The Johnson-Weld ticket had its second CNN primetime special on Wednesday, with the duo once again missing a great opportunity to be taken seriously by most of the country. While it’s great to see cable news acknowledge viewpoints outside of the corrupt duopoly (monopoly?) of the status quo, the attention given to the Libertarian Party during this unconventional election year is a constant reminder of how foolish it was for the LP to nominate an uncharismatic space cadet who seems utterly uninterested in any serious intellectual discussion. In a desperate attempt to be taken as seriously as the two major parties in DC, they have followed their example by selling out its principles for the false hope of boosting its ability to fund raise.

CNN’s town hall was the perfect example of the ineptitude of the Johnson-Weld ticket. The event started out with Gary Johnson’s ritual of telling the world how much he admires and loves his Vice Presidential candidate, selling the ticket as “two-presidents-for-the-price of one” (the horror.) Unfortunately, while Johnson’s libertarianism may be shallow, Weld’s is non-existent. Just in the course of this campaign, he has actively defended gun control, the IRS, and his good friend Hillary Clinton; and during the CNN debate went on to defend laws on prostitution, repeated his call for a new ISIS task force, and called for a government jobs for black Americans.

Bill Weld’s views are about as unappealing as Gary Johnson’s stage presence.

During one of the first questions regarding LGBT issues, Gary Johnson was given the opportunity to clarify his infamous comments regarding bakeries being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings. While Gary Johnson’s opinion of religious freedom being a “black hole” is troubling, his attempted clarification drifted to the bizarre as he argued that while a baker should have to sell a cake, he shouln’t have to frost it. While it’s good to hear Gary Johnson defend the free expression of cake decoration, his modification of his position only invites more questions. It honestly seems as if Gary Johnson views the whole gay wedding cake scenario as one in which a wedding party tried to buy a wedding cake the day of their special day, and were promptly physically removed from the store – instead of the store turning down an inquiring gay couple for cake that had-yet been baked. Perhaps in Gary Johnson’s Uber-everything utopia, he envisions bakeries as Subway-style stores where customers get cakes decorated on demand at the point of purchase?

As bad as his attempted clarification was, however, the true lowlight of the night came during the two opportunities Gary Johnson had to bash Hillary Clinton. In a truly strange spectacle, Johnson’s face seem genuinely pained as he stammered out the suggestion that Hillary was guilty of “pay to play” and a mild critique of her blood thirsty foreign policy. It is not surprising to see Bill Weld defend his good friend, but for Gary Johnson to be so gun shy at attacking a woman so reviled as Hillary Clinton is astonishing.

It’s also a major reason why I’ve come to label the LP nominee as Sad Sack Gary Johnson. While some have accused me of being vulgar, “sad sack” simply means “a person who is not successful or able to do things well,” and this is the only way I can describe Johnson’s performance so far. In an election year where people are looking to upset the established order, Gary Johnson has made an explicit attempt to highlight how similar he and Bill Weld are to “respectable” politicians in Washington. While he’s succeeded in earning kind words from Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin, he is constantly leaving votes on the table. Be it his desire to constantly highlight how pro-choice he is, alienating social conservatives worried about Trump, to his refusal to bring up the Fed and Wall Street when receiving questions from Bernie Sanders supporters – Gary Johnson is simply playing a bad strategy to broaden his appeal.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a strong enough demand for a non-Trump/Hillary candidate that Gary Johnson is sure to exceed his 2012 performance by leaps and bounds. Many from the LP, especially its current leadership, will try to point to those numbers as evidence that Gary Johnson’s brand of watered-down respectability politics is exactly the approach the Libertarian brand needs to be taken seriously in the future. Of course, nothing could be worse.

This is why it’s so important to ridicule Sad Sack Gary Johnson during the campaign. While I’m likely to vote for Johnson-Weld in November, with the goal being to give a third option a continued seat at the big boys table in future elections, the act is made so much more difficult by the performance he has provided during this election season. The Libertarian Party, as the only third party that claims access to all 50 ballots, had the opportunity to take advantage of an election where the majority of the public despised the nominees of both major parties, and instead they have proven to be as unserious an entity as they have long been perceived as.

In 1992, Ross Perot was able to ride a wave of political discontent to a 19% performance in a pre-internet world. Gary Johnson will likely come far short of that number in a time where it has never been easier to communicate a compelling message outside of the traditional institutions.

The American people were desperate for a candidate that seemed sane, capable, and confident.

Just as he did on Wednesday, Sad Sack Gary Johnson has routinely failed all three tests.

Senator Rand Paul has been facing off with Lexington, Kentucky Mayor Jim Gray for his Kentucky Senate seat. The difference between the two candidates is enormous. The son of former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Senator Paul has the libertarian influence while maintaining more conservative positions. He has opposed war, encroachments upon constitutional rights, and has been a firm opponent of big government.

Democratic challenger Mayor Gray is the complete opposite.

Previously, Mayor Gray has criticized the incumbent Republican for his support of civil liberties and opposition to fearmongering politics. He has also called for an increase of military spending, attacking Senator Paul for proposing more responsible defense spending.

The big question will be whether or not Kentucky will side with freedom in Senator Paul or with big government in Mayor Gray.

On August 4th, a new political poll dropped in Kentucky that surveyed the presidential election, general political positions and affiliations, as well as the United States Senate race. Among those surveyed, 52% of respondents identified Democrat and 39% Republican, while 7% are not a member of either party and 2% are unsure.

Given these statistics, over half of those polled being Democrats should hypothetically give an edge to Mayor Gray.

But the poll numbers paint an even more interesting picture, one of a less partisan voting bloc than what Americans are used to. While more than half of those surveyed are Democrats, Senator Rand Paul is actually polling ahead of Mayor Gray with a 12-point lead.

The reason behind this could be related to a number of points. First, the survey also shows that the respondents in the survey appear more conservative despite being Democrat. The respondents are more favorable to Republican nominee Donald Trump over his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, generally support the proposed border wall, and more often vote for Republican candidates.

It also can be reflective of Mayor Gray’s views as well.

Democrats generally tend to be opposed to war and are concerned about civil liberties. Individuals like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden remain behind bars or in exile outside of the country because they exposed abuses of the system. Those who have regularly worked to save America from descent into tyranny are mistreated and even driven away. Senator Paul himself has taken a stand against the surveillance state, something Snowden exposed massively before fleeing the country.

On the other hand, the Constitution is not a concern to Mayor Gray. He has been a strong advocate for depriving Americans of constitutional rights because they appear on a government watchlist,  and has even criticized Senator Paul for supporting due process. Mayor Gray believes that as soon as an individual is merely suspected of terrorist connections — without being found guilty in a court of law — they should be treated like a criminal.

Though the election still remains months away, it is refreshing to hear that Kentucky voters not only seem to embrace freedom, but are rejecting the big government platform that Mayor Jim Gray is running on. Mayor Gray falls behind as he pushes his campaign of fear, failing to sell voters on the need for more war, higher spending, and bigger government. If this trend continues, Senator Rand Paul should have no problem winning re-election in November.

United States Senator Rand Paul may not have gotten as far as many libertarians had hoped in the Republican presidential primary, but he still remains an influential political figure in the liberty movement. Controversies about past endorsements aside, the son of former Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been a strong advocate for liberty in the United States Senate and firm opponent of the left.

With all of this said, Senator Paul has remained a controversial figure. Past endorsements of individuals like Senator Susan Collins, former Governor Mitt Romney for President, and supporting Mitch McConnell have all resulted in his libertarian credentials being called into question.

Libertarians have also largely spent 2016 debating the Donald Trump issue. There are a number of policy positions that are clearly contrary to the message of liberty and are of great concern to any supporter of the Constitution. He believes Edward Snowden is a traitor, has embraced greater executive power, and can be arguably unstable in his temperament. For these reasons, many libertarians have refused to issue support for him, instead looking to third party options like former Governor Gary Johnson.

Other libertarians have jumped on the Trump Train regardless of these valid concerns purely because of the disruption his candidacy is causing. There is no denying the awkward position he is placing Republican leaders in as he shakes up the party. In general election politics, his lack of respect for political correctness is changing the national conversation.

Given that there are arguments for both approaches, which is correct? Where does Senator Rand Paul stand?

Senator Paul was strongly opposed to Trump during the primary, but also pledged to support the Republican nominee. Given that Trump is now the nominee, the two apparently contradictory positions could leave the Kentucky Senator going in either direction.

At FreedomFest, the topic of third party voting came up in a question to Senator Paul. His answer may be surprising to some.

Instead of making a case for Trump, against Johnson, or some other pragmatic approach, he simply opted to support the conscience of voters. His answer noted that each individual has a decision to make and the decision is their own. Some may believe the election comes down to two candidates and from there, they take a pragmatic approach. Others may stand more firm on their principles and find themselves unable to support either major party candidate, thus going third party.

In terms of his own vote, Senator Paul noted he signed an agreement to support the Republican nominee. Debates as to whether such a document should have been signed in the first place aside, he is at least honoring his word.

It’s a position that Senator Ted Cruz embraced when speaking at the Republican National Convention. While opposing Trump himself, his suggestion to voters wasn’t specifically for or against Trump. Instead, the argument was that the vote one makes must be in line with their conscience. If an individual feels that their conscience supports Donald Trump, then vote for Donald Trump. If an individual feels that their conscience cannot support Donald Trump, then don’t.

But at the end of the day, the decision on who to cast a vote for should be based on principles and not party. Senator Paul took this position recently, as Senator Cruz also did not too long ago and countless other conservative and libertarian activists have as well.

The Republican Party is in an extremely uncomfortable position at the moment. In any other year, the party would be circling around their presidential candidate and the party warriors would be marching off to battle in the general election. The storyline is the same every year: Democrats are bad people and must be stopped at all costs, because even a bad Republican is better than a good Democrat.

That all changed this year.

Donald Trump is leading the charge for the Republican Party against the Democrats and not all within the party are comfortable with that. Notable holdouts include former Governor Jeb Bush, who is also brother of former President George W. Bush and son of former President George H.W. Bush. Others include 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney as well. The #NeverTrump crowd has made opposing the party nominee on principled grounds mainstream.

While they are notable figures, they are hardly influential in the current political landscape. Individuals like House Speaker Paul Ryan are, however.

The storyline of Trump vs. Speaker Ryan has been another showdown between the anti-establishment uprising and the entrenched establishment. Speaker Ryan is as easily offended as a social justice warrior and as strong on conservative principles as a good Democrat. His watered down moderate politics has been representative of Republican politics for some time, but is now being rejected.

Trump represents the opposite of Speaker Ryan within the Party.

The heir to John Boehner’s throne, Speaker Ryan has taken on the role as party elder this election. He has attempted numerous times to act as one trying to keep the peace and call down the controversial party nominee. It has ultimately failed, as Trump has repeatedly either ignored it or outright rejected it.

Now the ante has been upped.

Now that Trump has taken his position as the official presidential nominee, he isn’t pushing blind unity. Instead, he’s remembering those who refused to support him and have attempted to undermine his parade. In an interview for the Washington Post, he refused to endorse Speaker Ryan in his primary, as well as Senator John McCain.

Speaker Ryan is facing a primary battle from Wisconsin businessman Paul Nehlen and Senator McCain is being opposed by Dr. Kelli Ward in Arizona. Ward has also been endorsed by former Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

In his comments to the Washington Post, Trump offered a personal endorsement of Speaker Ryan, stating he liked him. But in also praising Nehlen’s campaign, Trump notes the country’s need for strong leadership as a reason why he’s not ready to endorse the House Speaker.

Trump later stated he was happy with his decision to not back Speaker Ryan. Why wouldn’t he be? Regardless of feelings about Donald Trump the politician or character, refusing to back people purely because of partisan warfare is a positive step in American politics. No Republican should blindly support Speaker Ryan simply because he’s an incumbent Republican or a member of Republican leadership. They should consider his re-election campaign, but also consider the candidacy of Paul Nehlen. If Nehlen is the better candidate, why support Speaker Ryan? The better candidate should be the one winning the election, regardless of who the incumbent is.

Donald Trump is granting further legitimacy to grassroots activists within the Republican Party who want to make the Eric Cantor treatment of establishment moderates the rule, instead of the exception. Without actually endorsing Nehlen, Trump gave him a boost by snubbing Speaker Paul Ryan.

It’s not easy being former Florida Governor Jeb Bush this year. In an election cycle once seen as his, he watched everything go up in flames and was helpless to stop it. His supporters wouldn’t clap for him and his turnout was pathetic. Even after the political legacies of his former President father and two-term President brother, Jeb failed to gain any momentum this year.

Part of the reason why is the fall of the neoconservative movement. The other is the open refusal to again trust the Bush Dynasty. It also has to do with the foreign policy the United States of America has endured for the last decade and a half.

The Iraq War has again become a topic of conversation in recent months, but only escalated more with the appearance of a fallen soldier’s parents at the Democratic National Convention. Democrats, engulfed in chaos, were in desperate need of a moment. Their moment came in the form of Khizr Khan, a defiant father who lost his son in the Iraq conflict. Khan used his primetime slot to politicize his late son’s death in an attack against Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Predictably, Trump didn’t back down and instead held his ground. This led to an outcry on the left and the right, with many Republicans not riding the Trump Train still hitching a ride on the #NeverTrump bandwagon.

Among those is Jeb Bush, who lost his shot at glory when the ascension of Donald Trump happened. In a tweet, Bush labeled Trump as disrespectful towards the family.

Were Trump’s comments disrespectful? Like many other things he says, they can be offensive and hurtful. The refusal to acknowledge the boundaries of political correctness and acceptable thought has it’s pros and cons. The obvious benefit is not being beholden to party consultants, donors, and other leaders who prefer controllable candidates. The downside can be politically damaging statements and distracting controversies that force real issues to the side.

But regardless of what Trump could ever say, nothing is more disrespectful to the memory of United States Army Captain Humayun Khan than the fact he is gone and why. Jeb Bush refers to the loss of Captain Khan as the “ultimate sacrifice.” Without a doubt, Captain Khan is a hero, but would he had to have made such a sacrifice had we not been in Iraq?

We’ve recently seen the remaining pages of the 9/11 Commission Report declassified and it paints a disturbing picture. Among the revelations is the fact that Saudi Arabia did indeed have close connections to the suicide bombers that attacked us on September 11th, 2001. Even more disturbing is the fact the Bush Administration covered up this fact and forced America into Iraq.

Arguments about despots and tyrants aside, from a strategic and tactical perspective, Iraq made zero sense. If terrorism is the target and stopping it is the objective of the game, Saudi Arabia made a more suitable focus. Instead, Saudi Arabia utilized its close connections to not only the Bush family, but also the Clintons as well. With the support of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton under President George W. Bush, the United States of America invaded Iraq.

What did Captain Humayun Khan die for? This is a question that Jeb Bush should carefully consider when calling others disrespectful. If it weren’t for his brother using the United States military to fight political battles abroad instead of tackling terrorism, Captain Khan might be alive today.

The Democratic National Convention was a wreck. After the left criticized Republicans for failing to contain the #NeverTrump rebellion, the Democrats had their moment and it was worse. While Senator Bernie Sanders sold his soul for political favor in pushing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his supporters were standing firm in opposition to Clinton. Jill Stein banners were seen, Senator Sanders’ supporters booed party leadership, and progressives protested outside of the convention.

As the general election officially begins with Donald Trump leading the Republican Party, the Democrats have fallen apart.

Aside from the chaos, there was also the resignation of Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz triggered by a massive dump of e-mails between party leaders by Wikileaks. Among these files was proof that the Democratic National Committee all along had been in the bag for Clinton.

All of this could be forgotten however, if only the Democratic Party could just find its moment. Enter Khizr Khan.

Khan is the father of a soldier who died in Iraq and also a Muslim. He took to the stage to use his dead son as a political pawn against Trump and the Republicans. Repeatedly ripping policy points, Khan pointed out his son would have been banned by Trump and largely opposed. It was a strong speech that captivated even those who don’t normally follow politics, because it hit hard at home. While not everyone can relate to losing a child, many more can relate to having a child and knowing what that child means to them.

For parents, losing a child is beyond devastating. Khan and his wife likely felt an incredible amount of loss in this tragedy.

But in that case, why would Khan speak at the Democratic National Convention? The Democrats had come together to celebrate the nomination of Hillary Clinton. Clinton has a long history of supporting conflicts that endanger our troops and on questionable terms. Among these is the invasion of Iraq.

The Iraq conflict was where Khan lost his son.

Nothing can be taken away from the sacrifice of any soldier and nothing should be. Regardless of the reasons why a government engaged in war, it is the fault of the political leaders and not the soldiers. From Vietnam to Iraq, history has later shown after the fact that ambitious leaders eager for war will distort current events and stretch the truth to achieve their political goals.

Even if it means endangering the lives of soldiers.

This is why it is important to understand the hypocrisy in Khizr Khan’s defiant stand against Donald Trump. He’s playing politics, which is every American’s right, but he is also playing politics with the memory of his son. At the end of the day, Trump is likely not the politician most favorable to Muslims, but he is one who has spoken against the Iraq conflict. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq conflict.

Would a Muslim ban had wrongfully discriminated against Khizr Khan’s son? Absolutely. But the Hillary Clinton-supported invasion of Iraq got his son killed. Which is worse?

On that point, why would Khizr Khan speak at the coronation celebration of Hillary Clinton?

This election cycle has been trending on bizarre for months now. A year ago, nobody thought Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee. Nobody even thought he’d come within a mile of the coronation celebration in Cleveland. Like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party, this was meant to be former Governor Jeb Bush’s parade. Pundits called it for the heir to the Bush Dynasty for months and even as he stumbled under the pressure, those in the mainstream media and political elite still thought Bush had it.

History would be written differently.

Jeb Bush would be resigned to telling his own supporters to clap while running an awkward, uninspired campaign for the Republican nomination. He wasn’t the only one being outmatched however. Other types, such as Senator Marco Rubio, were falling down. A prominent warhawk and youthful neoconservative, Senator Rubio’s fall was a surprise to many of the same people who predicted Bush’s ascension to the nomination.

But it failed. And the common denominator among many fallen Republican candidates, including Jeb Bush and Senator Rubio, is the support for pro-interventionist, pro-surveillance state big government.

Donald Trump stands as the nominee after spending the election cycle slamming the invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation. He ripped the Bush family on national television straight to Jeb Bush’s face.

Whereas the Bush Dynasty has long been around, including seeing George W. Bush serve two terms as President, it has now fallen.

Naturally as the American people move away from the eagerness to go to war and massive surveillance programs by the government, the Libertarian Party would rise up. Carrying the name of the libertarian agenda, it is expected they would carry on the principles. Indeed, with favorability ratings for both major candidates freefalling, a third party has never had a better opportunity.

The Libertarian Party’s official Facebook page shared a meme from OutreachUSA encouraging voters to vote Libertarian, because we should declare “No More Bushes, Clintons, or Pauls.” Again, this isn’t entirely surprising given the name of the party. Libertarianism itself has never been in a better position to sell itself to the American people.

Apparently the Libertarian Party wasn’t serious, however.

In a press release responding to former Governors Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney considering support for Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark declared “The Libertarian Party is delighted that Govs. Bush and Romney are considering voting for our candidates, Govs. Johnson and Weld.”

No more Bushes? Welcome more Bushes!

Aside from the Libertarian Party welcoming warhawk neoconservatives like Bush and Romney, both Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld have had this bizarre trend of avoiding negativity towards Hillary Clinton. Weld has never passed up an opportunity to compliment her, also noting on separate occasions he doesn’t feel she’s done anything wrong and has committed no criminal acts.

Oppose Bush and Clinton? Say no more of them? That ship sailed when the Libertarian Party decided that a neoconservative former Governor in Bill Weld should be the party running mate. It sailed after Chairman Sarwark offered a conflicting message about opposing the big government Bush Dynasty.

Anyone who participated in the Libertarian Party’s 2016 presidential primary had to answer the three following internal questions: “which candidate best reflects my values, which candidate could actually succeed electorally, and which of those two answers is more important when I cast my vote?”

The answer to the first question varies. Given the fact that the Libertarian Party is made up of everyone from anarcho-capitalists to disaffected moderate Democrats to hundreds of ideological groups in between, it should be no surprise that the final candidates for the presidential nomination included a pro-life media entrepreneur, a software pioneer advocating the end of the TSA, and a former Republican governor opposed to “religious freedom” laws, among others.

However, even many of the staunchest ideological libertarians would concede that the candidate with the best chance of doing well electorally was Gary Johnson. He was, as Johnson supporters argued, the only candidate with elected experience to rival Hillary Clinton’s- this was true. He has successful business experience, like Donald Trump. He had also, as the Libertarian nominee in 2012, run a presidential campaign, and was going to use this experience to run even better this year against the two major party candidates with record-high unfavorable numbers.

Or so some Libertarians believed, anyways.

The Gary Gamble

Libertarians had answered the first two questions posed at the beginning of this piece. Gary Johnson was the intellectual match for very few, but he was widely perceived to be the most electorally viable. And when the delegates were given the choice- pick someone they agree with or pick someone they thought could win- they went all in and bet big on electability. They made the Gary Gamble.

And now it looks like the Libertarian Party will end the 2016 election cycle will end the way it has ended nearly every other presidential cycle: embarrassed, having failed to get any significant share of the vote, and on its way back to the drawing board.

The problem with going all in on electability is that the Libertarian Party failed to assure their nominee was an ideological libertarian at all. Besides anti-drug war statements and a desire to scale back U.S. military involvement overseas- two things also offered by Donald Trump- it is a challenge to find any meaningful libertarianism coming from Gary Johnson at all.

Did Hillary Clinton commit a crime by mishandling top secret emails and lying about it? No, says Johnson, she is a “wonderful public servant,” and a “great kid” according to vice presidential nominee Bill Weld. 

With regards to Trump, Johnson has pledged not to engage in “name-calling.” Except, of course, for the time he proudly called Trump a “pussy.” 

“We want the government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom,” said Weld. This is a great line, that if backed up by consistent policy proposals, could help voters understand the philosophy that supposedly underpins the Libertarian Party.

Unfortunately for those who would very much like to see the Libertarian Party do just one thing right for once, according to Johnson, it would “be [his] contention” that the government should force Jewish bakers to bake cakes for Nazi events. So much for getting government out of your business.

But all of this is what the Libertarian Party signed up for. The Libertarian Party knew the anti-libertarian ideology they were getting with Johnson and Weld. Remember- the party put all of their chips in the viability basket, and seemingly didn’t even make Johnson read about freedom of assembly in an attempt to hedge their bets. But, Johnson’s surrogates assured the Libertarian Party, when Johnson hits 15% and gets on the debate stage, it will be worth it.

Johnson’s campaign strategy- which is based around getting 15% in the polls, not winning the election, mind you- hinges on support from three important coalitions: disaffected #NeverTrump Republicans, spurned Bernie supporters, and those fed up with the major parties looking to cast a protest vote. The combination of the three would surely be enough to generate 15% polling numbers and break into the debates- once there, even if Johnson didn’t win, enough people would see and like the Libertarian message to generate momentum heading into 2018.

That strategy so far has been, without question, an absolute failure. Why?

• #NeverTrump Republicans have either resigned themselves to a caboose seat on the Trump Train or have decided to just stay home, unable to bring themselves to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

• Disaffected Bernie supporters are either following their “revolutionary” leader’s lead and supporting Clinton or voting for Trump as a protest vote.

• Trump has surged ahead with independent voters, who see him as more of a protest vote than Johnson. 

“Okay, fine,” a Johnson supporter may say, “but what about actual polling? How is Johnson doing nationally?”

Well, he’s getting schlonged. According to RealClearPolitics, as of July 30th, Johnson is sitting at 7.0%- barely enough to qualify the LP for federal funding next election cycle, and less than half of what he needs to participate in the presidential debates.

The “he’s just getting started” argument cannot be used to explain this. The last stand for #NeverTrump Republicans was last week at the Republican National Convention. The Democratic National Committee’s hacked emails were just released, confirming that the DNC had helped Clinton defeat Sanders in the primary.

And yet, Johnson has actually been declining in the polls since these two stories came out. With huge money coming in now for the RNC, DNC, and both of the two main parties’ presidential campaigns, it looks like Johnson’s window to gain support has been closed on his fingers.

Lessons

To learn from this year- and possibly the biggest missed opportunity in American electoral history- the Libertarian Party first needs to remember something every parent tells their teenager before their first date or job interview: you only get one shot at a first impression.

One thing needs to be established- most people have no idea what libertarianism is, and frankly, you can’t blame them. Before the Libertarian Party has any electoral success, they will have to be represented by a candidate who can eloquently advocate for libertarian principles and explain why small government is generally the best option.

When it comes to 2020, Libertarians will have a new mountain to climb, and must again answer the two questions posed at the beginning of this article; they must find a balance between ideological libertarianism and electoral viability.

They have seen what happens when they put all of their chips on viability. Only time will tell if they place their bets differently next time.

A lot has been said about the upcoming presidential general election, which involves the clashing of two widely unpopular major party candidates. A lot has been made of the issues surrounding Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, as the fair and balanced mainstream media devotes an unfair and biased amount of attention to his words instead of Hillary Clinton’s actions. Speaking of the former Secretary of State’s actions, while the media has not generally kept the heat on, people are hesitant to trust her with the nuclear codes or any sensitive data at all.

There are two different storylines regarding how we got to this point however.

Despite the media playing up the dissension within the Republican Party and disapproval of Trump among many within the party mainstream, the controversial businessman crushed the previous record for turnout set by former President George W. Bush. In 2000, Bush set the record with 12,034,676 votes. This year, Trump secured 14,009,107, or 45% of the vote. He is officially the most popular Republican primary candidate, historically speaking.

On the Democratic side, things appear less certain.

Much was made of the minor chaos at the Republican National Convention by Democrats, who watched the last stand of the #NeverTrump movement attempt to take down Trump. This would in the end look small in comparison to the mess that would haunt the coronation of Hillary Clinton in Philadephia.

As if tensions weren’t already high enough, Wikileaks then dropped almost twenty thousand e-mails between top Democratic National Committee officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The revelations were not only serious for Wasserman Schultz, but the overall conduct of party officials. Beyond the obvious favor for Hillary Clinton, it was also revealed that Hispanic outreach was referred to as “taco bowl engagement”and Latinos were “brand loyal customers.”

The supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders were lied to all through this election cycle. While they were long told there was no bias, there was actually collusion in progress by various party leaders. Wasserman Schultz herself had some vulgar opinions about Senator Sanders’campaign manager and even labeled her preferred candidate’s opponent as not being a real Democrat.

Progressive activists were never going to be included by the Democratic Party and like libertarians in the Republican Party, they will never be embraced by the party establishment. Hillary Clinton paying lip service to the progressive movement doesn’t make her progressive, progressive lite, or even remotely leaning that far to the left. She’s an establishment moderate.

Clinton and her campaign have insulted the intelligence of Senator Bernie Sanders supporters all along. Similar to how the Mitt Romney campaign treated the grassroots of former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the Senator Sanders grassroots were robbed of a fair fight. That’s not to say he could have won, maybe it was never meant to be. But the problem is we will never know because a fair fight was never allowed. It was rigged from the beginning.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t “feel the bern” and never will. Neither does the racist DNC and their hateful leaders. At that point, the only recourse Senator Bernie Sanders supporters have within the Democratic Party is to “bern it down.” The Democratic Party deserves to lose this one.

The ongoing e-mail saga involving Hillary Clinton has been a core issue in this election cycle. Republicans have utilized a political opportunity to go after the leading Democrat who eventually would secure the nomination, while Democrats have pointed out just that: it’s all politics. The problem is, no matter how much the issue is politicized, the issue is certainly relevant and absolutely critical. National security has never been more critical than it is now and with the rising threat of ISIS and other global menaces, we need to be prepared to combat it. If classified intelligence is being sent on unsecured, private servers, this risks exposure to those we seek to defeat.

The e-mail controversy has taken a new turn thanks to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who recently used a press conference to call on Russia to release Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.

The involvement of Russia in this election cycle has been gaining greater speculation in recent weeks due to Wikileaks, who recently released almost twenty thousand e-mails between top Democratic National Committee officials. It ignited a firestorm of controversy that has led to the fall of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman who has long been accused of bias against Senator Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary.

While the Democratic Party is over, the damage done by Wikileaks could have an impact on the general election. The involvement of the Russians presents a cause for concern among alarmists.

And now Donald Trump is asking Russia to intervene by releasing Hillary Clinton’s e-mails?

The Clinton campaign predictably responded by alleging Trump called for espionage against his political opponent. The problem here is that if you’re using the textbook definition of espionage, the claim is false. Google defines espionage as “the practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information.”

If Hillary Clinton, as she has constantly claimed, never had classified data on her server and those e-mails she deleted were only personal in nature, what makes Russian hacking espionage? Russia finding out about yoga practices or that Chelsea Clinton has a love life aren’t matters of national security.

If Clinton truly did not jeopardize any sensitive information and only deleted personal e-mails, there is no political or military advantage to be gained.

The statements by the Hillary Clinton campaign and her allies admit that this isn’t the case though. The idea that Trump has either committed treason or encouraged espionage only endorses the notion that Clinton broke the law in handling classified information. If Clinton is truly innocent and never was sending or receiving classified data over an unsecured private server, no espionage was committed because nothing of political or military value would be found.

The story lost to the mainstream media is the shocking admission by the Clinton camp. Instead of talking about the dangers of electing a President that has openly disregarded security protocols, the media is talking about phantom relationships between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Instead of asking what exists on that server to make a possible hack and release an act of espionage, the conversation is just more crying about how Trump is hurting our safe spaces.

The general election is finally locked in.  The Republican Party has nominated businessman Donald Trump and the Democrats joined the Associated Press in nominating Hillary Clinton to complete the uninspiring two-party offerings for President. The Libertarian Party is running Gary Johnson, who is consistently polling between 7 and 13% while Jill Stein tries to draw disillusioned supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders to the Green Party. While the two-party duopoly is showing fatigue, the two third party candidates in Johnson and Stein are enjoying increased media and mainstream attention.

Republicans are uniting around Donald Trump and the reluctance factor seems to be diminishing. This isn’t uncommon after primaries reach an end. Last election cycle, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was opposed to the end by supporters of former Texas Congressman Ron Paul and to a lesser degree, former United States Senator Rick Santorum supporters. While libertarians largely went elsewhere, many Republicans swallowed their pride and pulled for Romney.

In years past, bitter Hillary Clinton supporters united around Senator Barack Obama. In addition to recognizing a need to stop Senator Obama’s Republican colleague John McCain, many Democrats also noted that the Illinois Senator represented something different from the traditional party mainstream. This apparent outsider status represented an enormous opportunity for appeal and one the party capitalized on.

Romney lost in 2012, but still gained the respect of many Republicans because he had a business background and political experience. He was well-spoken, had executive experience, and has navigated politics for some time. Whatever philosophical disagreements existed, there was at least a record on paper that was reassuring for many.

For grassroots Democrats who in a lot of ways are similar to those who backed then-Senator Obama, understanding the progressive message and being able to communicate it well goes a long way. Senator Bernie Sanders communicated the issues well enough to attract young voters and emotional progressives, while inspiring grassroots Democrats to become involved. A force like this is what boosted the current President when he first ran.

Hillary Clinton has none of this however.

Her career involves being a legal defender for pedophiles and a vengeful career politician with a dull, wooden personality. She doesn’t have the executive experience that Romney had or even Gary Johnson, who is rising as a Libertarian presidential candidate. She isn’t well spoken, often sounding awkward when trying to appear human and coming across as bitter when attempting to be firm politically.

Despite whatever Senator Sanders himself tries to communicate, Clinton has limited to no progressive credentials and many activists know this. Whether they be the independent progressives that were apart of movements like Occupy Wall Street or grassroots activists for the Democratic Party, many are outraged at the Clinton nomination and predictably refused to support her.

Even Independent voters get this, which explains why Libertarian Gary Johnson is performing better among them than Clinton.

It begs the question: do legitimate, everyday supporters of Hillary Clinton even exist? The Democratic National Committee seem to suggest not, spending a great deal of time communicating why Donald Trump is bad for America, while making little case as to why Hillary Clinton is good. The best message in defense of the former Secretary of State seems to be the fact she’s not the other guy. For partisan voters and establishment party leaders, not being Donald Trump might be enough.

But for the more principled voters and everyday Americans sick of the two-party system, this isn’t enough. Hillary Clinton won’t win their support.

If there’s one thing that Republican nominee Donald Trump has perfected this election it’s the art of offending just about everyone. Democrats predictably loathe him and Republicans are in an increasingly uncomfortable position. Both of these facts are true because of the fine line between political incorrectness and going too far that Trump continuously walks. Only since Trump has risen to prominence and ultimately locked down the nomination has he grown worse.

Everyone’s safe space is in great danger right now. The threat of Donald Trump saying things is serious.

In a recent press conference discussing national security, Trump suggested that the Russians should step in and hack the e-mail servers of Associated Press-nominated candidate Hillary Clinton. In stating his hope that they could find the missing e-mails, Trump assured any Russian observers that they would be rewarded by the American media.

Trump wasn’t wrong about the mainstream media. The depth of reporting has become increasingly shallow, with journalists being reduced to errand boys for the political establishment that answer commands from their bosses. Honest journalists are an endangered species. If the Russians did take Trump up on his offer and hacked Clinton, the press wouldn’t be voicing concerns about the dangers to national security. They would instead be tying this all to Trump as if he has any control over Vladimir Putin or Russia itself.

It may not be honest, it may not be truthful, but at the end of the day, international drama with political intrigue involving the bombastic businessman will sell newspapers and generate Internet hits. In modern America, this is all that matters.

Should Russia hack Hillary Clinton’s e-mail servers? To understand why Trump said why he did, Americans must objectively look at the phenomenon that is his presidential campaign. He is less of a serious politician and more of a troll who knows all the buttons to push. People don’t like Russia because all of the politicians tell us we’re not supposed to and the idea of them aiding Wikileaks really bothers the Democrats.

Cold War mentality aside, Russia is not nearly as great a threat as the unstable nuclear threat of North Korea or the 9/11-aiding Saudi Arabian government that prosecutes people for simply being gay.

The idea of encouraging espionage and interference in foreign elections is not something that Donald Trump legitimately seemed to be in favor of, and later noted when clarifying it was sarcasm. If he supported regime change, interference in foreign politics, and swaying other country’s elections, he might have instead supported former Governor Jeb Bush or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for President. The uncomfortable truth about these things is it’s been a consistently American answer to the world’s many problems for decades. Don’t agree with Iran nationalizing their oil supply? The United States aided the 1953 coup d’etat against Iran’s democratically elected government. Had some political issue with Iraq? The United States invaded and destabilized the region, allowing for the rise of ISIS.

Hating Donald Trump is probably the most popular bandwagon in America right now next to Pokemon Go, but there was nothing treasonous about cracking a joke about Russia taking advantage of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information. Only in America, a country currently being swept down by the plague of Trump Derangement Syndrome, can being extremely careless with sensitive data not be criminal, but making a joke about said incident can be considered treason.

The United States of America truly has become the leading global advocate for the safe space. Unfortunately for many Americans however, violating that comfort zone is not illegal, yet.

President John Adams once said that the United States was “a government of laws, not men.” The Founders understood that the only justification for the unavoidable disparities in wealth, talent, and position in society was the equal application of the law. This July, many conservatives and libertarians lamented the supposed death of the rule of law with the decision of the FBI not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton. The truth of the matter is that the rule of law has been under attack in this country for almost 50 years.

The historical record is clear. When elites and their allies face legal consequences for malfeasance, their political or institutional associates protect them from punishment. If you are shocked by the FBI’s recent announcement, then you haven’t been paying attention.

When Richard Nixon was impeached by the House of Representatives for his connection to the break-in of the Democratic National Committee office located in the Watergate complex, he quickly resigned from office. Was he guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors? The American public will never know for sure. Nixon was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford, less than a year after his resignation.

In 2002, the Bush Administration, in concert with some of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies, authorized the warrantless wiretapping and data collection of thousands of U.S. citizens. Was this in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? The American public will never know for sure. In 2008, a bipartisan Congress granted the complicit telecom companies retroactive immunity, and no administration officials were ever investigated or prosecuted.

In the wake of the Iraq invasion, the Bush Administration authorized the wholesale torture of enemy combatants. Was this in violation of the Convention Against Torture? The American public will never know for sure. After spending most of the campaign season railing against this alleged violation, Barack Obama swiftly announced upon taking office that no investigation or prosecution of former Bush officials would take place.

According to Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics, over eleven million men and women were arrested in the United States in 2013. That is close to four thousand arrests per one hundred thousand people. The highest category of arrests were for alleged drug violations, with close to seven hundred thousand arrests for alleged marijuana violations. What hope do many of these fellow citizens have in the American criminal justice system? Overworked public defenders, coercion into plea deals to avoid maximum sentences, and the possibility of watching their children, friends, and loved ones live out their lives through the bars of a cage.

I do not know whether Hillary Clinton is guilty of risking the exposure of state secrets any more than I know whether Richard Nixon, or members of the Bush Administration would have been found guilty of their alleged crimes. That is the point. The due process applied to you and me does not apply to those in power in this country.

We used to believe that there are no kings in America; Thomas Paine once wrote that “In America the Law is King.” Now we know better. In America, the Will of Kings have become the Law.

On Friday, Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton named Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia her running mate for the 2016 election. This pick did not come as a surprise to political pundits, as the Senator was widely viewed a safe pick for the scandal-plagued candidate. Many people across the country may not know much about the Senator, however, because he is so safe. Over the coming months there will no doubt be many articles, op-eds, and the like telling us how great or how horrible he is, depending on the source. We already know quite a bit about Sen. Kaine, however, all it takes is a bit of research looking at his previous votes, quotes, and stances. Upon research, it looks like this pick could truly backfire for the Presidential hopeful.

First off, for the modern Democratic party Sen. Kaine is rather conservative, or at the very least not very liberal. He is pro life, and has supported bans on partial birth abortion multiple times. This is completely against how a majority of the party feels. He has also been previously quoted as calling opponents of free trade “losers”. Sen. Kaine supported the War in Iraq, and he is also an avid supporter of clean coal and offshore drilling. None of these positions are ones that typically come to mind when thinking of the left. Kaine has also been a consistent supporter of big banks which will infuriate the far left of the party, the very ones that Hillary needed to unite. In fact, even The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) thinks his Wall Street record is unacceptable. Maybe this will end up being a good ole Hulk Smash to Hillary’s chances of becoming our next President.

The other big problem is the opportunity that was missed with this selection. Politics is a ground game and it is all about grassroots and ultimately voter turnout. Well the DNC is faced with a pretty big problem right now, there is a loud group of devoted Bernie Sanders supporters that want their voice heard. They have made themselves heard this week at the DNC National Convention, continually booing as people tell them to fall in line behind Hillary. The selection of Sen. Kaine was a symbolic middle finger to the far left wing of the party. Instead of a Vice President they could get behind, they are stuck with a bank friendly pro life free trade nominee.

If Hillary had selected someone like Senator Elizabeth Warren or even Senator Sanders himself, a peace deal could have been brokered between the two warring factions. Instead, we have a ticket the left won’t be excited about. This creates a real issue when you consider what awaits them on the other side. Donald Trump is responsible for the largest primary and caucus turnouts in RNC history. That does not bode well for the bland ticket on the other side of the aisle. Like I said, elections are all about turnout, and there needs to be an excited base to boost that turnout. Sen. Kaine does not bring the needed excitement to the ticket.

Overall, Sen. Kaine ends up being a scoop of vanilla ice cream added to a bowl full of chocolate, it’s just not that exciting. On the other side of the aisle, however, you have a bowl of cookie dough and cookies and cream. They just don’t compare, and I suspect the election results will show that – but I wish boring and bland good luck against different and exciting.

For months, the storyline among moderate and mainstream Republicans as well as the media across the nation is that Donald Trump is dangerous. If he ever were allowed to become the Republican Party nominee, let alone President of the United States, the country would be set on a dangerous course. He speaks firm and loud, unafraid to hurl barbs and take down his opponents with offensive language. His principles at times can be undefined and principles often questionable. The unpredictability of a possible Trump Administration leaves a number of people concerned about the future of America.

But Donald Trump is going to be President of the United States.

There are realistically a limited number of scenarios that can play out. To get it out of the way, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein won’t become President. Stein’s best hope of catching fire was gaining the support of Senator Bernie Sanders, but the Vermont Senator has since sold out to Associated Press-nominated candidate Hillary Clinton.

Gary Johnson may be gaining ground unlike most other third party candidates in history, but it won’t be enough to secure the White House. The best thing he can do now is lay the groundwork for the future. Getting on the presidential debate stage would be enormous for the Libertarian Party, which is already experiencing widespread attention from the media and everyday Americans.

This leaves the only viable attempt to defeat Trump as Hillary Clinton, and that’s just not going to happen.

The Democratic Party is in chaos, ironically, after Democrats mocked Republicans for their combative National Convention in Cleveland. The difference is Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus didn’t get busted for siding with any candidate against the others or acting in any other corrupt capacity. There was no major scandal involving leaked e-mails or huge disturbing revelations.

There was just a skirmish between the #NeverTrump crowd and the rest of the Republican Party that is coming together around Donald Trump. For a moment in time, it was ugly, but it has essentially resolved. Those who do not like Trump are leaving to look elsewhere, whether it be at Gary Johnson or someone else.

Did it hurt Trump?

After the exodus of the #NeverTrump crowd and the present chaos at the Democratic National Convention, Trump stands ahead of Clinton in recent presidential polls. The spike in polls is only likely to continue for the controversial businessman because of how the Democratic Party has been and is currently operating. All of the worst suspicions of Senator Sanders’ supporters have been confirmed and no matter what the Vermont Senator himself says, most of them won’t support Clinton.

The chaos is worse on the left and it’s going to cost Clinton. Johnson is polling at 9% in recent polls and Stein at 3%, while past polls have held Johnson ahead of Clinton with Independents.  The fall of Hillary Clinton is in progress and it will enable the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States.

Prepare for it, America. The Democrats are giving it away to Donald Trump.