Maryland will now need more signatures

http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/05/21/marylands-highest-state-court-construes-law-on-petition-checking-in-an-unfavorable-manner/ ”

This is complete bullshit. There are more than enough valid signatures on both the Libertarian Party’s petition and the Green Party’s petition for both of them to have ballot access right now, if you go by any rational standard for judging the signatures. This is a screw-job.

One of the things I hope the Sunshine Caucus might do is research the data on the costs and revenues of various as aspects of past conventions.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsunshine/message/3

Marc Montoni via facebook:

“Maybe it would be a good idea for LPHQ to appoint a couple of extra interns or
volunteers to do a research project, and do a thorough analysis of past
convention revenue, expenses, attendance, etc. We have this bad habit of not
institutionally remembering our own best (and worst) practices.”

In the absence of LPHQ doing this is anyone willing to research this?

http://www.businessinsider.com/roger-stone-on-mitt-romney-marco-rubio-vice-president-2012-election-2012-5

I guess it needs to be in the SOP for conventions if there is such a thing.

I fixed the all-caps and prefixed it with “Reeves: ” since the story has only a single and non-neutral source.

That fixes the two biggest issues.

Who — specifically — wrote this article? I don’t mean whose name is on it, I mean who ghost-wrote it?

Press release from the Reeves group. Actual author(s) not identified. Nominal author is Reeves, but you know how press release writing goes. Reeves may or may not have actually written it himself.

Thanks for you job covering the thrid party politics in the United States. Your work has really made a difference.

Mario Conde

Ditto for the LP National Convention: it exercised its authority to decide which delegation represented the LPOR, but nobody could seriously claim that the convention therefore tried to impose a set of officers on the LPOR.

I don’t believe that is true, our main problem is we try and convince them of free markets using conservative rhetoric, we defend non-libertarian conservative solutions and we don’t know how to paint a benefit based picture of our issues.

We need to learn how to use concrete terms that espouse benefits and align ourselves with others in our mutual goals (Health CARE for all), before we start giving them concrete features. The conservatarians are very concrete (Gays shall not marry, etc.), this is why people know where they stand on those issues.

I’ll keep reposting the below in hopes that more people start to pay attention to it.

Most people active in politics and the largest segment of society are concrete communicators. Here is how Dr. David Keirsey describes this type of communication. “Some people talk primarily about the external, concrete world of everyday reality: facts and figures, work and play, home and family, news, sports and weather — all the who-what-when-where-and how much’s of life.”

They are also cooperative in action, “they try to do the right thing, in keeping with agreed upon social rules, conventions, and codes of conduct, and only later do they concern themselves with the effectiveness of their actions.”

“As Concrete Cooperators, Guardians speak mostly of their duties and responsibilities, of what they can keep an eye on and take good care of, and they’re careful to obey the laws, follow the rules, and respect the rights of others.” They make up 40-45% of the population.

Most Libertarians are abstract communicators: “This group of people talk primarily about the internal, abstract world of ideas: theories and conjectures, dreams and philosophies, beliefs and fantasies –all the why’s, if’s, and what-might-be’s of life.”

They are often Utilitarian in action: “act primarily in a utilitarian or pragmatic manner, that is, they do what gets results, what achieves their objectives as effectively or efficiently as possible, and only afterwards do they check to see if they are observing the rules or going through proper channels.”

As Abstract Utilitarians, Rationals speak mostly of what new problems intrigue them and what new solutions they envision, and always pragmatic, they act as efficiently as possible to achieve their objectives, ignoring arbitrary rules and conventions if need be.

This group makes up 5-10% of the population, yet they are the vast majority of Libertarians.

How does this work out in a typical political conversation.

Libertarian: “We need to cut government by 50%”

Now in their thought process they are thinking abstract and tangentially, they see millions of forks in the road. Paths leading to various solutions, ideas abound in their vision of this simple statement. All of the benefits of the various liberty oriented ideas are wrapped up in that statement.

Guardian: “What!!? You want chaos in the streets and people dying?”

There thought process is concrete, they “hear” cut government and they immediately envision the removal of things they feel help (police, Fire, defense, etc.). No forks, no alternative paths or solutions, just an immediate thought to the worst case scenario.

Unfortunately few rational will look into this stuff being that they think it isn’t scientific but more like astrology. It is ironic considering that for the most part “they do what gets results, what achieves their objectives as effectively or efficiently as possible.” Maybe more of them will realize that they are not being effective or getting results.

This must be why I am an idealist.

“As Abstract Cooperators, Idealists speak mostly of what they hope for and imagine might be possible for people, and they want to act in good conscience, always trying to reach their goals without compromising their personal code of ethics.”

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=plotz

“As it relates to this thread, my suggestion would be to choose target markets (as Zapper suggests), and hit them with all kinds of ads. That is, TV, radio, yard signs on the street, flyers in doors, online ads (which can be targeted to infinitely small areas in most cases), candidate appearances, and anything else you can think of, or any-or-all of these that are within budget.” Matt Cholko.

Yes, using all kinds of media in the target areas, especially as election day approaches, does seem like a good idea. Yard signs, bumper stickers, fliers … these are generally the province of the local activists. However, there is a problem with the use of multiple forms of media as paid for by the campaign directly.

The problem in every LP POTUS campaign to date, with the exception of Clark in 1980, has been the failure to plan for TV advertising at all. By waiting to the end to see if there would be enough money in the budget to advertise on TV, the campaign managers have always guaranteed that there would NOT and could not be enough money left for TV.

TV advertising should be the biggest campaign outlay other than ballot access. If it weren’t for the high cost of ballot access or if we could raise more money, then even this wouldn’t be true. TV advertising should be the biggest outlay, even for our small sized campaigns. And, we should even consider whether or not it is worth spending the large sum required for the last few expensive states for ballot access instead of for TV advertising.

Constantly buying and losing ballot access without advertising and party building has not proven particularly successful.

Planning ahead means setting fundraising targets and making ads – now. Then we start raising money for TV ads – now. Since TV advertising is popular for donors, we should promise to segregate such funds and use 100% of the funds raised for airtime.

This would bring in funds from people who think this is the most important use of campaign resources or who excited by the prospect of an LP POTUS candidate actually appearing in prime time advertising on major network TV. Many of these donors would not give, or would not give as much for general campaign use or even for ballot access. It would not siphon much from other donations but instead would increase the total amount raised.

It’s also important to plan and budget the required amounts for TV advertising. Rather than see how much will be left over, we need to reserve the bulk of money raised for prime time Major network TV advertising in targeted small states, by tightfistedly refusing to spend on items of lesser importance, even though they appear to be low cost at the time. It is the aggreagation of low cost and less essential spending, the lack of strategy and the lack of planning that has precluded a successful LP POTUS TV campaign from 1984 through 2008.

Stewart told me he may want to make his own website about the Hooded Key Holders and their nefarious plotz, but if he does publish some more of it here first I can see 1,000 comments in this thread’s future…

Nice inadvertent (or was it) Yiddish joke.