So, seriously, has nobody yet rubbed sand in the faces of....

[Sujan]

Gary was a mediocre candidate at best. Weld, however, turned out to be a sell-out. With a stronger ticket the LP could have garnered 5% of the votes, but I wouldn't know who would have a done a better job who actually wanted to be on the LP ticket. I do actually fault their campaign strategy. They should have focused completely on 3 or 4 states that are inclined to vote Libertarian and didn't pose other third party competition like the Green Party or Evan McMullin (Utah).

[Krugminator2]

1. There is no definition of ideological purity. Does Lew Rockwell represent ideological purity? Tom Woods? McAfee? They sure don't represent what I think of as an ideal libertarian

2. What evidence is there that a more ideological candidate would have received more votes than Gary. He received 3.2%. The previous high was 1.1%. Harry Browne (an outstanding libertarian) received .5% and .4% of the vote the two times he ran.

I don't care for Gary but I see no reason to believe someone else would have done better. He and Weld were able to get on TV and raise money because they were former governors. I do think more articulate and educated libertarians should be the Libertarian Party nominees going forward. It just seems odd to criticize Gary on the grounds of not getting enough votes.

[CCTelander]

Since this doesn't seem to be getting through to some:

"In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results."

"In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results."

"In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results."

And this:

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

Is it getting through yet?

Here's actual HARD evidence that it most certainly IS possible to succeed running on a "purist" platform. Smith is about as "purist" as they come and he managed to garner 10 times the votes of the best libertarian candidates at the time, running a "purist" campaign, and with an expenditure of a mere $8.00.

The idea that it can't be done is pure bull$#@!.

In my 40+ years as a liberty activist the pragmatists have always been in the majority, and have always held sway. In that time things have gotten worse and worse. If people insist on clinging to the idea that electoral politics is going to do some good, it's about goddamn time to try something different, IMO.

[Xenliad]

I'm just wondering if the Libertarians will nominate Gary Johnson a third time in 2020.

[Sujan]

I'm just wondering if the Libertarians will nominate Gary Johnson a third time in 2020.

My feeling is that the political career of Gary is over. He probably will work for a cannabis company again. He's a good spokesperson for legalising marijuana. By the way, he would be 68 in 4 years. Not gonna work. Austin Petersen could be a great candidate in 2020.

[RJ Liberty]

I don't care for Gary but I see no reason to believe someone else would have done better. He and Weld were able to get on TV and raise money because they were former governors. I do think more articulate and educated libertarians should be the Libertarian Party nominees going forward. It just seems odd to criticize Gary on the grounds of not getting enough votes.

Great point, Krug. Gary received more votes than any other LP POTUS candidate, ever. The idea that someone else would have done better seems like fantasy: no one in the LP ever received this many votes.

The fact is, Gary spread the word of libertarianism to a very wide audience: newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and social media. Though I'm not sure NBC or ABC ever mentioned his campaign, he got on CBS (60 Minutes and Colbert), and he was on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC multiple times. He did hundreds of interviews and several times trended on Google Trends. This exposure was very good for the party: the party gained members, going from 400,000 to 500,000 registered party members, in the space of just one year. And 4,200,000 votes is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the competition had a half a billion dollars each.

[GunnyFreedom]

I disagree. I would vote for a "purist" and I suspect most of the folks who voted for Johnson wouldn't have gone Trump or Clinton because the LP candidate was too pure. Would you? Mr Animal held his nose and voted Johnson but he would've actually actively campaigned for and donated to a purist.

If the LP had actually nominated a Libertarian, they would have easily broken 10% in 2016. The baloney sausage you are responding to is precisely why I thought nominating Johnson for the LP was a horrible idea. Now they blame a 1% increase on having nominated a turdburger and claim principles will sink them. Good job Johnsonites.

[GunnyFreedom]

Great point, Krug. Gary received more votes than any other LP POTUS candidate, ever. The idea that someone else would have done better seems like fantasy: no one in the LP ever received this many votes.

The fact is, Gary spread the word of libertarianism to a very wide audience: newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and social media. Though I'm not sure NBC or ABC ever mentioned his campaign, he got on CBS (60 Minutes and Colbert), and he was on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC multiple times. He did hundreds of interviews and several times trended on Google Trends. This exposure was very good for the party: the party gained members, going from 400,000 to 500,000 registered party members, in the space of just one year. And 4,200,000 votes is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the competition had a half a billion dollars each.

Nonsense. Johnson received a mere handful more votes in a year when both major candidates were despised by everyone. The growth in the LP had nothing to do with Johnson but hatred of the Reps and Dems. You can't just take things all the way out of context and then claim they mean things they obviously do not. I think 2016 is going to become known as the year 99 people out of 100 went completely bat $#@! insane. SMDH

[Natural Citizen]

If the LP had actually nominated a Libertarian, they would have easily broken 10% in 2016. The baloney sausage you are responding to is precisely why I thought nominating Johnson for the LP was a horrible idea. Now they blame a 1% increase on having nominated a turdburger and claim principles will sink them. Good job Johnsonites.

eeeeeyep. Agreed.

[RJ Liberty]

Nonsense. Johnson received a mere handful more votes in a year when both major candidates were despised by everyone. The growth in the LP had nothing to do with Johnson but hatred of the Reps and Dems.

Sorry, Gunny: much as I respect you, I disagree. If growth in the LP "had nothing to do with Johnson but hatred of the Reps and Dems", why didn't any other party do as well as the LP? Johnson received almost three times as many votes as all other third parties combined. He did this by maintaining a rigorous campaign schedule and keeping in the public eye. If it had "nothing to do with Johnson", but hatred of the Rs and Ds, the other parties would have done better. No one else even broke 1%.

[GunnyFreedom]

Sorry, Gunny: much as I respect you, I disagree. If growth in the LP "had nothing to do with Johnson but hatred of the Reps and Dems", why didn't any other party do as well as the LP?

Because the LP is perceived as a known quantity, not nearly as fringe as the Greens, but available in all 50 states. Most Americans will see it appropriate as a protest vote where other smaller parties are not.

Johnson received almost three times as many votes as all other third parties combined. He did this by maintaining a rigorous campaign schedule and keeping in the public eye. If it had "nothing to do with Johnson", but hatred of the Rs and Ds, the other parties would have done better. No one else even broke 1%.

That's fine, If y'all want to just mundane yourselves into obscurity. Mark my words, run someone like Johnson in a year where the majors are not so hated and he will be lucky to break 0.1%

2016 was the year for the LP to break out and claim 10% or more of the vote. The fumbled by nominating a candidate who was almost as hated as the two majors. Now they think this was "success" and want to continue to nominate loser fake libertarians into the future.

lol

Good luck clearing a tenth of a percent with that strategy.

[phill4paul]

Because the LP is perceived as a known quantity, not nearly as fringe as the Greens, but available in all 50 states. Most Americans will see it appropriate as a protest vote where other smaller parties are not.



That's fine, If y'all want to just mundane yourselves into obscurity. Mark my words, run someone like Johnson in a year where the majors are not so hated and he will be lucky to break 0.1%

2016 was the year for the LP to break out and claim 10% or more of the vote. The fumbled by nominating a candidate who was almost as hated as the two majors. Now they think this was "success" and want to continue to nominate loser fake libertarians into the future.

lol

Good luck clearing a tenth of a percent with that strategy.

Given a choice I would have voted Libertarian. I wasn't given that choice by the Libertarian party. They were on the ballot. But, that's not what I mean.

[GunnyFreedom]

Given a choice I would have voted Libertarian. I wasn't given that choice by the Libertarian party. They were on the ballot. But, that's not what I mean.

Same here. I wanted to vote LP but I simply could not give my franchise to that anti-constitutional anti-liberty space cadet.

[AuH20]

The only bright spot for the LP was Joe Miller.

[RJ Liberty]

Because the LP is perceived as a known quantity, not nearly as fringe as the Greens, but available in all 50 states. Most Americans will see it appropriate as a protest vote where other smaller parties are not.

You're missing the point that the Green Party, the Constitution Party, etc., remained small, whereas the LP gained 100,000 members this year, under Gary's campaign.

Mark my words, run someone like Johnson in a year where the majors are not so hated and he will be lucky to break 0.1%

Did you really forget? Johnson already ran in a year when the R and D candidates weren't so hated (2012) and broke LP records then, too. He just never has had access to a half a billion dollars (where are our Koch friends?), or unlimited amounts of free press (courtesy of Clinton telling the media to cover Trump heavily, a strategy that backfired on her).

No, Johnson did really well, for only having $10 million. He estimated he'd need $20 million to run a competitive campaign, and only got half that amount. Clinton spent 18 million dollars on attack ads against him, she sent the press to destroy him, and he still broke the LP record for highest percentage and most voters.

[CCTelander]

Since this doesn't seem to be getting through to some:

"In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results."

"In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results."

"In time, this miserable substitute for an electoral strategy came to be called by its proponents "pragmatic", a ridiculous notion that I discredited thoroughly twice by running the most radical—by which I mean "true to our roots"—campaigns, staunchly refraining from ever pulling any ideological punches, and achieving totally unprecedented results."

And this:

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

Is it getting through yet?

Here's actual HARD evidence that it most certainly IS possible to succeed running on a "purist" platform. Smith is about as "purist" as they come and he managed to garner 10 times the votes of the best libertarian candidates at the time, running a "purist" campaign, and with an expenditure of a mere $8.00.

The idea that it can't be done is pure bull$#@!.

In my 40+ years as a liberty activist the pragmatists have always been in the majority, and have always held sway. In that time things have gotten worse and worse. If people insist on clinging to the idea that electoral politics is going to do some good, it's about goddamn time to try something different, IMO.

Obviously, this is STILL not sinking in.

[GunnyFreedom]

You're missing the point that the Green Party, the Constitution Party, etc., remained small, whereas the LP gained 100,000 members this year, under Gary's campaign.



Did you really forget? Johnson already ran in a year when the R and D candidates weren't so hated (2012) and broke LP records then, too. He just never has had access to a half a billion dollars (where are our Koch friends?), or unlimited amounts of free press (courtesy of Clinton telling the media to cover Trump heavily, a strategy that backfired on her).

No, Johnson did really well, for only having $10 million. He estimated he'd need $20 million to run a competitive campaign, and only got half that amount. Clinton spent 18 million dollars on attack ads against him, she sent the press to destroy him, and he still broke the LP record for highest percentage and most voters.

smh. I understand that this is what you want to believe.

Good luck with that.

It won't pay out, but at this point I perceive trying to convince you all of the truth will do more harm than letting y'all find out on your own.

[CCTelander]

smh. I understand that this is what you want to believe.

Good luck with that.

It won't pay out, but at this point I perceive trying to convince you all of the truth will do more harm than letting y'all find out on your own.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Brain-No-Brain

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Brain-No-Brain

Indeed.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Obviously, this is STILL not sinking in.

Consider my mouth zipped on the issue of pragmatism. Worth saying I think, not everyone here is a libertarian so... essentially the crowd you are speaking to is limited, so not everyone will get on board (as opposed to it 'not sinking in'), but that isn't a reason to get disheartened or to get pulled away and distracted by the noise.

[Krugminator2]

Since this doesn't seem to be getting through to some:

And this:

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

"In an era when libertarians normally received 1.5% of the vote, I got 15%, on an expenditure of $8.00."

Is it getting through yet?

Here's actual HARD evidence that it most certainly IS possible to succeed running on a "purist" platform. Smith is about as "purist" as they come and he managed to garner 10 times the votes of the best libertarian candidates at the time, running a "purist" campaign, and with an expenditure of a mere $8.00.

The idea that it can't be done is pure bull$#@!.

In my 40+ years as a liberty activist the pragmatists have always been in the majority, and have always held sway. In that time things have gotten worse and worse. If people insist on clinging to the idea that electoral politics is going to do some good, it's about goddamn time to try something different, IMO.

So I Googled those quotes. I have been a libertarian for basically as long as I have had political views. I have never heard of L. Neil Smith. I was curious what race this pure libertarian got 15% on $8. Sounds impressive. People must have just been overwhelmed by the purity.

Here are the results on page 64 the race he is referring to. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elec...stractBook.pdf

He got 15% in a race for Colorado state legislature in 1978 vs a Republican with no Democratic challenger. Great work. I am sure voters for a state house race were overwhelmed with his pure message. If the Republicans can just convince the Democrats not to run candidates they will really start to set records.

And the LP has nominated hardcore libertarians in numerous races. Michael Badnarik was a nutjob and got 0% of the vote. Harry Browne did slightly better than *%. Ron Paul got the usual .5%.

[fisharmor]

Obviously, this is STILL not sinking in.

ETA thank you Krugminator for finally acknowledging what CCT posted.

[RJ Liberty]

So I Googled those quotes. I have been a libertarian for basically as long as I have had political views. I have never heard of L. Neil Smith. I was curious what race this pure libertarian got 15% on $8. Sounds impressive. People must have just been overwhelmed by the purity.

Here are the results on page 64 the race he is referring to. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elec...stractBook.pdf

He got 15% in a race for Colorado state legislature in 1978 vs a Republican with no Democratic challenger. Great work. I am sure voters for a state house race were overwhelmed with his pure message. If the Republicans can just convince the Democrats not to run candidates they will really start to set records.

And the LP has nominated hardcore libertarians in numerous races. Michael Badnarik was a nutjob and got 0% of the vote. Harry Browne did slightly better than *%. Ron Paul got the usual .5%.

So the quote is regarding a libertarian run for the Colorado state legislature in 1978, where there was only a Republican in the race. Sounds totally relevant to a national presidential campaign, against multiple parties, in 2016, doesn't it?

I can't believe that quote was posted over and over like that, as if we're supposed to believe a campaign from nearly 40 years ago in a single congressional district, against one challenger, bears any relation whatsoever to the 2016 national presidential campaign, when a billion dollars was spent by the major parties.

Then again, we've got people still claiming Gary Johnson "would" only attract 0.1% of the vote. Even though that hasn't happened... twice already. Sure, let's go back to getting .32% of the vote because Gary got 3.2%.

Johnson was outspent by Clinton by over a half a billion dollars; Clinton spent nearly twice as much money attacking Gary than he even had in his entire campaign budget. Johnson was outspent by Trump by over $300,000,000. It is remarkable that Gary managed the numbers he got. And in fact, he spent far, far less per vote than either Trump or Clinton. It's not even close.