OK, the more the Republican vote gets split, the better off we all will be. It would be voting productively, although you could use it even more productively.
You do realize that your party is now the party of all the shit Trump stands for, don’t you? That’s what the primary results mean. That’s your normal now. The only question is how loyal you, and other traditionalists, are to it as an institution rather than out of principle. Your continued loyalty shows us all the answer, if it in fact continues.
He also increased total debt, it seems that his claim that he balanced the budget is based on accounting gimmicks as most such claims are. He increased total debt by a higher percentage than Bush and Obama.
Johnson will be ignored because he is a highly ignorable person. He only says things that will not get anyone’s attention because he is afraid of attention. That is not an attribute for an effective third party candidate, especially when Trump is controlling the media as he does.
The goons of the LP picked Johnson because they think everyone is already a libertarian and doesn’t know it. They are wrong. The masses love all the things government does and wants them to do even more, which is why the people succeeding this cycle are promising, as a father promises his children, to kiss their self-inflicted boo-boos and punish the people they childishly blame for their unhappiness.
About as surprising as Gus Hall getting the CPUSA nomination every four years for decades. Who else do they have? Hell, do they even have him, or is this just a flag of convenience flying over the Good Ship Ego Trip?
I tend to agree with the OP that this could be the Libertarian’s year. Trump may be too daffy for even the nuttiest conservative to stomach. But where could they go?
Neurotypical foreign policy hawks would probably do best with Clinton, while those bent on conquest and transnational butthurt would opt for Trump. For the other 99.9% who vote on domestic policy, those favoring experience would go for Clinton.
But there are plenty of conservatives who like to drop acid and smoke pot. They have a natural affinity for the Libertarian Party. And there are a rather larger number who think that Trump is a ridiculous buffoon. They might vote Libertarian if they can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary. Or they could stay home.
I could see the Libertarian Party beating 15% in the polls. Which would give them a table at the debate. Which makes the 5% threshold not so impossible. Yes, this could be a powerful year for the Libertarian message.
Call me optimistic, but I see two things that could help the LP win states:
More executive experience than the major party tickets. That’s never happened before and if they are smart they’ll play that up against Mr. Idiot and Mrs. Crooked.
While neither Johnson nor Weld are inspiring, that might be a plus this cycle. Ben Carson had quite a run just on being a gentleman. Now imagine Ben Carson actually knowing his business and you’ve got a nice contrast to the two very unlikeable major party candidates.
I say if they make the debates anything can happen.
I don’t think Johnson/Weld can win this. 15% in the polls is unlikely but plausible. Especially if they get a billionaire cash infusion. Which could happen. Or not. Hard to tell because personalities are involved.
If they get into the debate, earning 5% of the vote is a rational and reasonable goal. A secondary goal might be to focus efforts in New Hampshire and try to pick up a small number of delegates. Then hope for a GOP breakup down the road, where they could pick up the pieces like the Republicans did after the Whigs blew up.
One big problem is that libertarianism is a tightly defined ideology. That makes the rough compromises of politics more difficult to execute. And as noted upthread, it’s much more popular in theory than in practice. The other is that the preceding scenario is hard to carry out.
Most likely outcome? Nothingburger. No seat in the debates, less than 5% in the nationwide vote. I can’t bet on this though. Too many moving parts, too many new components. In 2016, we need to adjust our priors.
Libertarianism doesn’t mean you can’t compromise, it just means you can’t compromise on certain basic rights. On issues like spending and taxes, Gary Johnson has already said he disagrees with Repubilcans who said they wouldn’t take a 10-1 spending cuts/tax increases deal. He’d take that deal in a heartbeat.
I think the problem is the name of the party. The candidates this time (Johnson and Weld) don’t strike me as very Libertarian. Why couldn’t they just run as the “Independent Party” or “Sane Republicans” or some such? I think they’d get a lot more votes.
Except that they aren’t socially liberal, in many cases: a lot of Libertarians are pro-life, and they also tend to object to Civil Rights laws.
Libertarians, for instance (in many cases; there are few universals) don’t believe that business owners should have to serve racial minorities if they don’t want to. A number of Libertarian candidates have come out against any rule that business owners have to serve gays if they don’t want to.
That’s a big failure to show a “socially liberal” stance.
For many libertarians, racism and homophobia should be fought through reasoning and boycotting, rather than through violation of property rights . . . exactly the same way we treat racist and homophobic individuals. Just because a libertarian advocates the protection of the rights of racist and homophobic business owners, doesn’t mean he agrees with that person’s racism and homophobia.
It’s telling that despite having been a fairly liberal Democrat but a few years ago, you seem to have gone back to full-blown libertarianism now that gay marriage is safely legalized. Of course, you’ve elsewhere repeated the “not a dime’s worth of difference” line despite the immense role the Obama administration in advancing the cause of homosexual rights in this country.