Every political campaign will leave something to be desired. That is politics, after all.

This is also true of the 2016 presidential ticket the Libertarian Party nominated with the two former Republican governors of two-to-one Democratic states, Gary Johnson of New Mexico and Bill Weld of Massachusetts.

While the Johnson/Weld ticket has made mistakes, it is far better than the Keynesian, pro-war tickets the two major parties nominated.

There are many takeaways one could learn from the mistakes made from this campaign. Here are eight of them.

1. Pandering to staunch supporters of unpopular candidates is senseless

According to former U.S. president Jimmy Carter (D-GA), "both choices in the major parties are quite unpopular." His statement is backed by the fact-checking Politifact, the non-partisan aggregate polling group RealClearPolitics, world-renowned political scientist famous for his crystal ball Larry Sabato, and various other sources.

Check out the Politifact recap.

Sabato agrees with President Carter that both "Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have low favorability ratings," and alludes to specific groups polling on the integrity of the candidates: "They are viewed by large majorities as being dishonest and untrustworthy."

The #neverTrump or #neverDonald group is much stronger than the #neverClinton or #neverHillary, but both are disliked by Republicans and Democrats.

In fact, after antiwar, progressive Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic nomination for president, he enthusiastically endorsed the pro-war, Wall Street politician Clinton.

Progressives have largely either been holding their nose for Clinton for no other reason than to stunt Trump or backing the only progressive in the general, Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Few have shown support for Johnson. (Early October, Dr. Ron Paul, who Johnson and his supporters respect, opined during an MSNBC interview Dr. Stein is better on foreign policy than any other candidate in 2016, including Gov. Johnson)

This has been the case even after Johnson has gone to the left on some issues, going against the LP platform. Such as his support for anti-discrimination laws, gun control in regards to mental health, EPA regulations on energy, and a national consumption tax, via the Fairtax.

Unlike the Democratic side, Republicans, from 2012 GOP nominee and former governor Mitt Romney to the Bush political family, oppose their party's nominee even in the general election. If the Johnson/Weld strategy is to pander to one group over another, it does not make sense to pander to the Democratic base.

2. Choosing a running mate with the same credentials and beliefs is a lop-sided ticket

The only way pandering to who the ticket is pandering to could work is if Governor Johnson chose a different running mate. Such as a former Democratic politician, like Senator Mike Gravel, then-Democrat from Alaska and now-Libertarian from California.

Senator Gravel, assuming he was even approached by the Johnson camp, would have been perfect for that strategy. He was famously antiwar when he maneuvered a way to put over four thousand pages of the Pentagon Papers into the public record - which helped reduce support for the Vietnam War. All with the help of whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, then-employed by the RAND Corporation as a military analyst, and progressive icons Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.

Gravel served two terms in the U.S. senate from 1969 to 1981. He served as a representative and speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives from 1963 to 1966. He was appointed the delegate from the U.S. senate to the 31st General Assembly of the United Nations in 1976. And he unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008, where liberal Salon.com lauded his campaign against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Senator George McGovern, the staunch antiwar senator who the Democratic nomination for president in 1972, even considered Gravel as running mate. In 1989, the retired senator founded and chaired the Democracy Foundation, which advocated reforms in favor of direct democracy, and chaired the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution in its final years in the 2000s (decade).

In the 2008 race, Gravel and fellow Democrat, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, were often compared to their Republican counterpart then-congressman Ron Paul. All three men opposed U.S. wars and bombings around the world, Wall Street protections, the drug war, the omnipotent Federal Reserve, growth of the national debt, and violations of civil liberties.

In March 2008, Gravel switched to the LP, who accepted him with open arms but still questioned his liberal views, stating the LP "is a party that combines a commitment to freedom and peace that can't be found in the two major parties that control the government and politics of America."

And that his "libertarian views, as well as my strong stance against war, the military industrial complex and American imperialism, seem not to be tolerated by Democratic Party elites who are out of touch with the average American; elites that reject the empowerment of American citizens I offered to the Democratic Party..."

After finishing fourth out of eight candidates on the first ballot, he stayed in until the fourth ballot. Former GOP congressman Bob Barr, who switched in 2006, won the nomination. He retired from politics again, but remained active in the direct-democracy mission of the National Initiative, 9/11 investigations, whistleblower protections, and in 2014 became the CEO of the marijuana company KUSH, a subsidiary of the Johnson brainchild Cannabis Sativa, Inc (Gravel became Johnson's successor as CEO).

Like Governor Weld, he has anti-libertarian positions, such as universal healthcare, net neutrality, and public funding for elections. But opposes the trade barriers, gun control, eminent domain, and Clinton friendship found in Weld. (Weld's anti-libertarian policies could pass Congress, not Gravel's)

Unlike either Clinton or Weld, Gravel supported Sanders in the Democratic primary. A Johnson/Gravel ticket would have pulled all the stops to go after both major-party, warmongering Keynesians. Johnson in interviews by himself, for example, gets pretty anti-Clinton, but not so much with Weld by his side.

3. Disregarding the caucuses of the party is likewise senseless

Whether with Weld or Gravel, the Johnson ticket does not have good reason to blow off caucuses of the party it disagrees with. Building bridges for the future is more important than fighting for a campaign everyone knows will not win the 2016 presidential election.

From reports from the convention of snubbing off opponents after being nominated to just a month to election day and he turns a deaf ear to any Libertarian who does not agree with him, Johnson does not plan to build the Libertarian Party.

And Weld, a former Republican governor from a two-to-one Democratic state, knows to build coalitions and partnerships. But he has nothing to say to radical members of the party. Like Johnson, he just agrees that the non-aggression principle, voluntary association, and free markets are good ideas, but cannot seem to explain them.

Members of the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus are not happy with the nomination of #teamgov, but some have made moves that show they are willing to work together. The LPRC is a caucus that will be most critical of governors Johnson and Weld, thus the one the ticket has no qualms snubbing, but one which has shown a willingness to help the campaign.

Some members have decided to vote for either Nobody or the limited write-in candidacy of Libertarian presidential candidate in the primary and current chair of the LP of New Hampshire Darryl W. Perry. Voters that would have supported Johnson if he was willing to address LPRC concerns.

4. Learn the platform of the party and its statements

Every candidate of every political party has deviated from their party's platform. Nothing new here with Gary Johnson who has gone against the planks of the Libertarian Party.

The difference between Dr. Jill Stein to the Green Party or Darrell Castle to the Constitution Party is that Governor Johnson routinely goes against his party's platform. During the primary he was consistently questioned about this, but he brushed off those concerns. When asked about libertarian philosophy, such as the statement of principles in the platform or the pledge itself, he says that flies over his head.

The pledge is "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals," which is required to be a member of the party. Johnson is in direct opposition to this.

5. Learn speech skills and not have Aleppo moments

Johnson's cavalier attitude towards the platform and by-laws stems from his indifference to political science and public speaking skills.

Save for a few political facts, he seems to not have a clue about politics. For example, he chooses to cater to the interests of an unpopular politician. Or for another, he thinks the Commission on Presidential Debates would be willing to allow minor parties to participate in their events.

When he is not busy tripping over his words, he is a lightning rod for gaffes. He could not name a city marred with U.S. bombings, he says Jewish bakers should be forced to bake cakes for Nazis under the anti-discrimination laws he supports, and suggests he would not have to say a word in a debate with Clinton and Trump to win it.

The fact he has yet to take full advantage of speech therapy and debate camp. He was the party's nominee in 2012, was a Republican candidate the same year, and had to fight for almost a year to get his 2016 LP nomination - he could have prevented his gaffes before they happened.

6. Hiring incompetent people will show in a campaign

A lot of this has to do with the people he has hired for his campaign. That is not an indictment on the character of these people - they could have amazing personalities who have done good things - but on their political prowess.

Johnson hired Utah businessman and political consultant Ronald T. "Ron" Nielson, who ran his first gubernatorial campaign. Nielson is also the president of Utah-based NSON Opinion Strategy, which, according to its Facebook page, is "a strategic communications and public opinion research company."

Ron Neilson has also been a senior adviser for the Johnson-founded political advocacy group Our America Initiative, so he has been an integral member of Johnson's inner circle for a while. But can he run a campaign?

If the many bad moves by the campaign, from two former GOP governors catering to the left by playing nice with an unpopular Democratic nominee to the "let Johnson be Johnson" thing, comes from Neilson, then he cannot. If not, then they should have found someone who can.

Granted, it is hard to find a campaign manager who has the cunning articulation of Doug Wead and the brutal honesty of Mike Rothfeld. And the so-called "Ron Paul Inc" might be too much for the too-nice kind of nice guy as Gary Johnson.

Hiring Terry Michael as media adviser was a good hire, as he has extensive political experience and leans libertarian.

But Carlos Sierra as national field director? When Sierra is not busy helping keep neocons in the senate, he is busy running minor-party campaigns that fail in the worst ways. A candidate who hopes to breach the chasm of minor party and major party has to think like the latter, not the former.

East of the Mississippi regional field director Jim Wallace is closely-tied to progressive governor Mitt Romney, for example.

The national grassroots director, Lindsey Workman, is a GOP operative with little presence in the Libertarian Party. The grassroots director for any campaign should be that - the grassroots - not an unofficial coalition director. Johnson and Weld could form coalitions with disenfranchised voters of the major parties, but those voters are not the grassroots. (This was one factor that hurt Dr. Paul in his 2012 presidential run)

The communications director, Joe Hunter, has close ties with establishment politicians in the past. It is no wonder there are ads that call the ticket "independent" in lieu of, as opposed to in addition to, Libertarian.

Many of these Republican-turned-Libertarians who were GOP operatives are running this LP ticket as if it were a conservative minor party.

Although there were some staffers who have proven their worth to both the LP and to the young generation. Ballot access director Christopher S. Thrasher, who helped get Johnson on the ballot in all fifty states, despite the hurdles from the two major parties; and the digital and social media directors Connie Hannigan-Franck, Jay Wilson, and Burly Cain.

7. Grassroots chosen over the mainstream hurts the ticket

According to campaign manager Ron Neilson, the strategy is not to appeal to Clinton or Trump supporters. While the latter is certainly true, with neither governor on the ticket holding back when talking about the New York liberal the GOP nominated. However, Weld has almost nothing but nice things to say about Clinton, with Johnson praising her when with Weld but panning her when without Weld.

Read more on that interview at Reason.

This confusion of strategy stems from the fact the grassroots were pushed aside after the Libertarian national convention in late May. The narrative was that Johnson and Weld were lightning rods for media attention, higher polls, and big donors. The money was not seen, however.

By snubbing the grassroots, as Dr. Paul and his "Ron Paul Inc" learned the hard way, a campaign is running short of its potential. Even if disenchanted Democrats and Republicans rushed into the LP - what would be left over is a light version of the major parties.

Either way, the chances are high - between the LP nominating a credible, experienced ticket and the GOP nominating yet another liberal who splits the party base - that the GOP will be to the LP what the 1800s Whig Party was to the GOP itself.

But the question is: will the 2016 Johnson campaign leave the LP larger in libertarian numbers or as GOP-lite?

8. Gradualism is strategy, not philosophy

One of the great debates within the LP is pragmatism versus purism. The radical libertarians believe the state is immoral and impractical in a free society, while the moderate libertarians believe a limited state is needed to protect life, liberty, and property.

Regardless which side is right, the fact is both sides exist, and are here to stay. Johnson had nothing to say to the radicals except, during an LP primary debate held in Philadelphia on March 19th, 2016, the non-aggression principle "goes over my head...I'm not smart enough to answer the question [about basic libertarian philosophy]." Even after the panelists Larken Rose and Josie Wales explained radical libertarianism to him, he was unwilling to ask for clarification.

That is not to say that to be a member of the LP one should understand philosophy, but that if one plans to run for its nomination for office to learn it. Media entrepreneur and one of Johnson's competitors in the LP primary Austin Petersen understands basic libertarian philosophy and resoundingly rejects it.

Three of the four main candidates - Petersen himself, software pioneer and eccentric millionaire John Mcafee, and Free State Project super activist and Free Talk Live co-host Darryl W. Perry - understood basic philosophy and attempted to address the concerns of the party's caucuses.

If being pragmatic means compromising principles, as opposed to compromising time, then it leads to no libertarian outcome. In that case, why not run in the major-party primaries? If gradualism is strategy, such as reducing the state and spreading the message of liberty via education, then the Libertarian Party is a great engine to do so - past nominees Ron Paul and Harry Browne were known for this.

Governor Gary Johnson is an amazing politician - and true outsider - to support for people who are new to libertarianism or who just want to reject the two Wall Street warmongers the two big parties nominated. But it cannot be ignored he leaves much to be desired by radical libertarians and even some moderate ones inside and outside the Libertarian Party.