The Tennessee Secretary of State finished validating independent presidential petitions on August 31. Six were valid: Rocky De La Fuente, Howie Hawkins, Jo Jorgensen, Alyson Kennedy, Gloria La Riva, and Kanye West.
On August 31 two petitions that had been under review were rejected: those of Don Blankenship and Brock Pierce. Here is the link to the Secretary of State’s list of presidential candidates.
Wait, there were 12 ballot access petitions in Tennessee. What happened with the petitions for Phil Collins (Prohibition Party), Bill Hammons (Unity Party), and Horace Taylor?
This means that with these results, Gloria de la Riva will surpass the Constitution party in terms of electoral votes. She should have around 169 whereas Constitution party i
currently has around 154 electoral votes.
Jonathan, they were rejected a few days earlier.
I thought they only needed 275 signatures there? Mega Millionaire Don Blankenbooney couldn’t get that done?
Lack of leadership, plain and simple. Ergo, not qualified for the presidency anyway.
And wagers on how long the national CP will leave up their claimed ballot “access”?
It looks like 17 states with ballot qualification or access for the national CP.
Wow! Another easy state that the Drys botched. Sad.
@Floyd – Are you still counting Mississippi? I thought I had heard they were on their way out. But yeah, Alaska, Washington, New Mexico, Tennessee, and South Carolina are now blue on that map. If Blankenbooney won’t even run as a no-cost write-in in his own state, what makes anyone believe he will run as a write-in anywhere else? So the CP won’t even have those not insignificant 14,298 votes this year either: AZ, CT, DE, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, MN, MD, NY, RI, TN, TX, VT. Source: https://www.constitutionparty.com/elections/2016-national-results/
The CP really has to put out some statements about what has been going on for the past few months. Radio silence does no good for anything.They’ve not put out any comments about anything that’s happened these past months. I’d like to hear their Sid of all these stories. Terrible luck with their petitions though.
I thought Blankenship qualified for the ballot in Alaska.
Even Rocky De La Fuente (alliance/Reform) and Gloria La Riva (Socialism & Liberation) have more potential EC votes than the Constitution Party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_and_independent_candidates_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
Yes Brandon but that page is not fully accurate. It does not mention that Gloria de la Riva won Tennessee and as of yet there is no source aside from Wikipedia which by itself isn’t a source that mentions that she won Florida. Also on that page it mentions that Green Party has 392 potential EC whereas on this page in ballot access section it says that the Green Party has actually 412 potential EC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States
The Constitution Party needs to have their Presidential Nomination Convention the September before an Election year because they will have more time getting on more states.
There are states that do not require names of candidates on the petition, and where you start gathering signatures prior to the election year.
@ Becker: “Are you still counting Mississippi?”
No. I struck Washington, New Mexico, Mississippi and South Carolina from “the map” on the national CP website. The result is 17 states qualified or with access. I do not count whatever write-ins my happen along.
(And here, one must trust my basic math…sketchy that.)
It looks like Blankenship is probably going to end up with less votes than any Constitution Party presidential candidate before him.
@Andy: “thought Blankenship qualified for the ballot in Alaska”…Uncertain if that is true.
Well J.R. Myers apparently said he’s not on the ballot in Alaska, so I assume it’s Blankenship.
@ Andy: “Blankenship is probably going to end up with less votes than any Constitution Party presidential candidate before him.”
Maybe. But I doubt it will be quite that dire. I do believe Blankenship will struggle to best the 2012 return by Goode (~122,000 total).
In 2000, Phillips returned ~98,000, a substantial drop off from his 1996 return of ~185,000. And of course just starting out, Phillips polled ~43,000 votes in 1992…which should be treated as an outlier.
Becker above looked at the aggregate returns from a group of states now now longer with access. He’s on the right track. Looking at the ~17 states with ballot access in 2020, taking their 2016 vote yield as a baseline, this suggests ~117,000 votes for Blankenship in 2020…assuming equivalent candidate enthusiasm, charisma, active and extensive campaigning, and strong national CP support. A big leap…approaching delusion.
But, I agree with you. A substantially depressed vote total is likely.
Did Blankenship petition as an independent in Alaska? I thought the Alaska CP had disaffiliated and aligned with Life & Liberty (as shown on their facebook page). Or did the disaffiliated Alaska CP give him access anyway? Their facebook page features an interview between JR and Christina Tobin where he is touted as the L&L prez candidate. I am cornfused.
@Andy: A couple of other things to note in such a forecast.
Over the past, the national CP returns express some cylicity, election-over-election. Generally, when a large vote was cast in a previous election, that has been followed with a very sharp drop in votes the next. [e.g. 1996 (~185K) vs. 2000 (~98K); and 2008 (~200K) vs. 2012 (~122K). How strong this cyclic trend might be in 2020 is not known.
I use a “range estimate” for a forecast (a linear and curvilinear trend)…more or less a dependable estimate (at least in 2008 and in 2016). The midpoint of that range is the point estimate (~226K total for 2020.) If pressed for an objective estimate, that would be it.
Of course that ignores quite a lot of extenuating factors. I tried to “calibrate” the estimate in 2016 with various factors like states with access, write-ins. But I found the original forecast was more accurate…indeed spot on. So I use it.
If pressed for a subjective estimate, I would probably say ~100,000.
Only 16 states if not counting Alaska.
@Becker: “I am cornfused.”
Yeah, you and everybody else about the doings in Alaska.
@Floyd: I think the more important trend to look at would be open election versus incumbent years. It is now going in the opposite direction:
OPEN: 1992 (43,398), 2000 (98,020), 2008 (199,314), 2016 (203,026)
INCUMBENT: 1996 (184,656), 2004 (143,630), 2012 (122,001), 2020
@Becker: “open election versus incumbent years”
Perhaps. But as said, previously when trying to consider in a number of potential factors in a vote estimate, the original model proved more accurate.
If one does not consider write-ins (which is fair to do), it looks like ~117,000 votes is the overhead “resistance” level for Blankenship. My “feeling” is that if he goes into November with only the 17 states mentioned, he will return an even lower total than that.
The regression actually considers all of this, across the data, open or incumbent, candidate unspecific. And it does a fairly good job on predicting. For this election, the simple linear estimate is: y = 16,348x + 77,017. I do think, regardless of the specific causal factors, that 2020 will be one of those data years in which a large drop from the the trend line will happen. Andy suggested it would be the “lowest” ever. He may be close to correct. We should probably discard 1992 results (~43K) as a possibility, though, it being an outlier.
I still feel its better for a third party to have local canidates that can win instead of trying to win the presidency.
Agreed. I don’t think Donny boy will crack six figures. Sub 98k looks about where he’s headed.
@John: “I still feel its better for a third party to have local candidates”.
CP-Idaho has 11 total competitive election lines statewide in 2020–US races, state legislature and a couple county contests. CP-Idaho is ballot qualified; thus, we have a printed presidential line. We have worked hard to remain ballot qualified. So for CP-Idaho, it is wasteful not to exercise that up ballot.
We have held our word twice now (2016 and 2020) on printing the March primary winner to the ballot…and this despite accusation made by Mr. Blankenship.
Our up ballot line is competitive and winnable upon its merits, as determined by our primary voters…true even when won by a candidate the state party leadership may not “like”. That may be of great interest to future third party candidates vying for President in 2024. Compete for the up ballot line in Idaho by actually campaigning for it, and by standing at the Boise Debate with the other contenders.
Is this the first state the Brock Pierce didn’t qualify in that he tried?
I think it is Brock’s first failed petition drive.
Note that Brock did not even launch petition drives in most states.
Good. Brock Bitch diddled little boys and shouldn’t be allowed on any ballots.
Here’s a Must Read Alaska article.
The article lists the presidential candidates who are registered with the Division of Elections.
https://mustreadalaska.com/kanye-for-prez-alaskans-have-choices-for-president/
@ Michael – RE Alaska: I still don’t understand how Blankenship got on when the party disaffiliated and lists Life & Liberty on their facebook page, yet JR isn’t running in his own state. Bizarro World up there.
My guess would be that the Constitution Party of Alaska does not have ballot access, and the national Constitution Party financed, and was in control of the petition drive.
Cody, Jeff, Floyd – read Richard’s latest post about Don Blankenship being on the Tennessee ballot.
http://ballot-access.org/2020/09/03/tennessee-secretary-of-state-adds-don-blankenship-to-the-list-of-presidential-candidates/
You’ll also soon be proven wrong about some of your other comments in this thread concerning the CP and the Blankenship campaign.
Why are you compelled to permit the CP and its activities to occupy such a large portion of your time … nothing better to do? How sad!
@Andrew: Your comment was too stupid to post once, on Winger’s recent article about Blankenship being back on the Tennessee ballot, that what?…you felt “compelled” to post it here, just to prove yer twice as stupid?
Becker and I discuss (in the thread above) linear and curvilinear vote estimate models…an upgrade from the more typical knuckle dragging primate howlers within the national CP. The discussion was with Becker (to whom I was in conversation–not you). He suggested the cyclic trend discussed above (a sharp drop off in total ballots after a general election with a relatively larger CP total) may be due to incumbent vs. open…and he makes a fair point. So, the discussion was a two way street…realizing the national CP has little if any comprehension of the concept of two way streets and open communication.
The model is simply math. You want to personalize it. I don’t. And your twice stupid comment suggests that it is you, not me, who are obsessed with this “Specter of Floyd” myth, gleefully smeared by “Shuga & Dumplin’s”…your current national chairman (allegedly). It’d be funny, if it wasn’t so freakishly weird. Obviously too, none of you have anything better to do…and that is why you’ve got nothing to offer beyond a walking, whining, self pity party national “I wuz framed!” candidate.