Editorials

An editorial in the LA Times by Johnson/Weld campaign manager Ron Nielson.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll asked likely voters the following question: “Do you think that Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, should be included in the presidential debates this year, or not?”

In response, 62% answered “yes.”

Given how unhappy voters are with the two major party candidates, that should come as no surprise. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are easily the two most unpopular presidential nominees the broken two-party system has ever put forward, and voters are increasingly frustrated and anxious to find a viable alternative.

For many, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is that alternative. Of course, I’m biased — I’m Johnson’s campaign manager. But consider that Johnson’s poll numbers are in the double digits in 42 states. The more voters hear from Johnson, the more they seem to like him. That’s why, as the Quinnipiac poll shows, nearly two-thirds of them want to see him share the stage with Trump and Clinton.

You’d think the Commission on Presidential Debates would pay attention. Instead, the CPD has decided that no candidate can participate in the debates unless he or she crosses a 15% average polling threshold. That’s highly problematic.

For starters, the CPD draws that average from five national polls conducted by traditional media outlets that often restrict themselves to head-to-head match-ups between Trump and Clinton. How is Johnson supposed to break through the 15% barrier when his name isn’t even an option?

It’s also worth asking whether these polls are entirely reliable, given that the polling industry is struggling to accommodate new communications technology. In years past, almost all polling was conducted by calling landlines, which have gone the way of the dinosaur. Pollsters are scrambling to incorporate cellphones into the mix, but even that approach ignores the fact that young people spend less time on the phone than they do online. Polls conducted online show more support for Johnson than polls conducted over the phone.

Incidentally, Johnson does particularly well among millennial voters, who are both more likely to be independent of a political party and less likely to own a landline.

Despite all these obstacles, Johnson’s support continues to grow. He has broken through the 15% ceiling in 15 states. In four states, he’s within four to six points of second place.

Besides, thanks to the electoral college, our national election is really a series of 50 state contests. A national poll is therefore essentially worthless when it comes to predicting the winner in November. The next president has to get to the magic number of 270 electoral votes, and Johnson is the only candidate, other than Trump and Clinton, who will be on the ballot in all 50 states. That fact alone ought to convince the CPD to let Johnson debate.

There is also precedent to consider. In 1992, H. Ross Perot polled well through early summer when matched up against then-President George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. After he temporarily dropped out of the race, his numbers plummeted, and by the time he got back in he was only at 7 to 9% in national polls. (That’s lower than Johnson by most accounts.) Nevertheless, he was invited to participate in the debates, and he went on to win 18.7% of the popular vote. If voters had not been given the opportunity to see him go head to head with the standard bearers of the obsolete two-party system, he would never have gone so far.

Shouldn’t Johnson get the same chance?

Americans want to make an informed choice, and the debates are the best opportunity they have to learn about those seeking the White House. Voters rightly believe that more information is always better than less — and so do political leaders. Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Indiana Gov.Mitch Daniels, and newspapers including the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Herald and the Richmond Times-Dispatch have all called on the CPD to let Johnson and his running mate, Bill Weld, into the debates.

The CPD, a private tax-exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, has the opportunity to do the right thing. If it’s going to use polls to decide who’s in and who’s out, perhaps it should give some weight to the 62% of Americans who want Johnson on that stage.

Ron Nielson is national manager of the Johnson-Weld campaign. 

Source: Let Gary Johnson debate – LA Times

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

CNN/Sirius XM Politics’s Michael Smerconish joins the growing number of calls for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld to be invited to the presidential debates–and encourages people to help boost their poll results if called by pollsters.

I agree with Smerconish’s notion that members of the public should do what they can to push the polls in the right direction–even if that means “supporting” Johnson/Weld just for polling purposes–but it is a shame that this silly game even needs to take place. Arbitrary polling percentages simply should not be used to determine debate inclusion.

OK, so Gary Johnson probably isn’t going to be the nation’s 45th president. And it’s doubtful Bill Weld will be replacing Vice President Biden. But the Libertarian candidates still deserve to stand on the debate stage and offer Americans their message of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. If the Commission on Presidential Debates evaluated candidate credentials and not poll standings, Johnson and Weld would have been the first to qualify. Neither the Republican nor Democratic ticket can match the executive governing experience of the Libertarian duo. In fact, we haven’t had a third-party ticket this qualified in modern history.

Johnson is a successful entrepreneur-turned-public servant. Sure, he’s quirky. It’s not every day an Iron Man who wears Nikes with his suit and smokes pot seeks the nation’s highest office. But consider that he was twice elected governor as a Republican in the very Democratic state of New Mexico. His record included elimination of the state deficit and creation of a surplus before leaving office, all while reducing the size of state government (a feat accomplished by vetoing 750 bills during his tenure, more than all 49 other governors combined). Plus, he governed without an ethical blemish, quite a credential when viewed against the competition.

Then there’s Weld. Central Casting could not have delivered anyone more suitable. Harvard undergraduate. Then Oxford. And Harvard Law. Weld was a U.S. attorney – recommended for that job by Rudy Giuliani – who went on to head the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. Like Johnson, Weld was elected twice as a Republican governor in a Democratic state. In fact, when reelected in Massachusetts in 1994, it was with the largest margin in state history.

There’s something else notable: They are truly running as a team. Watch them interviewed together and you will see their ability to finish each other’s sentences on matters of agreement, and willingness to amiably disagree. How refreshing.

Johnson and Weld, unlike the Green Party, will have their names on ballots in all 50 states. Their credentials make them worthy of standing on the presidential debate stage. But for that to happen, they need to quickly document support of at least 15 percent in an average of five national polls. So far, they have not met the threshold.

Still, there are signs of momentum, including the endorsement by a major daily newspaper, the Richmond Times-Dispatch. That embrace was a bona fide vote of confidence in Johnson and Weld, not just a rejection of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The editorial called Johnson “a man of good integrity, apparently normal ego, and sound ideas,” adding that “he is, in every respect, a legitimate and reasonable contender for the presidency.”

Anecdotally it seems as if the largest impediment to their further ascension is the belief that they can’t win, and the idea that any vote for the ticket helps/hurts someone else. Weld rejected this argument in an interview when he secured the vice presidential nomination.

“I would never use the word spoiler – I’m very comfortable with where we are,” he told me. “We’re going to speak truth to power and we are going to speak truths and we don’t have to trim or modify our positions. And if we wind up nudging the Democrats toward the right on economic issues and nudging the Republicans to the left on social issues I think we will have done the country a really big favor.”

Jesse Ventura, who in 1998 was elected governor of Minnesota under the banner of the Reform Party, bristles at the argument that a vote for Johnson/Weld is a waste.

“It’s ridiculous,” he told me. “When you vote, you’re not there to pick a winner, you’re not there for a horse race. You’re there to pick the person you want most to be president. And if that person finished hypothetically fifth, so what? You did your job as a citizen to vote for a candidate of your choice.”

“When they come up with that nonsense about throwing your vote away, or electing someone else, that’s their patented Democratic and Republican excuse for losing,” Ventura added. “When they lose . . . they don’t assume the responsibility themselves. They point a finger at the third-party guy and say, ‘He’s who did it.’ How arrogant to think that everyone who votes for Gary would vote for one of them had Gary not been there.”

For those willing to listen, Johnson and Weld have offered a nuanced vision of independence and thoughtfulness. They refuse to campaign dirty and are willing to utter the dreaded C word: compromise. Which is another reason why they would add value to the debates. Putting Johnson and Weld on the stage would force their opponents to defend their views against independent thinking.

The Times-Dispatch endorsement said:

“But our final decision to endorse the Johnson/Weld ticket, and to do so with great confidence and enthusiasm, came only after Johnson met with the editorial board last Monday morning. We found him to be knowledgeable but unscripted, reasonable and good-humored, self-assured but free from arrogance, willing and able to address every question, consistent in his beliefs without being dogmatic, even-tempered, curious – and in all respects optimistically, realistically presidential.”

Admittedly, being “unscripted” has also hurt Johnson. Last week on MSNBC, he was flummoxed when asked his opinion on the Syrian refuge crisis in Aleppo. Whether that gaffe alone will prevent the Libertarians from reaching the debate threshold remains to be seen.

On Monday, both men will have the opportunity to make their case to the Inquirer Editorial Board.

In the meantime, if pollsters call your house tonight, tell them you’re for Johnson/Weld. You can always change your mind – after the debates.

Michael Smerconish can be heard from 9 a.m. to noon on SiriusXM’s POTUS Channel 124 and seen hosting “Smerconish” at 9 a.m. Saturdays on CNN.

Source: Smerconish: Open debates to Libertarians

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

From Reason.com…

Yesterday, for a second time, the Chicago Tribune editorialized in favor of letting Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson into the three presidential debates scheduled between Sept. 26 and Oct 19. “The hurdle in Johnson’s way,” the editorial board correctly observed, “is the terms set by the private, nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.”

Those terms, first announced last October and then further clarified two weeks ago, include averaging 15 percent in five pre-selected national polls as of “mid-September.” While the CPD’s five polls have heretofore been good to Johnson, averaging 10 percent compared to an overall national average of around 8.5 percent, it’s also true that the 15 percent threshold itself is an arbitrary creation of an organization created and staffed by the Democratic and Republican parties, and is so high that, if applied retroactively (the CPD was established in 1987 and began applying the 15 percent criteria in 2000), would have excluded every third-party candidate of the last 44 years with the exception of Ross Perot in 1992. “American voters would benefit from hearing [Johnson’s] views,” the Tribuneconcluded. “Let’s respect the wishes of a dissatisfied electorate and open up the first general election debate to Johnson. Once on that stage, it will be on him to make his mark.”

The World’s Greatest Newspaper is hardly alone in casting righteous aspersions in the general direction of the Commission on Presidential Debates. The L.A. Times editorializedthree weeks back that blocking Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein “would be a disservice to voters,” and contribute to the perception that “the debate system is rigged” by the participants: “Rules that limit participation to Democrats and Republicans, while excluding candidates who have a small-but-not-zero chance of winning might understandably be construed as self-dealing.” And the Charlotte Observer was even more blunt: “The election isn’t rigged, but the presidential debates seem to be.”

If it sounds like the CPD has a problem of basic democratic legitimacy, that’s because it does. Over at The Atlantic, Nora Kelly has a well-reported piece spelling out the contentious history of the commission, and concluding:

Third parties and their sympathizers have been arguing for years that this shut-out is deeply unfair. And in 2016, their points resonate more than usual. […]

When voters head to the polls in November, most will see Johnson’s and Stein’s names listed on their ballots. They can’t—and shouldn’t have to—hear from every candidate running for president; hundreds of varying degrees of seriousness have filed this cycle. But when an election creates exceptions to every campaign rule, it may be worth reviewing whether debates should have exceptions, too. […]

Perhaps no amount of justification […] will stop third parties from questioning the debates’ integrity. And […] they may have a point: The commission released its rules for debates in October 2015, well before the first primary contest. In the ensuing months, Trump has remade the GOP, dooming pre-primary favorites like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. Senator Bernie Sanders’ backers were legion, and cut into Clinton’s support. In a norm-defying election year, perhaps the normal 15 percent threshold doesn’t work.

You can expect to hear both old parties and their hand-picked commission lament sadly in the coming weeks that rules are rules, etc. But no one died and made the CPD god of our political discourse, or of our scheduling of presidential debates. (This is one of many reasons why the decision by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America to exclude Johnson from its Sept. 7 candidates’ forum is so galling.) If Democrats and Republicans insist on blocking out third-party candidates in a year when both of their nominees are historically unpopular and untrusted, and a Libertarian is polling higher at this stage than any third-party candidate since Ross Perot in 1992, then they are inviting Americans to confer upon them even less legitimacy and respect than we already do.

Source: Growing Media Chorus Says Presidential Debates Are ‘Rigged’ – Hit & Run : Reason.com

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

From South Carolina’s Post and Courier…

Beyond Trump and Clinton

Last Sunday, a presidential nominee stated these general principles that he shares with his running mate:

■ “We’re going to always support taxes going lower. We’re going to always support being in business being easier. Rules and regulations not getting worse, getting better.”

■ “Being fiscally conservative, socially inclusive.”
■ “We’re really skeptical about intervening militarily to achieve regime change that I think has resulted in a less-safe world. So I think that we represent about 60 percent of Americans with that philosophical belief.”

No, those reasonable-sounding perspectives didn’t come from Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

They came from Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

Mr. Johnson also pointed out that he and running mate William Weld are “two former Republican governors re-elected in heavily Democrat states [Mr. Johnson in New Mexico, Mr. Weld in Massachusetts].”

Of course, the Libertarian ticket faces a political mission impossible against the major-party monopoly on the White House.

But when Mr. Johnson is included in polls, he’s been tracking up to 10 percent in national surveys and above 15 percent in some states. And Green Party nominee Jill Stein has been drawing from 4 to 6 percent.

So the Libertarian ticket retains a long-shot chance of meeting the unreasonably high 15 percent national poll-average minimum required by the Commission on Presidential Debates to be included in the three presidential and single vice presidential debates.

That would give each of those debates a third voice that many Americans would welcome, considering the remarkably elevated public “disapproval” numbers that polls have long been showing for both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton.

The Libertarian nominees, if included in the debates, might even be able to shift the focus away from the tiresome trading of insults between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton and toward substantive discussion of policy issues.

That doesn’t mean most Americans buy the Libertarian Party’s specific pitches advanced as part of its “Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government” mantra.

And no, the Johnson-Weld ticket won’t win the election on Nov. 8.

But the debate commission should still include Mr. Johnson and Mr. Weld.

They could expand the ideological reach of those events — and maybe even elevate the tawdry tone of this down-and-dirty campaign season.

Source: Beyond Trump and Clinton – Post and Courier

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Of course, we find a 10% threshold to be just as arbitrary as a 15% threshold, but we still thank the Sioux City Journal for speaking out on behalf of more inclusive debates.

From the Journal editorial board

If any election for president needed more than two candidates on the stage for presidential and vice presidential debates, it’s this one.

To this end, we hope to see Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson face off with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and Libertarian vice presidential nominee William Weld stand side by side with Tim Kaine and Mike Pence.

The NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll released on Tuesday speaks, again, to widespread dissatisfaction with Clinton and Trump, the flawed Democratic and Republican nominees for president. Consider these poll numbers: 59 percent of respondents have an unfavorable view of Clinton and 64 percent have an unfavorable view of Trump. Only 11 percent view Clinton as honest and trustworthy and only 16 percent view Trump as honest and trustworthy.

Presidential debates are scheduled for Sept. 26, Oct. 9 and Oct. 19; the vice presidential debate will be Oct. 4. On Monday, the Commission on Presidential Debates said the results of five national polls – ABC-Washington Post, CBS-New York Times, CNN-Opinion Research Corporation, Fox News and NBC-Wall Street Journal – will be averaged to determine who is invited to take part. Any candidate who receives 15 percent support makes the cut.

“If a candidate is invited to the first presidential debate, that person’s vice presidential running mate will be invited to the vice presidential debate,” the commission said. “The criteria will be reapplied between the first and second presidential debates and the second and third presidential debates.”

Our suggestion? Lower the threshhold to 10 percent, or simply double digits, to increase odds for the inclusion of at least a third voice – likely, Johnson and Weld – in these important debates. (If Green Party candidate Jill Stein reaches 10 percent support, she should be included, as well.)

We aren’t endorsing the Libertarian Party ticket today, but we believe lukewarm enthusiasm among Americans about the two major party nominees combined with the rising poll numbers and strong resumes of Johnson and Weld – whose names may appear on the ballot in all 50 states – support the case for putting Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, and Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts, in these debates.

By recognizing the unique realities of this election for president and going the extra mile to accommodate inclusion of someone besides only Clinton/Trump and Kaine/Pence, the Commission on Presidential Debates would provide a valuable service for American voters.

—

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.