US Presidential Contenders

[Unorthodox]

* Libertarian reporter John Stassel was asked why Johnson isn't really getting traction, and he came down on Libertarian solutions don't soundbite so well.

There was a couple times over the last 2 months where they've come down hard to one side of things, and thus lost my interest or belief it's really a middle common sense solution.  Lack of air time is still a major hurdle to overcome as well.

[Buster's Uncle]

MAJOR.  -No doubt.

[Rusty Edge]

Here's a new ad for Jill Stein-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7mpnkgYrX8

Here's an interview, and kind of an idea of what would happen to Hillary if Jill appeared on the debate stage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECH9xwzN1Mw

****

She's Left of Bernie Sanders, and probably the smartest person in the race. Strangely, I probably agree with her 60-something % of the time (I side with), maybe more on the problems than the solutions.

But in some other ways there are real problems with her candidacy, even assuming you agree with the Green Party. 1) Underqualified. Her only elected office was a town council type position. She got 500-something votes, so maybe about what I got running for school board. Since then, she's been a "professional candidate", rather than an office holder, so she's better at speeches and debates that compromises, quid pro quos , and other things people do in the government to get things done. 2) Unelectable without the Sanders endorsement or participation, which she did not get. Too far left. Support in too few states. 3) If she were somehow able to come in 3rd place in an electoral college with no majority, she has no bipartisan appeal in The House. Unlike Johnson, she doesn't hesitate or hold back when it comes to criticizing individuals in both parties. She's a bridge-burning revolutionary. 4) Even if she were elected she would have no Congressional constituency, no bipartisan opportunities, and in general, no authority to enact her reforms.

I think she knows all of that, and she's really running just for the 5% necessary for federal funds and party recognition. If that's what she's doing, she doesn't let on.

As a perpetual professional candidate, she is also really shrewd at parsing words. She is great at dancing around the ant-vaccine issue. As a doctor, you might expect her to give a straightforward "vaccines save lives" answer. She tends to treat the doubts about them seriously, without risking her professional reputation. Like wise, she ridicules Big Pharma, but is heavily invested in Merck.  The Greens have some flaky ideas about medicine as well as economics. 

****
Here's an opinion piece-

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/290437-jill-stein-the-liberal-pseudo-scientific-demagogue

August 05, 2016, 04:15 pm
Jill Stein: The liberal pseudo scientific demagogue
    By Anhvinh Doanvo, contributor

The cringe-worthy [Sleezebag]-Clinton race has led Bernie Sanders’ supporters to shift their support to protest candidates like Jill Stein. As a true liberal, they say, she is eminently qualified to lead the progressive movement. However, her position out of the spotlight has led her to engage in demagoguery empowering medical conspiracy theories, rather than intellectualism to elevate her candidacy.

In a campaign event, she called the use of technology in education a “corporate ruse.” Apparently, “we should be moving away from screens at all levels of education”. Regarding wireless networks, she said, “should not be subjecting kids’ brains to that.”

The World Health Organization has stated that radiation “exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international exposure guidelines.” Humans, in fact, absorb “up to five times more” radiation from FM radio and television than WiFi technology.
Animal studies have demonstrated no link between WiFi and cancer, “even at levels that are much higher than produced” by wireless networks. Scientists have observed no adverse effects relating to brain function, body temperature, or other physiological functions.

The greatest health risk from electronic devices is not the radiation they produce, their encouragement of a sedentary lifestyle. But this must be weighed against the vast importance of computing to all workers, from clerical employees to doctors and big data social scientists. Condemning President Obama’s initiatives for expanding computer programming and software education in schools as a “corporate ruse” in an essence condemns the progress of science and society itself.

It’s clear that Jill Stein’s candidacy is more a war of words than a sincere effort to confront the complex realities of public health and all of the other issues faced by this country.

Like Ted Cruz and Donald [Sleezebag], Stein is merely interested in pointing to the angriest voice in the crowd and amplifying it, without any regard for the scientific truth.

To demonstrate her interest in developing novel solutions for real issues in public health, she must temper her supporters’ conspiracy theories and endorse the prevailing medical literature produced by non-profit and publicly accountable research institutions.

She must focus more on the potential conflicts of interest between the revolving doors between regulatory agencies and the private corporations they control or are controlled by. Doctors themselves should be brought under the scope of her campaign as many are paid to promote more expensive but biochemically identical drugs to their patients.

These conflicts of interest have had real consequences: according to a 2013 Gallup poll, the Food and Drug Administration has been rated about as positively as the CIA and the EPA, with just 45% saying that they are doing a good job, as opposed to 60% for the CDC.

Citizens that do not trust health-related agencies and their doctors have no incentive to follow the health guidelines by medical professionals. With Stein’s unique background as a doctor-turned-politician, she is in a unique position to push this matter to the forefront Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

But despite her medical education, Stein has chosen to go down the mendacious road of identity politics. Her fight as an anti-establishment candidate is not leadership for a chicken in every pot but deceit for a tin foil hat on every head.

[Unorthodox]

Anecdotally, I'm seeing 2 different Hillary ads running.

One official 'I endorse this message'.

And one [Sleezebag] is the Devil attack ad by some superpac thingamabob. 

No other candidates running ads locally. 

[Buster's Uncle]

There's been a number of anti-Pig ads in heavy rotation for weeks in the Charlotte NC TV market -a lot more pac and citzens-for stuff than anything else- most of them have the virtue of really making their point effectively, most especially the one of innocent children watching him swear during speeches, the one being flogged to death the last several days being of Letterman making a fool of him...

...And ALL have the very non-trivial shortcoming of showing his face and using his name and featuring clips of him every. single. commercial. break. for two hours of news programming.  ALL are instantly old the second time you see them; and it's attention, which is what the Pig want more than anything, and decent people should deny him that.

I don't have a better idea at this late date, but it's really off-putting, not only the Pig on TV constantly, but his greatest hits of awfulness CONSTANTLY repeated.  I can't wait for it to be over.  Please God, let it stop.

[Unorthodox]

Yeah, the Letterman one is playing here. 

The approved message one, I believe was all positives on Hillary, no mention of the opposition. 

[Buster's Uncle]

Yeah; we're getting that, too, but not constantly.

Our awful governor, Pat McCrory of trans bathroom and Duke Power can pollute at will infamy, is up for reelection with the state attorney general Roy Cooper, opposing, so that's seeing a lot of action, too.  Cooper, to his credit, is being mostly positive, saying "This isn't about one bad law" while wearing jeans and an blue button-up work shirt  - but you can do that when the pac will cover the attacks for you, and they certainly have, going both ways for months now.

[Rusty Edge]

Mostly the political ads here are former senator Russ Fiengold attacking sitting senator Ron Johnson.
Somebody is spending a fortune trying to take back this senate seat for the Democrats. Feingold is polling +6 or 7%.

We see some Hillary ads, don't really notice if they're local or national. Mostly it's the kids watching [Sleezebag] misbehave. Saw the Letterman ad once. I heard "Hillary, and I  approved this message" a couple of times, but don't recall the ad.

[Rusty Edge]

From 538 just now, using their "polls plus" forecast, the model with the most accurate record of predicting the electoral college on election day -

Electoral votes
Hillary Clinton 322.2
Donald [Sleezebag] 215.6
Gary Johnson     0.1

Popular vote
Hillary Clinton 48.9%
Donald [Sleezebag] 44.4%
Gary Johnson  5.3%

It considers things like convention bounces, the economic outlook, and third party voters breaking towards major parties nearer the election.
****

Just when you thought Hillary was walking away with the election with odds of  86.3% to [Sleezebag]'s 13.7% -

I found this last night, and it kept my mind and heart racing until about 5AM.
http://www.smobserved.com/story/2016/08/06/news/romney-mccain-bush-other-major-republicans-set-to-endorse-libertarian-gary-johnson-for-president/1713.html

Romney, McCain, Bush, other major Republicans Set to Endorse Libertarian Gary Johnson for President

Rebel Republicans Will Hold an Event in late August to Endorse Johnson & Weld over Clinton & [Sleezebag]

By Stan Greene
Observer Staff Writer 

Mitt Romney, George Bush 41 and George Bush 43, as well as other mainstream Republican party figures, are set to endorse Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson next week, say sources within the "Never [Sleezebag]" movement and other disaffected Republicans.

Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico, is known for having balanced the budget during his 8 year tenure. The Libertarian's Vice presidential running mate is also a former Republican governor, William Weld of Massachusetts. No one within the Republican party is especially happy having to endorse businessman Donald [Sleezebag]. Even [Sleezebag] supporters such as Newt Gingrich have recently called for an "intervention" or reset of the floundering [Sleezebag] campaign.

Meanwhile, [Sleezebag] himself repeatedly refused to endorse fellow Republicans such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, Sen. John McCain, and New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte; dismaying [Sleezebag]'s last major ally within the Party, Reince Priebus. Priebus finally got the Donald to endorse Ryan, McCain and Ayotte on Friday, but the damage to party unity is done. http://www.smobserved.com/story/2016/08/06/news/romney-mccain-bush-other-major-republicans-will-endorse-libertarian-gary-johnson/1713.html

So the move is neither far-fetched, nor unexpected. It is also a backdoor to having a Republican ticket consisting of major, experienced party figures, on the ballot in all 50 states. Both Weld and Johnson were Republicans when they were governors of their respective states.

Johnson has polled around 10% in recent national polls, against Clinton, [Sleezebag], and the Green Party's candidate Jill Stein. Johnson has described [Sleezebag] as "crazy," "racist," and "a wimp." Weld has said that [Sleezebag] should look into "another occupation--really anything other than President of the United States."

Newsweek says that the Libertarians "charm" could swing the election. http://www.newsweek.com/charm-libertarians-johnson-weld-presidential-debates-487371

Major liberty Caucus and never [Sleezebag] republican leaders are reportedly supporting and endorsing Johnson and Weld for president. https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/endorsements/rlc-nevertrump-leaders-found-republicans-johnsonweld-superpac/


Bush 43 and Romney 2008 veteran Dan Senor said he will endorse the Libertarians "Reluctantly. He also called for Johnson to appear on the debate stage with Republican nominee Donald [Sleezebag] and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Senor said [Sleezebag] lacks the personal integrity to be president.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/05/anti-trump_gop_strategist_dan_senor_pushes_for_gary_johnson_to_appear_on_debate_stage.html

"There has been a striking consistency to Donald [Sleezebag]'s behavior over the last year and even before that," Senor observed Friday morning on MSNBC. "The birther attacks against Barack Obama. At any time anybody following this closely can they honestly believe that Donald [Sleezebag] has the temperament or values or the character or the integrity to be president of the United States? No."


Senor said Libertarian party nominee Gary Johnson is "missing an opportunity to reach out to conservative voters." Johnson ran a pot farm ten years ago, and admits to consuming cannabis edibles recently; which fact has been a small problem for him with certain segments of the voting population. They refer to him as "Puff the Magic Dragon."


"I like Gary Johnson," Senor said. "I don't like the things he's been saying, particularly the last few days, but he and [William] Weld are missing an opportunity to reach out to conservative voters. I think if they changed their focus there is a lot of conservative voters they could pick up."

Reportedly 13% of US voters say they would rather have a large meteorite hit the earth then have either [Sleezebag] or Clinton as president. And former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has said that he will support the libertarian candidates over [Sleezebag] or Clinton.

Face it, Dems: Bill and Hillary Clinton carry more baggage than Air Force One. Don't deny it; I'm old enough to remember the 1990's. As for Mr. [Sleezebag]; various psychologists have theorized that he is either a narcissistic sociopath or a megalomaniac with sociopathic tendencies. See for example /480771/]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-[Sleezebag]/480771/ Take your pick.


As voters discover they have a third party choice, increasingly they are just saying "no."


Gary Earl Johnson, 63, is a businessman, politician and the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2016 election. He served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003 as a member of the Republican Party. He was the Libertarian Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 election.

Johnson announced his candidacy for president on April 21, 2011, as a Republican, on a libertarian platform emphasizing the United States public debt and a balanced budget through a 43% reduction of all federal government spending, protection of civil liberties, an immediate end to the War in Afghanistan and his advocacy of the FairTax.

On December 28, 2011, after being excluded from the majority of the Republican Party's presidential debates and failing to gain traction while campaigning for the New Hampshire primary, he withdrew his candidacy for the Republican nomination and announced that he would continue his presidential campaign as a candidate for the nomination of the Libertarian Party. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012. His chosen running mate Judge James P. Gray of California won the vice-presidential nomination. The Johnson/Gray ticket received 0.99% of the popular vote, amounting to 1.27 million votes, more than all other minor candidates combined. It was the best showing in the Libertarian Party's history by vote count.

On January 6, 2016, Johnson announced his candidacy for the Libertarian nomination once again in 2016, and in May he selected former Republican Governor of Massachusetts William Weld as his running mate. On May 29, 2016, Johnson won the Libertarian nomination on the second ballot with 55.8% of the delegates.

Crap!  Glitched and lost half of the post! Posting in pieces.

[Rusty Edge]

Well, that's the recent 538 analysis, and the article that could change everything. What was lost was my commentary.

Rumors were around just before, during, and after the Libertarian convention ( Memorial Day weekend.) that IF the Libertarians could get practical enough to run credible candidates this year, they could get Koch brothers funding.
No doubt Johnson supporters repeated it because improved his chances, and just generated excitement. As it turned out FALSE. FUNDING DIDN'T COME from them.

Romney did say that he would endorse Bill Weld at the top of the ticket "in a heartbeat", but would have to consider Johnson a couple moths ago. STILL HASN"T HAPPENED.

So now another rumor that Romney is getting close, and now this leak. I was skeptical. Then

[Rusty Edge]

To pick up where I left off,

Then it occurred to me that perhaps the intolerable part for the former GOP standard-bearers was the idea that the hard-won senate majority could be lost in one election on account of [Sleezebag]'s negligence and incompetence, and other down-ballot races could be threatened by droves of Republicans who would stay home rather than face the intolerable choice.

If so, then it follows that they don't want to jeopardize McCain's primary race against a Trumpanista. So they are waiting until after that election to hold their press conference. I just looked it up, and the Arizona primary is August 30th, after a supposed late August announcement. So now I don't know. They might have to pull strings with the debate commission if they hold their endorsement that long, because it won't show in the polls in time. Then again, including Gary, but not Jill this year might be the perfect strategy to short circuit appeals court fights over the debates, and allow the commission to maintain it's control.

I always wonder about leaks, whether they are deliberate trial balloons, whistle blowers, or just general organizational incompetence.

This is like reading tea leaves, you can interpret the facts as you see fit. But last night, I had the feeling that things were coming together, that when Bush, Bush, McCain and Romney treat Johnson as a peer, the debates, the press, and the party will have to follow suit, and when they do, so will the other voters. [Sleezebag] will be looking at a potential third place finish. Others will decide it's safe to vote for Johnson if [Sleezebag] can't win. Some will decide that Johnson is the only one of the three that meets all three criteria- will uphold the Constitution, is qualified for the office, and could get a top security clearance. Some will decide that the only way to vote against both Clinton and [Sleezebag] is to vote for Johnson. Some will actually vote for Johnson when they think he isn't a throw away, and they learn what he stands for.

That's sort of a double edged sword, because if the GOP leadership choose Johnson over [Sleezebag], the pressure is on him to defeat Hillary outright. Well, actually it works against Hillary as well, because she can't say vote for me to stop [Sleezebag] any more.

That was one of the other things keeping me awake. Will Hillary's campaign celebrate at the thought of the GOP breaking apart, or will they they think "Oh crap! We're victims of our own success. Now we gotta work to retake the senate. Hillary could end up like lame duck Obama from day 1, only without a healthcare or other mandate. Hillary will have to actually run on her own merit. Going negative will only help Johnson.

Well, we'll see how things turn out.

I wanted to get this posted tonight,  but I'm too tired to keep up with today's other political developments.

[Buster's Uncle]

I think you're making sense.

[Bearu]

What does the whole action mean in the real world, Billy Jean? The whole event means the GOP could fall apart and the libertarians could rise in a temporary blaze of glory.

[Buster's Uncle]

Billy Jean?

I think it might not be temporary if they play it smart - and that would be a good thing, on the whole.

[Rusty Edge]

What does the whole action mean in the real world, Billy Jean? The whole event means the GOP could fall apart and the libertarians could rise in a temporary blaze of glory.

It means that things have finally come to a head.

The GOP is increasingly becoming the party of old white guys. You'd think they would have learned from their national defeats and try to appeal to say, women and Hispanics, or at least not antagonize them.

The GOP used to be a big tent that could hold North-Eastern progressives, nationalists, Southern Baptists, Cold Warriors, Free Traders, Entrepenuers,  even Libertarians. That coalition worked until the RINO hunters decided to enforce an ideological orthodoxy. The intolerance has been driving out the libertarians. The more they do that, the less able they are to appeal to millennials.

A poll today has Gary @ ... ( hardware issues!)  . Gary is leading Hillary among younger voters, then Jill Stein at about half of his support, and then Donald [Sleezebag] tied with the margin of error.

That tells me that there's a future for social acceptance and non-aggression, whether it's statist or individualistic.

Now, nobody is as accepting, or at the same time, more ideological than the Libertarians. They could be overrun and transformed by new blood.

It will be interesting to see how the dynamics of ideology vs. pragmatism play out in all of the parties now, as they seek re-alignment.

As for me, I don't think any presidential candidate in my lifetime has come closer to expressing my views and attitudes than Gary Johnson, ( but times and my opinions change, and the edges of my memories become fuzzy, so I could be wrong on that one but, probably not ).