Here's the Thing About Weld's Departure

Over at We Are Libertarians (a fun podcast, btw), one of the participants (I'm not  always so good at identifying voices, but I think it may have been WAL chief poobah Chris Spangle) bemoans treating it as a "victory" that the Libertarian Party managed to "drive someone away" (quote from memory).

I'm not sure seeing the back of Bill Weld (again) is a "victory," exactly, if for no other reason than that it's not obvious that said departure had anything to do with intra-party "infighting" or criticism.

What it is is, just possibly, a first step on the way to repairing the massive damage he's done to the to Libertarian Party's prospects and the Libertarian Party's brand over the years.

In 2006, Weld ran simultaneously for the New York gubernatorial nominations of the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party. The LPNY nominated first. He was publicly asked to pledge to remain the LPNY's nominee even if he lost the GOP contest. He so pledged -- and then dropped out as the LPNY's nominee within hours of failing to procure the GOP nomination. That put "permanent" ballot access out of LPNY's reach for a minimum of four more years (it ended up being 12).

In 2016, Weld told LP national convention delegates he had changed on gun rights issues, right before going out in the hall to reassure CNN viewers that he hadn't changed on gun rights issues. And despite that bald-faced lie and his screw job on the LPNY ten years before, got the party's vice-presidential nomination.

After which he went out and campaigned against due process and gun rights for people on secret government enemies lists, and in favor of continuing the war on drugs that aren't marijuana.

Damn right I'm glad to see him gone. Not just because he's a lying, traitorous snake whom no one should ever, ever, ever trust even an eensy teensy little bit, but because every past association between him and the Libertarian Party has damaged, and any future such association will damage, the latter.

Of course, we're not entirely shed of that association -- if he does run in the Republican presidential primary, both supportive media and his opponents in the GOP (to the extent that they deign to notice him) will tout his LP vice-presidential nomination, further tarnishing the LP's reputation and hurting its 2020 prospects every time they do so.

There's even a pretty good chance that after he collects some media coverage and loses a couple of Republican primaries, he'll come sauntering back to the LP wanting its 2020 presidential nomination. If we respond to that by doing anything other than laughing him out of the room, we're a bunch of fucking idiots.

Anyway -- the more distance we put between ourselves and Bill Weld, the better. Damn right I'm glad to see him helping with the distancing.

Election 2016: Math vs. Path

In a previous post, I go over the concept of "on the ballot in enough states to mathematically be elected." For presidential candidates, the number representing "enough states" is either one or zero (zero reflecting the possibility of winning a state as a write-in). Since the US House of Representatives chooses the next president from among the top three recipients of electoral votes in the event that no candidate receives at least 270 electoral votes, carrying even one state (or even a congressional district in Maine or Nebraska) represents a possible, if narrow and rather implausible, path to the presidency.

I close that post out with:

Bonus question: How many states must a vice-presidential candidate win in order for it to be mathematically possible for that vice-presidential candidate to be elected?

Hint: It's a lot more complicated than the other question/answer set.

How much more complicated?

Well, in the event that no vice-presidential candidate receives 270 or more electoral votes, the next vice-president is chosen by the US Senate from among the top two recipients of electoral votes.

From a set of three contenders, what is the fewest number of electoral votes that a candidate can receive while (1) coming in second place (2) from a field in which precisely three candidates receive electoral votes, while (3) holding the first place finisher to fewer than 270 electoral votes?

The answer, if my math is right, is 135.

If the first place finisher receives 269 votes and the second place finisher receives 135 votes, that leaves 134 votes for the third place finisher. Obviously the first place finisher could receive fewer than 269, or the second place more than 135, but like I said, 135 appears to be the absolute minimum number to get into a Senate-decided vice-presidential selection process by making the top two cut from among three contenders.

This means that the absolute minimum number of states that contender would have to win would be four. If a vice-presidential candidate won the electoral votes of California and Texas, that would bring in 93 electoral votes. The next two heaviest states are Florida and New York, with 29 each for a total of 151. Carrying only one of those two would leave the contender at 122, 13 electoral votes short, which could be made up for by carrying any one of eight states: Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey or Virginia. Absent one of those, it's going to end up taking five or more states to reach the magic number.

There's a huge gap between the one electoral vote that could conceivably make a president in the House and the 135 electoral votes it would take to potentially make a vice-president in the Senate.

Vis a vis the Libertarian Party, that makes the path to the vice-presidency much narrower for William Weld than the path to the presidency for Gary Johnson. It seems nearly certain that even if Johnson pushes the election to the House and prevails there, he'll be saddled with Mike Pence or Tim Kaine as sidekick.

Vis a vis the Reform Party, it likely closes off the vice-presidential nominee's path completely. The party's ticket will be on the ballot in states disposing of 58 total electoral votes (New York and Florida), plus possibly Louisiana with 8, bringing the potential total to 66. Note I said it likely closes the path off completely. There might be opportunities to register and have write-in votes counted in enough states to get the total up to 135. But it looks like President Darcy Richardson would likewise probably have to make do with Pence or Kaine in second chair. But I'll still do my best.

The Two Gary Johnsons

Gary Johnson #1, in Politico today:

Creditors have been hurt as [Donald Trump] walked away from debts. Is that the kind of moral example that he would bring to the U.S. government -- finding ways to duck obligations?

That's not an academic question. He has pledged to tear up agreements and even concoct some scheme by which America could walk away from its debt -- just as he did in his business dealings. America doesn't do that.

Bill Weld and I believe that fiscal responsibility is at the core of what our government needs to do.

Gary Johnson #2, according to his 2012 campaign's most recent FEC report:

Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee: $1,538,118.73

One of these things is not like the other.

GOP Delegate Revolt Schemes: A Bridge Too Far?

As I have pointed out (very briefly and not that worthy of lookup here at KN@PPSTER, and at more length/greater detail over at The Garrison Center), yes, a GOP delegate revolt to stop Donald Trump from becoming the Republican Party's 2016 presidential nominee is possible. And there's a group planning to do it just the way I outline it getting done. Whether or not it's likely to succeed is another question entirely.

But suppose it does succeed -- enough delegates abstain to deny Trump a first-ballot majority, after which the delegates are no longer bound to particular candidates. What then?

According to the convention rules, in order to be placed in contention for the nomination, a candidate must have carried eight states in the primaries/caucuses. Only one candidate other than Trump makes the cut: Ted Cruz.

Does a majority exist for Cruz?

If not, does a 2/3 majority exist to suspend the rules so that other candidates can be considered? That's obviously what John Kasich's fans (and probably Kasich himself) are hoping for.

Erick Erickson wants Cruz on the ticket, but as veep beneath Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.

I'm trying to figure out why Erickson -- or anyone else -- would expect that to fly in the real world.

Walker ran for president and fared so poorly in the debates, in the polls, and in fundraising, that he dropped out of the race more than four months before the first real test, the Iowa caucus.

Erickson writes off Walker's abysmal performance as a presidential candidate to a single mistake:

Walker's major mistake headed into his race was to put all his good people in his Super PAC then hire wildcards to run his campaign. He then could not communicate with the very people who had helped him win so many elections. It was a mistake not reversible once made and I don't think he should be penalized.

But it wasn't campaign organization mechanics that kept Walker in the cellar. At the time he dropped out, the main metric was debate performance. As a political careerist (he's been in one public office or another since 1993) he either knows how to convincingly win a public argument in a way that registers in the polls as presidential timbre or he isn't ever going to know how to do that. Coming off as more presidential than the other 15 people on the stage doesn't automatically create a fundraising juggernaut, effective ground games in Iowa and New Hampshire, etc. But not managing that is evidence that a candidate is trying to stop being a sow's ear and become a silk purse.

It seems to me that almost any GOP ticket, other than possibly Trump/?, is going to have trouble whipping Hillary Clinton in November, if for no other reason than that the fundraising game is well under way based on a nominee apparent. But Walker/Cruz seems purpose-built to lose.

If the will is there to suspend the rules and pick a ticket out of the blue, why not go all the way and draft the existing Republican ticket back into the party it really belongs to?

For Those Who Think I've Been Too Tough ...

... on Johnson and Weld, check out Jason Stapleton's show from June 23. Money quote from the description:

Above all else what bothers me the most about Gary J and Wild Bill is they are clearly unprepared and lack even a basic understanding of their police [sic] opinions. They have no pride in what they do or what they stand for. It's shameful we have these two man representing our ideas. No one voting in this election is going to know what libertarianism is. Even if Gary was a libertarian (and I contend his is not) he lacks either the desire or ability to explain his positions.

Shame on the LP for nominating these two clowns. Pray we don't get 15%. These men will be made to look like fools on a debate stage.

Now that is tough on Johnson and Weld.

And completely accurate.