Romney chooses Ryan

[buckstopshere]

Funny thing I read on FB yesterday in a conversation between a Liberal and a Libertarian...

The Liberal said that a vote for anyone other than Obama would be a vote for Romney. Looks like each side of the isle have the same problem on their hands.

Just how desperate must each side be to use this same approach in attempts to convince us third party voters to change our vote?
It tells me that they do not have the confidence in their candidate's platform to garnish enough votes.

The Guardian had an article yesterday talking about how polarized the country is. The estimate was 25% of voters in 2008 at this point in time were undecided. This year the estimate is 5%. People know who they're voting for it seems. I think there's some truth in that from what I've read here as well as real life conversations with people all over the Midwest.

 

[Willie]

The Guardian had an article yesterday talking about how polarized the country is. The estimate was 25% of voters in 2008 at this point in time were undecided. This year the estimate is 5%. People know who they're voting for it seems. I think there's some truth in that from what I've read here as well as real life conversations with people all over the Midwest.

Then the "energized base" will be the deciding factor.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This comment ignores a large bunch of Libertarian leaning Republicans like me...

I disagree VEHEMENTLY with Obama, no question about it.

Excellent

I think Mr. Johnson would be WAY better for the country that either Obama or Romney. Agreed My choice (interestingly similar to Johnson ), got the boot from the Republican field very early. But when you have 9 or 10 people running - SOMEONE has to get bumped out. it happens. *

In talking to people (except on INGO), just John Q. Public... I've asked them when discussing politics - do you know who Gary Johnson is? 9 of 10 COULD NOT TELL ME. These are ordinary people that care about the republic. Just haven't heard, yet. Doesn't mean they'd all vote for him - but the fact remains that they HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD OF HIM, OR IT HASN"T STUCK.

It is impossible for a person who does not have 50% name recognition to win, wouldn't you agree?

So what am I left to do? It's NOT an emotional thing for me - it's simple logic.

My choice is this - I'll actively talk to people around and promote libertarian ideas! Wherever I can. * Same philosophy as the Appleseed gang - waking up the country. All of my closest associates are aware that I'm coming out of the closet as a little l libertarian. (My Brother in Law insists that I've been "a flaming libertarian" for a long time - thus eliminating the need for coming out of the closet.. ) Realistically, though - by November, we're not going to be any where close to the needed name recognition. Say what you want, and help all we might - there's just too much ground to cover. And not by a small margin.

So in November - I'm faced with a choice. And again , I'll side with logic over emotion, and vote for the best candidate available that has any (and I do mean ANY) hope. Polls mean nothing. Name recognition, though, is a deal killer. Given what's out there, that's likely Romney.

So rather than get whipped into a frenzy and go in a forum and say "By [inser t Deity of choice] , I'll NEVER vote for HIM... " , "They're both the same." or whatever, I simply choose to do what I can.

For the record, the libertarian wing of the R party would be wise to field only ONE candidate. Ron Paul made a big dent this year. And that's why Johnson never got off the ground in the R primary*.

* First thing, if you go to a restaurant and order a porterhouse, and they bring you a piece of chicken and charge enough to cover two porterhouse steaks, but promise you better next time are you going to accept that? Then next time, the same thing happens and they tell you to be patient, one of these times they will give you a porterhouse, and then again and again every time you go out to eat. When do you reach the point of saying 'enough, I'm going to the restaurant up the street!'?

Second, the 'unelectability' issue is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophesy, which is why the lamestream media and the D/R politicians love it so much. It assures them of having an establishment politician both on the ballot in November and in office after the election. Ron Paul did much to further the cause even if the establishment types did everything in the book to shut him down. If Gary Johnson turns in a significant margin this election, which is entirely possible if we don't get pulled into the ABO/Johnson isn't electable circle jerk, in four years the Libertarian cause will have a great deal more recognition even in the event of fielding a different candidate.

Third, what do we have to lose? Mrjarrell's post was remarkably correct. Not only are Romney and Obama remarkably similar, but Romney had an established record of doing reprehensible things in office before Obama had yet sprung up from the cracks in the concrete, and further, there are things particularly reprehensible to gun owners that we fear Obama MAY do (and probably would afforded the opportunity) that Romney has already done--and we are supposed to see Romney as an improvement? I would say that if there was ever an election to do whatever you wanted, this is it considering that there is so little difference between Romney and Obama that in the end having one in office will be nearly indistinguishable from having the other. If at most you get a choice between ketchup or mustard on your s**t sandwich, why not vote for a real candidate even if you don't think he will win. It will bring recognition to the concept that there is another alternative and at worst you will have mustard when you would have preferred ketchup while you are eating the same s**t.

Finally, it is stupid beyond measure to keep doing the same thing (in this case accepting an establishment politician who won't do anything that is a damned bit good) and yet expect different results. They you say, 'well maybe next time.' It won't be any different next time because the establishment will roll out the cheerleaders and convince you the sky will fall if their guy isn't elected and you will go along with it again holding your nose as you vote for their establishment candidate. It has to change some time. Why not now?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

* First thing, if you go to a restaurant and order a porterhouse, and they bring you a piece of chicken and charge enough to cover two porterhouse steaks, but promise you better next time are you going to accept that? Then next time, the same thing happens and they tell you to be patient, one of these times they will give you a porterhouse, and then again and again every time you go out to eat. When do you reach the point of saying 'enough, I'm going to the restaurant up the street!'?

Second, the 'unelectability' issue is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophesy, which is why the lamestream media and the D/R politicians love it so much. It assures them of having an establishment politician both on the ballot in November and in office after the election. Ron Paul did much to further the cause even if the establishment types did everything in the book to shut him down. If Gary Johnson turns in a significant margin this election, which is entirely possible if we don't get pulled into the ABO/Johnson isn't electable circle jerk, in four years the Libertarian cause will have a great deal more recognition even in the event of fielding a different candidate.

Third, what do we have to lose? Mrjarrell's post was remarkably correct. Not only are Romney and Obama remarkably similar, but Romney had an established record of doing reprehensible things in office before Obama had yet sprung up from the cracks in the concrete, and further, there are things particularly reprehensible to gun owners that we fear Obama MAY do (and probably would afforded the opportunity) that Romney has already done--and we are supposed to see Romney as an improvement? I would say that if there was ever an election to do whatever you wanted, this is it considering that there is so little difference between Romney and Obama that in the end having one in office will be nearly indistinguishable from having the other. If at most you get a choice between ketchup or mustard on your s**t sandwich, why not vote for a real candidate even if you don't think he will win. It will bring recognition to the concept that there is another alternative and at worst you will have mustard when you would have preferred ketchup while you are eating the same s**t.

Finally, it is stupid beyond measure to keep doing the same thing (in this case accepting an establishment politician who won't do anything that is a damned bit good) and yet expect different results. They you say, 'well maybe next time.' It won't be any different next time because the establishment will roll out the cheerleaders and convince you the sky will fall if their guy isn't elected and you will go along with it again holding your nose as you vote for their establishment candidate. It has to change some time. Why not now?

You're still pissing into the wind here, IndyDave, by ignoring ArmedProgrammer's main point: If no one knows who your candidate is, and only a small percentage of the voting population has accepted your candidate's platform, how can you expect victory? To quote you: "Finally, it is stupid beyond measure to keep doing the same thing . . . and yet expect different results." By not educating the electorate sufficiently; by not making your message sufficiently attractive to a large percentage of the population but insisting that anyone who believes the way you do but doesn't VOTE that way is foolish, who is the one "acting crazy" here?

 

[IndyDave1776]

You're still pissing into the wind here, IndyDave, by ignoring ArmedProgrammer's main point: If no one knows who your candidate is, and only a small percentage of the voting population has accepted your candidate's platform, how can you expect victory? To quote you: "Finally, it is stupid beyond measure to keep doing the same thing . . . and yet expect different results." By not educating the electorate sufficiently; by not making your message sufficiently attractive to a large percentage of the population but insisting that anyone who believes the way you do but doesn't VOTE that way is foolish, who is the one "acting crazy" here?

It appears to me that more has been done this election cycle to educate the voting public, and I will stand by the idea that the numbers will get a significant point across in November if we move away from holding our noses and voting for an establishment candidate. Personally I don't care whether trash legislation comes with Romney's signature or Obama's at the bottom. Romney has demonstrated in the past and affirmed in his present statements that we can expect no change from the status quo with him as president. The education value will be tremendous if Johnson pulls something on the order of 20% of the vote which is entirely possible if those who agree with the cause of liberty and oppose the status quo would so vote. In the end, I do not (barring a first-class miracle) expect a good outcome in November, but if it is going to be equally bad either way, we might as well make a statement that will set the stage for 2016, but no, most reasonable voters will keep pulling the 'R' lever and hope for something better next time that will NOT be coming.

WHAT DO WE HAVE TO LOSE? If there is anything, I am having a hard time finding it.

 

[buckstopshere]

WHAT DO WE HAVE TO LOSE? If there is anything, I am having a hard time finding it.

our chains

 

[IndyDave1776]

our chains

I did overlook that angle. Thanks.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It appears to me that more has been done this election cycle to educate the voting public, and I will stand by the idea that the numbers will get a significant point across in November if we move away from holding our noses and voting for an establishment candidate. Personally I don't care whether trash legislation comes with Romney's signature or Obama's at the bottom. Romney has demonstrated in the past and affirmed in his present statements that we can expect no change from the status quo with him as president. The education value will be tremendous if Johnson pulls something on the order of 20% of the vote which is entirely possible if those who agree with the cause of liberty and oppose the status quo would so vote. In the end, I do not (barring a first-class miracle) expect a good outcome in November, but if it is going to be equally bad either way, we might as well make a statement that will set the stage for 2016, but no, most reasonable voters will keep pulling the 'R' lever and hope for something better next time that will NOT be coming.

WHAT DO WE HAVE TO LOSE? If there is anything, I am having a hard time finding it.

our chains

I think you're both wrong in your conclusions and I pray that your candidate won't get 20% of the vote (it seems unlikely, but I'll pray that way anyway.) We don't need four more years of what we've had for most of the last four years, and if we get four more years of this Administration, likely there won't be anything left to save in 2016.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think you're both wrong in your conclusions and I pray that your candidate won't get 20% of the vote (it seems unlikely, but I'll pray that way anyway.) We don't need four more years of what we've had for most of the last four years, and if we get four more years of this Administration, likely there won't be anything left to save in 2016.

We have this same argument every election as the establishment candidates get more and more similar. Following this to its conclusion, we will NEVER have a good president. Right now, within your parameters, we have our choice between a fiscally irresponsible statist gun-grabber and a fiscally irresponsible (he has already said he won't reign in spending) statist gun-grabber. I agree that four more years of Obama will be an unmitigated disaster, but I fail to see a significant difference regarding 4 years of Romney, and then after that, we will hear the same tired argument that we can't afford a chance on [insert bogeyman] so you absolutely must support the 'R' candidate who isn't a damned bit different, but has an 'R' by his name. I am tired of being served a s**t sandwich regardless of what I want or order. I am going elsewhere.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

We have this same argument every election as the establishment candidates get more and more similar. Following this to its conclusion, we will NEVER have a good president. Right now, within your parameters, we have our choice between a fiscally irresponsible statist gun-grabber and a fiscally irresponsible (he has already said he won't reign in spending) statist gun-grabber. I agree that four more years of Obama will be an unmitigated disaster, but I fail to see a significant difference regarding 4 years of Romney, and then after that, we will hear the same tired argument that we can't afford a chance on [insert bogeyman] so you absolutely must support the 'R' candidate who isn't a damned bit different, but has an 'R' by his name. I am tired of being served a s**t sandwich regardless of what I want or order. I am going elsewhere.

Get back to me after the election when we see how many have followed your example.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Get back to me after the election when we see how many have followed your example.

Probably not enough, but that doesn't change the point at issue, which is that buying into the two-party monopoly absolutely guarantees us an unpleasant end, and probably sooner rather than later.

 

[jamil]

Funny thing I read on FB yesterday in a conversation between a Liberal and a Libertarian...

The Liberal said that a vote for anyone other than Obama would be a vote for Romney. Looks like each side of the isle have the same problem on their hands.

Just how desperate must each side be to use this same approach in attempts to convince us third party voters to change our vote?
It tells me that they do not have the confidence in their candidate's platform to garnish enough votes.

Eh, doesn't really matter all that much. Rasmussen has "other candidates" at only 3%. The "undediced" is twice "other candidates".

 

[hacksawfg]

I'll say it again, check out this site:

2012 Presidential Race | OpenSecrets

That is a simply staggering amount of money compared to Johnson.

Summary data for Gary Johnson | OpenSecrets

If he gets 5% of the vote, Libertarians would be is eligible for $91.2 million in the general election, which could be used for stuff like actually having enough money to get your name out there!

Either way, the 2012 Presidential auction will be a sight to behold. I still think Johnson should at least participate in the debates, because I would love to hear something besides how a persons individual tax returns have something to do with their plans for the country.

Oh, yeah, it makes me happy to hear people talking about shi** sandwiches, good to know that stuck . Also, if I don't respond to this I'm probably trying real hard to avoid getting sucked into another 6 hour marathon INGO visit and actually get some stuff done now that I'm back from my business trip to Canada

 

[firehawk1]

Your whole premise for voting is because you hate Obama. You don't care to say why we should vote for Romney other than he's not Obama. And you're criticizing libertarians for trashing Romney and not explaining why you should vote for Johnson. Meet irony.

We'll see if Romney actually beats Obama.

First off, I don't "hate" Obama. I'll bet he would be interesting to sit and drink a beer with. Felt the same way about Clinton. It is their POLICIES I despise, not the man.

Talk about irony or should it be hypocrisy, I've read here from several that we need someone to vote FOR, not simply against someone. Well my point was, start giving reasons to vote for Johnson, and not spend your time trashing Romney. Everyone knows Johnson supporters do not like Romney, so why the constant drumbeat about how you despise him, WE GET IT, and we GOT it LONG ago.

 

[hornadylnl]

First off, I don't "hate" Obama. I'll bet he would be interesting to sit and drink a beer with. Felt the same way about Clinton. It is their POLICIES I despise, not the man.

Talk about irony or should it be hypocrisy, I've read here from several that we need someone to vote FOR, not simply against someone. Well my point was, start giving reasons to vote for Johnson, and not spend your time trashing Romney. Everyone knows Johnson supporters do not like Romney, so why the constant drumbeat about how you despise him, WE GET IT, and we GOT it LONG ago.

Everyone knows Romney supporters do not like Obama, so why the constant drumbeat about how you despise him, WE GET IT, and we GOT it LONG ago.

So why should we vote for Romney other than the fact that's he's not Obama? That's all I ever see offered up on the Romney side here. Johnson's track record has been posted here and it's only met with he's unelectable.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I'll say it again, check out this site:

2012 Presidential Race | OpenSecrets

That is a simply staggering amount of money compared to Johnson.

Summary data for Gary Johnson | OpenSecrets

If he gets 5% of the vote, Libertarians would be is eligible for $91.2 million in the general election, which could be used for stuff like actually having enough money to get your name out there!

Either way, the 2012 Presidential auction will be a sight to behold. I still think Johnson should at least participate in the debates, because I would love to hear something besides how a persons individual tax returns have something to do with their plans for the country.

Oh, yeah, it makes me happy to hear people talking about shi** sandwiches, good to know that stuck . Also, if I don't respond to this I'm probably trying real hard to avoid getting sucked into another 6 hour marathon INGO visit and actually get some stuff done now that I'm back from my business trip to Canada

Rather than trying to get name recognition for your Presidential candidate, you ought to be building your organization from the local political scene upward. Get enough Libertarians in Congress to form a Caucus and you might gain some momentum in national politics.

 

[firehawk1]

Everyone knows Romney supporters do not like Obama, so why the constant drumbeat about how you despise him, WE GET IT, and we GOT it LONG ago.

So why should we vote for Romney other than the fact that's he's not Obama? That's all I ever see offered up on the Romney side here. Johnson's track record has been posted here and it's only met with he's unelectable.

Who's drumbeat, not mine since I haven't resorted to trashing anyone. All I've stated are my reasons for voting the way I will in November. I haven't played the "everyone else is ignorant blind sheep" card as several here have done and still do.

I've never tried to convince anyone to vote one way or the other. I have never attempted to and won't attempt to convince anyone to vote for Romney or any other of the candidates. Everyone has to make up their own mind as who to vote for. I've made my decision based on what is most important TO ME.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

You're still pissing into the wind here, IndyDave, by ignoring ArmedProgrammer's main point: If no one knows who your candidate is, and only a small percentage of the voting population has accepted your candidate's platform, how can you expect victory? To quote you: "Finally, it is stupid beyond measure to keep doing the same thing . . . and yet expect different results." By not educating the electorate sufficiently; by not making your message sufficiently attractive to a large percentage of the population but insisting that anyone who believes the way you do but doesn't VOTE that way is foolish, who is the one "acting crazy" here?

@IndyDave - First - we obviously agree that Johnson's the best candidate in terms of what we want - but we diverge from there. Fair enough.. Two points you make that I have to disagree with:
1) "UnElectability" - I was VERY careful to point out what my beef was... it was NOT that Johnson was not electable. I have thought this out carefully. Heck I have made the unelectability argument myself before and many Republicans will take that position. My problem with the situation is NOT that he is unelectable - it is that NO ONE KNOWS EVEN WHO HE IS. There is a difference. Who was the Libertarian Party candidate in 2000? Heck, I don't know!!! My point is that if no one knows who he is (name recognition) then there is no physical way in Hades that he can win. Contrast that with a Perot candidacy. Everyone knew who the heck he was. To summarize - if Johnson had the name recognition of a Perot , I would be voting for him in a New York second. But he does not.

I understand folks who say they got burned on Perot and will not help elect Obama like they did Clinton. That is NOT the argument that I am making.

2) Re: What do we have to lose? This is another variation of the "they are both the same" argument. NO, they are not. Obama is DRASTICALLY worse for the economy. I don't think you will see Romney talking trash about business owners and innovators. I don't think that you will see Romney shove ANYTHING down the People's collective throat the way that Obama shoved Obamacare down ours - AGAINST the will of the People. In fact one of the big knocks on Romney is that he bends to the will of the People TOO MUCH - hence the flip flops - because the electorate is (you guessed it) FICKLE...

I'm very clear - Romney's NOT my favorite dude... but be honest - he's NOT going to give us a Holder for AG... Nor a Janet Reno... To say nothing of the Supreme Court... Sure Romney's going to go all Centrist on us and do some things that we don't like. I AGREE THAT THAT WILL HAPPEN. I agree that he will do things that violate the Constitution (at least as I see it). EVERY PRESIDENT in my lifetime has. It sucks - but it is the case.

But show me what Romney will do that is NEARLY as bad as what Obama has done. You simply cannot make that assertion.

Folks - there's a LOT to lose!


If Johnson had ANY kind of name recognition at all - I would deem it worth a fighting chance. But in spite of all of our efforts, he does not. Nor is he likely to.

 

[Lex Concord]

Completely irrelevant but one of my childhood memories that still makes me lol to this day is when my cousin tried to climb over an 8 foot fence, got to the top, slipped and was hanging off the top by his drawers, whitey tightys, begging for us to help him.

Fun with the fence

That put me in the mind of this song...

[ame]http://youtu.be/UaEC-lWSlmI[/ame]

 

[Trooper]

I'll say it again, check out this site:

2012 Presidential Race | OpenSecrets

That is a simply staggering amount of money compared to Johnson.

Summary data for Gary Johnson | OpenSecrets

If he gets 5% of the vote, Libertarians would be is eligible for $91.2 million in the general election, which could be used for stuff like actually having enough money to get your name out there!

Either way, the 2012 Presidential auction will be a sight to behold. I still think Johnson should at least participate in the debates, because I would love to hear something besides how a persons individual tax returns have something to do with their plans for the country.

Oh, yeah, it makes me happy to hear people talking about shi** sandwiches, good to know that stuck . Also, if I don't respond to this I'm probably trying real hard to avoid getting sucked into another 6 hour marathon INGO visit and actually get some stuff done now that I'm back from my business trip to Canada

Even if Johnson got 5%, it is not going to make a big difference in this election. Either Obama wins or Romney wins, Johnson will not get enough votes to effect any state (even if he got 10%). Either Romney wins big, well over 60%, or Obama at least gets 51%. But either way there will be a clear winner. Obama will not get much over 50% but Romney may well blow the socks off of everyone.