Harris, on the other hand, got 97.2% of the vote on the first ballot at the DNC.
Does Jo Jorgensen claim some moral superiority over Kamala Harris due to convention vote totals?
I’m not familiar with what Jo’s comments on the subject, and it’s certainly fair to point out that she, Oliver, and the LP in general are effectively irrelevant in the national political picture.
But in the post-mortem of the D loss in 2024, it’s not unreasonable to consider whether things would have been different had the ultimate nominee been selected via the (admittedly imperfect) primary process, or by a competitive vote of convention delegates.
Yes, she received almost all of the votes of convention delegates…but by the time delegates were asked to vote, party leaders had already trimmed the ballot to a single candidate.
My comments here are not intended to malign Harris. If I were to point a finger of blame, it would be at Biden for not sticking with comments made in 2020 that he’d only be up for a single term, and for staying in the contest beyond the point where a different nominee could viably be selected by folks other than party leaders.
I do think Harris’ selection was understandable and not unreasonable under the circumstances…but those circumstances shouldn’t have happened in the first place. And it’s entirely possible, given public perception of inflation, different circumstances wouldn’t have made a damned difference in the outcome.
1 Like
The problem with libertarianism (and one of the reason I put qualifiers when I use that label to describe my views) is that like many -isms, it relies on assumptions that don’t translate to reality. For a libertarian utopia, you need informed people to make rational decisions and to generally be decent humans.
The problem with Libertarians like Jo is that they are inflexible in relaxing their stances to bridge theory with reality.
And the problem with many folks adopting the libertarian label is that they’re doing so as cover for irrationality, or to defend their wish to act on some horrible beliefs.
Ok, I think you and I more or less agree. But the irony of Jo Jorgensen, who failed to even win a plurality of her own party’s primary, having anything to say about Harris’s selection as Dem candidate is just beyond ludicrous.
I mean if Trump or Stein or … just about anyone else made the exact same comment … ok.
But Jo Jorgensen is in absolutely no position whatsoever to criticize someone for being un-democratically appointed by her party.
1 Like
As a former libertarian, I believe that many libertarians embrace the ideology because they know that they will never have to bring to bear their beliefs. They get to be backseat drivers and armchair experts, criticizing everyone and everything without an actual plan to fix problems or ease suffering. It provides cover for apathy and absolves of social responsibility.
3 Likes
I see what you’re saying…but I think that basing that criticism on Jo having not won a majority of support in primaries doesn’t really work once you realize that Libertarian primaries for the Presidential race are little more than political masturbation and an excuse for intra-party campaigning by potential candidates. They aren’t relevant to the nominating process. Only the votes cast by delegates at the convention matter, and unlike the D and R conventions, delegates are free to vote as they wish.
The extent to which that process is less democratic than the normal modern D and R process is debatable - D’s and R’s certainly allow more people to actually vote, although the extent to which the votes actually matter is debatable, as is the eligibility to vote.
However, before the powers that be decided Harris was going to be the nominee, I was expecting the D’s to do something similar to what the LP normally does (although I doubt a “none of these candidates” option would have been incorporated), and I do wonder whether having had a campaign leading up to that vote would have resulted in a sufficiently strong candidacy to overcome the loss of inertia during that party interregnum.
She didn’t even win a plurality… she won 2 states and 11% of the vote, barely getting more votes than this guy (whose name is “Vermin Supreme”):
The relative success of Vermin Supreme touches upon why, after I joined the LP at age 18, I declined to renew my membership one year later.
I realized the LP organization includes a high proportion of people who are f’n nuts.
Fast-forward to last year, when hot mics during the balloting at the LP convention picked up some pretty horrific conversations…and that’s when I started looking for a better label for my political philosophy (haven’t found it yet, unfortunately).
(Had Rectenwald won the LP nomination, 2024 would have been the second time I didn’t vote for the Libertarian candidate for President.)
2 Likes
Totally in agreement.
This election was unique in that the President said he was running until he said he wasn’t. Be mad about it, whatever, it happened and the DNC had to make a choice - have a chaotic open primary that, in my opinion then and now, seemed to have little chance of producing a victor, or slide the nominated VP to the top of the ticket? My only regret is it didn’t happen sooner, but the pressure had to sufficiently mount to push Biden out.
People can be mad, but ultimately the populace needs to be guided if a candidate is to be viable. The party is that structure of guidance. The party can lose the faith of its would-be constituents but has the authority to make the decisions it chooses.
1 Like
haha that guy made me laugh
Here is the UK version of the Libertarians
Count Binface
Lord Buckethead
That’s the same party, isn’t it? “Lord Buckethead” ended up being copywrited so they had to change to Count Binface.
Matt Parker had a video about it. He was an observer at the vote count for the party.
Josh: What happened to the good old days when a couple of hacks with cigars chose the nominee in a smoke-filled back room?
Leo: They didn’t do so bad, did they? Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower.