Libertarians get no coverage... Again

[Sam Stone]

What's the deal with this? Not a single network is reporting any results at all for Harry Browne, even though at least two of them are showing results for Hagelin, a nutbar who isn't gathering 1/10 of the votes Browne is getting.

In fact, Browne is tracking very close to Buchanan, despite the fact that Buchanan had millions of dollars in federal funds and is a nationally-known figure.

So why no coverage at all? Even CNN's web site doesn't give aggregate totals for Browne, although they list Hagelin, Nader, and Buchanan.

A few elections ago I think the Libertarians got close to 3-4% of the vote, which is about what Nader will get this time. Yet they got ZERO coverage.

[oldscratch]

Yep, it sucks. Not really a debate. It's stupid. Nader also isn't getting nearly the coverage he should. NYTimes refuses to review his ads, even though they review the much more boring ones from Bore. I feel for ya little buddy.

[Tristan]

My opinion...well, the libertarians have been around... they're not new news.

Nader, while not new, is the first time there's been a real run in the presidency for the Greens.

It would take looooong odds for the libertarians to take any real political power... America just doesn't quite know what to do with extremes of any sort.

I almost voted Browne today.... decided not to. I'm not even sure why, as my state was a lock for the person who took it.

[David B]

What's the deal with this? Not a single network is reporting any results at all for Harry Browne, even though at least two of them are showing results for Hagelin, a nutbar who isn't gathering 1/10 of the votes Browne is getting. My local news reported the Browne vote for president -- at least, they showed them on the screen, though they didn't mention him (or Hagelin or Buchanan even).

[David B]

I should add:

Did you really expect them to mention Browne when the race was as close as it was with the two major candidates?

[waterj2]

Yippee! Carla Howell got 13% in the Massachusetts Senate race. The Republican candidate only got 14%. Of course, Kennedy remains in office after almost 40 years by a huge majority, so the overall result was pretty bad. But at least it's something.

[David B]

What are the laws there regarding ballot access? For example, in Illinois, if the candidate of a party gets 5% of the vote, that party gets automatic ballot access in the next election (so they don't have to go out and get 25,000 signatures per person they want on the ballot, for example).

A few years ago, a Libertarian candidate got over 5% for a really minor office (trustee of the University of Illinois, or something like that) and the GOP and Dems did everything they could to screw them anyway. First, they changed the law so those positions became appointed instead of elected. Then they "interpreted" the law to mean that only certain Libertarians could automatically be put on the ballot.

[waterj2]

I think everyone needs 10,000 signatures. There was a big scandal because the Republican candidate was short 16 contested signatures at one point, but he sued and got in. The Libertarians had already secured their place. I swear, the Mass. Republican Party is a complete joke. The 6% vote for Nader still left Gore over 20 points ahead of Bush.

[Wrath]

I am so happy to know that the LP is fairly well represented here (probably better than in the general populace). But I am so angered that the LP has been around longer than Nader's and Buchanon's bids (et al), and been on the ballot in all 50 states for the last 20 years... so why are we constantly ignored?

The front page of my local paper showed 3 faces a few days ago: Gore, W, and Nader. A few elections ago, Perot got all the press, with Forbes right behind. In a weekly paper in town, an article displayed 4 faces, Gore, W, Nader and Buchanon. I even read op-ed articles that talk about 3rd parties with no reference to LP whatsoever, even one that had been written by an admitted LP supporter (this was during Bush/Clinton/Perot era, sorry can't remember the writer's name). John Stewart on the Comedy Central's Daily Show a few nights back had guest Phil Donahue coming out pushing for Nader, and when Stewart asked "Why the Green Party and not, say, Reform, [then added in silly references to other 3rd parties]", but gave no hint of awareness about the LP.

And now, as Mr. Mod points out, we won't hear a peep about the LP thanks to nature of this race.

Is it that we simply have no celebrity status? Do we need a big name to market the LP, to make people at least take notice?

[pldennison]

There was a House race in Virginia's 10th Congressional district in which the only candidates were incumbent Republican Frank Wolf, Libertarian Brian Brown (incorrectly listed by the Associated Press as "Independent") and independent Marc Rossi. Wolf received 85% of the votes. It's as if the fact that there was no Democrat on the ticket confused voters so much that they couldn't dare vote for what must be the fringe loonies.

[vanilla]

Well, just an hour ago, I saw Harry on Cnn making a speech. But thats not your usual media channel.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
...Buchanan had millions of dollars in federal funds and is a nationally-known figure.

Arguably, Buchanan might have gotten more votes if people knew less about him. He definitely would have gotten fewer votes in Florida if they had better ballot design.

[Spiritus Mundi]

Not all of Florida suffered from a confusing ballot design. Only Palm Beach County.

I am just glowing with civic pride.

[sublemon]

he simple fact of the matter, and I know I will get some angry responses, is that the Libertarian theory as it now stands is utterly irresponsible as a political philosophy. While it sounds good to say "everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others," in practice society is not a collection of free agents, nor are individuals the only forces acting in society. In our increasingly coporate-capitalist system, a strong federal government is the people's last hope for protection from total corporate domination. It must be a positive force in society, and that involves regulation, taxation, foreign policy, and all the onther things Libertarians believe should be done away with. Of course, even this is in jeopardy now, as coporations gain more control of the governmental process through campaign contributions and PACs. Still, the government is at least still partially responsive to the will of the people, while corporations are always ONLY responsive to the bottom line. I think many people would like to see a change in the system, but the way to do this at this juncture is not by shrinkning the powers of the government.

sublemon

[Needs2know]

The biggest problem I see with the Libertarian way of thinking is that they treat the Constitution as though it was some sacred document written on stone tablets by the finger of God. I just do not believe this to be true. If it needs changing then change it. They would also hand most control back over to the states. That would be fine I'd think in most instances but can you say "Jim Crow" boys and girls! The states cannot always be trusted to look out for the rights of ALL the people. I'd also like to know how Harry thinks he's going to get away with some of the things he's proposed. Sounds nice when you say some of it but just seems like an impossibility to implement. So yeah, I think an awful lot of Americans think the Libertarian party is full of fruitcakes. I choose to think of them as "idealists".

Needs2know

[Wrath]

Originally posted by Needs2know
The states cannot always be trusted to look out for the rights of ALL the people.

Can you give a more recent example of this, and how the Feds would or could do a better job than the states? Times have changed. It's time to change.

Yes, Libertarians are idealists. Better that than panderists, don't you think?

[waterj2]

So, in order to better protect our rights, we just need more government? The more government we have, the more rights we have? There are states where Jim Crow laws could get enacted in this day and age? (I don't know the South much, so I have no idea if this could happen there, actually)

[Sam Stone]

This isn't thread to talk about the Libertarian platform - there are plenty of other threads to do that in. Anyway, if your argument is that the Libertarians don't get covered because they are loonies, please explain why John Hagelin got so much coverage, despite the fact that his platform states that 'yogic flying' and directed meditation can solve the nation's problems.

What I find more interesting today is that the Libertarians simply cannot get coverage. A small example: The reform party is now referred to by party name on the ballot ("RF", at least as shown on all the major network websites), but Libertarians are just lumped in with all the other independants as 'I', despite having a very strong party structure that has put the presidential candidate on more ballots than any of the other third parties.

Look at all the coverage Nader has gotten throughout this campaign, even though everyone knew that a GOOD result would be perhaps 5% of the vote. Libertarians have come close to that before, without a mention.

And it's now looking possible that Harry Browne will pass Pat Buchanan in the popular vote. That should be news. Why isn't it?

[Needs2know]

I would say last nights election is a perfect example of how many states would lean if free to do so. Nearly all of the Southern states voted Bush. Doesn't anyone find this interesting. When I first came to this board there were a few discussions about Southerners being uneducated (ignorant), bigoted, backward, self righteous etc, and so on. So all of these ignorant Southerners voted for a party whos constituants would...put prayer back in schools, send Gays back into the closet, kill every black criminal they can get their hands on, abolish a woman's right to choose, hand over control of the government to the oil industry, the pharmacetical companies, and tobacco interests, and leave our old, very young and poorest citizens out in the cold...need I continue? Then you want to know why in this day and age the government needs to monitor what the states are doing? Peddle it elsewhere.

Needs2know

[waterj2]

That simply made no sense. Perhaps if you stop foaming at the mouth with irrational hatred and unfounded fears, and posted rationally, you'd be able to point out what the hell any of that has to do with limited government or the Libertarian Party.

[sublemon]

i think a perfect example of why control going to the states would be bad is that in some states abortion would be legal and some it would not. Would this violate equal protection under the law? Anyway, I didn't John Hagelin getting a lot of coverage. I explain any votes they got as fringe, just like Buchanan.

Finally, in defense of libertarians, I would say that you all are utopian thinkers. We need utopianists, they do contribute valuable ideas, but it isn't a practical political platform. Maybe it will be someday in the far future. I would say the human race has a shot at creating the technology to build a true utopia for all or to destroy itself with pollution, nuclear weapons, etc. Which will come first?

[friedo]

Originally posted by sublemon
[T]he simple fact of the matter, and I know I will get some angry responses, is that the Libertarian theory as it now stands is utterly irresponsible as a political philosophy.

Please. The same could be said about the Third Reich...errr...I mean the Reform Party, as well as the Commies...errr...I mean the Green Party. All three are mostly extremists, and the Libertarian party is larger than both the Reform and the Green, and on the ballot in more states than both. So why no coverage? It's rediculous.

Browne did get on Fox News a couple times, but no mainstream network gave him any time.

[Needs2know]

I said exactly the same thing. And by the way John Hagelin got NO coverage on any station I watched, MSNBC or channel 6 in my state, ABC I think.

I called the Libertarians "idealists" I think they are, I used to be one myself, an idealist. I can't afford to be one now. I know the reality of the situation. Harry and his supporters are working under the assumption that each state would always do the right thing for all of it's citizens. They don't do that now even when things like civil rights are mandated by the Constitution. They challenge it, they work around it, and they disobey it whenever they can get away with it.

I don't intend to minimize this political philosophy I think it has an awful lot of valid points. I just don't see how it could ever be fully implemented.

Could be that the other parties get less coverage because they attract less money. You know money talks. I just didn't see much coverage at all on anyone but Gore and Bush. Even Nader wasn't stressed much, especially since he didn't do as well as predicted. And I think he wouldn't have gotten the coverage he did if it hadn't been for his big following in California. Let's face it New York on the East Coast, California on the West they always get the most press coverage.

Don't get whiney like the Republicans, just press on perhaps in 2004!

Needs2know

[pldennison]

Browne was on the ballot in all 50 states. Nader was on 45 ballots, Buchanan was on 48.

Browne received a total of 379,716 votes to Buchanan's 432,115, a difference of only 112,399 (closer than the Bush/Gore popular vote). Nader received 2,630,582. Browne actually beat Buchanan in 16 states; counting out the two in which Buchanan wasn't on the ballot (Michigan and DC), he beat him in 14 states where both appeared. Browne even beat Nader in one state, Georgia. So, tell me again why Buchanan gets news coverage and Browne does not?

[manhattan]

Because

1) He is personally known to the folks who shape media coverage (all of whom think he personally is a swell guy, even if he holds forth an evil political philosophy) from his prior incarnations as a speechwriter and pundit, and

2) He gives good quote.

[Wrath]

I think this (http://www.time.com/time/daily/0,2960,59449-101001103,00.html) may explain why.

As I mentioned previously, we have zero celebrity status. At least Buchanon has been a regular on Firing Line and a political voice for a long while. No one knows Harry Browne, or any other LP member for that matter.

I'm not saying we need a Perot or a Nader to figure head the Party, but perhaps one respectable, well-known voice to vouch. Let's say, if Tom Cruise or Michael Crichton (weak examples maybe) came out in favor of the LP platform, suddenly everyone might just talk about it, which would empower people to at least learn more about it.

[Tretiak]

pldennison,

I am sure your math skills are beyon reproach, usually, however the difference between Browne and Buchanan was even less then you stated (assuming your totals are correct)...
52,399 votes.

You don't happen to work for the Florida Board of Elections do you? :)

BTW, I could not believe it when that CNN ticker at the bottom of the screen would show Gore, Bush, Nader, Buchanan and the Hagelin? are you kidding me??

[Wrath]

And in USA Today today, where I was certain I'd find the results given by pldennison (thank you, BTW), they mentioned results only for Gore, Bush, Nader and Buchanan. It's as if they refuse to acknowledge the LP even through we were on more ballots than the other two!.

Bastards.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by Wrath
And in USA Today today, where I was certain I'd find the results given by pldennison (thank you, BTW), they mentioned results only for Gore, Bush, Nader and Buchanan. It's as if they refuse to acknowledge the LP even through we were on more ballots than the other two!.

Bastards.

The thing is, as far as the political landscape goes, the Libertarians are irrelevant to the outcome of the election. Buchanan is as well, but he has celebrity status. Nader arguably skewed enough votes to tip the election to Bush.

As far as the LP goes, they haven't made enough people care. If they had, there might be coverage of them. As it stands, they get lumped with the Constitution Party, the Socialists, the Natural Law Party, and all the others that have not attracted more than a small core group that none of the major parties care to incorporate.

[sublemon]

and finally, the reason taht nader got on the air a lot more than any other 3rd party candidates is because he is a national figure who has been on the scene for 30 years, and because journalists' views are probably a lot more sypathetic to Nader than to the others

sublemon

[theuglytruth]

By the way you'll be happy to know that Harry Browne DID get national attention today, and he could be in the center of the entire Florida controversy.

Because of the Florida punch ballot possibly not lining up correctly into the ballot machine, Browne got 302 votes in Osceola County, FL- even though there are only 112 registered Libertarians!

YES!!! WE RULE!!!! :cool:

[tracer]

Wrath wrote:

I'm not saying we need a Perot or a Nader to figure head the Party, but perhaps one respectable, well-known voice to vouch.

You mean like Howard Stern running for governor of New York on the Libertarian party ticket? ;)

[Sam Stone]

You're mixing cause and effect here. You're saying that the Libertarians don't get coverage because they aren't well known! Well, they'd be more well known IF THEY GOT THE COVERAGE THEY HAVE EARNED.

Last night, CNN's running ticker reported results by state all night long, for Gore, Bush, Buchanan, and Hagelin. No mention of Libertarians. even though Hagelin wasn't pulling 1/10 the votes that Harry Browne was. Didn't anyone NOTICE this? In a race this close, why wasn't anyone commenting on the possibility that the Libertarians could spoil the election for Bush, when they DID say that for Reform, Green, and Hagelin's party?

A number of Libertarian candidates for various elective offices were described as 'independent'. I had to go digging deep into the 'background' area of CNN's web site to find out that they actually were libertarian.

The question I have is, if Harry Browne had gotten the kind of coverage that Buchanan and Nader got, how many more votes would the Libertarians have gotten? Perhaps 3%? Maybe even 5%? If so, wouldn't that set the stage for the Libertarian party to be taken seriously enough in the NEXT election to draw some more popular candidates for President?

But as long as they are completely ignored, they will never have a chance to grow.

[Persephone]

I've been watching MSNBC almost constantly since Wednesday (this whole thing is peculiarly fascinating, sorta like a train wreck), and I've heard NOTHING about the Libertarians. Zip. Zero. Nada. It's as if simply mentioning the "L" word will cause the heads of the pundits to explode. I don't get it.

I'm in Michigan, one of the "battleground" states. Buchanan was not on the ballot here. We had the Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Natural Law, and somebody else I don't remember, but it wasn't Reform. I thought for sure I'd see more of Michigan's election results posted nationally, since both of the major parties were so hot for us. Nope. There was one brief mention of one of our propositions (Prop 1, about school vouchers), and a bunch of coverage about the Senate race between Debbie Stabenow & Spence Abraham (because Stabenow is a female, and her election tipped the Senate to 50-50, a position it hasn't been in since the late 1800's).

It'd be nice to see more coverage of the Libertarians & Natural Law, parties that most people have heard of, but know nothing about. People like me, who do not vote a straight party ticket, would like to see more coverage. Yes, we can do our own research and learn about the candidates, but not covering them on TV kinda makes it seem like they just don't matter.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
You're mixing cause and effect here. You're saying that the Libertarians don't get coverage because they aren't well known! Well, they'd be more well known IF THEY GOT THE COVERAGE THEY HAVE EARNED.

But as long as they are completely ignored, they will never have a chance to grow.



It's not a straight cause and effect relationship between coverage and appeal. Each generates and sustains the other. The reason that the spotlight of public attention gets pointed toward Nader and Buchanan is because of their celebrity status, not their views. Very few people would have ever heard any of the Green party's platform if Nader hadn't been a consumer advocate for 30 plus years. Hell, I'd argue that better than 80% never heard any of his platform at all, despite his status. Same goes for Buchanan. The Dems and Repubs get covered by virtue of their size and entrenchment, but no third party gets any serious coverage given of their platform unless they have people who are interested in the candidates as personalities. If MArtin Sheen were to run as a Libertarian, I guarantee that there would be plenty of attention paid. As long as complete unknowns are fronting the party, I see no future as anything other than an ignored margin.

[Kimstu]

Sam Stone: Last night, CNN's running ticker reported results by state all night long, for Gore, Bush, Buchanan, and Hagelin. No mention of Libertarians. even though Hagelin wasn't pulling 1/10 the votes that Harry Browne was.

I sympathize with you on this one, Sam, and I urge all who were disappointed about the lack of media coverage to send a comment to the watchdog organization Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR (http://www.fair.org/contact.html)). Their chief purpose is to expose mass-media bias and suppression (whether deliberate or inadvertent) of important news, so this is the sort of thing that should be brought to their attention.

In the Department of Extenuating Circumstances, though, there is one reason why Hagelin would be likely to get more coverage than Browne: namely, he was actually a Reform Party candidate too. In September, the Reform Party delegations split their support (in a rather messy dispute, AFAIK) and some of them abandoned Buchanan to form a Natural Law/Reform coalition for Hagelin. As the September 7 press release (http://www.natural-law.org/news/news_flash/2000_09_07.html) put it,

Many top leaders of the Reform Party attended the Convention to support the Hagelin/Goldhaber ticket, [...] Representatives from all the major Reform Party state delegations also attended.

As a first step toward creating a unified Natural Law-Reform platform, the Convention adopted the eight core constitutional principles of the Reform Party platform as part of the Natural Law Party's platform. Both groups pledged to work together to build an increasingly powerful coalition that will give all American citizens a reason to vote in November.


So to some extent Hagelin's coverage was probably due to a "coattail effect" from the Reform Party, which has more visibility and more official recognition than the LP. Still doesn't justify complete silence about Browne, though (and I am personally solidly anti-Libertarian, and even I don't think this is fair).

[Wrath]

Kimstu - ANTI Libertarian?

The LP is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That would make you fiscally liberal and socially conservative. In other words, a communist! ;)

Tracer - LOL - unfortunately, Howard Stern promotes only himself, and used the LP to do that. He, sadly, could not care less which party he whored himself to.

[Kimstu]

Wrath: wow, that's the first time I've heard communists described as "socially conservative"! Is oldscratch reading this? :)

Anyway, I am a devout civil-libertarian, but I've been in enough debates with LP members on this board to know that there are lots of other things we'll probably never agree on. Nonetheless, I do think that when they run a candidate for by-God President of the United States and get a substantial number of votes, the papers should get around to mentioning it.

[tracer]

Wrath wrote:

unfortunately, Howard Stern promotes only himself, and used the LP to do that. He, sadly, could not care less which party he whored himself to.

Yeah, I remember the press conference:

REPORTER: "Mr. Stern, what would you do if the Republican Party offered to back you for this election?"

STERN: [shrugging] "Sorry, Libertarians!"

[Sam Stone]

There is plenty of evidence that the Libertarian Platform would receive far more than 1% of the vote if the Libertarian Party could get the message out.

For example, I would point to the Internet, which is much more egalitarian for fringe parties. And in Internet polls and mock elections, the Libertarians often win, and when they don't they ALWAYS get a decent percentage of the vote.

I would also point to audience reaction whenever Harry Browne or other Libertarians speak in public. I saw Harry on "Politically Incorrect", and his comments drew cheers from the audience, even though the audience is largely Democratic.

I'm not trying to claim that the Libertarians are the party of choice. Clearly, only a small minority of people agree with them. But that's all a legitimate 3rd party needs to be able to have a 'voice' in governing. If the Libertarians habitually drew 5-15% instead of 1%, which I think is possible if they were given equal time, then politicians would have to pander to that voting bloc, and it would shift the political debate somewhere towards the libertarian position. And it would allow Harry (or the next nominee) into the debates, which means that the Democrats and Republicans would have to come up with answers to his comments. That also would shift the tone of the debate.

It would also make the Libertarians more attractive to some big names with real money. TJ Rogers, for instance, would make a formidable presidential candidate. He's a Libertarian, he's worth hundreds of millions or more, he has testified before Congress, and is extremely well spoken. If Perot could buy 20% of the vote, a Libertarian party with hundreds of millions of dollars could do even better.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Well, i think Brown got exactly as much coverage as he was entitled to. :D

I also note that Freedom2, that well known Brown supporter- (he is not a Bush supporter, oh no- he supports Brown) :rolleyes: has been posting on this thread a lot, and not very much on the Bush threads. :D

[waterj2]

Well, I'm floored by the sheer weight of the evidence that you posted to support that assertion. I mean, how can I argue with statistics like that. Obviously the Libertarians were entitled to less coverage than Buchanan and Hagelin. And I'll also make sure to inform Brown that he's been misspelling his name everywhere I've seen it.

[August West]

Just a minor nitpick, but I thought Harry was only on the ballot in 49 states because of the schism in the LP in Arizona. We were talking about this when Harry came to town for a fund-raiser. There was a Libertarian candidate on the ballot, but it wasn't Harry. Can anyone confirm this?

More evidence of the "media Browne-out": My mom was phone polled and the pollster asked her "If the election were held today, would you vote for Bush, Gore, Nader, or Buchanan?" My mom responded "What about Harry Browne?" and the pollster replied "Who?". It made me want to cry.

[Edlyn]

Yes, Chief, you are correct. The LP in Arizona split from the main LP and nominated someone other than Harry Browne for the Presidental candidate.