My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in case that was unclear. I actually think parties should bias their platforms, nominees, etc towards that which gets votes. The thing that I think is funny is that this whole purity-versus-expediency is a long-running debate in LP circles, and the last couple cycles, the expediency guys have won, and 1% is what they got to show for it. It’s gotta make you chuckle at least a little.
Please tell me how the Democrats are equally “damaging and threatening to the country”.
Sanders supporters are similar to Trump supporters in that they are voting their discontent. I doubt there’s a significant portion that espouse socialist beliefs other than thinking “I’ll get mine.” Of course, they don’t tend to think beyond that short-sighted view.
So how is this different from many, if not most other previous Presidential campaigns? Obama voters in 2008 were voting their discontent with the Bush administration and those they perceived as its enablers such as Clinton who supported the Iraq War. Roosevelt voters in 1932 were voting their discontent with Herbert Hoover.
So you think the majority of Hillary Clinton supporters by contrast espouse her particular ideology of bourgeois left-liberalism and are voting to implement said vision for the greater good of the American nation rather then voting for their (perceived or not) self-interest?
In other words, you agree with that part of my point. Thank you.
I don’t recall saying anything about Clinton supporters, nor any of the others you mentioned. My point had to do with Sanders supporters and, peripherally, Trump supporters.
Don’t beat around the bush. It’s quite obvious you were trying to draw a unique similarity between Sanders and Trump supporters, otherwise your post would literally be stating the obvious that all candidates are propelled by similar motives.
Discontent is nowhere near the only motivation for voting. It happens, however, that it is far greater than others for Sanders and Trump voters.
Not that this has much at all to do with the thrust of my argument.
Compared to what? Maybe if we limit ourselves to this election cycle, but even then current two-way polling between Clinton and Trump indicates people are more likely to favour Hillary as a vote against Trump. Indeed, considering that of the three candidates in the race only Sanders has a net positive favourability rating, one might make the argument that he’s the candidate who has the most positive support rather then of discontent.
Which is? Reading your post, I don’t see you making any other argument besides that Sanders and Trump voters are similar because they are angry and not impelled by ideology.
If people were just looking for somebody who was outside of the usual two-party mainstream, why did they choose Sanders and Trump and ignore Paul? He entered the race before the other two. If it was just a matter of collecting discontented voters, they should have flocked to his banner.
Fine. The discontent I was referring to was economic discontent, which appears to be the primary motivator for both Sanders and Trump supporters, beyond any other supporters. Why does Bernie have a positive favorability rating? Primarily because his message appeals to a younger base, on a variety of issues and for a number of reasons, most of which boil down to economic self-interest without much taking into account workability.
My post was a response to the contention that Bernie’s supporters are voting for him because of his beliefs, and pretty much contradicts it. Once again, it had nothing to do with Trump supporters except to relate them on the grounds of economic discontent.
Are we clear enough, or shall I assemble a team of experts to write a white paper for you?
That has more to do with the two party system. What expediency did at least get them was a position as the most important third party in the US, which the Green Party for awhile threatened to be. The current war within the GOP creates an opening for a vastly better performance this year. I know that the LP always underperforms its polling, but 11% is the highest they’ve ever registered and that showing has been sorta confirmed by other polls showing up to 13% support for “other candidates”. So 5% is a reasonable goal, especially if they can get news coverage. The NEver Trump people getting some damn sense and backing the only reasonable Republican ticket in the race wouldn’t hurt either.
Johnson is calling for massive spending cuts across the board. Nonstarter for Americans. They want to pretend that there is trillions in “fraud and abuse” in the federal budget. They also love their military to a disturbing degree.
Mcafee and Ventura are far more interesting candidates. I’ll vote for the LP candidate, but Johnson doesn’t have the fortitude or the intellectual background to take on the major interests. They will eat that man up if he ever polls over 10%
I’m delighted to see a Libertarian who has a realistic view of their party’s prospects. Americans may love the idea of “cutting spending” in theory and even in practice as long as its the few stringy welfare dollars that go to black inner city mothers or foreign aid to Burkina Faso, but they know in the end it’s government spending that makes American military power second to none, maintains the nation’s freeways and harbours, and gives security in old age with Medicare and Social Security.
Yes, but if they were voting solely on discontent then Bernie would not have a much higher favourability rating-they also like Bernie’s message as well. It’s not as if Clinton’s ideas are any more workable in the face of a Republican majority Congress and much of the time it’s more useful to have grandiose ideas that can mobilize your base and shifts the political conversation rather then openly announce from the beginning you are working for limited gains.
Why are those mutually exclusive? Discontent with the existing status quo are pushing both Sanders and Trump supporters to vote in favour of alternative ideologies that they believe would be better then what exists now-namely social democracy and national conservative populism. And of course saying they are similar would basically be saying that the Communists and Nazis in the Weimar Republic were similar because both opposed the existing order.
Can the Libertarians ever win a state, or get Electoral Votes?
If by “interesting” you mean “of questionable sanity”, yes.
No. They can get the usual tiny handful of True Believers, form their usual coalition with the Cut My Taxes The Most faction and the None Of The Above faction, and get their usual 0.5-1 % or so. But that’s their ceiling. They’re not serious about winning, because they’re not serious about governing, because their ideology cannot survive contact with reality.
We hear every four years how libertarianism is the next great thing. We hear all the time how Americans are going to embrace soccer. Neither is going to happen. The best the LP can ever hope to get is maybe 5% of the vote as protest votes against the parties that actually matter.
If the Libertarian ticket is Johnson and Weld, that’s two guys who have actually governed, as Governors, and survived contact with reality well enough to be re-elected in each case. (They identified as Republicans at the time, but I don’t suppose their individual ideologies have changed dramatically since then.)
Libertarian soccer. Finally, I can use my hands!
HAHAHAHAHA! I didn’t realize what a sense of humor you have.