Constitution Party: 2020 Election Analysis

The Constitution Party sent out the following email about the 2020 presidential election from outgoing party chairman Frank Fluckiger:

The 2020 Presidential Elections are still on the minds of many Americans. As a member of the Constitution Party Executive Committee, I did an analysis of the election which I shared with the members of that committee. In discussing this with Jim Clymer, our new national chairman, we felt this information is something that our members would appreciate receiving. It is with this in mind that this report has been prepared. We hope this is of value to each of you.

I want to share with you two reports showing the presidential vote totals for Blankenship and Mohr. The first report shows the number of votes garnered by the three minor parties in 2016 and 2020. It also shows the state-by-state vote percentage that each CP state received in 2016 vs 2020. Overall, the CP retained a higher vote percentage of the 2016 vote than did the Green Party, but less than the Libertarian. In summary, all three parties were hit hard. The vote percentage of the Libertarian and the Green Party should not change a lot since the Libertarians were on in all 50 states and the Green Party was on in 30 states. The CP had votes in only 18 due to issues in WY, NM, and SC. Our percentage of 29.13% should increase once the write-in votes are tabulated, but that will take some time to get those. We did retain ballot access in WY. Jeff Haggit got 2.9% of the vote (9,730 votes) in his US House race. We needed 2% to retain ballot access. We are grateful for that as Wyoming is a very difficult state to gain ballot access in. Only the LP and the CP have ballot status there. Wyoming simply forgot to turn in the electors, so Blankenship was not on the ballot. He would have done pretty well there.

If you compare state by state CP votes where the party was on the ballot for 2016 vs 2020, the CP did better than the LP. Eleven of the 18 states got over 40% of the 2016 vote. Utah was high with 68.15% of the 2016 vote. However, we should have done much better than that due to the McMullen factor in 2016. The LP Party did better than we did in that regard. We just did not run a good campaign this year and should have gotten more votes for Blankenship than we did. We did not get serious about the campaign until early Oct. and that was costly. Even then, Utah got the highest total CP vote percentage with 0.4%. Alaska was second with 0.3%. North Carolina was impressive in that they gave Blankenship the most votes and just got ballot access in 2018. Tennessee also did well. In 2016, Tennessee was a write-in state and Vermont was also a write-in state. With the exception of Tennessee and North Carolina, we did rather poorly in the Southern States. In LA, MS, AR, and FL, we have next to no party organization other than just being on the ballot. That should hopefully change with the new regional chairmen in place.

On the second report, it shows the total vote thus far from each state and the percentage of the total CP vote that each state received. Here, NC was tops, followed by MI. Five states, NC, MI, UT, TN, and WI got 30,772 votes for Blankenship or 52% of the total vote Blankenship got nationwide. That is a serious indication of just how weak the party is in many states. So, there is a lot of work that needs to be done. NC wants to begin ballot access right away which is most encouraging. It will be much cheaper now as petitioners want work.

In any event, it seems clear that our message resonates with the public. Don did a remarkable job in his interviews. The one interview that Bill Mohr did in Michigan was good as well. We just need to find a means of getting our message out to the public more effectively. Starting to do that now rather than four years down the road should make a huge difference. Getting our party leaders to move forward on that has always been a challenge, but with the new leadership in place in many states, we should be up to the task.

This information should be used as a valuable tool in building the party in the coming months and years.

On another note, an analysis of the vote for Trump and Biden was also done. What we learned was interesting to say the least. You can see that report here.

Listed are the vote totals and vote percentages the Democratic candidate and Trump got in 2016 and 2020. Of particular interest was the votes for Trump in the states of AZ, WI, MI, PA, NC, and GA. Take the time to visually compare those to similar votes in surrounding states. It becomes obvious that the percentage of vote increase that Trump got in those states was very minuscule compared to the significant vote increase that Biden got in those states. It seems clear that 1) either votes were switched from Trump to Biden in those states or 2) there were a lot of undervotes for other candidates on the ballot, meaning that votes were cast for Biden and no other candidates on the ballot or 3) both of the above. Those are both big red flags implying vote fraud. Those figures are printed in bold type. Anyway, we thought you might be interested in reviewing them.

Regional chairmen: Please forward this info on to all of your state party leaders who may not be on the national email list and have them in turn forward it on to all of their other state and local members. This is the only report they will have of the success that we did achieve. This detailed information simply is not available unless we provide it. We will also put this info under elections on the national website and update it as new information is available.

Thanks to Jim Clymer for giving his approval to email this to each of you. If you find it of value, please forward it on to others, but delete the unsubscribe button prior to doing so.

Frank Fluckiger

Member of the Executive Committee

8 thoughts on “Constitution Party: 2020 Election Analysis

  1. Floyd Whitley

    Gibberish. The gentleman is clearly delusional.

    His proffered “excuse report” amounts to a foisting of patently absurd (and entirely irrelevant) metrics with the purpose of covering the REALITY of the scope of the loss. I have to wonder whether the gentleman, in his apparent alternate reality, is actually Baghdad Bob reincarnated.

    The gentleman may use all the euphemisms and flatteries known to exist in the Oxford dictionary, and still the gentleman will be unable to cover up the odious and obvious stench of their white washed tomb.

    The brutal honesty is that 2020 was THE single worst underperformance in the entire history of the so-called national party.

    Measured in the only metric that matters–the net percentage of the aggregate national ballot gotten–the national CP’s 2020 campaign forced a tipping point–its “growth” trend is now clearly senescent. The percentage of national aggregated vote expected is now in negative trend…for the first time in the history of the so-called national party. In fact, this negative trend in raw aggregate general ballots is doubly negative…because the general electorate population “universe” is growing each election. National CP is therefore diminishing further and further.

    It is a fact. 2020 result was catastrophic. But the gentleman apparently seeks to deny that fact. Using the WHOLE historical data set for comparison (instead of the gentleman’s sleight of hand efforts to pluck and plop nonsensical metrics and thereby continue the delusion), the 2020 linear raw ballot trend was 208,000 votes. Mr. Blankenship got 60,000, fully 71% below trend.

    Even if one were to remove the 1992 general from the data set as an outlier (because it was the initiating election), the 2020 linear trend called for an aggregate of 181,000 general ballots. And Mr. Blankenship got 60,000.

    Spin away. Just know that normal honest people learn from their mistakes by truthful introspection. But apparently, national CP has no interest in learning. It continues to deny and thereby pretend to justify. What a wretched group…true zealots hailing Mein Kampf up to, and all the way through, chewing the dental caps of cyanide, so convinced they are of their self righteousness.

  2. Floyd Whitley

    In order to pull their bandwagon out of the mudhole they have driven it into, with their oompah band blowing all-the-while, the national CP must exceed 0.15% of the national total ballot in 2024. That will only get their oompah wagon up to a flat line…no growth.

    That required number of national ballots is calculable, BTW. Dave Leip currently has 158,002,601 as the 2020 aggregate presidential ballot (subject to small corrections). Using 2020’s anomalously large turnout, requires a 2024 aggregated national CP yield of 237,004 votes–just to pull up to a flatline. If you say the 2020 turnout is too much to match, it’s an anomaly, fine. Use the 2016 aggregate. You will still need not less than 205,715 votes–just to get back to flat.

    In either case, those raw vote totals have never been met by the national CP. I leave to the reader to decide, under the national CP’s current management, how likely these returns may be in 2024. A yield of +0.15% of the aggregate national vote was achieved only two times in the national party’s history–in 1996 (0.19% aggregate–184,820 ballots in 96,275,640 cast); and in 2008 (0.15% aggregate–199,880 ballots in 131,473,705 cast).

    So, no cake walk. Especially not, given the national CP will have to exceed the new albeit it lower 2024 linear estimate by 60 to 75 thousand votes, however it is calculated. At best, all that yields is a flatline with a no growth aggregate.

    Unfortunately for them, under the current executive committee (i.e. the same old social club clique), the likelihood of the national CP ever getting out of their hole and back to at least a flatline is itself a long odd. One thing is sure. If it cannot bring itself to a truthful organizational assessment at this late hour, versus its ubiquitous platitudes, flattery and mutual denial, then the national CP will never will…despite all its oompah blowing.

  3. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    As I predicted months ago, Trump would attract many traditional CP voters. Trump stole all their issues:

    * Immigration restrictions.

    * Trade restrictions.

    * Foreign Non-Intervention.

    * Trump even made much of saying “Merry Christmas,” signaling his Christian bona fides.

    Trump didn’t deliver much. But no politician ever does. Still, he stole the CP’s talking points. Whereas most GOP politicians usually steal Libertarian talking points.

    Most of the GOP establishments seems eager to forget Trump and his policies. If that happens, the CP would be wise to try and steal away Trump’s many MAGA fans from the GOP.

  4. Floyd Whitley

    If an honest accounting of the unsustainable cost of the 2020 election is the objective (the tripe from the former national chairman was anything but), then I’m game. The scale of 2020’s forward cost upon the national CP’s aggregate “expected” future general election ballots is enormous.

    1. The 2020 linear projection (prior to the realized result) was: y = 16348x + 77017; with x being the ordinal of the general election year. From this linear function, the “expected” yield for 2020 was 207,801 national CP aggregate votes…IF 2020 would have remained on trend. But it did not.

    2. A straight trend line will continue to infinity (absent additional data input that may alter its slope). Therefore, 2020’s linear equation can be used to project an “expected” return for the 2024 general election—which was 224,149 votes in the forward forecast; however…

    3. 2020’s catastrophic results collapsed that linear trend. Now updated with the 2020 results, the new linear trend becomes: y = 4031.1x + 113967, or an “expected” yield of 150,247 votes in 2024. That is not just a haircut trim! That is 73,902 FEWER expected votes.

    4. The forward “cost” of 2020’s ruinous return can be estimated by running iterations of the now greatly lowered trend. The question becomes: How many election cycles are now required on the current trend to return to the raw vote estimate that was formerly “expected” in the 2020 election?

    5. Obtain the vote-cycles-to-recover-cost (or rather, the time required to repair the damage). (a) Hold the initial 2020 “expectation” of 207,801 national ballots static; (b) Then run the newly depressed linear slope forward until it results in an equivalent yield of raw votes–207,801–that were formerly “projected” in 2020.

    6. If done, that equivalent “expected” national aggregate is now projected to occur after general election year 23. Which means, national CP can “expect” to return to what WAS the predicted yield for the 2020 election sometime after the 2080 general election—60 YEARS from now! That is the true scale of the disaster.

    And yes, of course. During the interim, a subsequent campaign might, for once, finally live up to the “peaches and cream” soft shoe predictably danced by the national CP at times like this. And yes, an election cycle might eventually produce a large enough aggregate vote that could pull the national CP linear slope trend higher to reduce the recovery (repair) time.

    Maybe, possibly, perhaps, someday, somehow…over the next 60 years.

  5. Justice Apash

    As I mentioned in comments on a previous thread, I voted for Chuck Baldwin in 2008. Although I ended up voting for Gary Johnson in 2012, I donated a generous amount to Virgil Goode. I went from Buchanan style Paleo-Conservative to Ron Paul Libertarian to now moderate Republicanism. However in 2024 there will be a great opportunity for the CP to get back ballot access and have great success. While the newsletter was a half-way admission of problems it also was beating around the bush. No acknowledgement that they choose the wrong candidate. Don Blankenship not only alienated state affiliates like CP of NM but he didn’t actively campaign. Someone from the CP commented that Don Blankenship could bring media attention and had access to money for more ballot access, which didn’t materialize. No acknowledgement that the national leadership alienated many former members and state parties. But let’s go over what was in the letter.
    “It also shows the state-by-state vote percentage that each CP state received in 2016 vs 2020. Overall, the CP retained a higher vote percentage of the 2016 vote than did the Green Party, but less than the Libertarian.”
    -Yet somehow the Green Party managed to get almost double of the record CP presidential total (2016 Darrell Castle).
    “The CP had votes in only 18 due to issues in WY, NM, and SC.”
    -Yeah one of the issues is that states like New Mexico that ballot access put someone else on the ballot because of problems with Don Blankenship.
    “Our percentage of 29.13% should increase once the write-in votes are tabulated, but that will take some time to get those.”
    -In California and Texas, the CP didn’t get any write-in votes counted because they could not find enough people to be electoral college members (55 in California and 38 in Texas. In 2008, Chuck Baldwin got 3,000 write-in votes from California and 5,700 from Texas. Not as good as being on the ballot but 8,700 votes is better than nothing.
    “We just did not run a good campaign this year and should have gotten more votes for Blankenship than we did. We did not get serious about the campaign until early Oct. and that was costly.”
    -To not actively campaign until early Oct. is utterly inexcusable. While the LP, GP, and the Alliance Party candidates were doing active townhalls/Q&As on Facebook/other social media, Don Blankenship was doing nothing for months. I know that several airlines and states had restrictions on travel but there was nothing stopping an active online campaign.
    “In LA, MS, AR, and FL, we have next to no party organization other than just being on the ballot. That should hopefully change with the new regional chairmen in place.”
    -A certain person from the CP of Missouri was saying in comments on IPR that the disaffiliation of the CP of Virginia and the loss of ballot access in New Mexico was no big deal because those state parties had very few active members. Now we find out that many Southern states have the issue.
    “In any event, it seems clear that our message resonates with the public. Don did a remarkable job in his interviews.”
    -On what planet is this true? Your message resonates so well that adjusted for population growth, your party received the same amount of votes as in 1992. Whether or not Don did a remarkable job in his interviews, he should have started a lot sooner rather than sit on his butt for several months.

  6. Floyd Whitley

    @Federalist Yes. The gentleman you mention is also part of the problem. The entire C-in-C (clique-in-charge) is the problem. Musical chairs accomplishes nothing tangible. The national CP is organized under institutionalized consolidated executive committee control. It is the antithesis of real liberty. I have explained many, many times that the national CP is upside down.

    It is particularly galling that only now–after more than a half decade of their damned denial–that the former gentleman autocrat/theocrat arrives at his half hearted Homer Simpson epiphany–Well, duh!

    The 2020 results are “a serious indication of just how weak the party is in many states”? Really? The gentlemen in the national social club now have a dawning realization that there’s “a serious indication of just how weak the party is in many states”? Seriously?

    Truth shall set you free. CP-Idaho stood upon this exact point at national convention in 2016, and were attacked for refusing to disfranchise and refusing to accept phantom nominative ballots from states without any evidence at all of a representative delegation. (And for the record, we were again attacked THIS year also for refusing to disfranchise our 2020 voters.) In our virtual state convention, we refused to allow certain persons to disfranchise our voters. Blankenship would have never been printed on the ballot here, if I operated with the same standards as the national CP. And then to have that gentleman national candidate attack ME? The candidate was an awful joke.

    Anyhow, a raft of state affiliates have disaffiliated, or are completely derelict, are non-ballot qualified and except for a handful are undeniably in rigor mortis. And all of a sudden the clique claims to “get it”?

    Look, the national CP has deeply flawed structural malformities. And that’s only the starting point of what is wrong with them. If they want to survive, they should start with their bylaws and systematically strip out every stinking instance of autocracy. Further, enough with the use of poisonous flattery, whispered deceits, innuendos, rumors and incitements to attack anyone they deem to be heretical. The last gentleman chair did exactly that. That’s how he operated. It was the one constant in the entire bunch of ’em.

    But, I see they play musical chairs again. Rotating to Clymer? Don’t mean a thing. Leopards and spots. Besides, they’ve yet to truly search their souls. That exercise is far more painful than simple musical chairs.

Leave a Reply

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