Where is the Libertarian Party?

[Kraken]

Weld is (just barely!) in

William F. Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts, narrowly won the Libertarian Party’s nomination for vice president Sunday after a surprisingly bruising convention at which the former Republican was twice compelled to pledge lifelong allegiance to his new party.

Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico who won the Libertarian nomination for the second time Sunday, had chosen Weld as his running mate on May 18. But many of the 900-plus convention delegates meeting in Orlando, Fla., were reluctant to go along with that plan, expressing so much skepticism about Weld that Johnson ended up pleading for their support.

“Give me Bill Weld, and I will give you the best effort I possibly can going forward,” Johnson said. “Please, please, please.”

...

Unlike Johnson, who estimates he may have raised $8 million over the course of his political life, Weld has raised closer to a quarter of a billion dollars, Johnson said. He also said he thinks Weld’s involvement could vault the Libertarian team into a televised debate.

“If it’s not Bill Weld, I don’t think that that happens,” Johnson said. “But if it is Bill Weld, there’s a real possibility we could achieve major party status in this election and who would have dreamed that would be possible four years ago?”

But delegates continued to raise reservations. Alicia Dearn, another contender for vice president, asked Weld to return to the stage to “pledge to our party that he will not betray us and that he is not a Republican.”

Looking sheepish, Weld took the stage a second time to reiterate what he’d already said: “I’m a Libertarian for life.”

Still, his comments were met with boos and taunts from the audience.

Weld tried again: “Libertarian for life means not go back to any other party. Just for the sake of clarity.”

When the booing continued, Weld waited, looking uncertain, conferring with Dearn. Finally, he restated his intentions this way: “If rejoining another party means a betrayal of the Libertarian Party, yeah, no, I will not do that.”

[Holman]

OK, whoa.

I've known a number of staunch Libertarians. My dad declared himself one for a while in the 60's and 70's. He even named my sister Ayn.

So I would have assumed that the top of the Libertarian field today was made up of ideologically fervent wonks, sure, but... I didn't know they were crazy.

[Max Peck]

OK, whoa.

I've known a number of staunch Libertarians. My dad declared himself one for a while in the 60's and 70's. He even named my sister Ayn.

So I would have assumed that the top of the Libertarian field today was made up of ideologically fervent wonks, sure, but... I didn't know they were crazy.

Heh, Johnson says he "did some marijuana product" -- he truly is the Libertarian Mitt Romney.

[Moliere]

OK, whoa.

I've known a number of staunch Libertarians. My dad declared himself one for a while in the 60's and 70's. He even named my sister Ayn.

So I would have assumed that the top of the Libertarian field today was made up of ideologically fervent wonks, sure, but... I didn't know they were crazy.

Because only libertarians are crazy? I can find the same weirdos at every political convention. Hell, get more than 3 people together and at least one of them will be crazy.

[Holman]

Because only libertarians are crazy? I can find the same weirdos at every political convention. Hell, get more than 3 people together and at least one of them will be crazy.

I'm talking about the candidates.

[Moliere]

Because only libertarians are crazy? I can find the same weirdos at every political convention. Hell, get more than 3 people together and at least one of them will be crazy.

I'm talking about the candidates.

Again, I can point to pages and pages of OO threads making fun of Rep and Dem candidates. You have to be a little loony to run for President.

[gbasden]

Because only libertarians are crazy? I can find the same weirdos at every political convention. Hell, get more than 3 people together and at least one of them will be crazy.

I'm talking about the candidates.

Again, I can point to pages and pages of OO threads making fun of Rep and Dem candidates. You have to be a little loony to run for President.

There's a little loony, and then there's this:

Perry’s most animated moment in the debate came when he slammed his fist against his lectern, forehead veins a-popping, as he insisted that 5-year-old children should have the legal right to inject heroin without adult supervision.

That's full on batshit.

[Jaymann]

At least those popping veins make it easier to deliver the smack.

[Pyperkub]

Read this as where is the librarian party today. I wouldn't mind more librarians as representatives in Congress...

[Moliere]

Read this as where is the librarian party today. I wouldn't mind more librarians as representatives in Congress...

They already have their own Congress courtesy of Thomas Jefferson.

[Pyperkub]

That's why I qualified it as representatives

[Moliere]

Gary Johnson: He's Also Running | Full Frontal with Samantha Bee

[Moliere]

At 15% he gets included in the debates. Of course, they will change the rules to some higher number to keep disqualifying him.

[Holman]

I would have expected the Libertarians to get their moment when the Republicans nominated a straight-up theocrat. Instead, it comes because Trump is just too odious for a big chunk of the GOP to stomach.

[Anonymous Bosch]

At 15% he gets included in the debates. Of course, they will change the rules to some higher number to keep disqualifying him.

Alas, you're probably right. It certainly would be refreshing though, to see a capable candidate espousing personal liberty instead of the pablum of a Trumpton debate.

[Moliere]

Joe Rogan and Dave Smith On Libertarianism
Discussing Gary Johnson vs. Ron Paul's approach to running for President along with a general libertarian review.

[Pyperkub]

Joe Rogan and Dave Smith On Libertarianism
Discussing Gary Johnson vs. Ron Paul's approach to running for President along with a general libertarian review.

Is there a transcript?

[El Guapo]

At 15% he gets included in the debates. Of course, they will change the rules to some higher number to keep disqualifying him.

Alas, you're probably right. It certainly would be refreshing though, to see a capable candidate espousing personal liberty instead of the pablum of a Trumpton debate.

The other thing is that if Johnson / Weld is polling near 15% as the debates approach, Clinton and Trump will both start taking shots at them. I suspect their numbers would start to go down a bit if they're subject to actual attacks, not to mention people pointing out what they would do to, say, social security.

[Moliere]

CNN to host town hall with Libertarian presidential candidates
Good visibility to hopefully boost their poll numbers for the debates.

[Moliere]

Mr. Fed: Libertarianism as Ten Questions Rather Than Ten Answers

• Does the United States Constitution permit the government to do this?
  What would this power look like if it were expanded dramatically in scope or in time?
  What would this obligation look like if exercised indifferently by unaccountable people?
  What would your worst enemy do with this power?
  Does this power make a choice about morals, ethics, or risk that individuals ought to make?
  Does this power represent the government putting its thumb on the scales to prefer some competitors over others, perhaps based on their relative power and influence?
  Does this power set up a conflict between laws and rights?
  Are we giving this power to the right level of government?
  Are we acting out of fear, anger, or self-promotion?
  Is there any evidence the government is any good at this?

[Moliere]

More than 900,000 People Tuned In to Watch This Week’s CNN Libertarian Town Hall

[Pyperkub]

Mr. Fed: Libertarianism as Ten Questions Rather Than Ten Answers

• Does the United States Constitution permit the government to do this?
  What would this power look like if it were expanded dramatically in scope or in time?
  What would this obligation look like if exercised indifferently by unaccountable people?
  What would your worst enemy do with this power?
  Does this power make a choice about morals, ethics, or risk that individuals ought to make?
  Does this power represent the government putting its thumb on the scales to prefer some competitors over others, perhaps based on their relative power and influence?
  Does this power set up a conflict between laws and rights?
  Are we giving this power to the right level of government?
  Are we acting out of fear, anger, or self-promotion?
  Is there any evidence the government is any good at this?

Fed never answered my question in the comments - so I'll solicit your input:

Is there any evidence the government is any good at this?

Particularly in regards to efficiency vs. transparency/accountability/constitutional rights/checks & balances

IMHO, the sources of the greatest inefficiencies in Government tend to be because the Government has to do the things it does in such a way that it ensures against corruption while treating citizens as equally as possible. Both of these caveats cause massive inefficiencies, but which are compatible with Constitutional Rights.

A Prime example being the Post Office – it would be far cheaper not to serve Rural Areas, but completely incompatible with the actual goals of the Post Office. Similarly, Environmental regulation, Public Education, the Armed Forces, the Justice System etc. all have huge inefficiencies related to the above requirements.

Therefore, at least when considering whether the Government is any good at it, an adequate accounting of the necessary bureaucracy to maintain American Ideals and Values with regards to the aforementioned factors must be taken into account.

Thoughts?

[Moliere]

[Kraken]

Video players without volume controls should be banned.

[Moliere]

Video players without volume controls should be banned.

Back in my day video players had big ol' round nobs on them to turn the volume up and down. Now we're expected to click little buttons and use some kind of slider thingie to change the volume. Damn communists!

[Moliere]

Gary Johnson on Bill Maher

[Kraken]

Gary Johnson on Bill Maher

If he can get into the debates, he and Weld are going to upset a lot of predictions. I can see him polling 25% with disaffected Bernie voters and Republican exiles...which could throw it into the House. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Would *I* vote for him? The Magic 8 Ball says "Ask again later."

[Holman]

I have trouble seeing Bernie's anti-corporatists rallying to the Laissez-Faire Party.

But the election would only be thrown to the House if Libertarians won a few states, and I can't see that happening. The real question is whether they would draw more R or D votes on a state-by-state basis. Since it's likely that they would get more Republicans than Democrats, the result of a strong Johnson candidacy is probably an electoral landslide for Clinton.

[Defiant]

I have trouble seeing Bernie's anti-corporatists rallying to the Laissez-Faire Party.

I could see some independents that voted for Sanders because they're anti-Clinton (rather than pro-Sanders) voting for him.

But the election would only be thrown to the House if Libertarians won a few states, and I can't see that happening. The real question is whether they would draw more R or D votes on a state-by-state basis. Since it's likely that they would get more Republicans than Democrats, the result of a strong Johnson candidacy is probably an electoral landslide for Clinton.

Yeah, I see his potential strength in the Mountain states which has more R states than D states. Maybe if he can win NM, CO and NV, and Trump manages to keep Clinton from getting enough electoral votes elsewhere (Say he wins Ohio and Florida), then maybe getting thrown to congress becomes a possibility. But I think it's pretty remote.

[Holman]

Just by running strong, Johnson could give Clinton the entire East Coast. Many GA, SC, and NC Republicans would be attracted to the Not-Trump while minority Democrats there stay with Clinton.

The same would probably be true in MO. And it's hard to see Johnson hurting Clinton more than Trump in PA, OH, or VA.

[Kraken]

I have trouble seeing Bernie's anti-corporatists rallying to the Laissez-Faire Party.

I could see some independents that voted for Sanders because they're anti-Clinton (rather than pro-Sanders) voting for him.

Anti-establishment more than anti-Clinton. They're not quite the same thing.

We've never had an election where both major candidates had such high negatives. Weld is charismatic, and it looks like Johnson might be as well. They're a threat if they get the limelight. I'd like to see Johnson go head-to-head with Clinton and Trump.

But I agree that the Libs will poach more R support than D. As Maher noted, "If this were 25 years ago you'd be mainstream Republicans." Not quite true, but true enough.

[Defiant]

I have trouble seeing Bernie's anti-corporatists rallying to the Laissez-Faire Party.

I could see some independents that voted for Sanders because they're anti-Clinton (rather than pro-Sanders) voting for him.

Anti-establishment more than anti-Clinton.

No, anti-Clinton. Really.

[Moliere]

Jesse Ventura: Why I'm voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president

I've always had the belief that you vote for someone you believe in. When you cast your vote, you want that person to be president. You don't vote for one politician so that another doesn't become president. And yet here you have an instance where people don't want either the Democrat or Republican nominee as president! People are going to vote for Donald Trump because they don't want Hillary Clinton — and people are going to vote for Clinton because they don't want Trump. That's a horrible way to pick the next commander-in-chief.

What astounds me is that the American public willingly accepts that these are the two choices the political gangs that run our country are offering us. And until this country wakes up and realizes that there are in fact more than two choices, despite what mainstream media shoves down our throats, then this is what we're going to get.

Ron Paul mentioned that he's probably going to vote Libertarian this year. He should. After all, he was their presidential nominee back in 1988. Come November, I will join him, voting for Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson again, just like I did in 2012. He's on the ballot in all 50 states, and this year I hope voters won't be lemmings. This is the year for a third party to rise, if there ever was one. This is the time for the people to stand up and say, "We've had enough, and we're still in charge." Whether voters exercise that option, we'll have to see.

I like everything Gary Johnson has said so far. He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal – something neither Democrats nor Republicans can offer. He also has a solid plan for bringing our troops home and restoring our economy. And, like me, he's a firm believer that marijuana should be legal.

[Moliere]

Libertarian Town Hall #2 on CNN

[Moliere]

Debate Commission May Allow Gary Johnson On The Debate Stage Anyway

Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, has been struggling to make the 15% in 5 polls necessary in order to appear on the debate stage along with Clinton and Trump. For anyone not with a D or R next to their name, this is an almost impossible slog.
...
However, head of the CPD, Frank Fahrenkopf, has indicated that he might look the other way for any candidate close, but not close enough.
...
How loose Fahrenkopf will make the rules in order for Johnson to gain entry wasn't discussed in detail, but this could play out very well for Johnson, who continues to hover around 9% and 12% depending on which poll you go to.

Earlier, it was reported in a CNN poll that Johnson holds 15% approval ratings in the midwest states, where a good portion of the swing vote resides. This makes Johnson a danger to the two mainstream candidates who rely on those votes to carry them to the finish line.

Since Johnson is appearing on ballots nationwide, and bleeding votes from the other two parties like an IV, then it would seem only fair to allow him on the stage. If not to make America more aware of who they are voting for in lieu of Trump or Clinton, but to allow the other two to face the man who has been making them both weaker.

[Moliere]

Huge Ratings Uptick for CNN’s Second Libertarian Town Hall, As 1.6 Million Tune In

The Libertarian Party Town Hall event hosted by CNN on Wednesday night was the highest rated show on cable news in the coveted 25-54 demographic for the night.

More than 1.6 million viewers tuned in to the hour-long event featuring Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and vice presidential candidate William Weld.

Perhaps more important than the raw numbers is the massive uptick in viewership for Wednesday's event compared to a similar Libertarian Town Hall discussion hosted by CNN on June 22. Overall viewership was up 74 percent and viewership in the 25-54 demographic increased by 101 percent—more than doubling the "in demographic" audience for the first town hall with Johnson and Weld, CNN reported Thursday.

[Kurth]

Huge Ratings Uptick for CNN’s Second Libertarian Town Hall, As 1.6 Million Tune In

The Libertarian Party Town Hall event hosted by CNN on Wednesday night was the highest rated show on cable news in the coveted 25-54 demographic for the night.

More than 1.6 million viewers tuned in to the hour-long event featuring Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and vice presidential candidate William Weld.

Perhaps more important than the raw numbers is the massive uptick in viewership for Wednesday's event compared to a similar Libertarian Town Hall discussion hosted by CNN on June 22. Overall viewership was up 74 percent and viewership in the 25-54 demographic increased by 101 percent—more than doubling the "in demographic" audience for the first town hall with Johnson and Weld, CNN reported Thursday.

I watched a good chunk of this. I thought the dynamic between Johnson and Weld was a little off, with Johnson often deferring to Weld and Weld often taking lead and overshadowing Johnson.

That said, watching them answer Cooper's questions and those of the audience in what appeared to be a relatively straight-forward mannerwas refreshing. Two moments I particularly liked was when Cooper pointed out that Johnson had just answered a question by prefacing it with, "I may be wrong, but I believe . . ." I don't even remember what the question was about or the rest of Johnson's answer, but as Cooper latched on to, it's not often you hear a candidate acknowledge that others may have differing, yet credible, views on an issue. The other was when Johnson was asked about other candidates seeming inability to get their facts right and he quoted Mark Twain: ""If you tell the truth you won't have to remember anything."

I'm not going to vote Libertarian for fear that I'd be putting Trump in office (and because I have some fundamental philosophical differences with their positions), but I'm glad I tuned in, and, in a more perfect world, these guys would be included in the debates and not pushed off to the second stage.

[Kraken]

Bill Weld was a likeable governor, a country club Republican who always treated politics like an enjoyable hobby.

[Pyperkub]

Mr. Fed: Libertarianism as Ten Questions Rather Than Ten Answers

• Does the United States Constitution permit the government to do this?
  What would this power look like if it were expanded dramatically in scope or in time?
  What would this obligation look like if exercised indifferently by unaccountable people?
  What would your worst enemy do with this power?
  Does this power make a choice about morals, ethics, or risk that individuals ought to make?
  Does this power represent the government putting its thumb on the scales to prefer some competitors over others, perhaps based on their relative power and influence?
  Does this power set up a conflict between laws and rights?
  Are we giving this power to the right level of government?
  Are we acting out of fear, anger, or self-promotion?
  Is there any evidence the government is any good at this?

Fed never answered my question in the comments - so I'll solicit your input:

Is there any evidence the government is any good at this?

Particularly in regards to efficiency vs. transparency/accountability/constitutional rights/checks & balances

IMHO, the sources of the greatest inefficiencies in Government tend to be because the Government has to do the things it does in such a way that it ensures against corruption while treating citizens as equally as possible. Both of these caveats cause massive inefficiencies, but which are compatible with Constitutional Rights.

A Prime example being the Post Office – it would be far cheaper not to serve Rural Areas, but completely incompatible with the actual goals of the Post Office. Similarly, Environmental regulation, Public Education, the Armed Forces, the Justice System etc. all have huge inefficiencies related to the above requirements.

Therefore, at least when considering whether the Government is any good at it, an adequate accounting of the necessary bureaucracy to maintain American Ideals and Values with regards to the aforementioned factors must be taken into account.

Thoughts?

Moliere - you never addressed this? I'm interested in your thoughts as a libertarian supporter.

[Moliere]

Moliere - you never addressed this? I'm interested in your thoughts as a libertarian supporter.

I'm not sure if I understand your question. I look at services like the Post Office and ask should the government be doing this (No) and does it have the authority to do this (Yes). Creating a one size fits all solution doesn't always make sense. Federal mandates on education or access to the internet don't recognize that people are different with varying needs and situations. Leave those things to the states and local governments to figure out best practices. Environmental protection is about contract law and deciding when one person's pollution violates someone's right to be free of pollution. Air, water, noise, upstream chemical spills, etc all fall in this category. The military and domestic police/justice department are areas where people should be treated the same. That doesn't mean we need 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries (a Google search so these numbers vary). We also don't need the TSA's bullshit safety theater with crotch grabbing and soft porn x-ray machines.