Campaign Evaluation: Mia Love (U.S. House, UT-4)

[Mr.NoSmile]

I take back some of what I said (along with my 2 star vote). An archive of her 2012 campaign site shows what could be construed as a non-interventionist position. This was since taken down and replaced with empty platitudes, so it's tough to say where she stands now. But there's a real possibility that she actually is a true believer in liberty and that the establishment GOP was so hardcore behind her just because of her skin color. What I interpreted as being her part of the establishment may just have been the establishment feeling like they needed a black woman to point to.

I'd love to get her elected, and I don't think there is much stopping her from being elected, and best of all, the GOP needs her more than she needs the GOP, so she has a lot of freedom to vote her conscience with virtually no chance of primary threats or establishment rebellions.

I apologize for some things I said earlier because there is no reason to believe that she cannot be the real deal.

What a different tone than what you whistled two months ago...

Seriously, doubling back is fun, isn't it? "I'd love to get her elected" is vastly different than "...and we're actually going to worry about someone so inconsequential in the scheme of things as Mia Love."

[Bastiat's The Law]

The problem is that for every Amash/Brannon/Massie there are 50 Mia Loves. You wisely bring up the point that we have a tendency to want to go after everyone, but maybe underestimate the negative implications of it. Ron Paul got $40 million of liberty money and here Greg Brannon is with a few hundred thousand and we're actually going to worry about someone so inconsequential in the scheme of things as Mia Love? Heck, the D currently representing that district is more conservative than Lindsey Graham.

We tend to reach for the stars and never get off the ground. Should you vote for Love? Sure. Donate money to her? Not only does the GOP establishment love her (well maybe not her personally but her skin color/gender) so much that she'll get adequate funding to run whatever campaign she wishes to, but there's national candidates who NEED a lot of our money and local candidates who need just a little of our money. Real, true blue liberty candidates we're talking that can actually take a stand for liberty..

Quoted for truth. If the Liberty Movement had their head on straight they would raise $40 million in these midterm elections and flex their muscle. We should be electing 10-15 House members and 1-2 Senators every election cycle! And I'm not talking two or three star candidates like Mia Love, we could be electing a slew of legit five star liberty candidates every two years.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Quoted for truth. If the Liberty Movement had their head on straight they would raise $40 million in these midterm elections and flex their muscle. We should be electing 10-15 House members and 1-2 Senators every election cycle! And I'm not talking two or three star candidates like Mia Love, we could be electing a slew of legit five star liberty candidates every two years.

Now is that taking into account every single factor such as electability, name recognition, rhetoric, donor base, candidate's personal decisions, among other things? Ideally, electing 10-15 House or 1-2 Senators sounds nice, but those factors and even more make that even more challenging that it sounds. Not to mention if they're running against a well funded incumbent and they have next to no name recognition. That doesn't make it impossible, though. Not to mention, in the cases where we're always asking or wondering when someone like a David Fischer may or may not be running and we're just speculating. Part of it's on the Movement, but it's also on the folks themselves who may want to run, but they're just wavering on the decision, if South Carolina's Senate race is an indication.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Now is that taking into account every single factor such as electability, name recognition, rhetoric, donor base, candidate's personal decisions, among other things? Ideally, electing 10-15 House or 1-2 Senators sounds nice, but those factors and even more make that even more challenging that it sounds. Not to mention if they're running against a well funded incumbent and they have next to no name recognition. That doesn't make it impossible, though. Not to mention, in the cases where we're always asking or wondering when someone like a David Fischer may or may not be running and we're just speculating. Part of it's on the Movement, but it's also on the folks themselves who may want to run, but they're just wavering on the decision, if South Carolina's Senate race is an indication.

I think that some of these liberty candidates waver about running because they can't gauge the level of support they would get if they commit themselves to running. We have to do a better job at keeping Paul supporters engaged and active during the midterms. Everyone wanted Ron elected for what he would do as President. I'd argue that we could get the same results if we infected Congress with dozens of liberty candidates. It might even be a smarter strategy because we'd have a liberty friendly Congress in place when we do elect a liberty candidate for President. They won't be up against a hostile Congress that would block their liberty agenda.

We should probably divisive a 2-year and 10-year plan. If we're serious about changing this country for the better and go about it intelligently there's no reason why we shouldn't own Congress in 10 years; and maybe even sooner. The challenge is how do we keep our huge donor base engaged and convince them of this strategy?

[Anti-Neocon]

Just endorsed Rubio. Guess my 2 stars was right.

What a different tone than what you whistled two months ago...

Seriously, doubling back is fun, isn't it? "I'd love to get her elected" is vastly different than "...and we're actually going to worry about someone so inconsequential in the scheme of things as Mia Love."

I was willing to give her a chance, but she blew it.