Was the 2016 Libertarian primary analogous to a Trumpless GOP primary field?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:10:54 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Was the 2016 Libertarian primary analogous to a Trumpless GOP primary field?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Was the 2016 Libertarian primary analogous to a Trumpless GOP primary field?  (Read 1136 times)
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 03, 2017, 04:33:12 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf-mCv0RBH4

Gary Johnson = Jeb Bush - an experienced governor whose name recognition and money carry him to the nomination despite his goofy personality. He is slightly more moderate on certain issues, making him more appealing to moderates than some of his more conservative competitors.

Austin Petersen = Marco Rubio - hyped up upstart with limited experience who uses rehearsed speeches, totally cash strapped, relies almost entirely on free media as a campaign strategy.

John Mcafee = Scott Walker - a solid conservative who makes wonky speeches, but not as appealing to moderates as Jeb/Gary. Invests heavily in a ground game at the expense of media buys. Has more experience than Petersen and Perry (his business record).

Darryl Perry = Ted Cruz - an extreme conservative who is widely considered to be unlikable. He also has a unique accent and a strange smile.

Marc Feldman = John Kasich - more moderate than Jeb, but ideologically otherwise closest to him. He is from Ohio. Jeb/Gary win the plurality of delegates.


There is wide talk of a contested convention, and a deal between Petersen and Mcafee (Rubio and Walker). In the end, Gary (Jeb) takes the nomination on the second ballot after Feldman (Kasich) throws his delegates to him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Libertarian_National_Convention


Interestingly, just as there was talk about Rubio being Bush's VP in 2016, there was also talk about Petersen being Johnson's VP in the Libertarian primary. In the end, Gary resented Austin too much for Austin daring to ran an insurgent campaign against him. If you watch the debates (including the breaks), you'll notice that Gary behaved towards Austin the same way that Jeb behaved towards Rubio. Both were extremely vigilant whenever Austin/Rubio spoke, and both were eager to snub them. If you watch the Trumpless GOP IA debate as an example, you'll see how Jeb actually beat Rubio on pure policy talk, similar to what Johnson did to Austin in the debates. Outside of memorized speeches, rubio/austin rarely went into policy details. At the convention, Gary was given a family heirloom pistol as a present from Austin, it was discovered later on that Gary had thrown the gun in the trash as a demonstration of his resentment for Austin. Interesting, there is a similar story about the relationship between Jeb and Rubio. Jeb apparently gave Rubio an heirloom sword that rubio now claims he isn't sure where it is.


 Now, when it comes to VP talk, here's where it gets interesting. Weld was a moderate who was not liked very much by the base, I think the parallel to that would be if Jeb picked Sandoval as his VP, Sandoval was apparently rumored to be on Jeb's shortlist. The strategy would be a top-down designed to pick up Hispanics in FL and NV, same way Johnson/Weld's strategy was a top-down approach to pick up disaffected moderates. Weld and Sandoval also have similar backgrounds as AGs -> Governors.

Overall, there were a lot of similarities between the GOP field and the Libertarian field.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,066


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2017, 05:34:38 PM »

That analogy is certainly interesting but Johnson was much more dominant than Jeb ever was. Jeb may easily have lost even without Trump as he was a weak candidate, the wrong candidate for the 2016 GOP, lacked full establishment support and it was an open field. Johnson could be Hillary Clinton, a prohibitive frontrunner who received all the media attention but nearly undone by a base revolt and bombed the general election, blowing a likely win (for Libertarians a win being 5%+)
Logged
sparkey
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,103


Political Matrix
E: 6.71, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2017, 05:39:59 PM »

I think there are some similarities, simply because purism vs. pragmatism and experience vs. outsider battles are common among all parties, whether R/D or third party.

That said, John McAfee = Scott Walker is one of the weirdest comparisons you could have made.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2017, 05:47:10 PM »

That analogy is certainly interesting but Johnson was much more dominant than Jeb ever was. Jeb may easily have lost even without Trump as he was a weak candidate, the wrong candidate for the 2016 GOP, lacked full establishment support and it was an open field. Johnson could be Hillary Clinton, a prohibitive frontrunner who received all the media attention but nearly undone by a base revolt and bombed the general election, blowing a likely win (for Libertarians a win being 5%+)

Imagine if Mark Cuban had entered the Libertarian primary field and done a gigantic character assassination hit against Johnson. Cuban would have Free Media attention boosting him due to his celebrity status. Like I mentioned in the OP, watch the Trumpless IA debate, Jeb acted exactly like Johnson did in the LP debates, without Trump to attack him, Jeb held his own vs. the other candidates who were either incapable of debating him on detailed policy issues or were restrained from doing so. If you look at how Johnson behaved in the GE, with all his faux pas, he really isn't that different from Jeb personality-wise.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2017, 06:53:23 PM »

Marc Feldman was more relevant than Walker period in 2016 and he died of a drug overdose alone in a hotel room like right after convention.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2017, 07:41:06 PM »

Bush was never going to be the GOP nominee.

We'd be saying President Cruz or President Walker right now if Trump hadn't ran. Maybe Rubio but I doubt it since he reminded too many GOP voters of Obama.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2017, 07:58:08 PM »

That analogy is certainly interesting but Johnson was much more dominant than Jeb ever was. Jeb may easily have lost even without Trump as he was a weak candidate, the wrong candidate for the 2016 GOP, lacked full establishment support and it was an open field. Johnson could be Hillary Clinton, a prohibitive frontrunner who received all the media attention but nearly undone by a base revolt and bombed the general election, blowing a likely win (for Libertarians a win being 5%+)
Yeah.

Bush and Kasich maybe should switch places.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2017, 08:36:54 PM »

Bush was never going to be the GOP nominee.

We'd be saying President Cruz or President Walker right now if Trump hadn't ran. Maybe Rubio but I doubt it since he reminded too many GOP voters of Obama.

Where would that candidate get funding from? Jeb had the funding locked up.

If you want to talk about free media, none of the candidates had any free media appeal besides Christie, who was damaged by bridgegate. The media likes blunt, open talkers who have interesting events in their lives.

This is how desperate they were at the beginning of the race for media attention:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/stasi-donald-trump-foes-turn-shameless-desperation-article-1.2314946


Obama was able to use his bernie-style grassroots organization to raise a comparable amount of funding to Hillary in early 2007.  Not even Cruz's grassroots network was able to raise funding to levels anywhere near Jeb's.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2017, 08:44:02 PM »

Bush was never going to be the GOP nominee.

We'd be saying President Cruz or President Walker right now if Trump hadn't ran. Maybe Rubio but I doubt it since he reminded too many GOP voters of Obama.

Where would that candidate get funding from? Jeb had the funding locked up.

If you want to talk about free media, none of the candidates had any free media appeal besides Christie, who was damaged by bridgegate. The media likes blunt, open talkers who have interesting events in their lives.

This is how desperate they were at the beginning of the race for media attention:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/stasi-donald-trump-foes-turn-shameless-desperation-article-1.2314946


Obama was able to use his bernie-style grassroots organization to raise a comparable amount of funding to Hillary in early 2007.  Not even Cruz's grassroots network was able to raise funding to levels anywhere near Jeb's.

Funding doesn't mean jack if you can't get votes.

Jeb was never the "front runner". Polls had it as a three way between him, Walker, and Rubio before Trump jumped in. Walker would've had the backing of the Koch brothers and a decent amount of the grassroots. Cruz would've had trouble with funding but the base of the Party would've been largely in his corner.

Jeb was the easiest punching bag in GOP history. Walker, Cruz, Christie, Rubio, etc. would've hounded him to no end. The base of the Party didn't want another Bush, and they definitely didn't want somebody soft on immigration. He had no realistic shot.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2017, 09:07:09 PM »

Bush was never going to be the GOP nominee.

We'd be saying President Cruz or President Walker right now if Trump hadn't ran. Maybe Rubio but I doubt it since he reminded too many GOP voters of Obama.

Where would that candidate get funding from? Jeb had the funding locked up.

If you want to talk about free media, none of the candidates had any free media appeal besides Christie, who was damaged by bridgegate. The media likes blunt, open talkers who have interesting events in their lives.

This is how desperate they were at the beginning of the race for media attention:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/stasi-donald-trump-foes-turn-shameless-desperation-article-1.2314946


Obama was able to use his bernie-style grassroots organization to raise a comparable amount of funding to Hillary in early 2007.  Not even Cruz's grassroots network was able to raise funding to levels anywhere near Jeb's.

Funding doesn't mean jack if you can't get votes.

Jeb was never the "front runner". Polls had it as a three way between him, Walker, and Rubio before Trump jumped in. Walker would've had the backing of the Koch brothers and a decent amount of the grassroots. Cruz would've had trouble with funding but the base of the Party would've been largely in his corner.

Jeb was the easiest punching bag in GOP history. Walker, Cruz, Christie, Rubio, etc. would've hounded him to no end. The base of the Party didn't want another Bush, and they definitely didn't want somebody soft on immigration. He had no realistic shot.

It was basically a 2-way race between between Bush and Walker in the beginning. The problem is that those candidates actually agree with Bush on almost all Bush policies except for a couple like common core. What would they attack him on when they actually agree with almost all of his policies?

Trump was uniquely positioned to attack Bush, because he attacked Bush with third-party candidate-style rhetoric.

For Walker, it was a catch-22 situation, the Kochs were extremely reluctant to heavily fund him unless he supported the Koch immigration plan:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-21/scott-walker-breaks-with-the-kochs-on-immigration

But if he had been weak on immigration, there wouldn't have been a niche for him to differentiate himself from Jeb as you point out.


Obama was able to slightly differentiate himself position-wise in the 2008 primary due to his grassroots fundraising, but as I show, Cruz, the equivalent to that, was only able to raise a paltry sum.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2017, 09:10:42 PM »
« Edited: May 03, 2017, 09:13:09 PM by Technocratic Timmy »

Bush was never going to be the GOP nominee.

We'd be saying President Cruz or President Walker right now if Trump hadn't ran. Maybe Rubio but I doubt it since he reminded too many GOP voters of Obama.

Where would that candidate get funding from? Jeb had the funding locked up.

If you want to talk about free media, none of the candidates had any free media appeal besides Christie, who was damaged by bridgegate. The media likes blunt, open talkers who have interesting events in their lives.

This is how desperate they were at the beginning of the race for media attention:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/stasi-donald-trump-foes-turn-shameless-desperation-article-1.2314946


Obama was able to use his bernie-style grassroots organization to raise a comparable amount of funding to Hillary in early 2007.  Not even Cruz's grassroots network was able to raise funding to levels anywhere near Jeb's.

Funding doesn't mean jack if you can't get votes.

Jeb was never the "front runner". Polls had it as a three way between him, Walker, and Rubio before Trump jumped in. Walker would've had the backing of the Koch brothers and a decent amount of the grassroots. Cruz would've had trouble with funding but the base of the Party would've been largely in his corner.

Jeb was the easiest punching bag in GOP history. Walker, Cruz, Christie, Rubio, etc. would've hounded him to no end. The base of the Party didn't want another Bush, and they definitely didn't want somebody soft on immigration. He had no realistic shot.

It was basically a 2-way race between between Bush and Walker in the beginning. The problem is that those candidates actually agree with Bush on almost all Bush policies except for a couple like common core. What would they attack him on when they actually agree with almost all of his policies?

Trump was uniquely positioned to attack Bush, because he attacked Bush with third-party candidate-style rhetoric.

For Walker, it was a catch-22 situation, the Kochs were extremely reluctant to heavily fund him unless he supported the Koch immigration plan:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-21/scott-walker-breaks-with-the-kochs-on-immigration

But if he had been weak on immigration, there wouldn't have been a niche for him to differentiate himself from Jeb as you point out.

Rubio was right there with Walker and Bush in the polls in the very beginning right before Trump jumped into the race.

If Walker didn't read the electorate and move right on immigration then he would've went down the Bush path. Cruz would've been the only alternative for the base to coalesce around. Cruz would be the nominee winning with a Goldwater-esque campaign. This GOP was not, under ANY circumstance, gonna go for a candidate that was soft on immigration and they were especially not gonna vote for the penultimate establishment figure with a Mexican-American wife. It wasn't happening for Jeb.

Walker might have been able to tow the line between the Cruz and moderate wing but if he didn't shift on immigration then he to would've fell. Cruz is the only person left. And given that Cruz was the runner up this time around then it's perfectly reasonable to suspect that he would've been the nominee. Let's not kid ourselves here; Cruz was the number one 2nd choice for Trump voters.

We saw the early signs in the 2012 primary with people like Cain and Bachman leading the polls at certain points. The GOP base wasn't gonna have another establishment Republican be their nominee.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2017, 09:34:41 PM »

Bush was never going to be the GOP nominee.

We'd be saying President Cruz or President Walker right now if Trump hadn't ran. Maybe Rubio but I doubt it since he reminded too many GOP voters of Obama.

Where would that candidate get funding from? Jeb had the funding locked up.

If you want to talk about free media, none of the candidates had any free media appeal besides Christie, who was damaged by bridgegate. The media likes blunt, open talkers who have interesting events in their lives.

This is how desperate they were at the beginning of the race for media attention:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/stasi-donald-trump-foes-turn-shameless-desperation-article-1.2314946


Obama was able to use his bernie-style grassroots organization to raise a comparable amount of funding to Hillary in early 2007.  Not even Cruz's grassroots network was able to raise funding to levels anywhere near Jeb's.

Funding doesn't mean jack if you can't get votes.

Jeb was never the "front runner". Polls had it as a three way between him, Walker, and Rubio before Trump jumped in. Walker would've had the backing of the Koch brothers and a decent amount of the grassroots. Cruz would've had trouble with funding but the base of the Party would've been largely in his corner.

Jeb was the easiest punching bag in GOP history. Walker, Cruz, Christie, Rubio, etc. would've hounded him to no end. The base of the Party didn't want another Bush, and they definitely didn't want somebody soft on immigration. He had no realistic shot.

It was basically a 2-way race between between Bush and Walker in the beginning. The problem is that those candidates actually agree with Bush on almost all Bush policies except for a couple like common core. What would they attack him on when they actually agree with almost all of his policies?

Trump was uniquely positioned to attack Bush, because he attacked Bush with third-party candidate-style rhetoric.

For Walker, it was a catch-22 situation, the Kochs were extremely reluctant to heavily fund him unless he supported the Koch immigration plan:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-21/scott-walker-breaks-with-the-kochs-on-immigration

But if he had been weak on immigration, there wouldn't have been a niche for him to differentiate himself from Jeb as you point out.

Rubio was right there with Walker and Bush in the polls in the very beginning right before Trump jumped into the race.

If Walker didn't read the electorate and move right on immigration then he would've went down the Bush path. Cruz would've been the only alternative for the base to coalesce around. Cruz would be the nominee winning with a Goldwater-esque campaign. This GOP was not, under ANY circumstance, gonna go for a candidate that was soft on immigration and they were especially not gonna vote for the penultimate establishment figure with a Mexican-American wife. It wasn't happening for Jeb.

Walker might have been able to tow the line between the Cruz and moderate wing but if he didn't shift on immigration then he to would've fell. Cruz is the only person left. And given that Cruz was the runner up this time around then it's perfectly reasonable to suspect that he would've been the nominee. Let's not kid ourselves here; Cruz was the number one 2nd choice for Trump voters.

We saw the early signs in the 2012 primary with people like Cain and Bachman leading the polls at certain points. The GOP base wasn't gonna have another establishment Republican be their nominee.


Paul and Huckabee weren't that far from rubio in the national polls too. In the early state aggregate performance, it was mainly Bush, Walker doing well.

So, basically, the argument comes down to Cruz? Interesting angle, but this would also come with challenges, i.e. Trump took down a number of early rivals, if they were still all in place, it could be hard for Cruz to break out, with Jeb potentially coming out as the plurality winner.

As i showed before, Cruz's fundraising structure v. Jeb was not as good as Obama's was vis-a-vis Hillary in '08, and he had earned media issues like all the candidates besides Jeb (and Trump).
Logged
Libertarian in Name Only
Rookie
**
Posts: 76


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2017, 10:39:42 PM »

I'd compare Feldman to Lindsey Graham. Feldman claimed he only entered the race to be a consensus choice if the convention was deadlocked after a while. Somewhat similar to Graham in that Graham only entered to attempt to push the real candidates toward a more interventionist foreign policy.
Logged
JoshPA
Rookie
**
Posts: 236
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2017, 04:36:02 PM »

That analogy is certainly interesting but Johnson was much more dominant than Jeb ever was. Jeb may easily have lost even without Trump as he was a weak candidate, the wrong candidate for the 2016 GOP, lacked full establishment support and it was an open field. Johnson could be Hillary Clinton, a prohibitive frontrunner who received all the media attention but nearly undone by a base revolt and bombed the general election, blowing a likely win (for Libertarians a win being 5%+)

Imagine if Mark Cuban had entered the Libertarian primary field and done a gigantic character assassination hit against Johnson. Cuban would have Free Media attention boosting him due to his celebrity status. Like I mentioned in the OP, watch the Trumpless IA debate, Jeb acted exactly like Johnson did in the LP debates, without Trump to attack him, Jeb held his own vs. the other candidates who were either incapable of debating him on detailed policy issues or were restrained from doing so. If you look at how Johnson behaved in the GE, with all his faux pas, he really isn't that different from Jeb personality-wise.
Cuban isnt a libertarian far from one i say.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 12 queries.