from Ballot Access News
U.S. News & World Report Suggests Strong Independent Candidates Seem Likely
November 25th, 2009
The U.S. News & World Report has this November 25 article, which suggests that candidates running for office outside the two major parties could be strong, in both 2010 and 2012.
A quote from the US News article says, “Recent polls show that Americans aren’t happy with the leadership of the two major parties or the status quo in Washington.”
Thomas,
Of course. But…
Not much point in replying to Spence. After all, he prefers to make up both sides of an argument, continue claiming that I said or was about to say things I don’t believe even after being corrected, announce his departure, then show up again barely a day later with more of the same nonsense.
In point of fact, not only is the Reform Party not an example of his strategy, neither are his other examples, since none of them did things that way.
That he has the support of resident troll Don Lake just digs his hold deeper.
Don,
It’s usually best to read what I wrote before responding to it. Here’s the short version:
– Spence cited the Reform Party as an example of a third party succeeding by starting at the lower level and moving up.
– I noted that contra his characterization, the Reform Party started at the top level and moved down, and that it managed a grand total of one significant electoral victory before disintegrating.
What about that is incorrect?
Saint Louis Tommy:
The Reform/ Deform Party
[You’ve gotta be kidding! Since the dual convention and Patrick [and sister Bay] Buchanan in Long Beach [2000] things have been an on going train wreck. You do any P2008 research ????? Did the LP rack up A TOTAL of under 500 votes nationally?]
[What has the current situation with the Reform movement have to do with paulie and Lib Grrl and Bob Milne’s and their childish, illogical hit pieces ????????????? You are starting to slip again after months of improvement. ]
[I get it that paulie and Lib Grrl are personal friends but what about embracing honesty and ethics over personal feelings? Get real dude!]
Spence,
Actually, the Reform Party started by unsuccessfully running presidential candidates, eventually elected a governor … and haven’t accomplished much since.
We saw how nominating the candidate managed by the Reform Party’s presidential campaign genius worked out last year — about par for the LP course.
Spence // Dec 1, 2009:
Don’t make me laugh, Paulie. You’ve done it enough. I shoulda known not to debate an idiot like yourself- they always win with experience.
—— Spence, Since paulie came back from his latest journey into Petition Land, you might have noticed that lots of folks whom do not respond to Lib Grrl and Bob Millne also ignore resident genius paulie ……..
An example of Paulie’s idiocy:
[quote]Give a new freedom party 10 years to perform. Let’s say they started in New England, elected a few people to state legislature, maybe AG. Then they got Governor. All of the sudden, other states have similar or affiliated parties. Now you have a credible party.
“Examples of this working?”[/quote]
[quote]This was exactly how the Progressives, Populists, and lately the Reform Party came about, although the last is not a perfect, conforming example. Meanwhile, I could ask you the same question. Where is your proof the opposite, broad-based, whack-a-mole strategy the current LP tries works?
“[b]Compared with…?[/b]”[/quote]
This demonstrates how Paulie failed to follow along and realize that I had already stated what I was comparing with: the current LP’s model (of failure) compared with the hypothetical new model for success.
Good job, fool.
Just do not expect you’ll get much sympathy from the MSM because you failed to prove you were viable.
Don’t make me laugh, Paulie. You’ve done it enough. I shoulda known not to debate an idiot like yourself- they always win with experience.
I have always been consistent here. It is your failed reading comprehension that cannot decipher the simplest message that I started with.
If you really fucking think that throwing money down the sink to the current LP is so logical, despite its past failures, its mounting present failures, and guaranteed future failures, be my guest. Go right on being poofertarian.
Since Spence feels more comfortable making (up) both sides of an argument, I see nothing wrong with having him argue with himself at Nolan Chart.
Spence // Nov 30, 2009
http://www.nolanchart.com/author638.html
If you want to critique or criticize any of my observations, do so here.
—– as valuable as politics1.com, and thirdpartywatch.com/ independentpoliticalreport.com, and ballot-access.com are
they do lend them selves to being churchie and preachie ……..
the true believers believe that they must really push the cause, no matter how inappropriate ……..
and a whole of folks just can not win an argument so they ‘make it up as they go along’!
hang it there ………..
http://www.nolanchart.com/author638.html
If you want to critique or criticize any of my observations, do so here. I’m tired of restating my argument in piecemeal fashion where it is clear you are more comfortable sliming it up.
I know that I would not. Since you prefer to ascribe opinions to me that I disagree with even after being corrected, I doubt we’ll get anywhere in a conversation.
All I have to say to this is that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Stop being so linear in your replies and maybe you’d get somewhere.
LOL. As you try this, if you ever do, you’ll discover that there are endless disagreements on the particulars of what constitutes both 1 and 2.
I’m fully willing to try it and dispel the common poofertarian fearmongering that you and others (like Tom Sipos and Walt Thiessen) spread to prevent things from changing and actually getting done.
You apparently belittle the significance of ‘1 & 2’ even though it’s clear that there is a schism in the Libertarian Party. There are those that call themselves small L and Big L libertarians, presumably the ‘Big L’ group is referring to the party. That’s the problem right there.
You can’t ever, no matter how much you want to stomp your feet and laugh off opposing arguments to the contrary, declare that your party is the definition of libertarianism. Intentionally or not, that is what the LP has done and it’s the worse for it.
That will be no less true if you call it the Freedom Party, Gold Party, Porcupine Party, Zaxelbrax Party….anything.
Wrong again. What it says to call yourself something like the Libertarian Party versus something like the Democrats/Republicans – even the new Whigs makes all the difference in the world.
Now, I’m not suggesting that there won’t be any moderate/hardline factions but to suggest that these differences are impossible to overcome is shown up by the size and success of the two majors. Too often, Libertarians are in their own little bubble world, thinking they’re the only ones dealing with feuds between moderates and radicals over the future of the party. If they looked around, they would realize that other parties have answered this, by taking steps only both factions agree on.
For example, moderate Democrats may not want a public option. The flaming liberal Democrats want socialized healthcare. But they BOTH agree on the pragmatic step to reform the system and add more government to the mix. A libertarian party could borrow such a structure. The current one doesn’t allow for any of this debate and the radicals hate any mention of pragmatism. This is the holier-than-thou attitude that I mentioned, rearing its ugly head yet again.
Back to your charges that whatever the party is named would have complications, you go on to use madeup words and animals as party names. Such is an asinine attempt to make you look competent.
Practice some objectivism for once. A is A and B is B. You cannot define abstracts because objectivism only boils down absolutes. A porcupine party would not be construed to be anything aside from a porcupine party, and in any event, a porcupine would never be considered the right name for a party. (Mascot, maybe).
This is where naming parties after sound, philosophical ideals comes into play (Federalist, Democrat, Republican, etc).
I’m arguing against your lack of comprehension and was pre-emptively striking down any idiotic statement you would have made that “all parties are in the business of educating voters” or some BS like that. You know you would have said some smart alecky thing like that if I hadn’t added that disclaimer.
I know that I would not. Since you prefer to ascribe opinions to me that I disagree with even after being corrected, I doubt we’ll get anywhere in a conversation.
Meanwhile, I could ask you the same question. Where is your proof the opposite, broad-based, whack-a-mole strategy the current LP tries works?
Compared with…?
This was exactly how the Progressives, Populists, and lately the Reform Party came about, although the last is not a perfect, conforming example.
No.
why aren’t these people ever getting elected?
Some of them get elected. When you have more people elected, or elected to higher office, we’ll have something to compare.
A new party simply needs to do the following:
1) Affirm purist libertarian principles- affirm that there will be pragmatic steps to reach them.
LOL. As you try this, if you ever do, you’ll discover that there are endless disagreements on the particulars of what constitutes both 1 and 2.
2) Adopt a name that isn’t literally ideological in nature. How many parties by ideology do you see other than Socialist, Conservative, Green, Libertarian, etc? None of these are big or ever were big because they attempted to define an abstract that is different in the minds of separate people.
I don’t care what you call it. Invariably, people will join with their own idea of what “it” is, even if it’s a word you made up.
What you call libertarian might be different to me, and vice’a’versa.
That will be no less true if you call it the Freedom Party, Gold Party, Porcupine Party, Zaxelbrax Party….anything.
Also, the LP has long taken the holier-than-thou stance. This is not necessary.
As far as?
You seem to be arguing with your own strawman.
I’m arguing against your lack of comprehension and was pre-emptively striking down any idiotic statement you would have made that “all parties are in the business of educating voters” or some BS like that. You know you would have said some smart alecky thing like that if I hadn’t added that disclaimer.
To add, please don’t launch into some rhetorical argument about how every party is an “education party”, that’s skirting the issue.
When that’s your sole purpose, you’re not in the business of changing policy, you’re a debate club.
You seem to be arguing with your own strawman.
Is this that hard to understand for you? The LP ignores this time and time again.
Ignores what? I’m not convinced we have the same goals. I’m even less convinced your strategy would work even if we do.
You’re insinuating that all that would be accomplished is making a new LP – an education party.
I insinuated no such thing, nor do I think that is what the LP is.
That’s what it is if you don’t run PARTISAN candidates and get them elected. Tell me, how is that different than what the LP and all its radical members claim to want today?
Again, huh? We do run partisan candidates and sometimes they get elected. As for what we want, obviously it would be to be elected much more, but that is not entirely – or mostly – up to us.
Meanwhile, I could ask you the same question. Where is your proof the opposite, broad-based, whack-a-mole strategy the current LP tries works?
Examples of this working?
This was exactly how the Progressives, Populists, and lately the Reform Party came about, although the last is not a perfect, conforming example.
You know, it would be more clarifying if you simply arranged all your subjects into one reply. Also, put the two together instead of breaking them up:
All the failed LP does these days is elect nonpartisan “water commissioners” or “deputies” or some miniscule, un-affiliated crap. While this strategy is what should be pursued at the TOP, not at the bottom.
Makes sense if you take into account with what I said earlier. We could endorse another party’s candidate or use something that’s not directly affiliated (there’s the key word) to us to influence politics nationally. Be better leveraging our numbers than we are now.
To your objections, that we “run candidates up and down the ballot”, I can only ask – then why aren’t these people ever getting elected? You have your answer to the LP’s failure right there in your own words: you can’t just throw a bunch of candidates into a cannon and scatter-shoot them onto the ballot.
Common sense suggests it is better to hit less eyeballs more of the time than all of the eyeballs less of the time.
Give a new freedom party 10 years to perform. Let’s say they started in New England, elected a few people to state legislature, maybe AG. Then they got Governor. All of the sudden, other states have similar or affiliated parties. Now you have a credible party.
Examples of this working?
All the failed LP does these days is elect nonpartisan “water commissioners” or “deputies” or some miniscule, un-affiliated crap.
No. We run candidates up and down the ballot, for instance.
While this strategy is what should be pursued at the TOP, not at the bottom.
Huh? Which strategy?
But statewide – what’s the point then? Which way do you want it? First you say that you did not state a new freedom party would be the same as the LP, now you’re saying that if we abandon the idea of running candidates statewide (which it would) and federal, it would somehow be different than the LP of today HOW exactly?
Sorry, what? Try again – can’t follow your tortured syntax here.
I just saw your newest post.
No, I don’t. Most of the above applies to all alternative parties regardless of ideology. The rest applies to anything even vaguely “freedom” or libertarian oriented.
That’s not true though. Only in the case where you have a party that’s named after ideological, rather than philosophical roots, only where you have a camp that’s unclear on whats its objectives are (for example, a party pledge that shuns pragmatists, while moderates and Republican lites infiltrate the party anyhow).
A new party simply needs to do the following:
1) Affirm purist libertarian principles- affirm that there will be pragmatic steps to reach them.
2) Adopt a name that isn’t literally ideological in nature. How many parties by ideology do you see other than Socialist, Conservative, Green, Libertarian, etc? None of these are big or ever were big because they attempted to define an abstract that is different in the minds of separate people.
What you call libertarian might be different to me, and vice’a’versa.
Also, the LP has long taken the holier-than-thou stance. This is not necessary.
In the end, competition for the freedom movement is good for all. Those who are happy with a failed institution can stay in it. Why are we not applying libertarian (market) realizations to party building when we are so keen to do it to other aspects of life?
‘Possibly’ (as in reading in) is where you make yourself look like a complete fool.
Not at all. It’s just one plausible reading of your previous vague statement.
It has a better success rate than the current strategy does now.
Such as?
To add, please don’t launch into some rhetorical argument about how every party is an “education party”, that’s skirting the issue.
When that’s your sole purpose, you’re not in the business of changing policy, you’re a debate club.
Me: Any new libertarian party would still have to contend with the same problems as the old one: the ornery nature of libertarians, ballot access and other institutional barriers, the pervasiveness of the “wasted vote” idea in a winner takes all system, “libertarian Republicans,” libertarian non-voters….
Spence: You assume a new freedom party would take the same broken positions as the last one, and the same piss poor branding strategy.
Me: No, I don’t. Most of the above applies to all alternative parties regardless of ideology. The rest applies to anything even vaguely “freedom” or libertarian oriented.
I didn’t. And don’t. That does not change anything I said.
Older quote:
Any new libertarian party would still have to contend with the same problems as the old one: the ornery nature of libertarians, ballot access and other institutional barriers, the pervasiveness of the “wasted vote” idea in a winner takes all system, “libertarian Republicans,” libertarian non-voters….
You assume a new freedom party would take the same broken positions as the last one, and the same piss poor branding strategy.
That’s because it’s a surefire, tested and proven way to remain obscure. It IS a method other UNsuccessful third parties (Southern Party, for example) have started and remained obscure. Other alternative parties which gave up on national politics also faded as well.
It has a better success rate than the current strategy does now. I’d take a gradual viability strategy over this poofertarian one anyday. You also assume that national politics would not be included in any new party. Not the case. It simply wouldn’t directly tackle national issues where its energy would be better used to grow locally.
It depends on what you mean by that. Spencer is suggestng his proposed party not run presidential (and possibly not federal and/or statewide) candidates, as I understand it.
‘Possibly’ (as in reading in) is where you make yourself look like a complete fool. Not running candidates at federal, sure.
But statewide – what’s the point then? Which way do you want it? First you say that you did not state a new freedom party would be the same as the LP, now you’re saying that if we abandon the idea of running candidates statewide (which it would) and federal, it would somehow be different than the LP of today HOW exactly?
All the failed LP does these days is elect nonpartisan “water commissioners” or “deputies” or some miniscule, un-affiliated crap. While this strategy is what should be pursued at the TOP, not at the bottom.
Give a new freedom party 10 years to perform. Let’s say they started in New England, elected a few people to state legislature, maybe AG. Then they got Governor. All of the sudden, other states have similar or affiliated parties. Now you have a credible party.
Is this that hard to understand for you? The LP ignores this time and time again. You’re insinuating that all that would be accomplished is making a new LP – an education party. That’s what it is if you don’t run PARTISAN candidates and get them elected. Tell me, how is that different than what the LP and all its radical members claim to want today?
If you want new members only to pay dues, go and start a club, not a political party.
I didn’t mean that it was designed to be such a test, only that any libertarian party that is called something other than The Libertarian Party is such a test.
tk, largely agree. L has cred. It is SOMETIMES used to dismiss as well, but then, so are liberal and conservative.
“This is not a new theory. Various people have tested it out, including … the current Bo[st]on Tea and Objectivist parties, and others. None got very far.”
I’ve never thought of the BTP as a test of the theory that Libertarian Party has been unsuccessful because its name is “clunky.”
If anything, the word “libertarian” has been gaining in street cred for a good ten years now.
It’s increasingly used as a respectful adjective in political media these days.
The general public seems to be forming an idea of what it means, and if that idea doesn’t necessarily conform to one strict ideological construction or another, it seems to be in the ballpark at any rate.
Personally, I don’t think the name has hurt or helped the LP in recent years. There are plenty of other problems to account for poor LP performance at the polls.
Mik, good points.
@19 The advantage of political parties is they can work on a broad agenda across political boundaries and support a slate of candidates who want to work on the same agenda.
It is nice to have individuals or independents who agree with your agenda elected, but it often does not advance the agenda very far. Having a Ron Paul in Congress may be good to bring up points, but how many times are the votes of Paul in the distinct minority? He can do nothing about the Texas legislature or local government.
It takes strong local organizations to win elections, and the Greens, Libertarians, and CP have that to an extent, that’s generally why they have some limited success in elections. Those local organizations can also be focused around an individual candidate, like Joe Lieberman or Ross Perot, but they will not be able to hold together to work on a larger agenda.
Without the larger structure, it is difficult to coordinate activities to bring the agenda to a larger audience. There are only the handful of parties that can really bring even a limited message to a national audience, and often that can be done most effectively through a presidential campaign.
I think the difference in the national structure between the LP and the Greens became apparent in the last Presidential election. The nomination of a contentious and potentially divisive Presidential candidate in both parties resulted in significant erosion of Green Party cohesion while similar effects were not nearly as pronounced in the LP.
If anyone doesn’t agree that Shemp was the best, I think they should be kicked out of the Stooge Party.
“Slack” is what we need.
Just a name, coulda been Larry.
Or Curly or Moe.
I while back I read that polls showed that people like Bob.
And Bob gives us “Slack”.
PEACE
I aint sayin it’s a fresh observation. I’m sure some said it was clunky the day it took on the name Libertarian. I aint even arguin. I’m just observing the burdensomeness of the name.
Democratic Party aint tryin to be democratic. Republican Party aint tryin to be republican. (The two mean the same anyhow, seein as direct democracy’s hardly done, ironic that.) Just a name, coulda been Larry. Greens go around in any color they like, but Libertarians’re sposta be libertarian. Socialist Party’s got the same problem, but Libs got it worse cuz it’s five syllables. Constitution Party tries to be constitutional, for some reason, even though it thinks of the document as a modernday longhand Ten Commandments.
Independent’s a very light name to be strapped with. Needn’t be loyal. What if folks’d just drop the loyalty n stop takin their political parties so seriously. For an easy name that’s five syllables, how bout Political Slut Party. The Sluts for short. That’s big S.
It depends on what you mean by that. Spencer is suggestng his proposed party not run presidential (and possibly not federal and/or statewide) candidates, as I understand it.
All politics are local.
Don’t jump the gun and assume a new freedom party has to adopt the same planks and everything wholesale as the old one.
I didn’t. And don’t. That does not change anything I said.
Start local. A lot of people scattered around this site seem to see the wisdom in it, but others still brush it off. No. This is NOT how any other successful third party rose from obscurity in history ever before.
That’s because it’s a surefire, tested and proven way to remain obscure. It IS a method other UNsuccessful third parties (Southern Party, for example) have started and remained obscure. Other alternative parties which gave up on national politics also faded as well.
Problems can arise if you try to conflate the two into the same thing. Just because the Libertarian Party, or the Green Party for that matter, have some organizational problems does not mean either one cannot be an effective national political party.
That’s why I said one is an abstract (lower-case libertarianism) and the other is a construct (the capital L brand of libertarianism, as manifested by the LP) .
I say brand because the LP is not the definitive form of libertarianism. There are several major defects of the LP. Any new party that would try to harness those in the libertarian quadrant would necessarily need their own brand, of course.
Anyone who thinks that a new libertarian party would have an easier time of it is living in dreamworld.
No one’s fooling themselves here. Except maybe those who kid themselves that Libertarians are laughed at nationwide whenever they get a chance for press. There are two camps that have both tried to get things done in the LP.
The first – the radicals, those who strive for purist principle AND purist implementation, had almost over 37 years to get something done. The LINO “reformers” (moderate principles AND moderate implementation) have also proven that they will get us nowhere.
Look, the LP likes to proclaim its members as socially liberal, fiscally conservative, as opposed to:
The Democrats = socially liberal, fiscally liberal
The Republicans = socially conservative, fiscally conservative.
So where is the faction in the LP that is purist in principle, yet pragmatic in implementation? There is none! And this is why the LP has no focus.
The two factions, which I call the LINOs and poofertarians (poofertarians because they think POOF- the world will be libertarian after some crisis) have BOTH failed.
What Paulie suggests is true however, and it’s pretty obvious this is where he and other Libs fail to see the irony:
You don’t move a mountain of dirt with a couple F-150’s.
Don’t jump the gun and assume a new freedom party has to adopt the same planks and everything wholesale as the old one. Why in God’s name would we do that when it’s obvious it’s failed?
Start local. A lot of people scattered around this site seem to see the wisdom in it, but others still brush it off. No. This is NOT how any other successful third party rose from obscurity in history ever before. You got to get a foothold on local/regional politics FIRST.
I think the it’s all just snagged on the clunky name. .
This is not a new theory. Various people have tested it out, including Aaron Russo with the Constitution Party (not related to the current Constitution Party, previously known as the US Taxpayers Party), the current Botson Tea and Objectivist parties, and others. None got very far.
Anyone who thinks that a new libertarian party would have an easier time of it is living in dreamworld. The system as it exists presents tremendous obstacles to any new party getting started or maintaining momentum. The LP caught some lucky breaks early on and has some existing institutional advantages as a result.
Anyone who is serious about a new party should take a look at what it takes to get on the ballot from scratch. Start with California. Proceed to Texas. If you haven’t given up by that point, keep going through the list.
Look at the past record; how many political parties have gotten on all or most state ballots in recent decades? How many have done it more than once or twice? How many have done it without a billionaire sugar daddy who is willing and able to spend millions in discretionary income?
Any new libertarian party would still have to contend with the same problems as the old one: the ornery nature of libertarians, ballot access and other institutional barriers, the pervasiveness of the “wasted vote” idea in a winner takes all system, “libertarian Republicans,” libertarian non-voters….
Plus, they would not have the advantages the LP already does have: some built-up lists, ballot access retention in may states that already have it, etc.
@10 One is a philosophy of social construct whereby individuals have the maximum liberty to make choices for themselves with minimal constraint from governmental authority, and the other is a political party based on that philosophy.
Problems can arise if you try to conflate the two into the same thing. Just because the Libertarian Party, or the Green Party for that matter, have some organizational problems does not mean either one cannot be an effective national political party.
I think the it’s all just snagged on the clunky name. . . but me, I’m what Celente calls a “political atheist”
Ahaha, let me put it another way.
One is an abstract, the other is a construct. The construct aka brand is a complete travesty and anyone that believes it can be salvaged is delusional.
which is which?
Could libertarians fill this realpolitick void? Yes.
Fixed. The difference between LP and libertarians is that one is a failed manifestation of the other.
Could the LP fill this realpolitick void? Yes.
I only wish that were true, Robert.
I think you mean neo-liberal propaganda.
I dunnno…when you are in the flow of grassroots organizing for peace and justice…it is confusing to hear right wing folks act like “the liberals/other side/hippies/peace people” run the press. Because, we know we do not. They hardly ever cover our candidates, out thoughts, or our demonstrations.
The people who own the press are a breed of rich and powerful folks. They do lean Democratic Party politics in the old places like Chicago and NYC, but mostly they are just from either side of the gentlemen’s club of the major party/lobbyist circle club.
Liberal is not so great a word to describe them. Unless, I guess, you mean that part of liberal that claims it wants government charity, but really wants a big budget of OPM for themselves, and an open job to place their brother who can’t otherwise get work. If you mean that kind of liberal, I guess you are on to something…
US News and World Report is liberal commie propaganda.
Palin is ready-made for post-Millenial politics…all about her “personal narrative,” the aggrieved damsel in distress, Downs Syndrome child born in office, unwed mother daughter, etc. Tabloid politics plays these days.
Her book title is, after all, “Going Rogue.” She’s made noises about going independent in some form, supported Hoffman in NY 23, etc.
No big surprise that USNWR plays that angle.
Could the LP fill this realpolitick void? Yes.
Zimmerman and USNW have their own, off the books, agenda …………….
Good point re: Palin, Thane. The article states that voters are disappointed with Democrats, but aren’t turning to the Republicans, and then we read: “all this could also mean that opportunities are growing for a strong third-party or independent candidate for president in 2012. This is where Sarah Palin might come in.” The jump to Palin reads more like notes for an analysis into which someone might at some point put some thought, rather than than a completed news or opinion article.
This is such a recurrent news theme. And yet the likelyhood of a third party candidate succeeding is as slim as ever due to ballot access laws. I would accuse the publication of engaging in a conspiracy to distract the public but I just don’t think the author or his editor is that smart.
Presuming that Sarah Palin is part of any hypothetical third party movement is the proof of their lack of smarts.