In a press conference in Santa Fe, the former New Mexico governor officially switched tracks from the Republican presidential primaries to the Libertarian Party's nomination contest.
He's already made one smart move, positioning himself as a competitor instead of someone awaiting coronation. The latter sort of arrogance (whether actual or perceived) was one reason it took Bob Barr six ballots to nail down the LP's nomination in 2008.
He's also already made one exceptionally dumb move -- bringing his support for the "Fair" Tax with him in his party switch (and, as Chuck Moulton points out in comments over at Independent Political Report, proving that even after months on the campaign trail touting it, he doesn't really understand it).
Obviously a former two-term governor enters any Libertarian Party contest as the de facto front-runner and with formidable advantages versus the rest of the field, who range from party regulars (R. Lee Wrights and Roger Gary) and perennials (Jim Burns) to single-issue gadflies (Bill Still) to other recently Republican also-rans (RJ Harris). But he's going to have to work for it, and he's also in a "nowhere to go but down, so be careful" situation.
It's going to be interesting.
Showing posts with label Bill Still. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Still. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Some Thoughts on the Libertarian Party's 2012 Presidential Nomination
Several candidates have announced for the Libertarian Party's 2012 presidential nomination. Fewer are actually actively campaigning for it, and fewer still are "serious candidates."
At this point, I'd identify those who make it through my exclusionary sieve (declared, and active, and serious, i.e. not Teh Krazy and with any real shot at all) as, in alphabetical order:
Gary and Still make that cut hanging by their fingernails. Gary's debate performances haven't been as impressive as his record, and Stilldoesn't seem to even have a campaign web site yet (or maybe he does ... but I haven't found it, and a campaign site should be easy to find) [correction in comments] is centering his candidacy around monetary policy views which aren't in the Libertarian Party's version of mainstream. Nonetheless, both of them have appeared at one or more candidate forums, and neither of them is a dilettante or a loon.
If I were to make an endorsement (I don't plan to), and if I were to base that endorsement on ideology, it would be a tie between Gary and Wrights. If I based an endorsement on factors other than ideology, Wrights would be the clear winner for several reasons, among them that I have worked with him on a daily basis for a decade now and consider him nothing less than a brother. And, in fact, by way of disclosure, I am very informally advising his campaign on some "nuts and bolts" matters (not the only campaign I'm working with at the moment, but the only Libertarian presidential campaign I'm working with at the moment).
At this point, it looks like a Harris-Wrights race, and it looks like Harris is setting the pace ... but in the Libertarian Party things are, well, different. The presidential nomination contest is usually actually settled in a knockdown-dragout on the convention floor, sometimes with candidates announcing as little as a few weeks before that convention (and in one case, 1984, the candidate flying in in mid-convention after getting a phone call asking him to run) [note: See comments -- that was actually the same guy, but for veep in 1976; my bad]. In 2004, the distant third-place candidate going into the convention came out of that convention as the nominee. And None of the Above -- meaning NO candidate is nominated -- is an option. So I wouldn't advise placing any bets just yet.
Why is Harris setting the pace?
Well, Wrights is running a campaign that by "old LP" standards ain't too shabby at all -- he's contacting likely delegates, addressing state conventions, making financial contributions to state parties for their ballot access efforts, etc.
Harris, though, is definitely meeting the newer ground game standards -- more early direct mail, robocalls, actual professional phone polling, live online forums, etc. That translates into an advantage that's only partially mitigated by the fact that his positions are slightly out of phase with the Libertarian Party's direction. Specifically, he's very Ron Paulish, and the only one who gets away with being very Ron Paulish in the LP is Ron Paul himself.
If the field stays as it is, my guess is that it's going to come down to which one of these two puts the best convention floor team together. But, of course, the field may not stay as it is -- a "big name" (and you'd be surprised what qualifies as a "big name" in the LP) might jump in at the last minute, or even a smaller name might throw hat in ring in the next month or so.
So, anyway, here's a completely non-scientific Internet poll if you'd like to express your preference:
At this point, I'd identify those who make it through my exclusionary sieve (declared, and active, and serious, i.e. not Teh Krazy and with any real shot at all) as, in alphabetical order:
Gary and Still make that cut hanging by their fingernails. Gary's debate performances haven't been as impressive as his record, and Still
If I were to make an endorsement (I don't plan to), and if I were to base that endorsement on ideology, it would be a tie between Gary and Wrights. If I based an endorsement on factors other than ideology, Wrights would be the clear winner for several reasons, among them that I have worked with him on a daily basis for a decade now and consider him nothing less than a brother. And, in fact, by way of disclosure, I am very informally advising his campaign on some "nuts and bolts" matters (not the only campaign I'm working with at the moment, but the only Libertarian presidential campaign I'm working with at the moment).
At this point, it looks like a Harris-Wrights race, and it looks like Harris is setting the pace ... but in the Libertarian Party things are, well, different. The presidential nomination contest is usually actually settled in a knockdown-dragout on the convention floor, sometimes with candidates announcing as little as a few weeks before that convention (and in one case, 1984, the candidate flying in in mid-convention after getting a phone call asking him to run) [note: See comments -- that was actually the same guy, but for veep in 1976; my bad]. In 2004, the distant third-place candidate going into the convention came out of that convention as the nominee. And None of the Above -- meaning NO candidate is nominated -- is an option. So I wouldn't advise placing any bets just yet.
Why is Harris setting the pace?
Well, Wrights is running a campaign that by "old LP" standards ain't too shabby at all -- he's contacting likely delegates, addressing state conventions, making financial contributions to state parties for their ballot access efforts, etc.
Harris, though, is definitely meeting the newer ground game standards -- more early direct mail, robocalls, actual professional phone polling, live online forums, etc. That translates into an advantage that's only partially mitigated by the fact that his positions are slightly out of phase with the Libertarian Party's direction. Specifically, he's very Ron Paulish, and the only one who gets away with being very Ron Paulish in the LP is Ron Paul himself.
If the field stays as it is, my guess is that it's going to come down to which one of these two puts the best convention floor team together. But, of course, the field may not stay as it is -- a "big name" (and you'd be surprised what qualifies as a "big name" in the LP) might jump in at the last minute, or even a smaller name might throw hat in ring in the next month or so.
So, anyway, here's a completely non-scientific Internet poll if you'd like to express your preference:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)