Why Do Libertarians Get < 1% of vote?

[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.

[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/2...he-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-r...rticle/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.

[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.

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.

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/...ul_735104.html

[Dwinsgames]

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

watch the video .....enjoy