization is likely by 2020. Instead of marijuana, the drug cartels will turn increasingly to pushing meth, heroin and other hard drugs that will remain illegal, and the growing militarized police state will continue right on track with the greatly increased crackdown on “illegal” immigration, hard drugs and Islamic terrorism (which will also greatly increase in response) forming its raison d’etre du jour.”

    Sticking with that, but not yet quantifiable.

    “Needless to say, the Libertarians won’t have to contend with whether to accept federal electoral welfare or how to spend the money. Instead, they’ll have to deal with much more mundane concerns such as fixing the new website that they put in to fix what wasn’t broken, maintaining morale as the relative influx of members and money that the party experienced this year deflates just as quickly within a year, and keeping non-libertarians from capturing the presidential and VP nominations next time around.”

    I was correct; the Libertarians did not come anywhere close to getting that federal welfare from Uncle Sugar. The rest of the issues I mentioned remain for the plucky party that keeps on ticking.

  154. Don Wills

    Earlier in this thread I wrote “Trump wins electoral college and plurality of votes, but just by a whisker!”

    I told you so.

    I attended one of Trumps rallies. 10,000 people waited for hours to get in. That was my clue. How many others who post here attended one of his events? Folks like Andy and paulie who deal with real humans every day get it. Keyboard cowboys and ivory tower elite pundits don’t have a clue.

  155. dL

    I’m no Randian, but I’ve read her books. Greenspan was indeed a Randian disciple, but his actions as Fed head were hardly in line with that training, unless he was trying to be d’Anconia… although not even then.”

    is that a no true scotsman or betrayal?

    I don’t see the modern welfare-warfare state, spending and borrowing trillions a year, with enough regulations to fill a library, millions of bureaucrats, volumes of tax codes, hundreds of foreign bases, domestic surveillance, militarized policing and prison industries to be in line with the ideas of classical liberalism about a nightwatchman state.

    Classical liberalism as an intellectual tradition is not necessarily synonymous with minarchy.

    that Capitalism is a necessary condition for liberal political freedom

    That was Friedman’s thesis. In the book, he defined what he meant by capitalism. And in the 1982 edition preface, he cited the election of Ronald Reagan as the triumph of his thesis. Though he explicitly stated the triumph was not rooted in the eloquence or persuasiveness of his argument, but rather the demonstrated, empirical failures of the other side.

    if you’re going to blame the bipartisan policy consensus on a classical liberalism which it in no way resembles then…

    Not blame..simply didn’t do anything to stop it…and eventually began to rely on the authoritarian/surveillance apparatus to enforce it.

    Once again, let us note: Classical liberalism is a retrospective term(after all, the classical liberals did not call themselves “classical liberals”) more or less invented by Friedman. To say that we had was not classical liberalism is not what the inventor of that term(or the one chiefly responsible for popularizing it) said at the inauguration of its reign in the early 1980s.

  156. Jill Pyeatt

    I have known for weeks that Trump would most likely win, although I thought he’d win by a larger margin. Anyone surprised by the results last night should turn off CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and all the other mainstream sources of media. They simply don’t tell the truth.

    It was hilarious to watch how stunned the newscasters were.

  157. paulie Post author

    is that a no true scotsman or betrayal?

    Probably betrayal. Don’t forget, Hillary was a Goldwater Girl once upon a time too. But however you want to look at it, people “evolve” as they age and climb the rungs of power.

    Classical liberalism as an intellectual tradition is not necessarily synonymous with minarchy.

    No, but it’s a lot further in that direction than what we have now is, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that we have anything like classically liberal institutional rule.

    That was Friedman’s thesis. In the book, he defined what he meant by capitalism. And in the 1982 edition preface, he cited the election of Ronald Reagan as the triumph of his thesis.

    He was wrong about Reagan. Reagan’s record in office ended up being one of more rapid government growth – as an overall figure, or even as a percentage of the economy – than under recent Democrats. The same pattern has held in other recent administrations: government has grown faster under Republican presidents than Democratic ones. And that’s especially true when you consider the military/police/prison/espionage state, with the explosion of the police/prison apparatus under Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes. Not that the Democrats in the intervening terms did anything to dial it back, but the explosions came under Republicans. Expect that pattern – and then some – with Trump.

    Not blame..simply didn’t do anything to stop it…

    We’ve done what we can to speak out against the welfare-warfare state, crony corporatism, domestic surveillance, etc.

    and eventually began to rely on the authoritarian/surveillance apparatus to enforce it.

    How so?

    Once again, let us note: Classical liberalism is a retrospective term(after all, the classical liberals did not call themselves “classical liberals”) more or less invented by Friedman.

    Classical liberals just called themselves liberals. They’re “classical” liberals because the term liberal was effectively taken over by progressives, then turned into an epithet by conservatives, whereupon progressives have mostly gone back to calling themselves progressives. However, the term liberal remains mostly identified with progressives in the US. In some other countries, liberal still means what it once meant here. I don’t think it’s fair to say that non-progressive liberal thinking is the force behind global power cartels and the bipartisan consensus or “deep state” rule.

    I also don’t see Reagan – a New Deal Democrat, cold warrior, drug warrior and right wing culture warrior – as falling anywhere within the old (pre-progressive) liberal tradition, regardless of what Friedman thought. I’m equally skeptical of the Rockwell-Hoppeian romanticization of European monarchy, the Old Right, and of populist ethnonationalism along the lines of Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump as having much to do with any genuine libertarian tradition, either.

  158. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    10:18 AM (4 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business, lnc-business

    In Kentucky, Mitch Rushing has won a PARTISAN race for County Commissioner District B in Jefferson County, KY. The office is elected at-large, and has limited duties, due to Metro government moving most county duties to the city of Louisville, but still makes important decisions regarding sewers and roads.

    No Democrat or Republican filed for the office, an Independent was removed due to a faulty petition, and a write-in was also unsuccessful. Mr. Rushing now represents over 750,000 people in a partisan office as an elected Libertarian.

    Mr. Rushing will serve in the highest elected partisan office in Kentucky, and nationally I believe he will represent the most people as an elected Libertarian.


    Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
    LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
    LPKY Judicial Committee

  159. paulie Post author

    Dana McLorn
    November 9 at 10:27am

    I would like to post a disclaimer. Mr Trumps policy’s are not small government, free market or deregulating. Any harm that results from said policy’s is not the fault of free markets, Capitalism, limited government or libertarians. Please refer to this disclaimer in case of recession, depression or dramatic loss of civil rights. Libertarians and their policies should be held harmless. Thank you.

    I’ll somewhat disagree on the “capitalism” part, depending on how the word is used. Otherwise correct.

  160. robert capozzi

    dw: “Trump wins electoral college and plurality of votes, but just by a whisker!”

    I told you so.

    me: I thought HRC won the popular vote. Has that been updated?

    Good for you, but “I told you so” is widely considered an unpleasant and unproductive statement.

    I mean, didn’t you “tell us so” with the Country Party?

    We all win some and lose some, last I checked.

  161. Curt Boyd

    Looks like the popular vote is as follows (1pm EST):
    Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, McMullin, Castle, La Riva, De La Fuente, Duncan, Vacek, Keniston, Kennedy, Smith, Kahn, Hedges, Moorehead, Skewes, Soltysik, Copeland, Hoefling, Giordani, Kotlikoff, Kopitke, Jacob, Maldonado, Maturen, Scott, Silva, White, Lyttle, Atwood

    The Democratic and Republican totals both went down.
    Libertarians from 1.2 million to about 4 million.
    Greens from 466,000 to about 1.2 million.
    Constitution from 122,000 to about 171,000.
    PSL, Reform, Prohibition, and Socialist Workers parties all increased from 2012 substantially.

    I haven’t seen any write in tallies yet. I’m sure they’ll take a little longer to get counted.

  162. paulie Post author

    Judge Susan Bell (L) was reelected to her 3rd or 4th term as
    Hagerstown (IN) Town Judge. Susan is so well respected as a judge for the work she has done that the old parties
    chose to not run anyone against her for the second time!

    Live Free,
    Sam Goldstein

  163. robert capozzi

    Thank you, Johnson/Weld. It was not a perfect effort, but who could possibly expect that? In so many states, you were received more than the margin of victory. You obviously campaigned tirelessly. You put the liberty on the political map, receiving actual hard news coverage. We saw GJ on most of the polls in the final weeks…too late, but still….

    Note to the LP (or, perhaps, a lessarchist party that the country so desperately needs) candidate in 2020.

    Make sure you bone up on foreign affairs. Even if tactful disengagement is the right way to go, you still have to appear as prepared to assume your prospective duties as commander-in-chief.

  164. Dave

    If there’s a Silver(or Gold:P) lining this election I think a Trump win will grow the LP more. Had Clinton won a lot of voters would have been desperate to throw out the democrats after 12 years of rule. So they’d be much less inclined to support the LP next time.

    A Trump win though is still anathema to a portion of Republican and typically right leaning voters. We’ve seen the LP’s growth in membership explode this cycle. I expect that to continue with Trump in the White House.

  165. paulie Post author

    Dear Paul,

    While the outcome of the presidential election may be contentious, one thing is certain: marijuana is a big winner!

    In the most momentous Election Day in history for the marijuana policy reform movement, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada voted to end marijuana prohibition, and Arkansas, Florida, and North Dakota adopted medical marijuana laws. In Montana, voters approved an initiative to re-establish patients’ access to medical marijuana providers and improve its existing medical marijuana law.

    The only dim spot is in Arizona, where the legalization initiative is currently losing 48% to 52%, albeit with tens of thousands of additional ballots to be counted. (Sadly, the measure is likely to lose when the counting concludes in nine days.)

    The number of states where marijuana is legal for adults doubled last night — from four to eight — and the first TWO states in the South made medical marijuana legal.

    We’re proud of the voters in these states and want to thank all the donors, citizens, elected officials, organizations, and businesses that came together to bring about these victories.

    MPP played a leading role in supporting the initiative campaigns to regulate and tax marijuana like alcohol in Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada and assisted in the other states. We have ambitious plans for the coming year in the continuing fight to end marijuana prohibition nationwide. Please help us keep this incredible momentum going by making a contribution to power our post-election efforts.

    I’ll explain our next steps in future alerts. But, for now, let’s celebrate!

    Onward,

    Rob Kampia
    Executive Director
    Marijuana Policy Project
    Washington, D.C.

  166. paulie Post author

    One bright spot from AZ, it appears fascist pig in chief Arpaio has finally received the heave ho after 24 years. His ongoing contempt of federal court regarding racial profiling, jail conditions, etc., may have him on his way to jail, too. Unfortunately, it will probably be club fed; it would have been so much better if he could stay in his own tent city, especially in the summer, with the pink underwear, striped uniforms, green baloney, toilet cams, rampant infectious diseases, etc., etc. Also unfortunately, his buddies Trump and Giuliani are on their way to DC, so they’ll probably give him a pardon and a cabinet post or agency head job.

  167. William Saturn

    I may be wrong, but I think Donald Trump is the first person elected president who previously belonged to a third party (Reform Party).

  168. William Saturn

    I looked it up. It seems Millard Fillmore was a member of the anti-Masonic Party before he became president.

  169. Matt

    Much like Trump, Fillmore was associated with a nativist Know Nothing party. The problem we have now is that it’s not a third party anymore.

  170. Matt

    I’d have to look up exactly when Lincoln joined the Republicans but they were a third party briefly, although the Whigs were simultaneously on their way out.

  171. NewFederalist

    Does anyone know why it is taking so long to call Arizona? It now says 100% of precincts are reporting and Trump is 4% ahead of Clinton.

  172. George Phillies

    Calling has no legal consequence. As the informal winner has already been announced, why waste staff time on filling in the gap?

    Massachusetts, legally, does not determine its winner until sometime in December when the Governor’s Council meets.

    Expect the usual suspects to start pounding the drums to subvert the Constitution by amending in favor of direct popular election of the President.

    As red areas get redder, and blue areas get bluer, at some point partition on the Czech model is going to start being more plausible.

  173. Anthony Dlugos

    “Expect the usual suspects to start pounding the drums to subvert the Constitution by amending in favor of direct popular election of the President.”

    I definitely think that’s gonna happen. Can’t see the Democrats sitting passive, waiting for a electoral vote loss/pop vote win to happen a third time in our lifetimes.

  174. paulie Post author

    There are provisional and absentee ballots. Some states have more than others. There are still millions of those to be counted, so it could conceivably change the outcome in some states. I am guessing that’s why AZ has not been called.

    As red areas get redder, and blue areas get bluer,

    Trump won several states that have gone Democratic since the 1980s. He came close in MN, which has the longest standing Democratic streak of any state, going back to 1976.

    Clinton did a terrible job at motivating Democratic-leaning voters to turn out at all. Overall turnout was down significantly, particular among people who usually vote Democratic when they do vote, despite a well-funded and organized turnout operation. Their problem was an extremely uninspiring candidate who had come to symbolize the corruption of the status quo. Equally historic negatives for her chief opponent turned out not to be enough to motivate enough Democrat-leaners to bother to show up.

    However, she outperformed Democratic Party historic levels in the Southwest, which includes states that used to be reliably Republican. That may be why Arizona is still not called. If the Democrats did a better job of turning out voters they probably could have carried several states that they used to be nowhere close to being competitive in, including Arizona and at one point in the polling Georgia. So, demographic shifts are changing which areas are “blue” and “red.”

  175. NewFederalist

    “Calling has no legal consequence. As the informal winner has already been announced, why waste staff time on filling in the gap?” – George Phillies

    It’s rather like climate change, George. It’s either the right thing to do or it isn’t. I’m sure you can understand that.

  176. William Saturn

    Any takers on who will challenge Trump for re-election in 2020? Elizabeth Warren? Cory Booker? Kanye West?

  177. paulie Post author

    MN hasn’t gone red since ’72.

    Red didn’t become associated with Republicans until 2000. Prior to that, networks usually showed Democratic states as red. Since 2000 had a very dramatic and protracted vote count and recount, the momentary association of Republican and red stuck. It’s correct that MN was Republican in ’72 and Democratic from ’76 on. Since it was the only Democratic state in ’84 potus elections it has the longest streak on the D side.

    Republicans have a bloc of states – Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, both Dakotas, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming – that have been with them every time since 1968.

  178. paulie Post author

    Any takers on who will challenge Trump for re-election in 2020? Elizabeth Warren? Cory Booker? Kanye West?

    If there’s an election in 2020, those could all be possibilities. There are of course many others.

  179. paulie Post author

    Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had lower voter turn out in 2016 than Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney had in 2012. That means that Trump did not turn out “hidden” voters, and won because Democrats failed to show up to the polls and vote for Hillary Clinton!

    Other things to consider:

    * Increased vote for alt parties across the ideological map

    * Increased write-in vote

    * Non-establishment (or perceived as such) Republican beating expectations to win both the nomination and the election

    * Non-establishment (or perceived as such) Democrat beating expectations, coming much closer to nomination than expected, stopped by establishment thumb on the scale of the nomination process

  180. Election Addict

    @14:06

    Amendment 71 passed in Colorado, requiring a supermajority vote of 55% to pass all future amendments to the Colorado constitution. Furthermore it makes it more difficult to get anything on the ballot. I don’t see the reason for that, our ballot is like three pages, not exactly complicated or unmanageable. I guess that scared people, anyway.

    Purely partisan imo, given that Colorado vacillates between right and left (and I do realize the arguments for it), but looks like independents and people who thought this is ancient Greece were suckered too.

    Most surprising because I thought such a thing would lose by a wide margin.

  181. Andy

    “Election Addict
    November 10, 2016 at 02:25
    @14:06

    Amendment 71 passed in Colorado, requiring a supermajority vote of 55% to pass all future amendments to the Colorado constitution. Furthermore it makes it more difficult to get anything on the ballot. I don’t see the reason for that, our ballot is like three pages, not exactly complicated or unmanageable. I guess that scared people, anyway.”

    This is not a good development. Colorado used to be one of my favorite states in which to gather petition signatures as I worked on initiatives there on multiple occasions. Amendment 71 creates a distribution requirement where you have to gather a certain number of signatures out of a certain number of districts (state senate districts I think). District petitioning is difficult because most voters do not know in which districts they live. This is going to make it a lot more difficult to place initiatives on the ballot, and this is not a good thing.

  182. dL

    “Expect the usual suspects to start pounding the drums to subvert the Constitution by amending in favor of direct popular election of the President.”

    How exactly is amending the constitution a “subversion” of it?

  183. George Phillies

    The same sense in which repealing the First Amendment would be subversive. The advocates are proposing to eliminate the fundamental basis of the document.

  184. Austin Cassidy

    For all the wasted time talking about Darryl Perry, it’s interesting to note that it appears not a single person in Vermont wrote-in his name.

    Anyone seeing totals for other states?

  185. robert capozzi

    A fundamental basis of the Constitution was protecting slavery, too. Banning it in the US may have been “subversive” to some, but I’d call that progress.

    I can’t imagine the smaller states would EVER agree to the prez being selected by a straight popular vote. Similarly, I don’t think they’d agree to allocation of Senators by pop instead of 2 per state.

    The electoral college, however, seems silly to me. Why not just a pop vote by state? Whether it’s worth the effort is another matter….

Leave a Reply

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