Libertarian debate on Fox Business lineup announced

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Johnson Petersen McAfee

http://libertybuzz.us/story/fox-business-libertarian-debate-details-announced/2016/03/06/194/

Don't know why the others were excluded, since there are a few other candidates on the ballot...

[James Bond 007]

I can't wait to watch it. 

[This account no longer in use.]

DWPERRY OR RIOT

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

DWPERRY OR RIOT

IIRC he didn't file his papers so technically he isn't a candidate

[sparkey]

Looking forward to it. The quality should beat the Mississippi debate by a lot. Apparently there was another debate in Georgia yesterday too, featuring McAfee and Petersen, but I can't find a video of it.

Stossel says he selected the top 3 using a "poll," but even if there wasn't a poll, it's obvious why they picked those three. Two are notable--Johnson and McAfee--and the third, Petersen, is a former Fox Business employee and therefore a colleague of Stossel.

[Leinad]

Would've like to see more than 3--Kerbel, Feldman, and of course PERRY, right off hand--but I'm looking forward to it nonetheless.

[Vosem]

This is the most exposure a debate within an American third-party has ever gotten, correct? The eventual nominee is decently likely to set a record for the Libertarian candidate, and probably post-2000 third parties generally, if _trump is nominated.

[standwrand]

Good for Petersen. I always thought he'd lose to Johnson for the nomination, but now it's looking like he could win.

[sparkey]

Good for Petersen. I always thought he'd lose to Johnson for the nomination, but now it's looking like he could win.

What's making you think Petersen could win? Just that he was invited to a debate? So far, we've gotten a good idea of Presidential preference through member votes from MN and MS/AL Libertarians, and they agreed on the order: (1) Johnson, (2) McAfee, (3) Petersen, (4) Perry. The gap is pretty big between (1) and (2), although McAfee seems to be able to narrow it if the vote takes place after a live debate. Petersen is more distant, and Perry, although he has been debating well at state conventions, is the second choice of very few and so he doesn't have much ability to climb.

[sparkey]

Incidentally, for those interested in the state convention debates taking place before the Stossel debate, here is the Georgia one, featuring McAfee, Petersen, Pretend Gary Johnson (Jim Gray), and some others:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5kbIebhvB8
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC9ZxAd1o3I
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52yVQUViSiE

Real Gary Johnson wasn't there because he was busy debating DW Perry in Virginia (not a joke). I don't know if they posted video of that one.

There should be another debate in North Carolina today: http://www.lp.org/event/libertarian-party-presidential-debate-0

[Crumpets]

DWPERRY OR RIOT

IIRC he didn't file his papers so technically he isn't a candidate

Can't believe Fox is on its knees for the authoritarian nightmare that is the FEC.

[SteveRogers]

I must applaud Fox Business's decision to air this on April Fool's Day.

[MisterElection2001]

If Petersen wants to clentch the nomination, he really needs to walk away from his non-libertarian views. He didn't get invited to the Libertarian Party of Colorado's convention because of his differing views. I personally support him, but this is going to be the an uphil battle for him.

[sparkey]

If Petersen wants to clentch the nomination, he really needs to walk away from his non-libertarian views. He didn't get invited to the Libertarian Party of Colorado's convention because of his differing views. I personally support him, but this is going to be the an uphil battle for him.

It's a tough road for Petersen because he's in the same vicinity as Johnson on the purist/pragmatist scale. McAfee could win by positioning himself slightly to the purist side of Johnson, drawing support from radicals, but not so far that he alienates the bulk of the party. He already has L. Neil Smith's endorsement and his debate performances have been great. Basically, McAfee is doing it right. But Petersen? If he walked back his anti-NAP stance, he still wouldn't be trusted, and Johnson is sapping all of the pragmatist support. Pragmatists like actual experience, and "Governor" beats "TV producer."

What would make Petersen anybody's top choice? Since you're apparently one, maybe you could answer that for me?

[Maxwell]

Johnson is really blowing it if he isn't center stage.

[PaperKooper]

I must applaud Fox Business's decision to air this on April Fool's Day.

[sparkey]

For those who can't wait for Stossel, the NC debate is tonight at 9PM Eastern, and will be available here: http://bit.ly/libertarian_debate

Candidates in the NC debate will be Gary Johnson, Austin Petersen, Steve Kerbel, DW Perry, and Jack Robinson. McAfee wasn't invited because he's not on North Carolina's primary ballot for some reason.

[This account no longer in use.]

Glad to see that DWPERRY wasn't cruelly cut out of the NC debate.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

If Petersen wants to clentch the nomination, he really needs to walk away from his non-libertarian views. He didn't get invited to the Libertarian Party of Colorado's convention because of his differing views. I personally support him, but this is going to be the an uphil battle for him.

It's a tough road for Petersen because he's in the same vicinity as Johnson on the purist/pragmatist scale. McAfee could win by positioning himself slightly to the purist side of Johnson, drawing support from radicals, but not so far that he alienates the bulk of the party. He already has L. Neil Smith's endorsement and his debate performances have been great. Basically, McAfee is doing it right. But Petersen? If he walked back his anti-NAP stance, he still wouldn't be trusted, and Johnson is sapping all of the pragmatist support. Pragmatists like actual experience, and "Governor" beats "TV producer."

What would make Petersen anybody's top choice? Since you're apparently one, maybe you could answer that for me?

Gary Johnson has a scary monster face, and McAfee is an amphetamine addict and possible murderer.

[MisterElection2001]

If Petersen wants to clentch the nomination, he really needs to walk away from his non-libertarian views. He didn't get invited to the Libertarian Party of Colorado's convention because of his differing views. I personally support him, but this is going to be the an uphil battle for him.

It's a tough road for Petersen because he's in the same vicinity as Johnson on the purist/pragmatist scale. McAfee could win by positioning himself slightly to the purist side of Johnson, drawing support from radicals, but not so far that he alienates the bulk of the party. He already has L. Neil Smith's endorsement and his debate performances have been great. Basically, McAfee is doing it right. But Petersen? If he walked back his anti-NAP stance, he still wouldn't be trusted, and Johnson is sapping all of the pragmatist support. Pragmatists like actual experience, and "Governor" beats "TV producer."

What would make Petersen anybody's top choice? Since you're apparently one, maybe you could answer that for me?

He can get more than just the Libertarian vote. With Trump likely to be the Republican nominee, the anti-Trump Republicans can easliy back the Libertarian nominee for president, and with Austin Petersen's pro-life and anti-NAP views, they'd be more happy to support him over Johnson or McAfee.

[PaperKooper]

Good for Petersen. I always thought he'd lose to Johnson for the nomination, but now it's looking like he could win.

What's making you think Petersen could win? Just that he was invited to a debate? So far, we've gotten a good idea of Presidential preference through member votes from MN and MS/AL Libertarians, and they agreed on the order: (1) Johnson, (2) McAfee, (3) Petersen, (4) Perry. The gap is pretty big between (1) and (2), although McAfee seems to be able to narrow it if the vote takes place after a live debate. Petersen is more distant, and Perry, although he has been debating well at state conventions, is the second choice of very few and so he doesn't have much ability to climb.

Since you seem to know a good bit about the process, how exactly are delegates selected for the convention?  Wikipedia tells me there are three primaries, but are the rest state conventions?  Is there any website with a timeline and results?  Thanks!

[sparkey]

Since you seem to know a good bit about the process, how exactly are delegates selected for the convention?  Wikipedia tells me there are three primaries, but are the rest state conventions?  Is there any website with a timeline and results?  Thanks!

I'm not exactly sure about the details of the delegate selection process, but I think it's basically done on a state party level, and delegates aren't typically bound to a candidate. The idea is that delegates should make up their minds after hearing the candidates at the National Convention debate. The primaries don't really affect anything. The California primary isn't even until after the National Convention has already picked a candidate!

The LP.org website has the best calendar I know of: http://www.lp.org/event

[PaperKooper]

Since you seem to know a good bit about the process, how exactly are delegates selected for the convention?  Wikipedia tells me there are three primaries, but are the rest state conventions?  Is there any website with a timeline and results?  Thanks!

I'm not exactly sure about the details of the delegate selection process, but I think it's basically done on a state party level, and delegates aren't typically bound to a candidate. The idea is that delegates should make up their minds after hearing the candidates at the National Convention debate. The primaries don't really affect anything. The California primary isn't even until after the National Convention has already picked a candidate!

The LP.org website has the best calendar I know of: http://www.lp.org/event

Thanks for the info.  That's pretty weird that the primary would be after the convention. 

[sparkey]

Thanks for the info.  That's pretty weird that the primary would be after the convention. 

That's more of an artifact of the way California does things than the way the Libertarian Party does things. In California, if you're an official political party, you get a Presidential primary the same time as all of the other parties. This year, that's after the Libertarian National Convention, which isn't affected by the results of that primary anyway.

[5280]

This will be interesting to watch.