"Americans far and wide" are exhilarated about having Donald Trump as their candidate (in part because he is not from one of the major parties), which is why, come November, he will crush that goddamn witch.

I think my next post -- on research on immigration -- explains, at least in part, why some Americans are for Trump.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2016/09/16/immigration_is.html

The real shame is that the Libertarians

Johnson isn't a Libertarian. He just saw an opening and took it: "Nobody is running as a lib, so I'll do it"

He's a shill.

What does Johnson, with less that 15% polling support, actually add to the debate? He has only the remotest, and by that I mean no, chance of winning the election, so he'd be little more than a gadfly.

Thinking that if only Johnson could get into he debate, people would hear him and be so swayed by what he says that he'd have a real chance of winning is naive.

Libertarians have been willfully deluding themselves into thinking that the two parties are keeping them out of the debates out of fear and that if they could only get in, their message would be so compelling that they'd ride to victory on a swelling tide of goodwill and enthusiasm. And, once elected, they'd have so much support that the two major parties would have no choice but to enact the Libertarian agenda and the country would be saved. It's childish and unrealistic, kinda like the party itself.

If the Libertarians want to be in the debate, they need to achieve the required polling levels through political action. They have no ground game, no organization on the ground. Their entire strategy depends on a magic swelling of support with a victory in the debates, a la a Mighty Ducks movie.

The Republicans and Democrats are the major parties, not because they got some rich guy(s) to bankroll them, but because they did the grunt labor of organizing in each city and state, labor the Libertarians hold themselves above doing.

An out of left field victory in the debates is not going to make Johnson president. A ground game might. Until the Libertarians are willing to participate in democracy at the grassroots level (local or state), they'll always be a fringe party, and no amount of participation in a debate will change that.

I want to see Johnson in for this reason: This election looks like it's going to be one of the most nakedly partisan in our history. I'm afraid that any Clinton-Trump debated will degenerate into name-calling and cheap talking points very quickly, and nothing of substance will be discussed. Johnson, because he's pretty unknown and a normal-seeming guy, is relatively immune from mudslinging from either of the others. His presence might help keep the debates focused on issues. And how the moderators treat him will be an interesting data point for sussing out the moderators' biases.

The Republicans and Democrats are the major parties

I am truly hoping one of them will implode after the election

I was in graduate school with a Libertarian and Ayn Rand devotee. He tried to turn every single classroom discussion into a Libertarian screed, to the point the that professors were reluctant to call on him even during the most mundane of discussions. One professor finally told him that if he brought up Rand again, he'd deliberately flunk him. Libertarians are sometimes the worst ambassadors for their party and platform.

If you want to see how naive the heart of Libertarian philosophy is, read The Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith. It features an alternate anarchist utopian universe in which US colonial history unfolded the same way it did in our universe, except that the US was established on Libertarian principles; and Washington was hanged for treason for trying to stop the Whiskey Rebellion and replaced by Albert Gallatin.

Every issue this universe's US faced was solved miraculously in that universe by collective government-less action. World War II was fought by American volunteers who self-organized themselves and "taught Hitler a thing or two." Airline hijackings are prevented in the alternate universe with the simple expediency of having everyone carry a gun on the aircraft. The preflight check is to make sure that the bullet, if fired, will not disable the plane.

Philosophically, it's an interesting book and raises some valid points. But it is simplistic in its argument that having no government would engender selfless behavior and solve all the problems of the country. The book does pay some minor lip service to the issues such an approach would entail by telling us the people in the past with conflicts always "worked things out."

“Nine tenths of everything is tax. Everything you buy has a complicated history of robbery: land, raw materials, energy, tools, buildings, transport, storage, sales, profits. Don’t forget the share you contribute toward the personal income tax of every worker who has anything to do with the process. Inflation by taxation: there are a hundred taxes on a loaf of bread. What kind of living standard would we enjoy if everything cost a tenth of what it does? What kind of world? Think of your home, your car, your TV, your shoes, your supper—all at a 90% discount! Government can’t fight poverty—poverty is its proudest achievement!” | L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach

I am truly hoping one of them will implode after the election ~ Stinky the Clown at September 16, 2016 7:09 AM

So, when we're left with only one party, that will be better?

If you read the full transcript of the Aleppo interview, you'll realize what happened. The interview started out with some general banalities about running as a third party and then, changing the subject, he asked 'what would you do about Aleppo.' Now, I'm a bit Aspy and I do that all the time, hyperlinking in my brain to something completely off topic and get surprised when it derails the conversation. Always drives the girlfriend bonkers.

Barnicle was deliberately trying to play stump the chump with him: mission accomplished. You can ask hard questions without resorting to bullshit like that. If he had prefaced his question with, "Moving onto the situation in Syria...." it would've been a completely fair question.

"The real shame is that the Libertarians have yet to get their shit together and run a charismatic candidate."

Actually, I kind of like Johnson's banality. It's a welcome change from the nonstop craziness that is Crump.

But this was the same rhetoric during the Democrat debates. Sanders supporters were whining about the scheduling because they felt that if other Democrats would just LISTEN to him, they would change their mind about Clinton. But really, most Democrats had already decided who to vote for and debating was not going to change that.

"Thinking that if only Johnson could get into he debate, people would hear him and be so swayed by what he says that he'd have a real chance of winning is naive."

No it's seen as a way to get a foot in the door, many voters don't even know there are other parties, so maybe in a few elections it will compete or if one of the two implode.

...many voters don't even know there are other parties, so maybe in a few elections it will compete or if one of the two implode. ~ Joe J at September 16, 2016 12:26 PM

And yet, Ross Perot and John Anderson managed to break through. Pat Buchanan managed to build an awareness of his campaign. The difference? These guys had a ground game. Perhaps not much of one, but they had one.

The problem is not the lack of awareness of the fringe parties, it the thinking of those fringe parties that the way to political power is through the office of the president and their abject refusal to run candidates and build platforms for the lower tier elections, thus increasing awareness of their ideologies.

It ain't the job of the debate organizers to build awareness for fringe candidates. They need to do that on their own. And the Libertarians and Greens have shown they're unwilling to do the legwork. Until they're willing to build a grassroots organization, they'll always be begging for crumbs at the presidential election dinner table.

Conan wrote:

It ain't the job of the debate organizers to build awareness for fringe candidates. They need to do that on their own. And the Libertarians and Greens have shown they're unwilling to do the legwork. Until they're willing to build a grassroots organization, they'll always be begging for crumbs at the presidential election dinner table.

I agree. Put in five years of effort with Libertarians and Greens trying to get elected to school boards, city councils, aldermen, etc. and you might get somewhere. (Yes, I know there's often a name on the ballot — and zero attempt at organizing at the grassroots level. I've even called the numbers on file with the Secretary of State's office and found them disconnected.)

Drop in every four years for the big campaign and you'll be a novelty. Take the time to work up instead of down and you might — might have results.

Kona4Breakfast, RE: "what about the Aleppo situation?"

I didn't even need to read the transcript or see the interview, I knew it was the media up to its old "stupid people" tricks.

And, while I might not think much of the Libertarian party or Johnson - no way would I vote for him or anyone from that party - I totally agree that the question came out of left field. Being stumped the way he was makes total sense.

Even more interesting is that many news outlets do NOT include the original question; a lot of them are simply explaining that Johnson was asked a question about the war in Syria or the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo (with an explanation of what/where Aleppo is) and then state that Johnson "stumbled" on the answer.

Just another reason so many folks hate the news media.

What does Johnson, with less that 15% polling support, actually add to the debate?

The notion that two parties (staffed by life long uneleceted power mongers) dont have the right to limit free speech/debate to their chosen representitives

The notion that two parties (staffed by life long uneleceted power mongers) dont have the right to limit free speech/debate to their chosen representatives ~ lujlp at September 16, 2016 9:50 PM

The two parties are not limiting the debate to their chosen representatives. A fairly reasonable hurdle was set for participation and the Libertarians, Greens, and any other candidate/party must meet it. If they do, they're in. If not, they're out.

Think back to the Republican debates with over 17 candidates. How effective was that as a debate? Not very. It was a circus.

If every fringe party got to participate in the debate with even less than 1% of polling, how much of a circus do you think the presidential debates would be? Are we France, with more political parties than type of cheese?

With less than 15% in polls, the Libertarians do not bring to the debate a candidate or an ideology that could potentially make a difference in the election results. They bring a fringe ideology, perhaps a good one that deserves a wider hearing, but not one that will affect the election in November.

A fairly reasonable hurdle was set for participation

Set by whom?

A fairly reasonable hurdle was set for participation

Set by whom?

lujlp at September 17, 2016 5:28 PM

The same organizations who are sponsoring/ paying for the debate.

Seems silly that those organizations might actually get to pick who gets on stage, rather than the audience. How disgustingly capitalist of them.

I (lukewarmly) support Trump, and I believe Gary Johnson should be in the debate. Maybe Gary could persuade Trump that his superduper tariffs would do little to help us.

Set by whom? ~ lujlp at September 17, 2016 5:28 PM

Personally, I'd love to see a third or even a fourth party in the debate. I think Johnson and Weld have a great deal to add to the national dialogue and offer a saner choice then the Republicans and Democrats have been able to give us.

Unfair or not, the hurdle has been set and can be surmounted, albeit with some effort. It's not a moving target. The Libertarians need to stop begging at the door and buy some track shoes.

The Libertarians have always invested in the "somebody, let us in" strategy of pounding at the door for sympathy instead of breaking down the door and walking in themselves.

The Libertarians have an organization, a political base, and a fundraising base. Use them. Get a Congressman elected or a Senator. Get a governor elected. Control a state legislature. Make the people ask, "why isn't that party in the election?" rather than asking "are those fruitcakes still around?" Stop running fame-whore failed candidates from the other parties or fringe whack jobs.

Gary Johnson used to be the governor of New Mexico. By all accounts, he was a good one. He won the governorship as a Republican and served as a Republican. He switched to Libertarian when he wanted to run for president and didn't have enough support in the Republican party. If he really wanted to do the party a solid, he would have switched to Libertarian while he was in Albuquerque.

Perhaps the Libertarians didn't have enough of an organization on the ground at that level that being a Libertarian would have left him politically isolated. That's the Libertarians Party's problem. They don't have support on the ground at the state and local level. Being a Libertarian candidate at state and local levels leaves one politically isolated, so one becomes a Republican or Democrat for the party support network.

And the first Libertarian president (if any) is going to find himself politically isolated. Both Republicans and Democrats will view him as a interloper, an annoyance to excised, a threat to their two-party hegemony. He will have to fight for every bit of his agenda. If he had even a small number of Libertarian legislators or governors to back him up, his isolation would be lessened and his mandate stronger.

The Libertarians want the big victory, the brass ring, but they don't want to put in the effort at building a political machine. And that's why they're not in the debates.

Go sponsor a voter registration drive. Get enough registered voters in each state to make sure your candidate is on the ballot in every state every election - instead of having to scramble every four years. Have dignified representatives (and not the heavily bearded underwear dancing guy) appear on Sunday morning political talk shows to discuss issues. Secure guest appearances on the various talk radio shows, left wing and right wing. Become known for something more than being a bunch of potheads and having a guy who wants to be the party chairman dancing onstage in this underwear at the party convention.

Don't be the beard of bees party, the freak show. And don't be the annoying folks at the dinner party who won't shut up about Ayn Rand or legalizing pot.