How much money do you want to bet?
I’m willing to bet he gets at least one write-in vote. I’ll cast it if necessary.
You’re assuming that those young voters didn’t vote for Obama because he turned out to be too liberal. However, despite the GOP propaganda, Obama has not been a particularly liberal president. The disillusionment with Obama, particularly among the young, is that he has not been liberal enough. Those voters are not likely to be winnable by the Republicans.
Actually, I’m assuming that 2.4 million voters didn’t vote for him because they thought he was a different kind of politician but turned out to be more of the same.
The GOP’s strongest generational supporters – Boomers and pre-Boomers – will be dying, while today’s teenagers – too young to remember when the GOP was sane – will be old enough to vote. This is good news for the GOP. Check.
Europeans opposed to their left-wing government’s policies will immigrate to U.S.A. in droves and vote, not for the right-of-center party (Democrats), but for the Party of Buffoons, Homophobes, Liars, Liberto-idiots, Anti-Illuminatiists and Religious Fanatics. Check.
I’m bookmarking this OP in case anyone wonders whether today’s Republicans are out of touch.
You ever hear the joke about outrunning a bear?
Barack Obama is not a great president. But the Republicans couldn’t find anyone who could beat him.
True. The problem is that there’s more than just one election. What happens after Obama? Will minorities continue to turn out big for an old white guy, or even an old white lady?
If the lack of turnout when Obama isn’t on the ticket is any indication, they will not.
The only guy who excites young people nearly as much as Obama did was Ron Paul, and it’s rubbed off on his son. Libertarianism sells with young people.
Right. They thought he was going to be a liberal, but he turned out to be another Republican. I don’t see any scenario where that turns into a gain for the actual Republican party, though.
Young voters aren’t normally disconnected from politics because politicians aren’t liberal. They are disconnected from politics because politicians are at their best dishonest, at their worst criminal. Obama was portrayed as different and his 2008 campaign was based around him being different.
Of course, by 2012 he couldn’t run on that anymore, thus the lower youth turnout for him.
But regardless of whether young voters eventually turn Republican(many will once they start making money and paying income taxes), or just stay home for the rest of their lives, Democrats missed an opportunity. The predictions of Democratic dominance will just have to be pushed back yet again a few more years.
Right, that’s what I just said. In 2008, Obama appeared to be a strong liberal candidate. His performance over the next four years turned off a lot of voters, because his presidency turned out to be a lot less liberal than his campaign. There’s no scenario where a significant number of those young voters who stayed home in 2012 turn Republican, because they’re further to the left than the Democratic party. You have a better shot at turning the voters who did vote for him in 2012, because they’re going to be more moderate.
Not really. Those voters have shown that they’ll come out in support of a sufficiently appealing liberal candidate. Obama was no longer that candidate for them in 2012, but he’s not going to be running in 2016.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever correctly predicted a social or political trend?
That’s why we’ll give them a libertarian to cheer for, with any luck.
You do realize that Ron Paul ran for President in 2008 and 2012?
People got a chance to take a look at his ideas and the consensus was “Wow, I never understood how insane Libertarianism really is.”
For an insane ideology, it keeps on gaining, ever so slowly. We’ll never reach the Pauls’ ideal, of course, but we’ll continue to get freer, both on social issues and economic issues.
And although Paul lost, his son is more politically adept, less radical, and just as capable of exciting young people. Plus he recognizes that Republicans need to attract more minority voters and has been bold enough to actively try to persuade them, something which got no small amount of hate right here on SDMB. Seems like the only thing liberals hate more than Republicans not reaching out to minorities is Republicans reaching out to minorities.
So let me get this straight: Republicans groused about Obama still running against Bush in 2012, but now your big plan for victory in 2016 and beyond is Obama’s electoral “weaknesses.”
Good luck with that.
Real slowly.
1976 - Democrats 40,831,881 - Republicans 39,148,634 - Libertarians 172,553 (4th)
1980 - Republicans 43,903,230 - Democrats 35,480,115 - Libertarians 921,128 (4th)
1984 - Republicans 54,455,472 - Democrats 37,577,352 - Libertarians 228,111 (3rd)
1988 - Republicans 48,886,097 - Democrats 41,809,074 - Libertarians 431,750 (3rd)
1992 - Democrats 44,909,806 - Republicans 39,104,550 - Libertarians 290,087 (4th)
1996 - Democrats 47,401,185 - Republicans 39,197,469 - Libertarians 485,759 (5th)
2000 - Democrats 50,999,897 - Republicans 50,456,002 - Libertarians 384,431 (5th)
2004 - Republicans 62,040,610 - Democrats 59,028,444 - Libertarians 397,265 (5th)
2008 - Democrats 69,498,516 - Republicans 59,948,323 - Libertarians 523,715 (4th)
2012 - Democrats 65,910,437 - Republicans 60,932,795 - Libertarians 1,275,951 (3rd)
To put these numbers in perspective, Ross Perot was considered a major third party candidate in the 1992 election. He didn’t win. Nor did he come in second. But there’s a good argument that his presence may have effected the outcome of the election. That’s as strong a showing as any non-big party candidate has had in decades. It’s the pinnacle that the Libertarians are hoping to reach someday - not to win an election but to at least matter in an election.
How close are they? Well, Perot ran a second time in 1996. This time he was treating like a joke and nobody cared that he was running. But even so, Ross Perot got more votes in 1996 than the Libertarians got in the last ten elections - combined.
Don’t confuse derision with hate.
The LIbertarian Party isn’t gaining, libertarianism is. It’s an indisputable fact that we are growing freer in all facets of society. Both parties are moving to the right on economic issues and the left on social issues.
thwap thwap thwap
What’s that sound? Just adaher stepping on another few rakes. I’d tell you it was about to be over but, well, if it’s bothering you, might want to invest in a lifetime supply of earplugs.
Once again historic context:
The 2008 election 66 to 32 spread was an outlier and the less impressive 2012 60 to 37 was only slightly less so. If you have the time and energy you could do some number crunching and compare the youth spread each election to the general election results … my guess is that there is indeed a historic bias toward the Democratic candidate relative to the average voter spread even in the years that the youth vote went GOP but that the difference was larger in 2012 in any year other than in 2008. Certainly the absolute spread was larger than in any other non-2012 year.
Linked to that article is this one, which notes that
The slow growth of Libertarianism and its louder voice within the GOP is, IMHO, actually a sign of the weakness of the GOP in general. It won’t shift Millenials off their relatively progressive beliefs. It won’t attract a large number of new youth voters. It will instead keep the GOP fractured, perhaps increasingly so.
Mind you I understand the appeal of Libertarianism to a segment of well-educated youth: for the most part politicians with Libertarian beliefs are at least relatively intellectually honest and internally consistent. That aspect is appealing. But the vast majority of Americans, including younger voters, will continue to find what these politicians honestly believe to be unappealling when listened to with any attention whatsoever.
Can the GOP simultaneously appeal to the Libertrian youth wthin their ranks and enough to the more economically progressive aging Millenials, and the growing “minority” population? Can they maintain their appeal to the Religious Right without losing the increasing numbers who have shifted a bit more socially progressive on issues such as gay rights?
I am not saying it is impossible. It isn’t. But demographics are a point of challenge for them.
Let’s confirm adaher knows how gravity works before asking him the harder stuff.
I don’t think adaher is talking about a 3rd-party run; he wants the GOP to nominate a Paul or Ryan. It does seem farfetched though:
[QUOTE=Republican strategists in their smoke-filled room]
The voters got tired of crass stupidity, so we tried a smart but nasty guy. That didn’t work. What do we do now?
… I know, let’s nominate a stark-raving lunatic! :smack:
[/QUOTE]
Except at BENGHAZI, of course.
Right?
Am I right, people?