Why Do Libertarians Get < 1% of vote?

[GBMelBlount]

.


Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign Was Ruined by the Paulbots

I am a Ron Paul supporter. I absolutely love the guy. I even own the “Ron Paul Revolution” t-shirt. Even if I don’t agree with everything he says, I think we need a president with his compassion, wit, and consistency. Had some of his warnings been more closely heeded, we would not be in many of the problematic situations we find ourselves in today; I resent the way that mainstream media and his own party constantly ignore him. That being said, I am sometimes embarrassed to be associated with other Ron Paul supporters. The overly zealous support for Ron Paul damages his campaign and makes him a less appealing candidate.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/8144/ron-paul-s-presidential-campaign-was-ruined-by-the-paulbots

[Seven]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Gridlock.svg/220px-Gridlock.svg.png

[cold-hard-steel]

Because chickens don't have lips .

[GBMelBlount]

I guess the first statistic we can look at is why Romney got 4600% more votes than the libertarian candidate in the election.

In fact I am not even sure if the libertarian candidate got a million votes (I think our general population is around 300 million).

What makes this even more amazing is that the majority of this country arguably leans conservative / libertarian (including myself) in general.

So why in the world didn't the libertarian get more votes?

I mean I certainly would have voted for the libertarian candidate in a heartbeat if I felt he was electable.

the first thing that comes to mind is that the 4600% more people that are being chastized thought there was enough of a difference between the two electable candidates to vote for Romney as opposed to throwing their vote away.

[Wallace108]

What makes this even more amazing is that the majority of this country arguably leans conservative / libertarian (including myself) in general.

So why in the world didn't the libertarian get more votes?

I mean I certainly would have voted for the libertarian candidate in a heartbeat if I felt he was electable.
Not all, but a lot of the problem is with what you just stated yourself ...
"I mean I certainly would have voted for the libertarian candidate in a heartbeat if I felt he was electable."

It's not that you don't agree with the libertarian view; I think what you're saying is that you don't want to "throw away" your vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning. You're far from alone in this thinking. I hear people saying it all the time. Among a lot of my friends. On radio talk shows. On the Internet. If more people would vote for the candidate they think is best, and not the candidate they think can win, non-establishment candidates would get a hell of a lot more than 1 percent of the vote.

In 2016, if all the people who claim to be conservative support a candidate like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, then yes, they can win. But my guess is that a lot of people who claim to be conservative will be lining up to support the next best electable Rino ... someone like Chris Christie ... because he's more electable.

It shouldn't be just about winning the White House. Right now, it's about saving the country. I know it's popular to blame all of America's problems on Obama and the Democrats, but things weren't so swell when the Republicans were in power. Republicans are just as responsible as Democrats for the mess we're in. Electing the same kind of Republican who helped get us into this mess won't do anything to help get us out of it. It's not about Republicans winning. It's about America winning.

[SteelCityMom]

The third comment down in the article is spot on as to why... "There is a kernel of truth to this, but it ignores the fact that Paul has largely been ignored by the mainstream media, and when acknowledged, he is treated like a third tier candidate. Consequently, supporters have relied on innovative and oftentimes "over the top" ways of spreading the message."

The media doesn't want thoughtful voters.

[Count Steeler]

The third comment down in the article is spot on as to why... "There is a kernel of truth to this, but it ignores the fact that Paul has largely been ignored by the mainstream media, and when acknowledged, he is treated like a third tier candidate. Consequently, supporters have relied on innovative and oftentimes "over the top" ways of spreading the message."

The media doesn't want thoughtful voters.

Home run, then.

[GBMelBlount]

Not all, but a lot of the problem is with what you just stated yourself ...
"I mean I certainly would have voted for the libertarian candidate in a heartbeat if I felt he was electable."

It's not that you don't agree with the libertarian view; I think what you're saying is that you don't want to "throw away" your vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning.

I am more to the right and libertarian than the majority of people.

So any way you slice it is arguably impossible for a libertarian to win as a 3rd party candidate in a three candidate race when they are perceived as 1/2 of the right.

If it was a two horse race....maybe...otherwise, no.

In fact, even though the libertarian candidate would get my full support as the republican candidate (unless he was a TRUE dirtbag) it is still highly debatable if a libertarian would have had a chance.

[GoSlash27]

^That is absolutely true. A Libertarian (big L) candidate has absolutely no chance of winning. Not only for the reasons that have already been mentioned here, but also because the deck is legally stacked against them and the Republicrats exercise their influence over the media to keep them from having a public voice. No debate invites, no news coverage.
But a libertarian (little l) candidate can win the whole thing *if* he can overcome the Republican leadership's animosity and get the nomination. This is the only way a Republican can get elected in the future, since that's where the electorate is trending.

[Seven]

I am more to the right and libertarian than the majority of people.

So any way you slice it is arguably impossible for a libertarian to win as a 3rd party candidate in a three candidate race when they are perceived as 1/2 of the right.

If it was a two horse race....maybe...otherwise, no.

In fact, even though the libertarian candidate would get my full support as the republican candidate (unless he was a TRUE dirtbag) it is still highly debatable if a libertarian would have had a chance.

It sure would be a lot easier for a libertarian to win the Republican nomination if the Libertarian voters weren't mostly made up of extremists. Public perception of libertarians is that they are all doomsday prepper anarchist types - and while that stereotype isn't all that inaccurate - it's unfortunate. Absent a major fundamental change in philosophy from the vast majority of this country, a libertarian candidate won't see the White House in the next half century at least. And I don't blame the Republican party for not taking libertarian candidates seriously. The public doesn't. Nominating a Ron Paul type would be about the same as taking a presidential campaign and flushing it down the toilet before it even began.

[GoSlash27]

As opposed to a John McCain type? Or a Mitt Romney type? 'Cuz that hasn't been working out so well last I checked.
The libertarian Republicans are doing well in Congress. It's the *establishment* types that are losing. Seems clear to me who the public takes seriously and who they don't.

[Seven]

As opposed to a John McCain type? Or a Mitt Romney type? 'Cuz that hasn't been working out so well last I checked.
The libertarian Republicans are doing well in Congress. It's the *establishment* types that are losing. Seems clear to me who the public takes seriously and who they don't.

How many states did Gary Johnson win? If the majority took libertarians seriously, you would be able to proudly answer this question directly. Instead you'll have to find a roundabout way of explaining why circumstances and not public opinion prevented him from getting more votes. Much of the country is dumb. But there are a lot of smart people who pay attention, too. If libertarian ideals were as popular as this forum thinks they are, Libertarian candidates would consistently get more votes. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

[X-Terminator]

How many states did Gary Johnson win? If the majority took libertarians seriously, you would be able to proudly answer this question directly. Instead you'll have to find a roundabout way of explaining why circumstances and not public opinion prevented him from getting more votes. Much of the country is dumb. But there are a lot of smart people who pay attention, too. If libertarian ideals were as popular as this forum thinks they are, Libertarian candidates would consistently get more votes. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about libertarian beliefs and the Libertarian party. They are NOT exactly the same thing. We don't necessarily need to have a Libertarian Party, there just needs to be more Republicans with libertarian beliefs and ideals, because Slash is right - those types are winning elections, while the RINO-types are not.

I still fail to see the problem with wanting candidates to actually be conservative, rather than pseudo-liberals with "R" next to their name. You would also be surprised how many people in this country - Democrat and Republican - have libertarian viewpoints that they agree on. Because when it comes right down to it, most people want to live their lives as freely as possible, with as little government interference as possible.

[GBMelBlount]

I still fail to see the problem with wanting candidates to actually be conservative, rather than pseudo-liberals with "R" next to their name. You would also be surprised how many people in this country - Democrat and Republican - have libertarian viewpoints that they agree on. Because when it comes right down to it, most people want to live their lives as freely as possible, with as little government interference as possible.I don't think anyone in this discusions would be surprised.

Just wow.

Most everyone who has weighed in on this has agreed they'd vote for an *ELECTABLE* true conservative or libertarian in the general election so I do not see what you are still compaining about.

There wasn't as slash and others has agreed.

This entire argument is because the 1%'ers are pissed AND chastising the other 98% who chose to vote for what we felt was a better electable option than Obama rather than *throw away* our vote in the general election.

[X-Terminator]

Just wow.

Most everyone who has weighed in on this has agreed they'd vote for an *ELECTABLE* true conservative or libertarian in the general election so I do not see what you are still compaining about.

There wasn't as slash and others has agreed.

This entire argument is because the 1%'ers are pissed AND chastising the other 98% who chose to vote for what we felt was a better electable option than Obama rather than *throw away* our vote in the general election.

What's so "WOW" about it? Did you actually read my entire post, or just pick over that one aspect of it? Seven is saying that nobody takes libertarian-conservative candidates seriously, when the truth is exactly the opposite. So once again, he is confusing the Libertarian Party with people with libertarian beliefs, and because the Libertarian Party doesn't have any influence, they should basically be ignored and instead vote for a guy basically because he's not as bad as the other guy. Sorry, but that's not going to fly with me. So again I ask, what is the problem with wanting a better conservative candidate over someone who is not nearly as conservative as you and others on this forum think, and I'll also ask why it is so wrong for someone to stand on his principles and not vote for someone just because he's not the other guy? That kind of thinking is why this country is in trouble to begin with, and I don't know about you, but I think we all deserve better than that.

[Seven]

Seven is saying that nobody takes libertarian-conservative candidates seriously, when the truth is exactly the opposite. So once again, he is confusing the Libertarian Party with people with libertarian beliefs

In your opinion, what is the difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian? And do you believe the general public is cognizant of the difference?

[GBMelBlount]

What's so "WOW" about it? Did you actually read my entire post, or just pick over that one aspect of it? Seven is saying that nobody takes libertarian-conservative candidates seriously, when the truth is exactly the opposite. So once again, he is confusing the Libertarian Party with people with libertarian beliefs, and because the Libertarian Party doesn't have any influence, they should basically be ignored and instead vote for a guy basically because he's not as bad as the other guy. Sorry, but that's not going to fly with me. So again I ask, what is the problem with wanting a better conservative candidate over someone who is not nearly as conservative as you and others on this forum think, and I'll also ask why it is so wrong for someone to stand on his principles and not vote for someone just because he's not the other guy? That kind of thinking is why this country is in trouble to begin with, and I don't know about you, but I think we all deserve better than that.

We all want a better conservative candidate BUT.....

once again, you didn't listen to my post.

HE WAS UNELECTABLE.

You want to throw away your vote and are comfortable with 4 more years of Obama, fine, you are entitled to that.

However if you want to puff your chest and chastise the other 98% who didn't want to throw away their vote because they felt Romney was a better option that Obama in the general election then we will just continue to go in circles.

[X-Terminator]

In your opinion, what is the difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian? And do you believe the general public is cognizant of the difference?

Libertarian (big L) primarily references the party, while libertarian references their belief system. Meaning, you can be a libertarian and still be a member of one of the major parties (mostly Republican). They do not necessarily need to form their own party, just gain more power and influence within the Republican Party, and get them back to focusing mostly on true libertarian-conservative principles. That has been the point I have been trying to make all along. We need more of them, and less of the Bush/Romney/Christie types.

[X-Terminator]

We all want a better conservative candidate BUT.....

once again, you didn't listen to my post.

HE WAS UNELECTABLE.

You want to throw away your vote and are comfortable with 4 more years of Obama, fine, you are entitled to that.

However if you want to puff your chest and chastise the other 98% who didn't want to throw away their vote because they felt Romney was a better option that Obama in the general election then we will just continue to go in circles.

Nevermind, I'm not wasting any more of my time. All I'm doing is getting pissed, and you're too good a guy to get mad at. So out of respect for you, I'm leaving it here.

[Seven]

Libertarian (big L) primarily references the party, while libertarian references their belief system. Meaning, you can be a libertarian and still be a member of one of the major parties (mostly Republican). They do not necessarily need to form their own party, just gain more power and influence within the Republican Party, and get them back to focusing mostly on true libertarian-conservative principles. That has been the point I have been trying to make all along. We need more of them, and less of the Bush/Romney/Christie types.

Lol, I realize the bolded selection. I didn't mean to ask for a definition. I understand that difference and have never been confused by the distinction. What I'm asking, though, is what are the fundamental differences between a libertarian and a Libertarian? What is the relevance in claiming I am confusing libertarians with Libertarians? They share the same fundamental beliefs, no? So why is it necessary for a libertarian to win the Republican nomination? If my claim that the public does not take libertarians seriously is so off-base, why doesn't the Libertarian party receive more votes? I'm not trying to be an asshole. I'm trying to understand your position. If you think there is a fundamental difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian that causes the party to receive such little support from voters, I'm all ears. But I don't see it. I think that's an excuse.

[X-Terminator]

Lol, I realize the bolded selection. I didn't mean to ask for a definition. I understand that difference and have never been confused by the distinction. What I'm asking, though, is what are the fundamental differences between a libertarian and a Libertarian? What is the relevance in claiming I am confusing libertarians with Libertarians? They share the same fundamental beliefs, no? So why is it necessary for a libertarian to win the Republican nomination? If my claim that the public does not take libertarians seriously is so off-base, why doesn't the Libertarian party receive more votes? I'm not trying to be an asshole. I'm trying to understand your position. If you think there is a fundamental difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian that causes the party to receive such little support from voters, I'm all ears. But I don't see it. I think that's an excuse.

Because it's a fact that 3rd parties get ignored in this country. People may embrace libertarian beliefs, but they simply don't make it into the public eye beyond the fanatics who take things too far. Some of that is their own fault; most of it is because of the major parties and the mainstream media. Basically, if it's not D or R, it's not important to them. So in order to really make headway, they have to try to win the Republican nomination, because sadly that is the only way they can really get their message out. That's why I said you were confusing the party with the belief system. I think the belief system would be very popular with people...provided of course they stop being sheeple and start thinking for themselves.

[Seven]

Because it's a fact that 3rd parties get ignored in this country. Some of that is their own fault; most of it is because of the major parties and the mainstream media. Basically, if it's not D or R, it's not important to them. So in order to really make headway, they have to try to win the Republican nomination, because sadly that is the only way they can really get their message out. That's why I said you were confusing the party with the belief system. I think the belief system would be very popular with people...provided of course they stop being sheeple and start thinking for themselves.

I get what you're saying. I guess I just have more faith in the country than you do. Are people really that dumb? I guess so. I mean, Obama is still in office. Although I guess we sort of disagree on that too since you weren't a Romney supporter. I'm merely going off what I've experienced, but in my social circle, those who had libertarian beliefs voted Libertarian. That makes sense to me at least. Republicans aren't libertarians, fundamentally, so a third party seems natural. Which is why I struggle to believe libertarian values are popular in this nation. Not saying I'm glad they aren't, but that's how I see it. If US citizens were as gung ho for libertarian ideals as I think this forum likes to believe, I truly feel like more votes would be finding their way to Libertarian ballots. Seems as if we're just going to disagree on this, but thanks for clarifying your position. I wasn't sure what you were getting at for a post or two.

[GoSlash27]

Lol, I realize the bolded selection. I didn't mean to ask for a definition. I understand that difference and have never been confused by the distinction. What I'm asking, though, is what are the fundamental differences between a libertarian and a Libertarian? What is the relevance in claiming I am confusing libertarians with Libertarians? They share the same fundamental beliefs, no? So why is it necessary for a libertarian to win the Republican nomination? If my claim that the public does not take libertarians seriously is so off-base, why doesn't the Libertarian party receive more votes? I'm not trying to be an asshole. I'm trying to understand your position. If you think there is a fundamental difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian that causes the party to receive such little support from voters, I'm all ears. But I don't see it. I think that's an excuse.

The Socialist Party (big S) got 0.0% in the 2012 election. Does that mean that socialism (little s) isn't a problem? By your reasoning, if "socialism" was popular, then more people would be voting for the Socialist Party. Therefore it's not... right?
Figure that out, and you will have answered your own question.

[Seven]

The Socialist Party (big S) got 0.0% in the 2012 election. Does that mean that socialism (little s) isn't a problem?

You're asking the wrong question. Socialism is a problem, but it is the Obama administration that has injected that mess into congress. I don't know anyone who openly supports socialism or Socialists. There is an immeasurable difference between what I'm saying about libertarians and what you're trying to do here with socialists. Circumstances don't allow for that parallel to work as you're suggesting.

[GoSlash27]

And also...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg0Axyvlkm0
While it is true that the modern Republican Party doesn't have much in common with libertarianism, it's only because it doesn't have much in common with conservatism either. But it will either embrace this philosophy or it will die, because Americans aren't voting for Republicans who have no philosophy anymore. The proof is in the results.

- - - Updated - - -


You're asking the wrong question. Socialism is a problem, but it is the Obama administration that has injected that mess into congress. I don't know anyone who openly supports socialism or Socialists. There is an immeasurable difference between what I'm saying about libertarians and what you're trying to do here with socialists. Circumstances don't allow for that parallel to work as you're suggesting.

Oh, of course they do. There is literally no difference here. "Socialism" is an unpopular party that nobody votes for, yet "socialism" is at the core of modern Democratic Party principles, and they're winning elections. How do you explain that?

[Seven]

Oh, of course they do. There is literally no difference here. "Socialism" is an unpopular party that nobody votes for, yet "socialism" is at the core of modern Democratic Party principles, and they're winning elections. How do you explain that?

I really fail to see how socialism has anything to do with my assessment of the popularity of libertarian ideals whatsoever. Please explain the relevance.

- - - Updated - - -

What you're suggesting here is an entirely different discussion.

[Seven]

Alright, I'll try and dissect your "point". You are saying that libertarians do not vote Libertarian because they are voting Republican: similarly to how socialists are voting Democrat. If that's the case, then how is this statement true?
it is true that the modern Republican Party doesn't have much in common with libertarianism So by your own admission, libertarians have to seek out the Libertarian party if they want to vote for libertarian ideals. Therefore, the Libertarian party is a somewhat reasonable measure of how popular libertarianism is in this country. Which is exactly what I've been saying. You've proved my point for me. Better than I could have.

[Craic]

Seven . . .

Let's see if I can take this in a different angle to help you understand.

The small "l" libertarian believes in individual freedom over statism. As such, there are Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians that are all libertarian, just like there are many Democrats (the party) that are republican (believe in our representative republic).

The problem here, is that those who are "Conservative" libertarian, have tradition been a part of the Democrat and Republican parties. Think, dixie-crats for instance. NRA is another strong group that generally fall in this section, though much more in the Republican camp. Now, the NRA is a PERFECT example. It would make a lot of sense for a Libertarian to swoop up on the membership of the NRA and get them to vote Libertarian, especially since most of those I've found in the NRA are exactly that. However, it'll never happen. Why? Because almost to a person, NRA membership understands that if you split the vote in many of the voting districts between Libertarian and Republican candidates, the Democrats actually win the vote. Thus, libertarians seldom vote third party for the same reason no one else votes third party, because nine times out of ten, it's throwing your vote away.

So, what then happens is that the GOP is pretty much guaranteed the vote of the conservative libertarian. What they need however, is the middle-ground voter, the one with some statist principles and a little liberal, but also a little conservative and libertarian. Or, as the are known now, the "undecideds." In order to get that, candidates tack toward the middle in order to pick up those votes.

Until either the Republican or the Democrat party blows up, there will not be a president from any other party. This nation is, and always has been a two-party country. The GOP is nothing more than the reformed Whig party. So, asking why a Libertarian doesn't get elected, is much like asking why a fish doesn't walk down the street. It is an impossibility in this nation for any president outside of the two parties do so.

[Seven]

The small "l" libertarian believes in individual freedom over statism. As such, there are Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians that are all libertarian, just like there are many Democrats (the party) that are republican (believe in our representative republic). I understand there are those who have conflicting or multiple ideals. I consider myself Republican, but I have some liberal/libertarian beliefs. That is not what confuses me. What confuses me is why stereotypical libertarians - that you and I have discussed and defined in other conversations - do not vote Libertarian which represents philosophies nearly identical to the beliefs they hold. And that takes us to what you said next.


The problem here, is that those who are "Conservative" libertarian, have tradition been a part of the Democrat and Republican parties. Think, dixie-crats for instance. NRA is another strong group that generally fall in this section, though much more in the Republican camp. Now, the NRA is a PERFECT example. It would make a lot of sense for a Libertarian to swoop up on the membership of the NRA and get them to vote Libertarian, especially since most of those I've found in the NRA are exactly that. However, it'll never happen. Why? Because almost to a person, NRA membership understands that if you split the vote in many of the voting districts between Libertarian and Republican candidates, the Democrats actually win the vote. Thus, libertarians seldom vote third party for the same reason no one else votes third party, because nine times out of ten, it's throwing your vote away. I just don't think the numbers add up. As I've said, all I can go off of is what I know, and all of my friends who call themselves libertarians voted Libertarian. Including those who are in the NRA (so I hardly think the NRA votes in solidarity nor does any other group including Democrats, Republicans or the Tea party). I fully understand that a portion of the Libertarian vote went Republican, but I don't think it's nearly as high as we're making it out to be. I don't have numbers to back that up, but I don't see any refuting it either. I guess it's just a matter of opinion.

[X-Terminator]

Alright, I'll try and dissect your "point". You are saying that libertarians do not vote Libertarian because they are voting Republican: similarly to how socialists are voting Democrat. If that's the case, then how is this statement true? So by your own admission, libertarians have to seek out the Libertarian party if they want to vote for libertarian ideals. Therefore, the Libertarian party is a somewhat reasonable measure of how popular libertarianism is in this country. Which is exactly what I've been saying. You've proved my point for me. Better than I could have.

If I may...what he's saying that if the Republican Party wants to win elections, rather than go the way of the Whigs, it needs to become more libertarian, embrace libertarian ideals. Instead, they denigrate and marginalize them in favor of the establishment, in the very way you have been doing throughout this entire debate. It's the complete opposite of what the Democratic Party has done with socialism, to the point where it has become the foundation of the party and voters don't need to seek out the SPUSA. Hell, there are many Democrats who are card-carrying members of the Socialist International.

[Craic]

If I may...what he's saying that if the Republican Party wants to win elections, rather than go the way of the Whigs, it needs to become more libertarian, embrace libertarian ideals. Instead, they denigrate and marginalize them in favor of the establishment, in the very way you have been doing throughout this entire debate. It's the complete opposite of what the Democratic Party has done with socialism, to the point where it has become the foundation of the party and voters don't need to seek out the SPUSA. Hell, there are many Democrats who are card-carrying members of the SPUSA.

That really got me to thinking. . . Do you believe that the democrats are shifting from "left" to "Down." That is, from liberal to statist? If so, then it would make sense that the problem the GOP has is that it is still staying "right" instead of shifting to "libertarian" and as such, it is not picking up the liberal libertarians, even though the dems are picking up some of the right statist voters.

[X-Terminator]

That really got me to thinking. . . Do you believe that the democrats are shifting from "left" to "Down." That is, from liberal to statist? If so, then it would make sense that the problem the GOP has is that it is still staying "right" instead of shifting to "libertarian" and as such, it is not picking up the liberal libertarians, even though the dems are picking up some of the right statist voters.

That's pretty clear if you simply look at the things this Administration has done, and so many Democrats and Democrat voters doing everything they can to protect it. Obama is a socialist AND a statist, and that's about as dangerous a combination as you can get.

[Seven]

if the Republican Party wants to win elections, rather than go the way of the Whigs, it needs to become more libertarian, embrace libertarian ideals.

You're assuming that based off of what though? All those votes that will come over from the Libertarian camp? According to you guys, the Republicans are already getting those. And I don't know about you, but everyone I know who is a Democrat is fully entrenched in their liberal ideals, socially and economically. Even after the past couple of weeks. I certainly don't see a mass migration of voters from the Democratic party happening. What will they all of a sudden decide they like lower taxes and more private sector freedom? I understand your theory. But I disagree with it. Where are all these phantom votes going to come from?

[X-Terminator]

You're assuming that based off of what though? All those votes that will come over from the Libertarian camp? According to you guys, the Republicans are already getting those. And I don't know about you, but everyone I know who is a Democrat is fully entrenched in their liberal ideals, socially and economically. Even after the past couple of weeks. I certainly don't see a mass migration of voters from the Democratic party happening. What will they all of a sudden decide they like lower taxes and more private sector freedom? I understand your theory. But I disagree with it. Where are all these phantom votes going to come from?

Those are not the voters they should try to get. Just like with the Republican Party, there are those who are going to vote Republican no matter what. What wins elections is getting the undecided voter who is not a hard-liner for either party, yet share some of your values and ideas. They're only about a third of the electorate - not exactly an insignificant number. Offer them a CLEAR choice between the candidates, and then let the chips fall where they may.

[Wallace108]

I don't know about you, but everyone I know who is a Democrat is fully entrenched in their liberal ideals, socially and economically. Even after the past couple of weeks. I certainly don't see a mass migration of voters from the Democratic party happening. What will they all of a sudden decide they like lower taxes and more private sector freedom? I understand your theory. But I disagree with it. Where are all these phantom votes going to come from?

Just as there's a wide variety of thinking on the right (as evidenced by this board), there's also a wide variety of thinking on the left. I personally know a handful of Democrats who are disgusted with the Obama administration and the direction the country is heading. Just as we had Reagan Democrats, there are a lot of modern Democrats who would vote Republican if the right candidate was running. But I can guarantee they're not going to vote for any candidate who is seen as just another racist, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-middle-class Republican. Most of the Democrats I know (friends and co-workers) haven't said that they'd vote for a candidate like Rand Paul, but they're certainly intrigued by him (as well as a few others). But I can assure you they'd never vote for Romney, McCain, or any other establishment Republican.

[Seven]

Those are not the voters they should try to get. Just like with the Republican Party, there are those who are going to vote Republican no matter what. What wins elections is getting the undecided voter who is not a hard-liner for either party, yet share some of your values and ideas. They're only about a third of the electorate - not exactly an insignificant number. Offer them a CLEAR choice between the candidates, and then let the chips fall where they may.

And that brings us yet again back to Romney. Who was going to revoke Obamacare, remove private sector restrictions and implement tax reform as some of his first actions in the White House. I don't know how much clearer a choice you needed. But I realize we're going in circles and it's never going to end nor are we going to reach a mutual opinion. I'm not frustrated or pulling my hair out like usual because you clearly define your beliefs and I appreciate that. Like I've said, it's just a difference of opinion. At the end of the day most of us desire the same things.

[Seven]

Just as there's a wide variety of thinking on the right (as evidenced by this board), there's also a wide variety of thinking on the left. I personally know a handful of Democrats who are disgusted with the Obama administration and the direction the country is heading. Just as we had Reagan Democrats, there are a lot of modern Democrats who would vote Republican if the right candidate was running. But I can guarantee they're not going to vote for any candidate who is seen as just another racist, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-middle-class Republican. Most of the Democrats I know (friends and co-workers) haven't said that they'd vote for a candidate like Rand Paul, but they're certainly intrigued by him (as well as a few others). But I can assure you they'd never vote for Romney, McCain, or any other establishment Republican.

Personally, I think there is too great a stigma on a Rand Paul/Ron Paul type to ever have a chance at the White House - which I'm almost certain you've agreed with me on in a previous thread. If the Republicans want to take back the executive branch, they need a Christie or a Toomey. That's my strong opinion and I know 95% of The Soapbox disagrees with me, which is fine.

[X-Terminator]

And that brings us yet again back to Romney. Who was going to revoke Obamacare, remove private sector restrictions and implement tax reform as some of his first actions in the White House. I don't know how much clearer a choice you needed. But I realize we're going in circles and it's never going to end nor are we going to reach a mutual opinion. I'm not frustrated or pulling my hair out like usual because you clearly define your beliefs and I appreciate that. Like I've said, it's just a difference of opinion. At the end of the day most of us desire the same things.

Not a problem, and yes, we do want the same things. And that's all that matters. :drink:

[Wallace108]

Personally, I think there is too great a stigma on a Rand Paul/Ron Paul type to ever have a chance at the White House - which I'm almost certain you've agreed with me on in a previous thread.
I agree with you in the case of Ron Paul. He had no realistic chance of ever winning. But I disagree in the case of Rand. I'm not saying he would win, but he definitely could.


If the Republicans want to take back the executive branch, they need a Christie or a Toomey. That's my strong opinion and I know 95% of The Soapbox disagrees with me, which is fine.
This goes back to something I said earlier ... is our goal just to have a Republican in the White House? Or is our goal to get this country back on the right track? If Christie is elected in 2016, we're going to stay on the current path. I can't remember for sure, but I think it was Slash who made this point in another thread ... it doesn't matter if we go over the cliff at 80 mph or 40 mph. Even if we go at a slower pace, we're still eventually going over the cliff.

As for ability to win the White House, I'm not so sure Christie can win the GOP nomination. He almost has higher favorability among Democrats than among Republicans, which would benefit him in the general election but not in seeking the party nomination. Unless, of course, people vote for him just because he has the best chance of winning in the general election. But that raises two questions:

1. How has that philosophy worked out for Republicans in the past two elections?
2. Is the primary goal just to have a Republican (ANY Republican) in the White House?

[Wallace108]

Ranking the 2016 Republicans in the NBC/WSJ poll

We've ranked the Republican possibilities by popularity -- among GOP respondents in the poll, as well conservatives respondents.

There are two big findings: One, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the former 2012 Republican vice-presidential nominee, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are leading the pack. And two, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie -- despite his crossover appeal -- is trailing among Republicans and conservatives.

And get this: Christie has better ratings among liberal Democrats (44% positive, 14% negative) than he does among Republicans (40% favorable, 16% unfavorable) or conservatives (33 favorable, 15% unfavorable).

Among Republican respondents in the NBC/WSJ poll:

Paul Ryan: 62% favorable, 13% unfavorable (Dec. 2012 poll)
Rand Paul: 53% favorable, 6% unfavorable (April 2013)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): 49% favorable, 6% unfavorable (April 2013)
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush: 48% favorable, 7% unfavorable (May-June 2013)
Chris Christie: 40% favorable, 16% unfavorable (May-June 2013)
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: 21% favorable, 5% unfavorable (May-June 2013)
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): 21% favorable, 6% unfavorable (May-June 2013)

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/07/18828408-ranking-the-2016-republicans-in-the-nbcwsj-poll


Poll: Republicans favor Rand Paul, Condi Rice in 2016
Republicans favor Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as their 2016 presidential nominees, according to a new poll that vaults the Bush-era diplomat to the top of the pack.

The weekly Economist/YouGov poll found that both won 13 percent of GOP support. Rep. Paul Ryan, the 2012 vice presidential nominee, was second at 10 percent, followed closely by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 9 percent and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 8 percent.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-republicans-favor-rand-paul-condi-rice-in-2016/article/2531211

It's still WAY early, but Republicans seem to like Rand Paul a lot more than Chris Christie. So the question is this ... will we vote for the better candidate, or will we vote for who we think has the best chance of winning in the general election? If we were to choose the second option, we'd be in the same boat we've been in the past two elections.

[GoSlash27]

If the Republicans want to take back the executive branch, they need a Christie or a Toomey.
If this was true, Romney would be President. He's not, so this line of reasoning is suspect at best. How many more election cycles are you willing to throw away before you concede that this approach doesn't work and maybe we should try something different?

[Wallace108]

If this was true, Romney would be President. He's not, so this line of reasoning is suspect at best. How many more election cycles are you willing to throw away before you concede that this approach doesn't work and maybe we should try something different?

Wrong!

If that line of thinking was true, McCain would be in his second term. :wink02:

[Seven]

It's still WAY early, but Republicans seem to like Rand Paul a lot more than Chris Christie. So the question is this ... will we vote for the better candidate, or will we vote for who we think has the best chance of winning in the general election? If we were to choose the second option, we'd be in the same boat we've been in the past two elections.

I've seen that poll before. But unless I'm mistaken it was only of a single state, correct? Not saying it isn't something to take seriously, but I bet a nationwide survey would provide different results.

[GoSlash27]

Wrong!

If that line of thinking was true, McCain would be in his second term. :wink02:
Point conceded.

[Seven]

If this was true, Romney would be President. He's not, so this line of reasoning is suspect at best. How many more election cycles are you willing to throw away before you concede that this approach doesn't work and maybe we should try something different?

I'd be willing to try something different if there was something different worth trying. I like a lot of libertarian ideals, but there are also just as many flaws in libertarian plans as there are in the practices of mainstream Republicans. (See pages one and two of Federal Politics thread. Unanswered questions, poorly defined plans, irresponsible restructure of government).

[Wallace108]

I've seen that poll before. But unless I'm mistaken it was only of a single state, correct? Not saying it isn't something to take seriously, but I bet a nationwide survey would provide different results.

Which one are you referring to? I posted two.

Quite honestly though, any poll right now is a bit silly. I posted them just to point out that someone with libertarian beliefs (Rand Paul) is quite popular among Republicans. What troubles me is the popularity of Paul Ryan right now. It's not surprising that he's popular among Republicans and conservatives, but if he runs and wins, he's going to have the same problems that Romney had in a general election. Ryan can win the nomination, but I don't think he can win the general election for many of the same reasons Romney couldn't. In fact, I think Rand would stand a better chance than Ryan in the general election. Rand would get the same conservative support, but also attract voters (independents, moderate Democrats, women, minorities, young voters) who would run away screaming from Ryan.

[GoSlash27]

I've seen that poll before. But unless I'm mistaken it was only of a single state, correct? Not saying it isn't something to take seriously, but I bet a nationwide survey would provide different results.
I believe you're mistaken. These both appear to be national polls to me.

[Seven]

Which one are you referring to? I posted two.

Quite honestly though, any poll right now is a bit silly. I posted them just to point out that someone with libertarian beliefs (Rand Paul) is quite popular among Republicans. What troubles me is the popularity of Paul Ryan right now. It's not surprising that he's popular among Republicans and conservatives, but if he runs and wins, he's going to have the same problems that Romney had in a general election. Ryan can win the nomination, but I don't think he can win the general election for many of the same reasons Romney couldn't. In fact, I think Rand would stand a better chance than Ryan in the general election. Rand would get the same conservative support, but also attract voters (independents, moderate Democrats, women, minorities, young voters) who would run away screaming from Ryan.

I agree with you on Ryan. And the second poll I think. I'll have to look at the first. Sorry, I didn't realize there were two.

[GoSlash27]

I'd be willing to try something different if there was something different worth trying. I like a lot of libertarian ideals, but there are also just as many flaws in libertarian plans as there are in the practices of mainstream Republicans. (See pages one and two of Federal Politics thread. Unanswered questions, poorly defined plans, irresponsible restructure of government).

Weren't we just discussing how to win the White House? I was talking about what might work vs. what doesn't in that context, not this one.

- - - Updated - - -

^ but if you'd rather discuss this, I suppose that's fine. You have misgivings about libertarian conservatism, and that is your right. Which do you have more misgivings about? Libertarianism or socialism?

[Seven]

I believe you're mistaken. These both appear to be national polls to me.

I could be wrong. It happened once before.

For the record I think Rice is a slam dunk and I've been saying so for months.

[GoSlash27]

Ironic that you used the words "slam dunk", considering. :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AScvERwuiU
The Dems would eviscerate her.

[Wallace108]

If Biden is so strongly against Cruz and Paul, that's all the more reason we should be so strongly for them.


Biden Warns: GOP Led By Two Young Senators, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul

At a high-dollar fundraiser last night in Washington, D.C., Vice President Joe Biden warned his fellow Democrats about the Republicans.

“It’s a pretty simple proposition: The United States of America, and the state of Massachusetts, does not need another Republican in the Senate,” Biden told the assembled donors, according to the press pool report. “I’m being straight about this. This is not your father’s Republican Party. It really is a fundamentally different party. There’s never been as much distance, at least since I’ve been alive, distance between where the mainstream of the Republican congressional party is and the Democratic Party is. It’s a chasm. It’s a gigantic chasm.”In particular, Biden shared his distrust of two young Republican senators, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.“I’m not talking about the character or even the quality of the minds of the people I’m going to mention. But the last thing in the world we need now is someone who will go down to the United States Senate and support Ted Cruz, support the new senator from Kentucky -- or the old senator from Kentucky,” said Biden.

“Think about this. ... Have you ever seen a time when two freshman senators are able to cower the bulk of the Republican Party in the Senate? That is not hyperbole.”

“On the gun issue, I don’t care what your position is -- I called 17 senators out, 9 of whom were Republicans. ... Not one of offered an explanation on the merits of why they couldn’t vote for the background check. But almost to a person, they said, ‘I don’t want to take on Ted Cruz. I don’t want to take on Rand Paul. They’ll be in my district.’

“I actually said, ‘Are you kidding? These are two freshman,’” Biden said, according to the pool report. “This is a different, party folks. They’re not bad guys, and they’re both very bright guys. And I’m not questioning their motive.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-warns-gop-led-two-young-senators-ted-cruz-and-rand-paul_735104.html

[Dwinsgames]

http://www.pjtv.com/s/GEZDQNRQ

watch the video .....enjoy