Comments on: Q&A With George Phillies: Future of the LP http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:06:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-186470 Fri, 18 May 2007 11:34:21 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-186470 Kris - But those voters who voted for MVB didn't believe he was going to win. They weren't stupid. They voted for him because they wanted to vote against slavery. And those votes playe a small part in the long-term struggle to see it abolished. Kris – But those voters who voted for MVB didn’t believe he was going to win. They weren’t stupid. They voted for him because they wanted to vote against slavery. And those votes playe a small part in the long-term struggle to see it abolished.

]]> by: Ghoststrider http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-185800 Thu, 17 May 2007 23:37:38 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-185800 If he wants to reach out to voters, he better stop using the word "somnolent". Most people have no idea what that means. If he wants to reach out to voters, he better stop using the word “somnolent”. Most people have no idea what that means.

]]> by: Kris Overstreet http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-185741 Thu, 17 May 2007 22:29:05 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-185741 G_E: In 1848 the Free Soil Party nominee for President was Martin van Buren- a former President. He got 10.12% of the popular vote. In 1852 the Free Soilers nominated a lesser light- Senator John Hale- and polled less than five percent. During this period the number of people who supported the main Free Soil issue- abolition of slavery- INCREASED. Electability, in the minds of the voters, is a major concern. G_E: In 1848 the Free Soil Party nominee for President was Martin van Buren- a former President. He got 10.12% of the popular vote. In 1852 the Free Soilers nominated a lesser light- Senator John Hale- and polled less than five percent. During this period the number of people who supported the main Free Soil issue- abolition of slavery- INCREASED.

Electability, in the minds of the voters, is a major concern.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-185647 Thu, 17 May 2007 21:00:54 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-185647 "Why should anyone vote, much less donate or volunteer, for a candidate who admits point blank he’s not going to get elected and everything he says about his campaign is empty wind?" For the same reason that 10 percent of the adult white male population voted against slavery and for freedom in 1848, with the Free Soil Party. If our LP candidate gives the impression that he "can" win, and he gets 1 percent of the vote or less... Then what does the candidate in 2012 say? "It's different this time!" Another 1 percent showing. 2016? "It's REALLY different this time!" Less than a half percent, etc. IT IS INSULTING. “Why should anyone vote, much less donate or volunteer, for a candidate who admits point blank he’s not going to get elected and everything he says about his campaign is empty wind?”

For the same reason that 10 percent of the adult white male population voted against slavery and for freedom in 1848, with the Free Soil Party.

If our LP candidate gives the impression that he “can” win, and he gets 1 percent of the vote or less… Then what does the candidate in 2012 say? “It’s different this time!” Another 1 percent showing. 2016? “It’s REALLY different this time!” Less than a half percent, etc.

IT IS INSULTING.

]]> by: Robert Milnes http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-185557 Thu, 17 May 2007 19:21:47 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-185557 Sam, sam, sam I am, Get up to speed by reading The Libertarian Vote. Sam, sam, sam I am, Get up to speed by reading The Libertarian Vote.

]]> by: sam i am http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-185486 Thu, 17 May 2007 17:56:48 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-185486 You are off your meds. When did the Libertarians or Greens get anywhere close to 20% for President? Last time around it was less than half of one percent each. You are off your meds. When did the Libertarians or Greens get anywhere close to 20% for President? Last time around it was less than half of one percent each.

]]> by: Robert Milnes http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-185103 Thu, 17 May 2007 08:46:48 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-185103 George, the scientific poll you refer to corresponds to my math/equation re: progressive alliance strategy. Short said: The Libertarian Vote 20% (13% + 7% leftist) + the leftist vote (greens) @ 20% = @34/33/33. George, the scientific poll you refer to corresponds to my math/equation re: progressive alliance strategy. Short said: The Libertarian Vote 20% (13% + 7% leftist) + the leftist vote (greens) @ 20% = @34/33/33.

]]> by: Kris Overstreet http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184978 Thu, 17 May 2007 03:20:27 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184978 Wes: Why should anybody vote for a candidate who openly states it's impossible for him/her to win? Why should they donate their money or time to a doomed cause that even the candidate doesn't believe in? It's one thing to -be- doomed, but it's entirely another to admit it- because then, in the eyes of most, you're wasting people's time. Wes:

Why should anybody vote for a candidate who openly states it’s impossible for him/her to win?

Why should they donate their money or time to a doomed cause that even the candidate doesn’t believe in?

It’s one thing to be doomed, but it’s entirely another to admit it- because then, in the eyes of most, you’re wasting people’s time.

]]> by: Wes Benedict http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184918 Thu, 17 May 2007 00:28:46 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184918 Kris Overstreet says: "The instant you admit you can’t win, you lose everyone except your most loyal supporters and the protest voters." I made the comments below on the Liberty For All Blog 2/10/07 regarding the Nov 2006 elections: Sean says “I can tell you from personal experience how much media you lose when you admit that you won’t win. It should also be obvious how little respect the average voter would give to a candidate who’s just happy to be here.” Sean, your rigorous analysis to prove this point is far less rigorous than the Global Warming Terrorist propaganda. I assume you’re relying on some anecdotal evidence that you haven’t shared, although I know you can find an annecdote to support just about anything. I routinely admit to the press and to voters in Austin that our candidates probably won’t win this election but we’re working to increase our percentages. I think those reporters and voters respect my honesty and our percentages have gone up. I think it’s possible the media and voters have less respect for candidates who claim they’re going to win when they end up getting 4% or less. Again, the highest percentage by a Libertarian in a PARTISAN CONTESTED race was here in Austin where I am routinely honest with the press and voters. (Probably I should say “somewhat honest.” There’s some strategery going on too.) I also disagree with many Libertarians who think you shouldn’t run for office unless you will claim you are going to win. You might think that asking only for candidates who are going to claim they will win might produce a stronger slate of candidates. However, intelligent and realistic people can look at a long history of results and come to the realistic conclusion that results will likely only improve a little bit at best over past attempts (with the exception of tiny districts of 5,000 or less). If you restrict your slate of candidates to those who will claim they will win, you may limit yourself to the most naively optimistic or unintelligent, or liars (the Liartarian Party?). The press and voters will realize that, and I’m not sure they will give you more respect for being naively optimistic or unintelligent, or lying. I know my respect for candidates doesn’t go up the more naively optimistic or unintelligent they are. I’m not against a significant amount of over-promising, but there’s a point at which ridiculous claims can sound . . . well, ridiculous. Kris Overstreet says: “The instant you admit you can’t win, you lose everyone except your most loyal supporters and the protest voters.”

I made the comments below on the Liberty For All Blog 2/10/07 regarding the Nov 2006 elections:

Sean says “I can tell you from personal experience how much media you lose when you admit that you won’t win. It should also be obvious how little respect the average voter would give to a candidate who’s just happy to be here.”

Sean, your rigorous analysis to prove this point is far less rigorous than the Global Warming Terrorist propaganda. I assume you’re relying on some anecdotal evidence that you haven’t shared, although I know you can find an annecdote to support just about anything.

I routinely admit to the press and to voters in Austin that our candidates probably won’t win this election but we’re working to increase our percentages. I think those reporters and voters respect my honesty and our percentages have gone up. I think it’s possible the media and voters have less respect for candidates who claim they’re going to win when they end up getting 4% or less.

Again, the highest percentage by a Libertarian in a PARTISAN CONTESTED race was here in Austin where I am routinely honest with the press and voters. (Probably I should say “somewhat honest.” There’s some strategery going on too.)

I also disagree with many Libertarians who think you shouldn’t run for office unless you will claim you are going to win. You might think that asking only for candidates who are going to claim they will win might produce a stronger slate of candidates. However, intelligent and realistic people can look at a long history of results and come to the realistic conclusion that results will likely only improve a little bit at best over past attempts (with the exception of tiny districts of 5,000 or less).

If you restrict your slate of candidates to those who will claim they will win, you may limit yourself to the most naively optimistic or unintelligent, or liars (the Liartarian Party?). The press and voters will realize that, and I’m not sure they will give you more respect for being naively optimistic or unintelligent, or lying. I know my respect for candidates doesn’t go up the more naively optimistic or unintelligent they are. I’m not against a significant amount of over-promising, but there’s a point at which ridiculous claims can sound . . . well, ridiculous.

]]> by: Robert Milnes http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184895 Wed, 16 May 2007 23:29:06 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184895 George, how can you say you are the only anti-war candidate? Actually my proposal for Iraq has bee incorrectly been described as not anti-war. But there are several, even democrats. Ron Paul is anti-war but loses my support by campaigning in and through the gop. An incredible strategic blunder. g-e, Trent, what about Smith? She's been polling consistently in the top 3-4. And I was amazed to see Kent McManigal consistently polling near the top also. I guess they don't exist either, huh? The declarations of my non-existance are premature. George, how can you say you are the only anti-war candidate? Actually my proposal for Iraq has bee incorrectly been described as not anti-war. But there are several, even democrats. Ron Paul is anti-war but loses my support by campaigning in and through the gop. An incredible strategic blunder. g-e, Trent, what about Smith? She’s been polling consistently in the top 3-4. And I was amazed to see Kent McManigal consistently polling near the top also. I guess they don’t exist either, huh? The declarations of my non-existance are premature.

]]> by: George Phillies http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184835 Wed, 16 May 2007 21:07:36 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184835 I will agree with Kris that 'running to educate' is a bad approach for the reasons he outlines, among others. That's why I do not intend to spend money on 'educating the electorate', at least as *libertarians* have usually used the phrase. I do intend to educate the electorate on why they should vote for me, e.g., the only antiwar candidate, will not mail our grandchildren a bill for bloated Republican budgets, 100% prochoice, will let the Republicans take back their rightwing crackpot nostrums. That's rather different than educating the voter in obscure theological approaches to finding truth. I do not intend to tell Libertarians 'this will be our year. just imagine. this time is different. ignore the man behind the curtains.' Libertarians may notice that this year _is_ different, and there actually is a scientific poll (Rasmussen, iirc) out there showing an unnamed third party candidate running on my issues in a three-way tie against Hillary Clinton and iirc John McCain, but I am going to be different, not talk about being different. I will agree with Kris that ‘running to educate’ is a bad approach for the reasons he outlines, among others. That’s why I do not intend to spend money on ‘educating the electorate’, at least as libertarians have usually used the phrase.

I do intend to educate the electorate on why they should vote for me, e.g., the only antiwar candidate, will not mail our grandchildren a bill for bloated Republican budgets, 100% prochoice, will let the Republicans take back their rightwing crackpot nostrums. That’s rather different than educating the voter in obscure theological approaches to finding truth.

I do not intend to tell Libertarians ‘this will be our year. just imagine. this time is different. ignore the man behind the curtains.’ Libertarians may notice that this year is different, and there actually is a scientific poll (Rasmussen, iirc) out there showing an unnamed third party candidate running on my issues in a three-way tie against Hillary Clinton and iirc John McCain, but I am going to be different, not talk about being different.

]]> by: Kris Overstreet http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184802 Wed, 16 May 2007 20:44:23 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184802 G_E: It doesn't matter that you have no chance to win- rule one of elective politics is, no matter how bad the odds are, you never, EVER imply you will do anything other than win and win overwhelmingly. The instant you admit you can't win, you lose everyone except your most loyal supporters and the protest voters. Why should anyone vote, much less donate or volunteer, for a candidate who admits point blank he's not going to get elected and everything he says about his campaign is empty wind? Jake: we've had many past candidates for various offices- most notably the party's founder David Nolan- who spend money on "party building" and "educating the electorate" with no intention whatever of actually running a winning campaign. We've shown time and again that running to win and running to educate are NOT the same thing. I'm firmly opposed to "educational" candidates: I want someone who is focused on GETTING INTO OFFICE AND SERVING. G_E: It doesn’t matter that you have no chance to win- rule one of elective politics is, no matter how bad the odds are, you never, EVER imply you will do anything other than win and win overwhelmingly. The instant you admit you can’t win, you lose everyone except your most loyal supporters and the protest voters. Why should anyone vote, much less donate or volunteer, for a candidate who admits point blank he’s not going to get elected and everything he says about his campaign is empty wind?

Jake: we’ve had many past candidates for various offices- most notably the party’s founder David Nolan- who spend money on “party building” and “educating the electorate” with no intention whatever of actually running a winning campaign. We’ve shown time and again that running to win and running to educate are NOT the same thing. I’m firmly opposed to “educational” candidates: I want someone who is focused on GETTING INTO OFFICE AND SERVING.

]]> by: Roscoe http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184720 Wed, 16 May 2007 18:11:35 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184720 Won't the voters only buy the Libertarian message when they are ready for it? I don't care how many times Ford put the "Edsel message" in front of the auto buying public, the public wasn't - for the most part - buying it. Ford merely had to redesign their autos. We have to first convince the voters they even want an "auto" - most of them aren't buying our freedom message in electoral politics no matter how attractively it can be packaged. If the LP won't do it, then we need some other libertarian organization out there in the communities and campuses of America selling the benefits of liberty. When enough believe, then it will be time for the LP to win some serious elections. By the litmus test of votes, the LP is an absymal failure in the eyes of the voters. More could be accomplished if the time, energy and money were put into daily, weekly, monthly interaction with the community - on a non-partisan basis - taking libertarian positions on the issues and concerns of those communities. Won’t the voters only buy the Libertarian message when they are ready for it? I don’t care how many times Ford put the “Edsel message” in front of the auto buying public, the public wasn’t – for the most part – buying it.
Ford merely had to redesign their autos. We have to first convince the voters they even want an “auto” – most of them aren’t buying our freedom message in electoral politics no matter how attractively it can be packaged. If the LP won’t do it, then we need some other libertarian organization out there in the communities and campuses of America selling the benefits of liberty. When enough believe, then it will be time for the LP to win some serious elections. By the litmus test of votes, the LP is an absymal failure in the eyes of the voters. More could be accomplished if the time, energy and money were put into daily, weekly, monthly interaction with the community – on a non-partisan basis – taking libertarian positions on the issues and concerns of those communities.

]]> by: George Phillies http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184684 Wed, 16 May 2007 17:29:36 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184684 Building the Party and running as if you are trying to be elected are one and the same. How can you build an effective party except by building a voter base, generating effective, long-lived volunteer groups, and putting the message before the voters? Those are the deeds that get you elected, too. Recruiting memberships for one group or another does not get you elected, but it does not build a stronger party, either. Building the Party and running as if you are trying to be elected are one and the same. How can you build an effective party except by building a voter base, generating effective, long-lived volunteer groups, and putting the message before the voters? Those are the deeds that get you elected, too. Recruiting memberships for one group or another does not get you elected, but it does not build a stronger party, either.

]]> by: globalist_elitist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184597 Wed, 16 May 2007 16:00:10 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/05/16/qa-with-george-phillies-future-of-the-lp/#comment-184597 Kris - Who is living in a fantasy world? Get elected? To the presidency? A Libertarian? In 2008? Don't insult the voters' intelligence. We will never win until we can convince voters that elections are about more than "voting for the winner." Phillies or whoever the candidate is should run AS IF they're trying to win, but they had better have a realistic, achievable goal to their candidacy or else there is no point to them running. Kris – Who is living in a fantasy world? Get elected? To the presidency? A Libertarian? In 2008? Don’t insult the voters’ intelligence. We will never win until we can convince voters that elections are about more than “voting for the winner.” Phillies or whoever the candidate is should run AS IF they’re trying to win, but they had better have a realistic, achievable goal to their candidacy or else there is no point to them running.

]]>