Talk Elections

Can anyone think of any Libertarian candidate that will be running in 2008?  I thought I read that Badnarik is going to.

According to this blog (http://newpolitics1.blogspot.com/2005/02/libertarian-run-down-2008_16.html) I found, so far Badnarik, Ed Thompson (Tommy's brother), Jesse Ventura and Republican Congressman Ron Paul have all been mentioned as possibilities.

Ventura is NOT a Libertarian.  He talks like one sometimes, but surely doesn't govern like one.  No way the party will nominate him.

I think some third parties may nominate anyone just for the sake of getting national attention.

I'd back Paul over a moderate Republican I'm pretty sure.  Hopefully, someone like Thompson will run though.

Some of them do, but the Libertarians seem to insist on ideological purity.   Ron Paul or Ed Thompson would both fit well as candidates.

Ron Paul is always mentioned, through draft campaigns usually. I highly doubt he will ever run for president again.

Clint Eastwood?
Billie Joe Armstrong?
Norman Sharzkapof?
John Stossel?

He's 35?

No, but he'll be at the time.

I thought Green Day were staunch Democrats?

http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/billie-joe-armstrong.html

If they really want to relieve the Glory Days of 1980 they need to nominate candidates that can appeal to more Republicans, Democrats and Independents.  Otherwise they'll end up with another Badnarik, Harry Browne or Andre Marrou and end up bad mouthing Republicans and ending up with .03% to .05% of the vote.

Most libertarians voted Democrat this last election. When the ruling Republican party is very socially right-wing, and is fiscally irresponsible, and starts wars for no good reason, a true libertarian may vote Democratic, even though they disagree with them on economic issues.

Or not.
The fact is, most libertarians are't even Libertarians, they are republicans. Especially the paleos.

Oh ok.  I assumed it was so because I saw them on TV playing at an anti-Bush rally, so I just assumed they were Democrats.  I stand corrected. :)

Watch:  people like Ed Thompson and Ron Paul will enter the non-binding primaries, get up to 10-15% in polls accross the nation and lose the nomination to somebody we have never heard of....

Heh...

I would probably vote for Johnson.

I could vote for Johnson if the Dems put up some populist loony or another latte liberal and the GOP runs a fundamentalist who won't put the budget in order.  I have a lot of respect for the stand he took while governor.

I do too.  He actually would make good candidate for the Libertarians.  He would make good candidate for the GOP it just that he has snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination.

Johnson considered a run 2000, but he said he would likely not win a state and help Gore win by spliting the Bush vote.

You mean his name is not Ralph Nader?

Johnson would make an excellent candidate for the LP.  Probably enough of one to actually win a few EVs.  It would obviously depend on the campaign, and if politics is still as polarized then as it is now.

I would vote for Johnson especially if the Republicans nominate an economic moderate, like Giuliani, or if they nominate another fiscally irresponsible neo-con.

Personally I believe that the Libertarians could do well with Johnson, Thompson, Paul or Barr. All of them have experience or have run successful Libertarian campaigns. Barr could bring in more Paleo-Conservatives and disaffected Republicans. Paul could also do well since he has experience in Congress and is rather well known and well liked. As it said in that article Paul could also get the nomination of the Constitution Party which would add another 150,000 or so votes. Johnson seems to have the anti-drug war credentials that would help a person in an LP primary while Thompson should immediately be courted by the LP since his Libertarian campaign for Governor netted him 11% of the vote.

Johnson would be the best because he is the only one to successfully win STATEWIDE office.  Hell, he unseated a 3-term Governor and defeated the 'popular' Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez for re-election!

Seeing as how Johnson has pretty much retired from politics, its unlikely that he'll even consider a run for the LP in 2008, unless he happens to strongly disagree with the two major candidates on offer.  Having said that, I would have thought he'd have disagreed with Kerry and Bush in 2004 enough ideologically to try for a run then.

But Bush is an incumbent. It's different.

Of course, Johnson was helped both times by the remarkable ability of NM Democrats to stab each other in the back at the worst time. Chavez torqued off some campaign contributors by not giving them what they wanted, and poor Bruce King was backstabbed by both Casey Luna and Roberto Mondragon...

Amen to that.  Strip out the controversial stuff like Affirmative Action.  If that question came up to a third-party candidate, he/she should merely reply "Last time I checked, everyone has the right to find employment and not be limited by age, gender, or nationality.  If that is not the case, then elect me and we'll fix it once and for all." (or something to that effect.)  Beyond that, take the middle, realistic road on the key issues like Social Security:  "Like it or not, this system is going to run out of money in the future.  Delaying action on this only makes the problem worse in the long run, costing the tax payers even more while getting less of a return for those that need it."  Plenty of examples to choose from, and all of them are easy to answer and believe when you take rhetoric out of it.

I think we should list what the various positions the two parties have, and find their overlaps.  That would be the candidate needed in order to pull in the support of both.

I seriously doubt the LP and CP would nominate the same canddiate.  Keep in mind that both of these parties are dedicated to ideological, rather than pragmatic concerns.  The vast majority of participants would rather go down fighting for their narrow agendas rather than open up and win anything.  Agreeing to disagree on a controversial issue would mean.....*gasp*... COMPROMISE... . which is of course not what our founding fathers intended for our elected officials to be doing.

The LP actually likes to keep up the pretense that they are a real functioning modern political party.   As for the CP, their convention was filled with historic notions that gave the impression that their membership wanted to jump in a time machine and travel back to 1790.

Both would support Ron Paul, but you would need a VP Candidate as well. And it would be hard to find someone that would be as acceptable to both parties. The CP would find Badnarik unacceptable and the LP would find Peroutka unacceptable. I do remember reading that Aaron Russo, who was seeking the LP nomination last year, ran for office for the CP a few years ago. I don't know much about him on the issues though.

Economically both are similar, but the LP support Free Trade and Open Borders while the CP supports a protective tariff and closed borders. Both oppose NAFTA, GATT, FTAA, etc. I think both oppose the UN as well.

CP is completely against abortion, while the LP varies a lot. Dr. Ron Paul, who has delivered plenty of babies during his medical career, is Pro-Life. I think Badnarik felt abortion should be legal, but that Roe v. Wade was wrong and each state should be able to decide for itself. LP opposes tax payer funded abortions.

CP says keep drugs illegal. LP varies, but has been consistant in saying the war on drugs has caused more problems than it has solved.

CP says Marriage = 1 man and 1 woman but is against a Federal Marriage Amendment. LP says anyone should be able to marry. Ron Paul says no to FMA and that the protection of Marriage Act is good enough to protect states from accepting gay marriage. Peroutka's campaign manager referred to Badnarik as a supporter of Sodomy.

Just a few I could think of off the top of my head. I think it's unlikely though not impossible that both could joint nominate someone.

Tom McClintok?

Each Party could nominate it's own VP Candidate, but it would be like having two different Presidential Nominees. If they had the same Pres. and Vice-Pres. Nom's, then they could share the electors and only be on the ticket once. If they had seperate VP's, then they would be a seperate ticket, with seperate electors. Let's say Ron Paul had the most votes in a state, but his vote total was split between the two parties. He would act as his own spoiler.

George Bush / Dick Cheney 100,000
John Kerry / John Edwards 90,000
Ron Paul / Michael Badnarik 85,000
Ron Paul / Michael Peroutka 75,000

Even though he had the most votes, they would be counted seperately and the Dem or Rep would win.

McClintok = Republican From California who was the top Republican finisher behind Arnold for Gov. in California?

Here is an idea. Maybe Ron Paul would be able to find someone himself that would be able to get the support of both parties. (I'm sure he knows better than any of us. :) )

Yup.

I still like the old ways of the winner being President, and the runner-up being VP.  Could you imagine Gore being Bush's VP?  hehehe

it would have made for 4 fun-filled years and would have given Gore a springboard into the 2004 limelight

Prez Bush:  (first month in office)  "Al, we need an energy policy.  Why don't you meet with various industry leaders and find out what we can do to improve our nations industry infrastructure and supply."

VP Gore:  "What?  You're Mr. Educated.  You do it!"

Prez Bush:  "Al....."

VP Gore:  "Don't Al me, buddy.  You wanted to be President, so you get do to all this policy stuff.  I'm gonna sit here and write my new book and wait for you to implode so I can defeat you in 2004." 

hahaha

I agree, which is why I think they 'major third parties' should work together to find common ground just to select a candidate who has the best chance of winning (of course, they need to work at winning key Congressional seats too).  Unfortunately, they need a candidate who has the money and name recognition to compete, which is why Perot did so well in his run.  The problem is most wealthy/famous people do not want to buck the system, and therefore, the third-parties will have the hardest time getting anywhere. 

When my cousin ran as a Libertarian in NC, he was excited that he received 17% of the votes.  That was one of the biggest gains the party received in a state election . . . yet 17% will not get you into the position.  The third parties need a better strategy, but I don't think the parties are really as serious as their supporters are in regards to winning.  Otherwise, there would be more Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reformists, etc around the nation holding key seats.

You can water-down the party and still be "different," which is what many independent and moderates could be looking for.  The Reform party was never radical (until Pat came along) on anything other than bringing the Congress back to a sense of reality.  The Libertarians could do the same thing . . . start with a single mission/scope . . . gain a foothold, and then slowly expand on what they are for/against.

How about the Libertarians nominate Ed Clark in 2008 since he did so well for them in 1980?

Because nobody knows anything about him any more.  I just Googled him, and I couldn't even find if he's still alive.  That's not a very good sign for a potential presidential candidate.

Because nobody knows anything about him any more.  I just Googled him, and I couldn't even find if he's still alive.  That's not a very good sign for a potential presidential candidate.

no iy's not a good sign.

Well, in <Galicia, the current regional president is running at 82!(check my thread on international elections forum).

becoming more watered down is a load of sh**t.  The thing we should do is keep these so-called "extreme" positions, but not campaign as if they were extreme.  Harry Browne had the 2nd most LP vote after Clark, when he ran in '96.  Thing is, he had opinions that may be as extreme as anyone else, but he doesn't come off sounding like it.  I really don't see why we're more extreme than Al Gore, or George Bush, or John Kerry, or Ross Perot, or Bob Dole or....

No, what you need to do is tone down the candidates. Don't run a presidential candidate named Joe Zzayaesyiseticasky who has a link on his website to an article calling Bush a communist and Kerry a socialist. And don't advocate abolishing all taxes. And, finally, campaign on social issues in the Northeast and Pacific, that would help you.

Hey! A Zzayaesyiseticasky ticket is what we need for our country! :P

Seriously, I don't think our names are that bad, or much of the issue.  Harry Browne ran in 1996 and 2000.  His name is soooooo hard to pronounce or remember ::) (just remeber the 'e' is silent)

The abolishing all taxes is an utopian ideal that we wish we could have, but most of us realize it's not possible--now if only we could get those ^%$*$&$ website creators to change it-well realizing that doing that would not be giving up our principles.

I agree that we need to stop calling the other two parties names because they already do that themselves, and it's childish.  Although Kerry may well be a socialist and Bush a communist ;)   When people visit our site/ see us in debates this should stop.  We need to act more formally, and keep negative opinions of individuals-not issues to ourselves.

Socail issues on the NE and Pacific?  I'll keep that in mind when I run in 2040 ;D   Couldn't hurt.  As a matter of fact, we do try there and have some sucess.  Jim Gray has a high court position (I think in Oakland County of California), and in Massachusetts, since the Republicans don't run a senator agains Kerry or Kennedy-we've ran people like Micheal Cloud I think got 13 or 17% in a Senate race (sorry my details are so sketchy)

I miss the old days when Libertarians called themselves Anarchists :)

I'm a no Libertarian - but I sometimes wish they could shake things up a bit in elections

Dave

Now here's a great quality post.

I think Jim Gray got elected because he has a bland, Anglo-Saxon name.  See the 1986 Illinois DNC primary lt. gubernatorial, attorney general race for similar results.

Browne got 0.50% of the vote.  Clarke, who got the highest percentage of any Libertarian candidate, received 1.03% of the vote.

...is this good, like, am I missing something?  Getting "the 2nd most LP vote" is not exactly an achievement when what you got was 0.50% of the vote.  Ross Perot got 18.91% of the vote, and he didn't even have a party behind him.

Will there even BE Libertarians in 2008?

Yeah.  Hopefully the less "Our way or no way" variety which has currently lead their party.

Howard Stern, Drew Carey, Russo, Badnarik, Campagna, etc...

Marijuana Activist Steve Kubby announced his run for president as a Libertarian last sunday.   http://www.kubby.com/

Declared Libertarian Candidates:
Lance Brown
Jim Burns
Dave Hollist
Steve Kubby
Robert Milnes
George Phillies
Christine Smith
Doug Stanhope

Candidates Still Considering:
Michael Badnarik
Gary Nolan
Aaron Russo
Mary Ruwart

How come if Ron Paul ran in 2008 he'd get 10-15% in the polls when he didn't do that well in 1988?  Someone said that he'd do 10-15% in the polls.

I would vote for Steve Kubby is he were to secure the nomination.

Well he's a lot more well known now than he was in 1988, given that he's now a member of Congress. However, I highly doubt he could get 10 percent, much less 15 percent. He might be able to get 5 percent however.

But isn't Ron Paul now a Republican? or is he a RINO just to get elected?

I'm switching party registration if Stanhope gets nominated.

Hopefully if we do run, we could get a celebrity-say Clint Eastwood or someone with enough money and fame to help get the party's name recognized.  I also like MODU's idea of taking the 'overlapping' positions on each side and campaigning on that.  In order to get elected, I think we need people to be convinced we're the 'purple' middle ground.

Ron Paul was a lame duck Representative in 1988. That said, I don't disagree with your other comments.

That would be intresting, I have been saying for awhile that the Libertarian Party is a little too serious for their platform and in a round about way confuses people. You can't push a libertarian platform without a loose, charasmatic kind of character. Kubby/Stanhope 2008!

I'd have to sit down and read up on some of these people.  I don't recognize the names.

Oh ok, I didn't realize he was already in the House as of 1988. However, he is still much more well known today after having spent a lot more time in the House.

Guys, I really don't think Paul would run.  If he runs in 2008 he'll be 73.

So, could Steve Kubby do well?  idk who he is.  i just see that alot of u posted him and said that u liked him.

Here's a thought... What about Art Olivier?

Unless medical marijuana becomes the main issue of 2008, no. I don't see that issue even getting a mention by any serious candidates.

Art isn't getting younger, and at best he was just ballot filler behind Harry Browne. How about Ed Thompson (an actual elected offcial from Wisconsin) or George Phillies (a well spoken Libertarian who actually opposes illegal immigration).

Olivier was mayor of Bellflower CA, a city much larger than Tomah WI of course, but Olivier's inevitably poor showing in comparison to Thompson's makes him a less desirable candidate.

Howard Stern - more of a conservative, but certainly could be considered libertarians

Drew Carey- no, he is a straight up conservative

I know noone's thrown out the name, but since he's had one of the best Libertarian campaigns in the election cycle and has a pretty decent background, what about Bill Peirce?

 wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_and_potential_2008_United_States_presidential_election_third_party_candidates#Libertarian_Party) shows Steve kubby and doug stanhope running.

Both are listed as Libertarians on their website. i think Kenny Kramer, inspiration of Cosmo Kramer, could do well

Aaron Russo: http://groups.myspace.com/russo08

Howard Stern is not anything close to a conservative.

Carey is outspokenly anti-drug laws and pro-gay rights.  Stern is...not a social conservative in any way, shape or form.