Wednesday, April 30, 2008
LP blog/ daily poll
The LP HQ staff posted a blog entry about one of their typically inept 'daily poll' questions:
http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000727.shtml
On Thursday, the LP used a suggestion for its "Daily Poll" on the LP Web site. The question stayed up over the weekend, and quickly became one of the most responded to questions in recent memory. I thought the results were quite interesting, given the large response, but also more importantly, how diametric the results were. I do not wish to add commentary to the results, but simply wish to post the results for those who many not have had a chance to see them.
What type of LP presidential candidate do you want? (408 votes)
A "purist" - 30 (7%)
A long established Libertarian activist - 22 (5%)
Someone who can communicate our basic message to voters outside our party - 356 (87%)
I'll quickly pass over the bizarre sentence '[T]he results were quite interesting, given ... how diametric the results were'
How 'diametric'? What? What does that even mean?
But moving on; the fundamental issue here is that either the staff member responsible for this is incompetent at creating polls or he actually beleives that the categories "purist" (undefined), "long established Libertarian activist", and "Someone who can communicate our basic message to voters outside our party " are mutually exclusive.
If it's the former (simple incompetence), the situation is bad enough but can be improved dramatically and quickly by having an active committee (composed of LNC members and other Party activists) to review publications before they can embarrass the Party with their middle-school quality. If it's the latter (the idea that 'activist' and 'communicator' are mutually exclusive categories), the situation is much more serious and needs a more fundamental approach. The national HQ staff should not in any way be advancing the notion that being an activist (or a "purist") means that a Party member is not a good communicator of the libertarian message.
I suspect there is some combination of incompetence and an acceptance of the - utterly mistaken, in my opinion - notion that activists and 'purists' make poor communicators. Combined with the past two incompetent/or/worse releases, this is yet more evidence that there are serious oversight problems with the national staff.
My answer to the question "What type of LP presidential candidate do you want?"?
Well naturally, I want a "purist" longtime activist who can effectively communicate our basic message to voters outside the Party.
Fortunately, there is one: Mary Ruwart.
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com/lnc
¶ 9:23 AM
http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000727.shtml
On Thursday, the LP used a suggestion for its "Daily Poll" on the LP Web site. The question stayed up over the weekend, and quickly became one of the most responded to questions in recent memory. I thought the results were quite interesting, given the large response, but also more importantly, how diametric the results were. I do not wish to add commentary to the results, but simply wish to post the results for those who many not have had a chance to see them.
What type of LP presidential candidate do you want? (408 votes)
A "purist" - 30 (7%)
A long established Libertarian activist - 22 (5%)
Someone who can communicate our basic message to voters outside our party - 356 (87%)
I'll quickly pass over the bizarre sentence '[T]he results were quite interesting, given ... how diametric the results were'
How 'diametric'? What? What does that even mean?
But moving on; the fundamental issue here is that either the staff member responsible for this is incompetent at creating polls or he actually beleives that the categories "purist" (undefined), "long established Libertarian activist", and "Someone who can communicate our basic message to voters outside our party " are mutually exclusive.
If it's the former (simple incompetence), the situation is bad enough but can be improved dramatically and quickly by having an active committee (composed of LNC members and other Party activists) to review publications before they can embarrass the Party with their middle-school quality. If it's the latter (the idea that 'activist' and 'communicator' are mutually exclusive categories), the situation is much more serious and needs a more fundamental approach. The national HQ staff should not in any way be advancing the notion that being an activist (or a "purist") means that a Party member is not a good communicator of the libertarian message.
I suspect there is some combination of incompetence and an acceptance of the - utterly mistaken, in my opinion - notion that activists and 'purists' make poor communicators. Combined with the past two incompetent/or/worse releases, this is yet more evidence that there are serious oversight problems with the national staff.
My answer to the question "What type of LP presidential candidate do you want?"?
Well naturally, I want a "purist" longtime activist who can effectively communicate our basic message to voters outside the Party.
Fortunately, there is one: Mary Ruwart.
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com/lnc
¶ 9:23 AM
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I voted for "Someone who can communicate our basic message to voters outside our party," with the likes of Ruwart and Browne particularly in mind.
Steve Kubby is another such candidate who fits all three criteria.
Speaking of the purist vs. Milsted fight, whatever happened to Sean Haugh after his comments that he'd vote for a Republican over you? He should be FIRED from his spot as national Political Director over that one.
Post a Comment
Speaking of the purist vs. Milsted fight, whatever happened to Sean Haugh after his comments that he'd vote for a Republican over you? He should be FIRED from his spot as national Political Director over that one.
Links to this post:
<< Home
