[Lnc-business] 2016 Libertarian Presidential Campaign - a model for our Nominee?

[Joshua Katz]

Thanks doc.

Regarding percentages - not really.  I just want electing officials to be a
greater emphasis than ballot access.  I cannot speak to the effort
percentage because I am not an expert on the effort/reward ratio for ballot
access retention.

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Scott L. <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:

>     Mr. Katz’s post below is a candidate for LNC-Business e-mail of the
> year.
>
>
>
> I agree with 99% of what he wrote, but the point is that he is very much
> on topic for this e-mail list.
>
>
>
> Figuring out how to advise our affiliates on “positioning” their
> candidates so that they win elections, or at least that their candidates
> markedly increase the number of donors to the LP, is infinitely more
> important than making sure our videoconferencing software is working
> correctly, or issuing press releases on Federal-level issues when we have
> no Federal-level elected officials.
>
>
>
> The boards of non-profit organizations are supposed to be playing chess:
> looking 4 or 5 moves ahead so that the organization is continually
> increasing the number and degree of positive changes that it is achieving
> in the outside world.
>
>
>
> It would be really great if someone on this board other than Mr. Katz is
> willing to pick up the ball and start a discussion on how this board can
> improve its performance in this area.
>
>
>   Scott Lieberman
>
>
>
>
>
> PS – My only disagreement with Mr. Katz is that I get the impression that
> he thinks our 2016 efforts should be 95% electing Libertarians and 5%
> ballot access retention.  In 2016, I think the emphasis should be 60%
> electing Libertarians and 40% ballot access retention, but for 2017 I
> pretty much agree with the percentages I assume to Mr. Katz for 2016.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Joshua Katz
> *Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2015 10:17 AM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] 2016 Libertarian Presidential Campaign - a
> model for our Nominee?
>
>
>
> I found at least one major take-away that we Libertarians should be
> mindful of, in my opinion:  You need people to like you if you want to
> win.  I know that sounds simplistic, but I mean it seriously.  We too often
> try to win on our ideas.  That 11% who support both Walker and Obama
> clearly are not supportive of both based on their ideas.  They're
> supportive of both based on liking the people.
>
>
>
> Walker knows this, and can consistently win votes of those who do not
> agree with his ideas.  That's why he sees no value, I'd suggest, in
> moderating his ideas - he knows that his beliefs aren't the basis of his
> votes anyway, so why bother?  All he'd achieve would be alienating his base
> - it wouldn't change his appeal to the "low information voters" Dr.
> Lieberman mentioned.
>
>
>
> Libertarians, though, often think that we should campaign primarily on our
> ideas.  Of course, those come up - you can't campaign without talking
> issues, and if someone lets you, you shouldn't take them up on it.  But
> having the best ideas is not enough for us to score wins.  We have a far
> larger hurdle to overcome than any candidate from the GOP or D parties, and
> ideas will not do it.  They're necessary but not sufficient (sorry, been
> studying for the LSATs for the last few weeks.)
>
>
>
> So why is Walker electable, to the point where he wins in a state that
> Obama wins while doing arch-conservative things?  I agree with the Walker
> comments on that from the WSJ (it's probably one of the only things I agree
> with Walker about.)  He says that leadership is what makes him
> electable.  I think he's right.  People have heard lots of ideas - and any
> idea we can put forward, our opponents can co-opt, despite never following
> through in office - and voters who pay attention only at election time will
> see no compelling reason to vote for us.  What turns heads is the person of
> the candidate - yet we as a party spend a lot more time vetting people on
> ideas than on candidate-ness.  Of course, we need both - we don't want some
> likable non-libertarian candidate, and even if such a person won, it would
> hurt us in the long-run precisely because, that person may look like a
> leader, but the party would appear to have no clear direction.  (Note that,
> for this purpose, I'm not talking about some disagreement on some issue of
> note largely to political wonks - I'm talking a full-on non-libertarian.
> The shades of grey can all be sorted out separately.  Personally, I like to
> ensure that any candidate will be reliably libertarian within the scope of
> the office sought and will be reliably libertarian in their messaging -
> without going to the mat on every jot and tittle of libertarian
> philosophy.)  But a balance will always need to be struck in choosing
> candidates, and I think we lean very far towards ideas and treat
> elect-ability as an afterthought.  But having candidates who are persuasive
> and charismatic leaders is not only important for the purpose of winning.
> It is important because the majority of elected officials serve on boards
> and commissions - so, after winning, they can't use Obama's "phone and pen"
> methods.  After they've won, their job of convincing others to embrace
> libertarian views on each issue begins.  Ron Paul may be famous for voting
> against the majority, or by himself, so many times, but ideally you cast
> courageous, libertarian votes - and carry the decision also.  It is also
> important, even in executive offices, because it means that we, as voters
> and as Libertarians, can believe that the official will do as they say.  A
> person who cannot credibly claim to be a leader who manages to win an
> election is unlikely, even as an executive, to do much to move public
> policy - their actions will be meek and indecisive, they can be easy swayed
> by pressure groups - even at the local level, where a pressure group may be
> the homeowners on a particular street.  Even if they do move policy, their
> impact is less likely to last if the changes are remembered as those
> instituted by "oh, that guy."
>
>
>
> But there is a problem here.  The LPUS runs two candidates (and, arguably,
> we don't even really run those; we ask our affiliates to run candidates for
> a different office who will vote for the candidates chosen at our
> convention for two offices.)  So what can the board do about selecting and
> promoting the types of candidates I'm talking about?  I'd suggest three
> things.
>
>
>
> First, we can lead by example.  The more each of us strives to demonstrate
> the personal traits of leadership that Walker talks about, in our party
> dealings and elsewhere, the more we demonstrate the value of this within
> the party.
>
>
>
> Second, we can make resource decisions.  We can look to the leadership and
> other traits of candidates when assisting with ballot access or litigation
> - ultimately making our decision on many variables centered on the success
> of this party, such as ballot access retention and improving the electoral
> environment overall (particularly when it comes to litigation) but at least
> always asking about this sends a positive message, regardless of our final
> decision.
>
>
>
> The third is harder to define, and might be contained in the previous 2,
> but in my mind, the primary purpose of any leader, and in particular of
> boards, is to transmit a vision in a way that inspires others to try to
> advance that vision.  I think the more common phrase here is "buy-in" but I
> hate business talk.  Anyway, I think that's a far more important part of
> what a board can do than any sort of direct action to get a particular
> result.
>
>
>
> I will disagree with Dr. Lieberman slightly regarding NOTA.  I'm sure he
> agrees with me on this, but it's a difference of emphasis - Dr. Lieberman
> emphasized improving post-election ballot access. I agree, but I'd
> emphasize winning more elections first - such as, say, doubling the number
> of local elected officials in the party.  If asked to choose between those
> two goals, I'd favor both over a Presidential campaign (and I recognize the
> elasticity arguments often made about this, I just happen to hold a
> different set of beliefs about the particular elasticity of our donations,
> membership, and other support than those making the arguments) but I'd
> favor more offices over more ballot access retention.
>
>
>
>     Joshua A. Katz     Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
> GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
>
> This 2 page article shows how Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker won over the
> crowd at the Iowa Freedom Summit last week.
>
>
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/scott-walker-win-iowa-electability-no-compromise-to-democrats
>
> Even if you are like me and you support NOTA for the 2016 Libertarian
> Presidential Nomination, the article still makes for good reading.
>
> Scott Walker obviously has very good street cred with conservatives for
> not only talking the talk, but also walking the walk.
>
> The article demonstrates how important it is to present political ideas
> not only in a way that makes your base voters feel good about themselves,
> but mainly in a way that gives your base voters hope that at least some
> “low-information voters” will actually vote for you.
>
> And for my fans who will read this e-mail on the LP web site:  I support
> NOTA for 2016 because it is a much better use of Libertarian’s time,
> talent, and treasure in 2016 to pass as many vote tests as possible so that
> we end up with 40 state ballot access in December 2016 instead of wasting
> time on a Don Quixote Presidential campaign.   Far too many LP members
> pretend that the Libertarian presidential campaign will increase the number
> of donors that the Libertarian Party has,
>
> when in fact the main purpose of the Presidential campaign is to make LP
> members feel good about themselves without having to actually increase the
> number of donors to the Libertarian Party.
>
>    Scott Lieberman
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150202/966482d5/attachment-0002.html>