Tag: 2016 Presidential race

President Johnson?

Gary Johnson, Williamn Weld, libertarian, party, president, election

An unusual year, far from over.

This week, the Libertarian Party holds its presidential nominating convention in Orlando, Florida. Next November, after all the votes are counted, the party’s likely nominee, former two-term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and his likely vice-presidential running mate, former two-term Massachusetts Governor William Weld, may finally be going to Disney World.

To celebrate … before moving into the White House.

Crazy? Sure. But this is the year for crazy.

Polls show Gov. Johnson garnering 10 percent support. With both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton drowning in their own negatives, plenty more votes are winnable to the right, left and everywhere in between Crooked Hillary and the Trumpster Fire.

Okay, sure, but … win the presidency?

One needs 270 electoral votes to be elected president and to win states to nab those electoral votes. In 1992, Ross Perot received 19 percent of the vote nationwide, without winning a single state.

But what if Johnson won his home state of New Mexico? In 2012, he got only 3.6 percent in the Land of Enchantment. If that grew ten-fold to 36 percent in a three-way race, he could prevail.

And, as explained at A Libertarian Future, if Trump carried enough swing states (say, Colorado, Florida, and Ohio) to keep Clinton from reaching 270 electors, the whole shebang … would be thrown into the House of Representatives.

Who trusts Congress to choose responsibly?

Yet, with the Libertarian ticket sporting this much horse-race relevance, more Americans might contemplate greater freedom and less Big Brother government.

Think liberty, America.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Gary Johnson, Gov Gary Johnson, libertarian, Presidential campaign 2016, William Weld

national politics & policies political challengers

Fat Lady Score

Donald Trump, Statistics, popularity, strategy, Hillary Clinton, president

You’ve heard the news: Donald Trump is now the Republican Party’s “likely presumptive nominee” for president. It’s a very modern-sounding term.

His 16 opponents have, one by one, suspended their campaigns. In coming weeks, as the billionaire businessman wins uncontested primaries, we’re told he’ll be “awarded” enough delegates to reach the magic number of 1,237 — a majority.

For weeks, Mr. Trump had been yelling that the Republican National Committee was rigging the process to block his nomination. Now, RNC Chair Reince Priebus and a host of establishment Republicans have endorsed Mr. Trump, including former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 nominee, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“You have to listen to people that have chosen the nominee of our Republican Party,” John McCain told CNN. “I think it would be foolish to ignore them.”

McCain raises several interesting issues, worth considering over the next few days.

Let’s consider foolishness, first. There is a pragmatic argument against Trump as the nominee. While polls show Trump losing to Hillary, with 28 percent viewing him favorably against 65 percent unfavorably, a Politico story argues that, “A generic Republican might have been a favorite for the White House.”

Yet, most of the opposition to Trump isn’t pragmatic, it’s a matter of hardworking, grassroots Republicans who sincerely believe his positions don’t fit the party’s principles, or that his behavior has fallen short. Agree or disagree, but those are worthy considerations.

It’s a time for choosing. More tomorrow.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016

ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Negative, Positively

Negative space, positive space, election, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump

In art class, students learn about “negative space,” how positively one can react to artistic representations and indications of absence, of the space between objects, “blank” space. This land of shadow and reified Absence can have a powerful impact on our perceptions.

Well, behold, the piece of work that is major-party politics in America, 2016.

Usually we pretend that our elections are about what we approve of, about who and what we are for. But this year, with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton the likely nominees of their respective parties (Ted Cruz having pulled out after being trounced, Tuesday, in the Hoosier State, and John Kasich, likewise, yesterday morning), the positive spin on negativity will ramp up to new levels. As Anthony L. Fisher observed primary night on reason.com, Trump and Clinton are the most- and second-most hated major party politicians ever, polling the negatives “even higher than 2004-era George W. Bush.” (Who won.)

With the negatives of both candidates looming so large, is it too obvious to take note of the high likelihood of an extremely negative campaign coming up?

Maybe we should gamble on the terms of opprobrium that will be let loose:

Traitor, incompetent, corrupt crony-pushing insider, harpy of modish feminism.…

Buffoon, racist, corrupt crony capitalist, chauvinist of the vulgar tongue.…

Into this negative space we can expect a rush of interest in minor-party challengers, Libertarians and Greens. Protest votes could hit new heights. And they might make a difference.

But can anyone really profit from such negative space? Color me dubious.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money.

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, negative space, positive space, Presidential campaign 2016

Accountability free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism national politics & policies

You’re Fired! Hillary-style

Post author By CS Admin
Post date May 4, 2016
2 Comments on You’re Fired! Hillary-style

“I’m the only candidate,” Hillary Clinton boasted at a town hall back in March, with “a policy about how to bring economic opportunity — using clean renewable energy as the key — into coal country. Because we’re going put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right Tim?”

First, who is this “Tim” fellow? Aren’t you curious? The news media, typically unhelpful, provides no context.

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton supports the Obama Administration polices that have been disastrous for the coal industry. “Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels,” she explained.

Monday, in West Virginia, Clinton met unemployed coal worker Bo Copley, who teared-up talking about his family and being out of work. He asked Hillary, “I just want to know how you could say you are going to put a lot of coal miners out of jobs and then come in here and tell us how you’re going to be our friend?”

Mrs. Clinton told Copley that it was “a misstatement.” And that what she said was “totally out of context” from what she meant … whatever that means.

“[T]he way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs,” she explained. “I didn’t mean that we were going to do it. What I said was, that is going to happen unless we take action to try to and help and prevent it.”

Yes, Hillary has a plan — not to “prevent” losing coal jobs, but, instead, to spend $30 billion in tax dollars to help those her policies hurt.

As one West Virginian passionately put it: “We don’t want your handouts; we want work.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, coal, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016, renewable energy

folly free trade & free markets meme moral hazard national politics & policies

Trump’s Dangerous Idea

Donald Trump, trade, protectionism, Donald Trump, war, borders, Bastiat

A lot of people were impressed by the reasonableness of Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech yesterday … despite the usual hyperbolic promises of “best” and “great” and “beautifully.”

Its general tenor? Refreshing. Rejecting post-Cold War foreign policy for a return to “national interest” and “America first”? Long overdue. Like Trump, I think we should eschew nation building.

But still there is that one big problem: Trump is a mercantilist. He believes in protectionism. He thinks that trade has to be “fair” in order to benefit both participants. He thinks NAFTA and similar trade agreements (which generally promoted trade while still reserving a lot of room for government futzing about) are what hurt American industry. Trump is always blaming the “bad deals” made with Mexico and China, rather than placing the blame where it squarely belongs, on

America’s world-high corporate income tax, and
chaos of regulatory excess, and
impenetrable tax code.

But protectionism makes sense to a lot of people. They are incredulous when they hear the (well-established) idea that free trade — even unilateral free trade — is a benefit to the people who live under it.

Surely, they snort, when you target aid or protection to some industries, you are doing good, right?

Wrong. Oh, yeah, of course protectionism protects the chosen few, the advantaged. That’s what it obviously does. But it doesn’t protect the general interest – consumers pay more and producers allocate resources to less valued uses.

You have to look beyond the obvious (“the seen”) to get the full picture (“the unseen”).

Trump’s at his most dangerous right here — forget his loose talk — by continuing to pretend that protectionism helps America.

We cannot afford another Smoot-Hawley.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bastiat, borders, Donald Trump, Presidential campaign 2016, protectionism, trade, war

Accountability general freedom government transparency moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

Big-Dollar Impact

campaign finance reform, contributions, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, corruption

Last Saturday, The Washington Post’s top-of-the-front-page headline blared, “50 donors with outside impact.”

If that doesn’t curdle your blood, readers were further warned of a new “Gilded Age.” Yes, in concentrated fundraising the Post heard “echoes of the end of the 19th century, when wealthy interests spent millions to help put former Ohio governor William McKinley in the White House.”

McKinley. The horror. The echoes.

Hopefully, self-immolations can be kept to a bare minimum as Americans discover the report’s main (only) thrust: 41 percent of $607 million contributed to 2,300 super PACs this election cycle has come from just 50 donors … at least, if you also aggregate gifts from the relatives of these 50 folks and their business interests as well.

Isn’t that terrifying? Destructive of democracy? Are our elections simply being bought by the billionaires?

No. No. And no.

Any common sense analysis of this year’s presidential contests, both Republican and Democrat, must acknowledge that big money did not trump. Pun intended. Sen. Bernie Sanders is now outraising Hillary Clinton with millions of small donations — not “millionaires and billionaires.” Jeb Bush’s massive financial warchest made no discernible difference. Even the Post concedes “the mixed impact that big-money groups have had on the presidential contest so far.”

Mixed? Name a single state where “big spending” determined the outcome.

Ideas matter. And securing the resources to advance and advertise ideas obviously matters, too. Same goes for candidates — and their ideas.

More money, more campaign spending, means more ideas and candidacies can reach the political marketplace. That’s where voters, not big donors, do the deciding.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF