The fact that they haven’t changed their ideologies might be why they don’t get the Libertarian nomination. I have no idea what the delegate selection process is like in that party but I have a hunch there isn’t a high percentage of “moderate” libertarians involved.
I’d love for the LP to draw 5%+ this cycle. However, I expect that they’ll continue to be mired in the 1% territory where they’ve peaked in the past. But, to be honest, that’s like a 90% expectation. I wouldn’t be completely shocked if they managed to get, say, 5%.
Now, what would seriously surprise me, like I consider this a 99.9% unlikelihood, is for them to be able to actually sustain momentum beyond the 2016 or at most 2020 cycle. Perot managed to pull 19% in 1992, and there was still a faint Perot echo in 1996, but beyond that, he exerted zero influence on American elections. That’s what I’d expect from the LP, even if they manage to set a high water mark this year.
In what states would the Libertarians be most likely to gain votes? California? Wisconsin? New York? CA and NY are likely to go to Clinton in the general, but could they get enough votes in Wisconsin to cost Trump the state?
What makes William Weld a lesser candidate than Mitt Romney? They have very similar resumes.
What makes him a lesser candidate is the fact the he’s running for a fringe party.
The party is fringe, the candidates are not. No one gets elected statewide who is fringe. If that had been a Republican ticket in 2008, people would have been surprised given the bigger names running, but no one would have questioned the qualifications or the electability of the candidates with the full might of the GOP behind them.
No. If Weld were a Democratic or Republican candidate, he would not be a fringe candidate. As a Libertarian candidate, he IS a fringe candidate.
Were the fairly strong Libertarian types before or after Ron Paul? Because he’s further from being Libertarian than most Democrats are.
Only if they’re invisible.
Paul was first in that list (chronologically.) Why do you say he’s further from being Libertarian than most Democrats? You’re not mixing him up with Rand Paul, are you? Here’s a short wikipedia article on his 1988 candidacy:
[QUOTE=wikipedia]
He ran on a platform that included non-interventionism in foreign conflicts, decriminalization of illegal drugs on a federal level, a return to the gold standard, the abolition of the Federal Reserve and a reduction in all government spending.
…
In January 1987, Paul officially left the Republican Party to run for the Libertarian Party nomination after becoming disillusioned by the spending policies of the Reagan administration and presumptive Republican presidential nominee George H.W. Bush. On leaving the party, Paul remarked: “Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit ten times greater than what we had with the Democrats. It didn’t take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes.”
…
Paul commented that “Big government is running away with our freedom and our money, and the Republicans are just as much to blame as the Democrats.”
[/QUOTE]
It seems his only particularly controversial stand (from an LP perspective) is his opposition to abortion, but there’s always been a pro-life minority in the LP that simply applies the Libertarian non-aggression principle differently.
[QUOTE=Chronos]
Only if they’re invisible.
[/QUOTE]
I laughed.
Johnson’s best state in 2012 was New Mexico (with 3.5%) and then a bunch of the big, unpopulated red states (Wymoing, Alaska, Montana, etc.). NM was presumably just due to his home-state advantage, so assuming the pattern holds in 2016, I imagine he’ll do best in the high-planes.
But I can’t imagine “best” will be over 10%. Especially as the States where he did best are also States where a lot of Republicans likely to be disenchanted with a Trump led GOP are also evangelicals who aren’t super interested in a Lib ticket either. That will probably put a pretty low ceiling on his support.
Johnson’s last statewide victory was twenty years ago.
Still, that’s a far more concrete engagement with the reality of governance than, say, Donald Trump has.
I know polls this far out are only vaguely indicative and that some of the folks saying they prefer Johnson will hold their noses and vote Trump or Clinton on the day, but 538 notes that Johnson is currently polling at 10-11%.
The main factor here appears to be the ridiculously high unfavorable ratings for both Clinton and Trump; Clinton is currently polling “strongly unfavorable” at a higher level than GWB was in 2004, and Trump is much higher than that. One can see why a third-party candidate who isn’t a complete loon might look attractive.
ETA: Apparently 15% in five polls is the minimum required to “qualify for the national debate stage” (whatever that means). Not easy to get, but not out of reach…
The main reason I cheer the news of good polling for Johnson and the Libertarians is that they are a far, far more serious and rational party and choice than the Republicans at this time, and it’s better for America if there actually is a relatively sane, serious, and rational alternative to the Democratic party, even though I disagree with the Libertarians on many (mostly fiscal) policy issues.
The second part already happened: In 1972, one of the Republican electors from Virginia voted for the Libertarian candidate instead of Nixon. The Libertarians actually earning electoral votes instead of benefiting from the odd faithless elector on the other hand…
Contrary to my confident prediction of a couple months ago, it doesn’t appear any brand name Republican is going to step up to run third party. So, IF they can raise enough money to mount a real national campaign, I could see the L.P. becoming the focus of NeverTrump conservative protest votes and getting around 10%. They already have ballot access in most states, which would be a huge barrier for an independent candidate entering the race this late. Of course, that doesn’t mean that either the party or Libertarianism itself has a bright future; those voters would either go back to being Republican after this weird election is over or take over the L.P. and purge all the actual Libertarians.
We now have two straight polls showing Johnson in double digits, plus some good coverage from 538.com and Fox. If Johnson can get into the debates, who knows what might happen?
The other good thing about strong polling is that it signals to the Never Trump guys that maybe the LP ticket is their best play.
Or the Constitution Party, for religious moral-authoritarians.
National Review’s (aka NeverTrump Central) takedown of Johnson:
“When Johnson took the tiller in New Mexico in 1995, the budget stood at $4.397 billion. When he left in 2003, it had grown to $7.721 billion, an increase of 7.29 percent a year. Of the eleven governors who filed to run for president this year (two Democrats, Johnson, and eight Republicans), only one had a worse record on spending growth.”
I prefer Mcafee to Johnson, but I can see Johnson appealing to a wide spectrum of folks.
If anyone thinks that the Libertarian Party isn’t a group of insane halfwits that will poll their usual one percent that we suffer with as the penalty for living in a highly diverse country, read this article about the Libertarian convention.
Johnson issued more vetoes than any of those governors, plus New Mexico is a faster growing state than most.
7.29% growth in such a prosperous, high population growth period is not a bad record, actually.