Politics How Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton Have Made the Libertarian Party Relevant

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,124
Likes
10,973
Points
113
http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/01/libertarian-party-2016-presidential

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the likely presidential nominees of America’s two major political parties, would be among the best-known and most-disliked candidates in history. What better time for the Libertarian Party (LP), the only third party that will be on all 50 states’ ballots, to make its move into the mainstream?

...

A recent Monmouth University poll put Johnson at about 11 percent in a three-way race against Trump and Clinton, which probably says as much about Johnson’s viability as it does about how nauseated voters are by the two leading major-party options.

But with the electorate expressing profound antipathy toward their two likely choices for president, is the 2016 election the capital-L Libertarian moment we’ve been waiting for? Or will this be another wasted opportunity by a third party to make inroads with voters who are increasingly sympathetic to libertarian principles, even if they prefer not to officially identify with the party?

...

The LP’s Executive Director Wes Benedict told Reason that the combination of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) dropping out of the GOP race and the ascension of Donald Trump has led to a spike in Libertarian Party membership. From what he’s observed in the comments left by new party members, Benedict believes a good deal of the boost is motivated by fears that a Trump presidency would lead to closed borders and a trade war with China.

When it comes to social issues, the LP’s Political Director Carla Howell calls Democrats and Republicans "Johnny Come Latelys" regarding gay marriage and criminal justice reform. Howell told Reason that the LP "would love it if [the Democrats and Republicans] co-opted our issues, but they usually don’t." She added that while Republicans talk a good game when they’re running for office, "they don’t substantively reduce government" once they’re there, and the Democrats have never shown a true interest in "disentangling the United States from the Middle East."

...

What is indisputable is that neither of the two major parties can sell themselves as a party that is reliably anti-war and pro-personal freedom.

The LP's Sarwark references a South Park episode to drive home that point. If voters can "let go of the fear" that the only two choices they have are between "the giant douche and the turd sandwich," he says, they might actually get a president committed to the philosophy of "don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff."
 
Reason. Perhaps my favorite word.
 
http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/01/libertarian-party-2016-presidential

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the likely presidential nominees of America’s two major political parties, would be among the best-known and most-disliked candidates in history. What better time for the Libertarian Party (LP), the only third party that will be on all 50 states’ ballots, to make its move into the mainstream?

...

A recent Monmouth University poll put Johnson at about 11 percent in a three-way race against Trump and Clinton, which probably says as much about Johnson’s viability as it does about how nauseated voters are by the two leading major-party options.

But with the electorate expressing profound antipathy toward their two likely choices for president, is the 2016 election the capital-L Libertarian moment we’ve been waiting for? Or will this be another wasted opportunity by a third party to make inroads with voters who are increasingly sympathetic to libertarian principles, even if they prefer not to officially identify with the party?

...

The LP’s Executive Director Wes Benedict told Reason that the combination of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) dropping out of the GOP race and the ascension of Donald Trump has led to a spike in Libertarian Party membership. From what he’s observed in the comments left by new party members, Benedict believes a good deal of the boost is motivated by fears that a Trump presidency would lead to closed borders and a trade war with China.

When it comes to social issues, the LP’s Political Director Carla Howell calls Democrats and Republicans "Johnny Come Latelys" regarding gay marriage and criminal justice reform. Howell told Reason that the LP "would love it if [the Democrats and Republicans] co-opted our issues, but they usually don’t." She added that while Republicans talk a good game when they’re running for office, "they don’t substantively reduce government" once they’re there, and the Democrats have never shown a true interest in "disentangling the United States from the Middle East."

...

What is indisputable is that neither of the two major parties can sell themselves as a party that is reliably anti-war and pro-personal freedom.

The LP's Sarwark references a South Park episode to drive home that point. If voters can "let go of the fear" that the only two choices they have are between "the giant douche and the turd sandwich," he says, they might actually get a president committed to the philosophy of "don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff."

That article isn't saying what you think it does and is far from a glowing endorsement of Libertarians.
 
Is Gary Johnson going to be the Libertarian candidate again? I actually voted for him in 2012.
 
I voted for him too. There are three candidates running. There a LP debate tonight on TV. Probably C-SPAN.
 
Fox Business Channel, the debate is hosted by Stossel.

Stossel is awsome.
 
Subtitle:
Will the LP take advantage of voter hate for Trump and Clinton to finally present a viable alternative?

Answer:
No, of course not.

barfo
 
Johnson 1% of the vote in 2012, now polling at 11%. That's taking advantage of the hate for Hiliar and Trump. Not enough, but it's progress.

My view has always been that it's a matter of time before people realize the democrats and republicans are the problem with government, not the cure.
 
Denny who would you vote for and why, listened to debate with Stossel. Kinda liked the software guy. Cant think of his name but colorful back ground
 
I'm voting for the winner. I expect it to be Gary Johnson.

I might consider Kasich if he is the republican nominee.
 
I'm voting for the winner. I expect it to be Gary Johnson.

I might consider Kasich if he is the republican nominee.
It would be interesting to have the leaders of each party all in one debate, with a neutral moderator
 
What a mess our political parties are. Sanders wins primary after primary and has little mathematical chance of being the nominee. The republican party is actively destroying their only rock star candidate with hundreds of $millions of negative ads (that should be enlightening people about Hiliar Clinton). In both parties' cases, the election will be decided by party appointed delegates instead of by the will of the voter.
 
It seems that it is time for a third party that is closer to the middle of these two parties. Bernie is the most popular democrat but his policies seem to be so far left that we become a socialist state for at least a few years, and that appears to be what a lot of younger voters are looking for. Not sure anybody on the GOP side is who the so called establishment wants to be their candidate will be acceptable to some of the middle ground voters. Abortion, Guns and smaller government all seem to be dirty words.

Trump says some stupid things but he is spending his money to say it. He is not a politician, people need to stop expecting him to act like one.
I do not know how he would do as president but with a learning curve I believe he would hire the best people available to help clean up the mess that has been created.

It looks like both sides of election laws need to be standardized so that all of our votes count the same.
Lobbyist need to be a thing of the past.
Super Pacs need to be a thing of the past.

There seems to be two vastly different sides in this country and even though I have tried to be open and fair their is not much that with the current group of Dems to agree with. Nor with hard line GOP.
 
What a mess our political parties are. Sanders wins primary after primary and has little mathematical chance of being the nominee. The republican party is actively destroying their only rock star candidate with hundreds of $millions of negative ads (that should be enlightening people about Hiliar Clinton). In both parties' cases, the election will be decided by party appointed delegates instead of by the will of the voter.

That is only true of one party, not both. Hillary has many more votes than Bernie, and probably will by the end. Probably will have more states and more non-super delegates too.

Reality TV stars are not rock stars. With the possible exception of Ozzy.

barfo
 
I do not know how he would do as president but with a learning curve I believe he would hire the best people available to help clean up the mess that has been created.

Why would you believe that? It's pretty clear that for his campaign, he did not hire the best people available. He didn't know what he was doing, hired people who didn't know what they were doing, and as a result Cruz is eating his lunch, because Cruz hired people who understand the rules.

If he isn't able to hire well for his campaign, why would you think he could do it for the country?
 
That is only true of one party, not both. Hillary has many more votes than Bernie, and probably will by the end. Probably will have more states and more non-super delegates too.

Reality TV stars are not rock stars. With the possible exception of Ozzy.

barfo

Rock stars play in sports arenas. Trump speaks in sports arenas.

Since Hilar was anointed, it's amusing to watch Sanders freak her out.
 
That is only true of one party, not both. Hillary has many more votes than Bernie, and probably will by the end. Probably will have more states and more non-super delegates too.

Reality TV stars are not rock stars. With the possible exception of Ozzy.

barfo

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

Q: Did Clinton win the popular vote?

A: Obama won more votes unless you count Michigan, where he wasn’t on the ballot.
 
I would vote Kasich if he got in through the Republican ranks. Otherwise, the Libertarian vote can actually be at its highest peak ever as everyone sees Trump and Clinton as sorry choices.
 
Sorry, I thought we were talking about 2016.

barfo

Popular vote doesn't matter. See? Glad you agree with me. Maybe there's hope for you yet. Long way to go, though.

Hiliar has 251 more delegates than Sanders at this point, not counting the politburo.
 
Popular vote doesn't matter. See? Glad you agree with me. Maybe there's hope for you yet. Long way to go, though.

Really don't know what your point is, assuming you even have one.

Hiliar has 251 more delegates than Sanders at this point, not counting the politburo.

Right, so what's your point again? She's got more delegates, more votes, more states, and you think that there's something undemocratic going on?

barfo
 
That is only true of one party, not both. Hillary has many more votes than Bernie, and probably will by the end. Probably will have more states and more non-super delegates too.

Reality TV stars are not rock stars. With the possible exception of Ozzy.

barfo

Would you say the 359 superdelates Hillary collected before the Primary started influenced the masses at all?
 
Would you say the 359 superdelates Hillary collected before the Primary started influenced the masses at all?

Probably they did have some influence, yes. As did many other things. But if you want voters to be uninfluenced, you are going to have to keep them in the dark about everything.

And if you do that, so they are really uninformed and ignorant, then they'll be Republican voters.

barfo
 
Really don't know what your point is, assuming you even have one.



Right, so what's your point again? She's got more delegates, more votes, more states, and you think that there's something undemocratic going on?

barfo
Democracy doesn't mean much to the two main parties.

I think Sanders could have more delegates and lose. Politburo. All along the Party has teed it up for her while putting obstacles in Sanders' way. Hiliar "dominating" the delegate count, "Sanders needs to win 80% of the remaining delegate" and so on.

Sanders has won 8 of the last 9 primaries/caucuses. Hiliar isn't winning anything lately. In Wyoming, Sanders beat her 56% to 44%, yet they split the 14 delegates - 7 apiece. That's democratic?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top