The Libertarian Party Race is Filling Up?

[chipbennett]

Or Trump. Not sure why everyone ignores that.

Because it is an utterly specious assertion.

 

[chipbennett]

Then please, tell me how this is different:

Any vote that is not for someone who could actually beat Trump is essentially a vote for him.

Democrats have to see this the exact same way. If you vote third party, you're "letting Trump win."

That's the discussion Democrats will be having with Bernie supporters. Not Libertarians. ("A vote for the Green candidate is a vote for Trump.")

But, no, a vote for someone other than Trump is not a vote for Hillary. It's just a vote for someone other than Trump and Hillary.

Unless you specifically concede that Trump is and always was a loser... and shouldn't have been the Republican nominee if they wanted victory. I'm just saying that because I haven't followed where your candidate allegiances have been, I honestly don't know

Which is why George HW Bush was elected president in 1992, when Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

(There are the Bernie supporters, of course - but that's a separate discussion.)

Those are the important ones, though. These are young people who liked Ron Paul, and to a slightly lesser extent, Rand Paul.

They are a huge group of Democrats... and I'm sure a splinter faction of them now have a deep loathing for Clinton because she's going to beat their guy. Either they'll vote Clinton anyway, stay home, or vote Libertarian (which is what we're all talking about now, isn't it?), just like Republicans will do.

The Libertarian option isn't brand new, but it's also not been in the spotlight like this for a little while. This surge isn't a coincidence. People that usually vote Democrat aren't going to do that this year (probably the same number as "NeverTrump")... so... A vote for Libertarian or third-party is a vote against Trump and Clinton. It won't necessarily benefit either one. Clinton will win, but she and Trump will have slightly fewer votes than they would have without a third-party option.

 

[bwframe]

I'm sure the people who kept assuming that every non-Trump vote would go to their chosen Republican primary candidate, if only the other "splitter" candidates would drop out, are similarly scratching their heads about this question. It's like people don't even pay attention to reality.

It's simple, really: in a three-party race, the presence of the third candidate dilutes the voting bloc of the person most ideologically aligned with the third - thereby strengthening the voting bloc of the candidate least ideologically aligned with the other two. It's the same reason that Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton. (And the same way that the Green Party may have helped give us GWB.)

People who are going to vote Democrat are not even considering voting third party. There is virtually no one who would normally vote Democrat, that is considering voting Libertarian. Libertarian is most closely aligned with Republican, because Democrats despise the concepts of individual liberty, and limited government.
...

Similarly Andy Horning giving us Joe Donnelly.

I thought that malarkey about "drawing from both party's equally" was just Libertarian propaganda talking points.

 

[chipbennett]

Those are the important ones, though. These are young people who liked Ron Paul, and to a slightly lesser extent, Rand Paul.

They are a huge group of Democrats... and I'm sure a splinter faction of them now have a deep loathing for Clinton because she's going to beat their guy. Either they'll vote Clinton anyway, stay home, or vote Libertarian (which is what we're all talking about now, isn't it?), just like Republicans will do.

The Libertarian option isn't brand new, but it's also not been in the spotlight like this for a little while. This surge isn't a coincidence. People that usually vote Democrat aren't going to do that this year (probably the same number as "NeverTrump")... so... A vote for Libertarian or third-party is a vote against Trump and Clinton. It won't necessarily benefit either one. Clinton will win, but she and Trump will have slightly fewer votes than they would have without a third-party option.

Important? Certainly. But a different subset from the Conservatives/#NeverTrumpers.

A significant bloc of the Berners is comprised of protest voters. To the extent that exit polling can be believed (a caveat if ever there was one), many of them would vote for Trump over Clinton.

And I think that the Clinton vote-enthusiasm suppression among the Democrat base is FAR stronger than the #NeverTrump temper tantrum among the Republican base. I think that the punditry vastly underestimates just how underwhelmed the Democrat base is with a Clinton candidacy - but it bears out when comparing the Republican vs Democrat primaries.

 

[jamil]

Never-Trump conservatives search for alternative - CNNPolitics.com

Apologies for the source, but...

Why don't the #NeverRelevant crowd just jump on the Libertarian bandwagon? They already have ballot access in all 50 and they support conservative principles. Why spend all that time and treasure...

Unless its more about control than it is conservatism. They don't want to help someone notTRump win, they just want to make sure Trump loses and they get to pick up the pieces

1) if #NeverRelevent actually existed somewhere but in the minds of the fiercely loyal Trump Supporters, the fiercely loyal Trump supporters wouldn't be having this discussion.

2) Has it occurred to you that perhaps many or even most of the #NeverTrump people oppose him on principle rather than just to have control? Do you think that GPIA wants control? Do you think that TLex wants control? Is that really why they won't vote for Trump? Or, perhaps it is more likely that their own sense of rightness won't allow them to vote for Trump in the same way many of Trump's fiercely loyal couldn't vote for Romney in 2012. I've pointed out before that I'm hearing the same arguments for and against Trump that I heard in 2012 with Romney. Except, the sides seemed to have switched.

I'm sure the people who kept assuming that every non-Trump vote would go to their chosen Republican primary candidate, if only the other "splitter" candidates would drop out, are similarly scratching their heads about this question. It's like people don't even pay attention to reality.

It's simple, really: in a three-party race, the presence of the third candidate dilutes the voting bloc of the person most ideologically aligned with the third - thereby strengthening the voting bloc of the candidate least ideologically aligned with the other two. It's the same reason that Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton. (And the same way that the Green Party may have helped give us GWB.)

People who are going to vote Democrat are not even considering voting third party. There is virtually no one who would normally vote Democrat, that is considering voting Libertarian. Libertarian is most closely aligned with Republican, because Democrats despise the concepts of individual liberty, and limited government.

(There are the Bernie supporters, of course - but that's a separate discussion.)

I mostly agree, however with one exception. Trump gets a lot of support from the blue collar sector much like Perot did. Also, as was mentioned, I don't recall the number but I've seen it reported that a pretty high percentage of Bernie bots say they would vote for Trump before voting for Hillary. Also, a lot of the support Bernie gets is from the pot smokers. But Bernie is probably a bit too old and feeble to crowdsurf.

Point is, it's a demographically dynamic election this time around. None of the standard norms really work like they have traditionally.

Those are the important ones, though. These are young people who liked Ron Paul, and to a slightly lesser extent, Rand Paul.

They are a huge group of Democrats... and I'm sure a splinter faction of them now have a deep loathing for Clinton because she's going to beat their guy. Either they'll vote Clinton anyway, stay home, or vote Libertarian (which is what we're all talking about now, isn't it?), just like Republicans will do.

The Libertarian option isn't brand new, but it's also not been in the spotlight like this for a little while. This surge isn't a coincidence. People that usually vote Democrat aren't going to do that this year (probably the same number as "NeverTrump")... so... A vote for Libertarian or third-party is a vote against Trump and Clinton. It won't necessarily benefit either one. Clinton will win, but she and Trump will have slightly fewer votes than they would have without a third-party option.

As I said to Chip, there is a surprisingly large group of Bernie Supporters who say they would vote for Trump before they'd vote for Hillary. Perhaps those same voters might look at a libertarian candidate, but like me, will wind up not voting for the Libertarian because there are currently only two people who can possibly end up as POTUS. It's not going to be the Libertarian.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

As I said to Chip, there is a surprisingly large group of Bernie Supporters who say they would vote for Trump before they'd vote for Hillary. Perhaps those same voters might look at a libertarian candidate, but like me, will wind up not voting for the Libertarian because there are currently only two people who can possibly end up as POTUS. It's not going to be the Libertarian.

Oh, then those voters can make up for the 351 "nevertrump" potential voters that were going to ruin Trump's chances at victory!

I guess we can stop acting like it's a big deal now.

Edit: let me rephrase. I guess we can stop trying to blame them for Trump's inevitable loss... and blame the people that chose him in the first place.

 

[Beowulf]

Three, off the top of my head:

A. Because the Libertarian party needs to grow up and act like adults at the political dinner table
B. Because the Libertarian party explicitly supports abortion
C. Because voting for the Libertarian candidate only helps Clinton win

A. Wait, are we still talking about the same Donald Trump? Did I miss where he magically became a good example of a mature statesman? Or did everyone collectively forget that he started talking about penis size in a national debate?

B. Obviously, being pro-life is your prerogative, but I will remind you that Trump was ardently pro-choice until he miraculously had a change of heart, right around the time he first started thinking of running for President in 2011.

C. I would argue, given how hugely unpopular he is, voting for Donald Trump only help Clinton win. I don't know that there has been an election before where the candidates from both the Republican and Democrat parties were viewed so negatively by such a large portion of the electorate. Personally, as far as I can tell, the Republicans decided to concede this election as soon as they decided an authoritarian populist with delusions of grandeur seemed like a better option than any other candidate who even remotely had a chance of winning. In fact, the only reason this race is even close, is because the Democrats basically did the same thing. If you look at the polls that were done showing how the various Republican candidates did against the 2 Democrat candidates, you would have seen that Kasich soundly defeated Hillary in every single poll and was neck and neck with Bernie Sanders. Sanders roundly was projected to defeat every single other Republican candidate, and in particular Trump.

So, frankly, Republicans should get down on their hands and knees to thank Democrats for picking Hillary. It's only because they picked her that even have a remote chance of winning at all, after they picked an ridiculous choice like Trump for their candidate.

 

[jamil]

Oh, then those voters can make up for the 351 "nevertrump" potential voters that were going to ruin Trump's chances at victory!

I guess we can stop acting like it's a big deal now.

Edit: let me rephrase. I guess we can stop trying to blame them for Trump's inevitable loss... and blame the people that chose him in the first place.

Well, you #nevertrump guys are #neverrelevent, after all.

Like I said, this election is changing all the traditional norms. Maybe that's what happens when the system gives us a choice between a con artist or a criminal, and, if you don't like those choices you can vote for a douchebag.

 

[Beowulf]

By the way, I was at the convention in Orlando as one of the delegates from Indiana (I even showed up on CNN). So, if anyone has any questions about what happened there, I'll try to answer them (it may take me a while, since I haven't had much time for INGO in the past couple of weeks, so if you have an important question and I haven't answered in while, feel free to PM me, so I'll get an email notification).

 

[ArcadiaGP]

And I'll post this here, since we're already on the topic... She's got that Trump-like following too, apparently.

Poll: 71 percent of Dems think Clinton should keep running even if indicted | Fox News

 

[jamil]

And I'll post this here, since we're already on the topic... She's got that Trump-like following too, apparently.

Poll: 71 percent of Dems think Clinton should keep running even if indicted | Fox News

Of course. She has a vagina, and is a "feminist". That's what is important. Those silly laws that Clinton broke. Hmmmph. They were intended for Republicans. They don't apply to Democrats.

 

[Expat]

Be cautious talking about "Bernie supporters" that will vote for Trump instead of Hillary. As I recall, much of this talk came about from the West Virginia exit polls. There was a large movement of the good old boys down there saying they wanted to vote against Hillary twice. They would have never voted for Bernie in the general election.

 

[jamil]

Be cautious talking about "Bernie supporters" that will vote for Trump instead of Hillary. As I recall, much of this talk came about from the West Virginia exit polls. There was a large movement of the good old boys down there saying they wanted to vote against Hillary twice. They would have never voted for Bernie in the general election.

Certainly nowhere near a majority, but recent polls show that 20% of Sanders supporters would vote for Trump over Clinton. I think most of those are middle class blue collar types who see clinton as a Wall Street insider.

 

[BugI02]

Because it is an utterly specious assertion.

But it does provide the basin within which #NeverRelevant #NeverMattered wishes to wash their hands and convince themselves their conscience is clean

 

[BugI02]

1) if #NeverRelevent actually existed somewhere but in the minds of the fiercely loyal Trump Supporters, the fiercely loyal Trump supporters wouldn't be having this discussion.

#NeverTrump

@NeverTrump
​

• TWEETS1,134
• FOLLOWING1,207
• FOLLOWERS7,122
• LIKES5,329
• LISTS3

7 thousand 1 hundred and 22 lolz. Well, if #NeverTrump existed anywhere but in the minds of it's fiercely loyal followers ...


2) Has it occurred to you that perhaps many or even most of the #NeverTrump people oppose him on principle rather than just to have control? Do you think that GPIA wants control? Do you think that TLex wants control? Is that really why they won't vote for Trump? Or, perhaps it is more likely that their own sense of rightness won't allow them to vote for Trump in the same way many of Trump's fiercely loyal couldn't vote for Romney in 2012. I've pointed out before that I'm hearing the same arguments for and against Trump that I heard in 2012 with Romney. Except, the sides seemed to have switched.
...

Yes it has, which is why I asked the question about their determination to push their own doomed third (fourth) party. The Libertarian Party has everything they claim they want, why not support it with their money and their political fervor?

I am forced to conclude that the Libertarian Party lacks the one thing they must have, the ability to control it

 

[Tombs]

Those are the important ones, though. These are young people who liked Ron Paul, and to a slightly lesser extent, Rand Paul.

They are a huge group of Democrats... and I'm sure a splinter faction of them now have a deep loathing for Clinton because she's going to beat their guy. Either they'll vote Clinton anyway, stay home, or vote Libertarian (which is what we're all talking about now, isn't it?), just like Republicans will do.

The Libertarian option isn't brand new, but it's also not been in the spotlight like this for a little while. This surge isn't a coincidence. People that usually vote Democrat aren't going to do that this year (probably the same number as "NeverTrump")... so... A vote for Libertarian or third-party is a vote against Trump and Clinton. It won't necessarily benefit either one. Clinton will win, but she and Trump will have slightly fewer votes than they would have without a third-party option.

Since when are big government gibmedats going to vote for a party that campaigns to take away their free stuff?

That's the most mind numbingly backwards thing I think I have ever read on this site.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, you #nevertrump guys are #neverrelevent, after all.

Like I said, this election is changing all the traditional norms. Maybe that's what happens when the system gives us a choice between a con artist or a criminal, and, if you don't like those choices you can vote for a douchebag.

Or none of the above.

 

[Jludo]

But hey, vote Libertarian if you'd like. The (purportedly) ideologically pure leader doesn't die, doesn't get elected, but does accomplish obama's third term and the candidate gets poorer and more infamous

[video=youtube;9vkIxKsF88k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vkIxKsF88k[/video]

 

[Jludo]

Or none of the above.

Has it been explained to us yet who a vote for none of the above is really for? Probably Hilary...you're voting for Hilary, how dare you...You hate America don't you? You want them to confiscate my guns, you Socialist loser. Trump 2016.