In an email received on 5 Oct 2023 by IPR, former advisor to various presidential campaigns (including Nixon, Trump, and Gary Johnson) Roger Stone writes, in part:
“First let me say that contrary to the claims of many trolls on social media, I am neither a close friend or advisor to Robert Kennedy, nor did I (allegedly in combination with Steve Bannon!) urge Robert Kennedy to run for President. These left-wing conspiracy theories are based on the fact that I met young Kennedy one time at a conference in which we were photographed together.”
Mr. Stone continues:
“Sadly, that innocent photograph has been used over and over again by the Biden Campaign Research Operation in an attempt to discredit RFK Jr. and dismiss his candidacy as some kind of psy-op designed to weaken incumbent Joe Biden to the benefit of President Donald Trump. That is both false and absurd.
“That said, the best thing about Kennedy’s campaign is Kennedy himself. He is both energetic and engaging on the stump, and has made excellent use of optimistic and unifying language—positioning himself as the “Peace and Freedom” Candidate. He has also proved to be substenative (sic); I have yet to see him make a claim or assertion that he could not back with an authoritative study or source.”
“. . . there is actually no indication that RFK Jr. is either a good fit for or intends to pursue (the Libertarian Party’s) nomination. The only advantage to be the Libertarian Party Nominee would be automatic ballot status in approximately 30 states — leaving another 20 states in which the party has vast successful experience in gaining ballot access through petitioning. While RFK Jr. does have some Libertarian views, he is, in fact, not a very good fit for a party that puts a very high premium on issue purity.”
. . .
“Polling produced by a super PAC supporting RFK Jr. from a reputable pollster seems to indicate that an Independent RFK candidacy pulls votes disproportionately from Donald Trump (compared to those pulled from Joe Biden).”
IPR readers desiring to read Roger Stone’s full email analysis, may do so HERE.
IPR readers interested in subscribing to THE STONE COLD TRUTH, may do so HERE.
x: The party that nominated Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Bill Weld et al places a high premium on issue purity? I’m skeptical of that claim in light of real world evidence.
me: My sense is that your point is valid as far as it goes. However, the (let’s call it) “NAP educationists” are a large contingent in the LP, people who have very little interest in appealing to large percentages of the population with a winning “peace and freedom” message. Rather, candidates like Jorgensen, Badnarik, and Browne who are largely unknown and who espouse philosophical constructs are the preferred “candidates” of the NAP educationists.
It’s obvious to me that these sorts of candidates lack credibility for the job they are applying for.
In this sense, Stone is correct, as the Rs and Ds ignore their also-ran candidates who lack resumes that position them as viable candidates.
(Vivek may be an exception to this rule, as his self-funding coupled with A+ communication skills has allowed him to get somewhat of a serious look, in this case with the Rs. Perhaps Yang would also qualify. In some ways, Trump opened up the “outsider” lane that has been closed to them pre-2016.)
Should RFK seek the LP nomination, I suspect the NAP educationists will be even more vicious than they were toward Johnson and Barr.
However, given how in disarray the national LP is, I suspect it would be fairly easy for Team RFK to flood the convention with their people.
My recollection is that Perot “drew” MORE from Clinton than from Bush according to exit polls, presumably meaning that his only effect was to ensure that Clinton was elected with a plurality rather than a majority.
Perot drew equally from Clinton and Bush, according to exit polls. Polls taken while Perot was out of the race, before dropping back in, showed Clinton with a bigger lead than before or after that time window.
The party that nominated Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Bill Weld et al places a high premium on issue purity? I’m skeptical of that claim in light of real world evidence.
It’s interesting to see Political.Genius.™ Roger Stone spin, spin, spin on the possibility of Bob Jr. taking more votes from Trump than from Biden.
Yes, tis true that third-party candidates generally don’t steal from a duopoly party. Independents? Generally a different story, as anybody who knows the Perot 1992 discussion knows.