Libertarian Party Chair Angela McArdle Won't Endorse Blake Masters, Slams Dr. Oz, Fetterman, Georgia GOP

"The fact that [Dr. Oz] can't beat Fetterman in a race is not anything that libertarians should be biting their nails or clutching their pearls over."

Earlier this week, Marc Victor, the Libertarian Party candidate for Arizona's U.S. Senate seat, dropped out and endorsed Blake Masters, the Republican nominee.

Many libertarians saw this move as a betrayal, including Justin Amash, a Libertarian and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, who called Victor's decision "utterly pathetic." Other libertarian personalities clearly have some affection for Masters, including Dave Smith, a comedian and potential L.P. presidential candidate in 2024, who backed Masters and commended Victor for exiting the race.

L.P. Chair Angela McArdle did not go so far as to endorse Masters, saying that her position precludes her from doing so. "While I appreciate a lot of Blake Masters' policy positions, obviously as chair of the national Libertarian Party, I am not able to endorse him," McArdle said in an interview on Rising, the news show I co-host for The Hill. "I wish everyone in Arizona the best of luck voting and to vote your conscience."

McArdle did distinguish Masters and some of the other Republican candidates.

"I don't think that Dr. Oz and Blake Masters are close at all in ideology and policy," she said. "I believe that's the same case in Georgia. From what I understand, the Georgia GOP is not liberty-minded. I support our candidates who are running there."

According to McArdle, the L.P. primarily focuses on winning races but also seeks "to push the Overton window in the direction of liberty" by pressuring Republicans and Democrats to adopt more libertarian positions. She said that libertarians should shrug off Republican accusations that they are spoiling races; if Republicans don't want Libertarian spoilers, they should adopt more libertarian positions.

"The fact that [Dr. Oz] can't beat Fetterman in a race is not anything that libertarians should be biting their nails or clutching their pearls over," she said.

Watch the full interview here.

Comments

[Azathoth!!]

Ah.

I was afraid for a moment that she'd given you assholes an interview.

[Minadin]

She Did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDgRxwM9m8w

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

You know who else Robby Soave did a softball interview with?

[evakesh]

Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (isu-03) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link————————————–>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com

[DominiqueStevenson]

Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)

HERE====)> ???.????????.???

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

I’m disappointed that the bottom of her picture cut off that high up.

EDIT: Never mind. A Google image search had underwhelming results. Maybe a small B cup.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Who do you think you are, Roger Ailes?

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

Hey, I just like a good set of tits. Especially on a red head. Nice voluminous milky white globes.

[geo1113]

I agree...but still you would!

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

Meh. Without the tits………..

[FelicitasAKoval]

My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I’m a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can’t believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn’t be happier. Heres what I d ..https://www.pay.hiring9.com

[Kazinski]

Well, a B-cup in hand is worth...

[Nardz]

Nicely done.
The implied extremely rare triple entendre

[ricbee]

Nothing wrong with that,....

[JoeB]

It's not the size, it's the configuration. Also, small pink nipples! OMG!

[CarolineFHarvey]

3

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The election must be getting close, all the anti-GOP articles are coming in a flood now.

I once had to drive thru Berkeley CA and was amazed at how many construction crews were out patching potholes and repainting road markings. I asked someone at work who lived in Berkeley and he confirmed an election was coming up.

[Mother's Lament]

"The election must be getting close, all the anti-GOP articles are coming in a flood now."

That's what I was thinking. Time to earn their paychecks.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

More like hoping to keep their paychecks.

[CrystalBernstein]

I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do for more information simply.

Open this link thank you...........>>> onlinecareer1

[Minadin]

I would not vote Libertarian for a race as close and as important as those senate seats.

First things first, get the national-level Democrats out. Then we can focus on getting the slightly-more-liberty-friendly (on most issues) Republicans to bend our direction a bit more.

[Overt]

Sadly we get the next two years of nothing happening, graft for the grifters, and a bunch of hot air and then we are back to "First safeguard us from the Democrats. Then we can focus on liberty." Eventually, I stopped believing the football would be there after the VERY IMPORTANT ELECTION.

McCardle is right. As a general matter, if Republicans don't want Libertarians to spoil the vote, they should adopt libertarian positions*. Given the massive advantages that they have in fund-raising and ballot access, Republicans have all the advantage in the world. If those Republicans feel like other members of their base might not tolerate liberty, then they should use those same advantages to make a case for cooperation.

*: This is a general statement. I can fully see how a person like David Smith might make a very specific calculated decision to support a lesser weevil for specific reasons.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

About the only things a GOP Congress can do is hold hearings on the deep state, stall court nominations, and impeach or 25 Biden. So in effect, nothing.

Holding to principles is always a good idea, when it makes a difference. Better to move 1% closer to the principled end that 10% away. In the PA Senate race, it's more like 5% away vs 10% away, but there is a difference. Even in GA, there is a difference.

[Overt]

Back in 2000 (and 04, and 08....), people were telling me that if I didn't vote for the GOP, the Democrats would get control and we'd have shit like expansions of medicare, globalist wars, nationalization of healthcare and banks, etc. Well we got those things anyways, some of them at the hand of Republicans.

It isn't that I believe the Republicans are as bad as the Democrats. You cannot look at how authoritarian Democrat voters poll and think that. But whatever they say or said, the Republicans have had 20 years to put the breaks on our out of control government and they haven't gotten the job done. You can't tell me you are going to suddenly make it happen this time.

It doesn't matter for me as I am in Blue Hell. My vote has no chance of making a difference. If you are in PA or AZ though, I can understand why a Libertarian might make a different calculation.

[Stuck in California]

I like a do nothing congress that's opposed to the president.

Not like the D congress opposed to Trump, the rancor and lies are too much. But an "obstructionist" congress at least means nothing gets done, or what DOES get done needs a consensus beyond strong arming your party members into submission.

9/11 fucked us. Both parties were all in on war and patriot act and all that shit. Drug benefit expansion was an unfunded expansion and one of my least favorite Bush legacies. But holy shit were the Obama years much worse with a sympathetic congress. Obstroctionist Republican congress years were way the hell better than enshrining and mandating a fundamentally broken health care system, and the biggest tax increase of my lifetime.

[Square = Circle]

The best compromise between the two parties is a Democrat president with a Republican congress. Whenever either one gets full power, there's too much agenda to push to show restraint. When it's Republican president and Democrat congress, congress still spends like mad and the president can only stop so much. When it's Republicans in congress they initiate less spending and there's not anything a president can do about that.

[Libertariantranslator]

Weimar Germany was divided between babbling communists and Christian nationalsocialists, remember?

[Overt]

The Obama Administration will be looked back upon as the beginning of the end of this version of our republic. As Time (?) said, "We are All Socialists Now". That was no joke. Frank-Dodd, America Care's Act, Operation Choke Point, weaponization of the Patriot act. All these things sealed the deal on a free and open society. We now have most important levers of the market completely managed by regulators, and the likelihood that we will ever get them back is extremely low.

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

We so desperately need to cleanse the Marxists form this country.

[MJaneKelly]

Truth. The Democrats have become a party of awful, incredibly stupid, and astoundingly corrupt self-enrichment focussed tyrants. They have zero good ideas so they use force and paid liars to keep people confused and in their places. Hillary Clinton is the epicenter of the evil. Obama is the epicenter of the terrible ideas. And they're both astoundingly rich for their service. Hillary has over $2 billion in a fake charity. Obama's money is in Switzerland I imagine but it's deep enough for him to keep on buying palaces. "Folks are hurting." LOLOLOL

[Libertariantranslator]

Poor, mistreated, misunderstood sore-loser Grabbers-Of-Pussy...

[NOYB2]

McCardle is right. As a general matter, if Republicans don’t want Libertarians to spoil the vote, they should adopt libertarian positions*.

No, McArdle is objectively wrong. Running LP candidates forces Republican candidates to become less libertarian.

[Bubba Jones]

You suck at math if you think your vote is going to change a senate race.

[Azathoth!!]

You suck at math if you think your vote is going to change a senate race.

One vote tips it from a loss to a win. One.

In every election.

And, in every election, that vote is always the one you cast.

[DEllett]

Math? How about pure reality?

Whether 1, 100, 100,000 or 100,000,000 think their vote counts and actually votes, surprise, it actually does.

Whether 1, 100, 100,000 or 100,000,000 think their vote doesnt count, and do not vote, no surprise, it actually doesn’t.

Those who did not vote and still complain?
Hypocrites and fools.

[RedvBlue]

We live with a 2 party system where a 3rd party has never or rarely ever won a national race. Tell me again about the "fools" who don't feel like their vote matters...

[Libertariantranslator]

Not if it's a small-party spoiler vote. Can you say Fisher-Pry? Can you say point of inflection? Can you spell winning is repealing bad laws?

[Eeyore]

Voting for one of the 2 major parties when you have an alternative is immoral.

[DEllett]

Voting for minor party in the main election because major party falls short of our standards (which minor parties also do), which may then result in the complete opposite party getting elected instead, is fundamentally stupid.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

They are both "complete opposite parties" from Libertarians.

[RedvBlue]

Says the sad republican...

[Libertariantranslator]

Even George Wallace understood "not a dime's wuth a difference" better than this Jesus-addled prohibitionist poltroon.

[Libertariantranslator]

That is true if you think freedom is better than the initiation of force. Americans not only can choose to vote against coercion, but can also boycott a corrupted libertarian party infiltrated by coercive collectivists pushing for selective initiation of force. Here's hoping that voter boycotts will thwart christianofascist takeover of the LP just as they thwarted past anarcho-communist takeover bids. People in many other countries are forced by law to vote with only communists and fascists on the ballot. Americans can boycott voting altogether.

[Tony]

Name one pro-liberty position of any Republican.

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

Following the limits of the constitution?

[soldiermedic76]

Name one the Democrats follow, instead of try and use the government to force others to follow.

[Minadin]

Generally speaking, they are better on both the 1st and 2nd amendment rights.

That's two. Your turn.

[ricbee]

Good point,but more than "generally"-always.

[JoeB]

Pro 2nd amendment. Too easy.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

No. Just like many R's who want to ban private businesses from deciding whether their own employees should receive the COVID vaccine or wear a mask inside their private workplace, many R's are wanting to ban private businesses from deciding not to allow guns in their business.

[ThomasD]

Fuck off TooSilly, you dishonest hack.

[tlapp]

Yes far better to move in a more liberty minded direction incrementally that lose to a statist to prove some Libertarian purity.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

L.P. Chair Angela McArdle did not go so far as to endorse Masters, saying that her position precludes her from doing so. "While I appreciate a lot of Blake Masters' policy positions, obviously as chair of the national Libertarian Party, I am not able to endorse him," McArdle said in an interview on Rising, the news show I co-host for The Hill. "I wish everyone in Arizona the best of luck voting and to vote your conscience."

This is fair. Either she's going to be a Libertarian, or a libertarian. Being a chair of the Libertarian party, you don't endorse the other team. I would never expect the DNC chair to endorse the Republican nominee, let alone the Libertarian nominee.

Party politics is going to be party politics.

[mad.casual]

I give her an 8/10. The "We shouldn't be giving Ukrainians handouts while Americans can't get handouts." was a bit of a misstep but, otherwise, she hit the issues with solidly libertarian and/or factual positions.

The RCV stance was surprisingly coherent (looking past a libertarian flatly saying 'no vax/mask mandates' being 'surprising').

Fetterman/Oz take was a refreshing break of the 'sow the wind' style of libertarianism.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I give her an 8/10. The “We shouldn’t be giving Ukrainians handouts while Americans can’t get handouts.” was a bit of a misstep but, otherwise, she hit the issues with solidly libertarian and/or factual positions.

Good catch. Why can't the police kill more white people to even things out?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Yep, only twice as many whites as blacks killed by police in recent years. Equity demands at least double that ratio.

[Lester75]

There is that nasty concept of fractions. Y'know divide the number of whites cop-killed by the number of whites and compare to the number of blacks cop-killed divided by the number of blacks. To make it fairer compare the ratios for the smaller population of people in the process of committing felonies only.

[Azathoth!!]

White and black criminals.

Divide the number of white and black criminals killed by the number of white and black criminals overall.

Criminals are not part of communities, they are predators on communities.

[DEllett]

Exactly!
Although I would compare all groups including those not committing crimes.

[Utkonos]

This all sounds racially divisive…

[BestUsedCarSales]

That doesn't bother me either. I think that's reasonable. One thing a political party must be is Partisan. It's the entire point of it.
But as I cited below, before this Victor guy dropped out apparently the LP wasn't supporting him anyway. So the question I have is what's the fucking point of the LP?

[Overt]

Well this is what is hilarious about the LP. It is a bunch of ideologues with no real political experience. And in many cases at the state level they are inept or busy with day jobs.

The whole purpose of the Mises takeover earlier this year was that they are trying to change that culture. Time will tell if they can do this.

[Square = Circle]

So the question I have is what’s the fucking point of the LP?

They've deliberately changed strategies to focus on smaller-scale races with a particular emphasis on ones they think they can win.

While it's a smart long-term strategy, it means the party has pretty well vanished from CA altogether. I would have thought AZ would be libertarian-friendly country, but it might be the case that, like she says, AZ Republicans already tend to be fairly libertarian-leaning, so it may make more sense to focus on races in places like GA.

[Overt]

Getting Libertarians voted locally was what made the Mises Caucus successful. If they can do this in a few key states, they may actually achieve some press.

[soldiermedic76]

That's good, but I question if it's enough. The free soil party won local elections but didn't change national politics until they joined with the Whigs to form the Republican party. Winning nationally is a matter of coalition building, and I don't see the LP making a concerted effort to build coalitions nor becoming part of a coalition.

Also, I tend to see libertarians reject the fact that they are part of the right wing spectrum (which I think is part of why libertarians tend to attack Republicans the most, to prove to others they aren't on the political right and why they tend to focus on cultural issues that even libertarians can't agree on). It's good to feel you're above it all, that you're special, but it's not true. Yes, at one time the LP overlapped the left and the right, but for the most part classical liberalism, enlightenment ideals are dead on the left. They've rejected them. There is at least some hope in the major right party, but if libertarians insist on being outsiders who demand perfection then we're likely to see classical liberalism die even on the right.

We attack Republicans for being populists and nationalists, for being Bible thumpers (although, I think that's a rather outmoded portrayal for the most part). But how much of the so called nationalism and populism they've embraced is truly antithetical to classical liberalism? And how much of it is more the media misrepresentation or even selective representation?

Take De Santis and his parental rights bill that even Reason mislabeled Don't Say Gay. Or Georgia's election law, which actually made voting easier than the law was before? Remember, drop off boxes weren't legal in Georgia in 2020, but were deemed legal without legislative actions, because of COVID. Or even their attack on Vance today? If you actually read what he was saying, he wasn't saying he is targeting them for being left but because they aren't following the law (a law that seems to be selectively enforced right now against similar groups on the right). Yes, taken out of context it sounds bad, but isn't that another case of 'good people on both sides'? Rather than label Vance an authoritarian in waiting, why not focus instead on rather the law is good or bad that isn't being enforced against the Ford Foundation and Harvard?

I'll tell you why. It's two reasons. First libertarian like to believe they aren't on the right and that it's a Venn diagram, but even if it is a Venn diagram, the Democrats and left have moved so far left on most issues, their is almost no overlap (the mistake is believing that there is always overlap in a Venn diagram, but that's only assuming a natural distribution). If one pole is to far in one direction than the overlap is either minimal or non-existent. The second reason is that you tend to fight most, and be most emotionally invested, in fights with people you have the most in common. Look at the Abrahamic religions, we rather fight each other than Buddhists, Hindus or other eastern religions. Look at Christianity, even during the crusades, it was more about the Roman Catholics putting it to the Eastern Orthodox rather than putting it to the Muslims. And for that sake, Sunni v Shi'a. And the concept applies equally to political systems. Trotskyist vs Stalinists. Christo-Fascists vs National Fascists. The entire Irish independence movement. Fuck, just think Life of Brian and the running joke about Judean Liberation Movement.

[Nardz]

"Christo-Fascists vs National Fascists"

Wtf?

[soldiermedic76]

It was an actual political movement in Austria, Czechoslovakia and other central European countries in the 1930s, look it up. It was the official government of those countries that Hitler overthrew.

[DEllett]

Excellent observations.

My issue us that LP and Ind too often pretend to be above the fray as if their parties were somehow inhere tly better or not subject to the exact same politics.

Despite so much I detest about most Reps and the Rep party, I changed back to Rep years ago and only vote LP in primaries sometimes. It is just plain stupid to vote 3rd party in main elections with our current elections system, which we all know is broken and sucks.

But that does not justify voting stupid.

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

Not much.

[Libertariantranslator]

The point of the LP is to enable the public to defeat the worst looter and thereby repeal bad laws. The Kleptocracy exists to increase political power, the time derivative of the capacity to kill lots of people. The Victor Quisling was evidently another looter impostor. You can see how impostors and infiltration are important to predators, right?

[Overt]

"Being a chair of the Libertarian party, you don’t endorse the other team."

That's the job of the Libertarian VP candidate!

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Exactly! Now let's see how much party support he gets.

[JFree]

Not just a past VP candidate. A past Prez candidate and the most bruited future Prez candidate.

[Arizona_Guy]

That's Dave Smith's job.

[Libertariantranslator]

Make women hate the LP? The anarcho-nazi is certainly good at that!

[Marshal]

This can’t be right. Reason assured me the Mises Caucus are a bunch of extremists uninterested in compromise or effective tactics.

[CatoTheChipper]

Most Reason writers joined Team Fake News a long time ago.

[Overt]

"Reason assured me the Mises Caucus are a bunch of extremists"

Take a look at the saccharine smile McArdle gives at the very end of the video and tell me that wasn't EXACTLY what she was thinking about Soave. "Oh yeah, we are aaaaaalll friends here, right Soave? You and your shit-flinging monkeys at Reason?"

[BestUsedCarSales]

So, I don't follow election politics much. It is my least favorite form of political discussion. (Which is why we should all hate me. I'm more of an "idea guy.")
But I swear I saw in the article about the LP candidate from Arizona yesterday, that both the LP party head and the candidate themselves agreed the LP had not helped him on his campaign. At which point, I don't know, maybe the LP is kind of standing on the sidelines being catty, but useless.

Here's a quote from the article of him dropping out a few days ago:
Victor notes that neither the national nor state L.P. had supported him, and that he did not consult either institution on his decision. "From the people in the national party, I got nothing but aggravation. They did everything they could to make me look bad. I got no love from the Mises Caucus."

So, I don't really know what to make of any of this except that the LP is dysfunctional to the point that it can't even work with its own candidates. Which is the most LP thing of all.

[Nardz]

"standing on the sidelines being catty, but useless."

Like all "principled" libertarians

[BestUsedCarSales]

I disagree. There's a lot of good that can be done, research and think tanks for instance can do a lot of good that isn't directly related to just getting out the vote.
The LP is pretty disfunctional though if it couldn't stand by it's candidate, one that was apparently polling in the double digits and was touted here at Reason, when actually running yet is able to be catty when he withdraws.

[BestUsedCarSales]

Honestly, I'm increasingly sold on the impact of a spoiler vote being valuable as well. I think when all wins are on the margins, being the margin can help shift the tenor of the two major parties as well.

[JFree]

Spoiler or margin of difference or even 'vote DeRp in hopes they become more libertarian' only works when identified as such.
Once one actually votes DeRp all signal disappears with ballot secrecy. Was that vote kinda libertarian or theocrat or socialist or Rino or party establishment or what? No one will ever know - so no party will ever change due to the info that doesn't exist.
Vote third party and the signal is quite clear and the DeRps know exactly what they need to do and how many votes are the potential prize if they do it.

[Overt]

The LP is in the final act of a civil war. States are still rabble rousing, and the structure of the party is still being decided. As unfortunate as it is that this left them in chaos during this election, that's what happens.

I am 1000x happier to see the "Bake the Damn Cake" contingent thrown out on their asses. And the fact that the Mises Caucus was able to organize the systematic conquest of states on their path to victory at least suggests that they understand the need for organization and planning.

It remains to be seen whether they can pull their shit together- especially when Reason- one of the biggest libertarian voices out there- seems more interested in spreading shit that finding common cause. But at the end of the day, expecting anything more than chaos and small starts is probably too much so early in this long game.

[Bubba Jones]

Well, if I wanted to support a libertarian candidate, I wouldn't do it by donating to the Libertarian party.

[soldiermedic76]

See my comment below. Your spoiler vote is being used for gamesmanship with very little actual shifting of the window. It would better serve your cause to make candidates compete for your endorsement rather. Issue driven groups tend not to do well by running perpetually as also rans, but have a lot of power by endorsement. Look at the power of the NRA and other gun rights groups. Look at unions. Look at the AARP, American Legion, etc. They get listened to, despite their small size, because their endorsement is desired, and candidates win by building coalitions. By running a perpetual campaign that never wins more than 5% of the vote, you aren't making yourself, or your issues, pertinent, except to your committed base. Parties like the socialists and green party have realized this, often no longer running candidates, or serious candidates, but instead endorsing Democratic candidates. And see how much they've shifted the Democratic platform?

As it is now, all you are doing is allowing the Democrats to use you for political gamesmanship. They have fought the last couple of races to keep leftist parties off the ballot, but insuring the LP is on ballots to hurt the right. They aren't shifting towards you, but the right has shifted towards them as they build new coalitions to win. You aren't part of the conversation, because you are only playing to a base, that both parties have concluded isn't obtainable. As a result, you've basically have become political non-entities, only good for gamesmanship but not for courting.

[soldiermedic76]

This was meant as reply to BUC above.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Interesting. Would we have more impact as an organized libertarian association than a Libertarian party?

[soldiermedic76]

I think so. There isn't any power as outsiders. Outsiders I write off, but if someone endorses me, or could possibly endorse me, suddenly as a candidate, now I have to care. Parties are coalitions. The LP isn't really a wide coalition. I win as a candidate by appealing to as large a coalition as possible. But if you're running against me, game theory says destroying you, especially if their is any overlap, is the better strategy. Now in a parliamentary system, running as a third party makes sense, because the two major parties (and there is almost always two majority parties) have to build coalitions from multiple single issue or focus parties. In our system, this isn't the case. Some of it is because of ballot access etc, but the rest of it because, for the most part, are two major parties already are coalitions of several smaller parties in everything but name. Midwest Democrats are different than coastal Democrats. Western Republicans are different than Bible Belt Republicans, but they create common ground and their candidates have to appeal as much as possible to all the coalitions.

We're a large country, both population and land, with a very heterogeneous culture, that often is based upon our geographic and economic differences. Additionally, we're a federal system. Regional parties have far less power here than in England or Germany. This also makes third parties quixotic as third parties, especially if they're narrowly focused, because what a conservative in Alabama cares about is enough different than a conservative in Montana, or a Mormon conservative. As a result, a narrow focused party simply doesn't have enough ability to build a coalition.

The Republican party wasn't created new from whole cloth. It built from a coalition from the Whigs, pacifists abolitionists, free soilers, industrialists, etc. And only came to power because the other party split because of the differences between their coalition became to big.

The Democrats today, are close to a split, because they've ignored a large part of their coalition, taken it for granted. The Republicans see an opening there. And currently, they see the best opportunity to appeal to these disaffected Democrats is populism. They see the LP is going nowhere. Why appeal to them, if they can gain disaffected Democrats with populism? The LP hasn't tried to make themselves available, so both parties ignore them. The Democrats and the left already think libertarians are right wing extremists and Republicans by another name. The Republicans only see them as a threat to their coalition but one that is not willing to ally with them.

[JFree]

I think the LP would be much more effective if it redefined what a political party is.
Political machines were very effective in getting out votes on election day - but only because on other days they were helping people get jobs, doing charity, intermediating govt services, etc. Is libertarian philosophy hostile to that?

[soldiermedic76]

No, political parties get out the vote because they are coalitions that have enough overlap to reach people from very different geographic and socioeconomic backgrounds and they are only as strong as their coalitions and maintaining overlap. Political realignments occur when those coalitions begin to fracture, as we're currently experiencing on both the left and right. The problem for the LP is they are a fairly small coalition and refuse to agree to join any other coalition. Just enough clout to win small races and act the spoiler but not enough to persuade others to move in their direction. So, they'll always be also rans at national level without shifting the larger parties to their views. It they want actual change, they have to make themselves available. As long as they simply run as choice C without any real prospect of winning, they will never be able to shape the narrative. It's the LPs biggest problem, they're not pragmatic. As much as I despise Sanders, he's pragmatic, and changed the Democrats by working with them and playing their game, until he gained enough power in the primaries that he helped shape policy. The LP says Republicans need to work for their vote, but it's better to say the LP needs to work to get the Republicans to shift towards them. If Sanders ran a third party candidacy, it's unlikely the Democrats would shifted towards his policies as quickly as they have. Instead, they would have resented him, and worked harder to make up the voters he would have won by appealing more towards the center, and even slight right. Perot didn't get the Republicans to embrace his platform in 1992 or 1996. Instead in 2000, Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, moving left on a number of social programs, even going so far as to abandon for a large part deregulation, small government, principles. Not enough to turn off Reagan Republicans but enough that McCain and Romney were far from Reagan Republicans. They played lip service to those ideals, but it was obvious they didn't believe them.

Reason loves to state how large self labeled independents are, but the truth is most, I have seen studies that place it anywhere from 75-90%, of independents actually are fairly reliable Republicans or Democrats. It's an American peculiarity that we believe labeling ourselves independents, when we're really aren't, is cool. So, in the end you have maybe less than 5% of the country that's truly independent swing voters. And it's even smaller if we subtract third parties. With such a small percentage of truly persuadable voters, the key is holding your base, and those who label themselves independents but lean your direction,better than the other side. So, you appeal as much as possible to your base and base leaders. The best way to do this is to demonize the other side. This has the added benefit of possibly persuading the true independents to view your side as the lesser of two evils.

Third parties, and their positions don't play into this calculation except for how they subtract from your base. And again, the best strategy is to minimize this damage not by embracing their position,but again by demonizing the other side, to persuade enough of them at the margin to vote for you as the lesser of two evils. Or restrict their access to the ballot, because statistics show that write in votes won't be enough to impact the outcome. Yes, write in candidates have won, but usually in states with a decided partisan bent and from which the write in candidate has name recognition within the party favored in that state (and a really weak place holder from the other party).

The only real way third party, or marginal parties, have real influence is by working within one party, or by not running a candidate and instead endorsing one of the two party candidates. Unions make up 5% of the population but have had enormous power on the left for a century. The NRA makes up 3% of the population but their endorsement is crucial in most Republican primaries (mainly because many Republican and Republican leaning independent have some sympathy to their position and that 3% plays a big role in contested primaries). The LP is equivalent in size to the NRA. And like the NRA, most Republicans have some sympathy to a lot of the LP stances, especially on regulations, size of government, etc. Maybe not a majority, but a plurality. And in contested primaries that can be the difference. And when it comes to general elections, where often it's a few swing states or districts, and a percent or two difference between winner and lower, the power of an endorsement is greater than the power of a Quixotic also ran. By endorsing me, I have an incentive to placate you to some degree if I win and run for re-election. As an opponent, I have no incentive to placate or make a play for your vote. I can either ignore you, or attack you. Or maybe the best option is the passive aggressive attack, by making a joke about your candidacy while attacking the other side and hope it's enough to peel off part of your support to vote for me as the lesser of two evils. If I make to big a play for your vote, the risk is that you still win part of the vote, that I alienate part of my base, and also legitimize your campaign enough that part of my base now sees you as a legitimate alternative to me, maybe one the agree more with. There is no upside. Better to ignore you, or go with the passive aggressive route, the full attack route again runs the risk of legitimizing you to some of the voters I am trying to keep in my camp.

[JFree]

Despite their small size? How small is the NRA, unions, AARP, etc?

[soldiermedic76]

NRA less than ten million members in a country of 320 million. AARP claims 38 million though that's disputed, there's been documentation that they send unsolicited memberships to all seniors and count people who never actively joined as members. Unions membership is about 5% of the national population. So yes, all these groups are small.

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

If I want to support any political candidate I would never donate to their party. None of them Are worth a shit.

[Claptrap]

According to McArdle, the L.P. primarily focuses on winning races but also seeks "to push the Overton window in the direction of liberty" by pressuring Republicans and Democrats to adopt more libertarian positions.

It’s a political party that chronically fails to achieve any of its stated aims. It deserves all the contempt it receives.

[Claptrap]

Meant to post this in response to the “what’s the point of the Libertarian Party comment above. Whoops.

[Homple]

"At which point, I don’t know, maybe the LP is kind of standing on the sidelines being catty, but useless."

Nailed it. Libertarians stand on the sidelines and think it's the high ground.

[Libertariantranslator]

The Lootveeg Von Maeces Caucus (formerly the Tea Party, formerly the KKK) exists to eliminate the LP as a threat to Grabbers Of Pussy candidates. That the guy polled high made him a threat to Trumpanzees. Back when Atlas Shrugged was being written denazification hearings were profitable for key witnesses. Some Nazi billionaire's lawyers would approach a hostile witness with loot, and the witness would not show up to testify. More loot bought detergent tickets, witnesses to wash away nazi odors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persilschein

[CatoTheChipper]

I don't recall that Justin Amash made any comments about William Weld's endorsement of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Weld didn't make a formal endorsement, of course. He just said that nobody was "more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States" while he ostensibly was campaigning as a Libertarian with Gary Johnson.

Libertarians like William Weld and Justin Amash who are "utterly pathetic".

[Gaear Grimsrud]

After decades of voting Libertarian, Johnson/Weld was the end of the road for me.

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

It was a pathetic and embarrassing campaign.

[Beezard]

2016 broke me for awhile. I thought it was the libertarian moment! Lol.

[The New Number Two]

Justin Amash was still a Congressional Republican back in 2016, doofus. He wasn't weighing in on LP drama. In 2019, he diplomatically criticized the party's nomination of Bill Weld, labeling him "squishy" and not libertarian enough. Unlike Weld, Amash is a philosophical libertarian and has been for a long time.

ITT: Trumpertarians still butthurt that Amash believes their orange messiah was guilty of obstruction and voted accordingly.

[Michael Ejercito]

That was because there was no obstruction.

[Liberty Lover]

Well she is trying to win too, did T)Reason think she was going to give one of the other candidates kudos and an endorsement? It is politics.

[Nardz]

"It is politics"

No. In the case of libertarians, it's masturbation.

[sarcasmic]

The chick in the pic has a boy face. Is she fugly or born with an X and a Y?

[TheReEncogitationer]

To each their own. I'll serve her a Cuban Sammich anytime! 🙂

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

Her tits are disappointingly small.

[Lester75]

Just comment on what the woman says. She's trying to talk to your big head not your tiny one.

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

Can’t it be both?

[TheReEncogitationer]

Well, as Benny Hill observed, it's not polite to talk when your mouth is full. 🙂

[TheReEncogitationer]

Haven't you heard the saying: "More than a mouthful's a waste?" 🙂

her hair, eyes and face are what do it for me! Now I'll have to hear the voice.

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

Big ones are more…… usable.

[Bubba Jones]

Who?

[Flaco]

Damn, I want to watch the McArdle interview, but then I'd have to watch Robby Soave also. So I'll stop at reading the story.

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

He’s such a little bitch anymore. Welch too. They are so eager to suck off the democrats, and greedily swallow.

[JoeB]

Ugh. Was that really necessary?

[Utkonos]

It’s a fertile topic..

[jdgalt1]

I don't know if McArdle reads this forum, but I have a question for her: If a major-party candidate were to adapt a sufficiently libertarian position, would the LP consider endorsing him/her rather than running someone against him/her?

It is my understanding that the LP's bylaws as presently constituted forbid any such endorsement. In which case, please don't offer.

[Libertariantranslator]

By "sufficiently libertarian" you mean drug-free Lebensborn forced labor camps for females or forced labor camps for everyone to support the Five-Year-Plan?

[soldiermedic76]

I've kind of wondered if third parties wouldn't be better suited by giving endorsements rather than running perpetually Quixotic campaigns. NRA endorsements can make or break candidates in many areas, despite only having a national membership of under 10,000,000. These endorsements, and their grading system, helps make candidates responsive to their issues. The same can be said for leftist organizations such as Emily's List.

For the LP, maybe consider that there are a large minority of conservatives who are friendly to their message, a decent percentage of independents and a small number of those on the left (albeit I think this percentage has grown lesser as the left has embraced government Uber al the last several decades). The LP spends millions of dollars, with almost no return and little actual accomplishments, especially at the federal level. By spending that money instead on endorsement, they would be able to entice candidates to their views, especially on the right.

For evidence, see that in tight races, the Democrats fought to keep leftist third parties off the ballot, while fighting to keep the LP candidates on those same ballots in 2018 and 2020 (and this year). This is because they know that the LP appeals more to those on the right of center, mostly. Considering this paradigm, let's consider what is a better use of their time and money? Endorsing candidates, or pulling votes from the right, benefitting the left which is becoming more authoritarian and more statists? These endorsements would be most beneficial during primaries, but can be important even in general elections, as endorsements can be withheld. Nor do these endorsements have to be towards one party, in fact, to shift the window, the endorsements should be bipartisan. Maybe it wouldn't mean much on the current left, but I can see it meaning a lot on the right. It also will mean a lot for independents. It will also force candidates to address libertarian issues, bringing them to national attention.

Afraid of Trump running again in 2024 and winning the GOP nomination? Which would be better to stop this? Running Jo Jorgenson, or her clone, or making GOP candidates compete for your endorsement? The same for Biden, especially if he has a contested primary, but I think it's a bigger issue on the right. Want the murder turtle out? Why not endorse an alternative in the primaries? I constantly see libertarians on here crying that the GOP is no longer the party of small government and that there aren't any real parties that are small government anymore. But, instead of using their power (3-5% of the population that votes LP is a power in a country that neither party wins anything but a plurality routinely, and I would say the percentage is larger than what you win at the polls because many, like myself, pragmatically cast our vote but are sympathetic to the LP platform on a number of issues). Your power to change things is in making candidates with actual chance at winning compete for your endorsement. So, the question for the diehard LP members, which is more important, complaining or using that power?

[soldiermedic76]

As an aside, after reading three hit pieces today on Republicans that almost completely avoid the well documented authoritarian actions of the current party in control of two of the three branches of government, and Boehm's ridiculous piece yesterday afternoon, I have to wonder, why is Reason trying so hard to placate a party that isn't even close to being amicable towards the LP platform, by attacking the party that at least has some agreement with the LP? But, this isn't much of a surprise considering the turn that Reason has taken over the past decade. Some say Trump broke Reason, but I think it can be traced back to at least Bush. But at least they were far more critical of Obama's excesses than they have been of Biden's.

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

Koch money, social acceptance form the beltway set, and future employment opportunities?

[Overt]

You know after reading those same hit pieces today that pretend to be even handed reviews of races while in fact being complete partisan rags, I actually do wish Reason would become exactly the group you ask for- endorsing candidates for races.

Because this "We're above your party squabbles (but really that R is horrible, amiright??!!!" stuff is getting really tiresome.

[soldiermedic76]

Now ask yourself, if you're a Republican, a small government, constitional Republican, and you read Reason, or saw Jorgenson's campaign, or Johnson/Weld's, why would you even attempt to appeal to libertarians?

[soldiermedic76]

Especially if you're pro-life but pragmatic enough to say let's keep it legal only through the first trimester with exceptions beyond that, pro traditional marriage and family, but also live and let live but belong to a church that hasn't braced wokeness, believe that gender reassignment in minors is questionable and should be restricted (like the rest of the industrialized world is coming to conclude. What makes you conclude that those 'libertarians' are winnable?

[soldiermedic76]

Yeah, you agree on 80%, but that's never good enough because they always put up a candidate from their party. Who often spends a good portion of their time focused only on the 20% you disagree on. And when their vote is enough that the other candidate that neither you nor the libertarian agree with even 20% wins, your conclusion is you are never going to be pure enough to win the libertarian vote, so why not appeal the other direction? Yes, being a spoiler moves the overton window, but not in the direction libertarians want, especially when the media and often, libertarian media, seems stacked against you.

[Overt]

I reject this wholeheartedly. You keep treating voters and candidates interchangeably.

If I were a Republican looking at Johnson/Weld, I would understand (rightly) that there is a massive proportion of the Libertarian Party that are Ron Paul Libertarians, and would love to vote for a liberty-oriented, non-woke candidate. And Johnson/Weld would continue kvetching about Racial Justice, and I'd get all the Ron Paul libertarians

Republicans have long been able to court libertarians, but Trump- not intransigent, ideologically uncompromising Libertarians- broke that. He gave up on even mouthing platitudes to fiscal conservatism. He explicitly rejected the idea of entitlement reform, and called himself the "Tariff Man". He regularly ridiculed people like Ryan and Paul for being focused on these libertarian issues. He did that, and a new wave of populist Republicans are following in his footsteps.

I am not here to argue if any of that was a good idea- clearly his protectionist, nativist rhetoric helped him eek out a win in blue-collar states around the country. But that was his choice. That has nothing to do with Johnson/Weld. He chose to court blue-collar populist workers, at the cost of abandoning libertarians who prize fiscal sanity. Jorgenson's shrieks, and Reason's sniping don't change that.

But there was a cost to Trump's victory- a cost that you don't want the GOP to have to pay. Some people value entitlement reform more than protectionism. Some see Trump's tariffs or culture war tactics as more important than any deregulation he was able to accomplish, or wars he was able to avoid.

So yeah, I reject your scenario. You are painting a fantasy where Republicans offered a spot at the table, and libertarians rejected them. That didn't happen. Republicans over the last four years made a calculated decision to abandon (or at least de-emphasize/ignore) certain libertarian decisions, and for many libertarians that was a deal breaker. For others like themselves, it isn't a deal breaker, but it sure makes our decision harder.

[JoeB]

Exiting from foreign wars, sentencing reform, 2nd amendment strength...all part of MAGA as well. Point to another Republican president after Reagan who has been as "libertarian" ss Trump.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Very good point Soldier. The Libertarian party will never be a serious contender with their hands on the levers of power in my lifetime. But they could move the needle by endorsing the lessor of evils. Tulsi Gabbard is not a libertarian but on foreign policy at least she beats the hell out of anybody in the Democrat party. They should be talking to her not as a candidate but letting her know that they share her views and selling her on libertarianism. There a quite a few Republicans running who are a lot more libertarian than the competition. Apparently Masters has impressed some Libertarians. I get that the Party as currently structured can't endorse him but he's obviously interested in having a conversation. We're stuck with a two party system. But the Libertarian party could finally make a difference inside that system.

[Overt]

"the Democrats fought to keep leftist third parties off the ballot, while fighting to keep the LP candidates on those same ballots in 2018 and 2020 (and this year)."

Do you have some examples of this in practice?

"but I can see it meaning a lot on the right. It also will mean a lot for independents. It will also force candidates to address libertarian issues, bringing them to national attention."

Perhaps. Alternatively, perhaps the public actually doesn't really care too much about liberty. The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of advocacy groups that have tried doing this for (say) economic issues, and they seem to have not had much effect on things.

It would be an interesting thing to try, but I don't think you are going to get the Libertarian party to actually do that. They (party officials) were put in power specifically to elect LP candidates. And getting the current people in place was such a tumultuous slog that the jury is still out as to whether it will be able to manage anything going forward.

[soldiermedic76]

There were numerous stories, even on Reason, about this happening. See how the Democrats sued to keep the Green Party candidate off the ballot in swing states in 2020, especially Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia.

[soldiermedic76]

Also, how many candidates have they actually got elected? Or re-elected? They almost always split the right side of the spectrum but the movement never seems to want to be embraced by the right. When Paul ran in 2016 for president did the LP or Reason help him or did they attack him for not being pure enough? If your aim is to get libertarian candidates to win, wouldn't it make sense to endorse a very libertarian candidate? Or maybe do what Bernie has done, run in the primaries of a party that has won national elections.

[Overt]

Actually, the more I think about it, I don't see it as being nearly as easy.

Look at the big advocacy groups that really make impact, and you generally see them organized around single issues. MADD, NRA, Greenpeace, Unions, even AARP*. They have a narrow focus of issues that an individual candidate can take or leave, but will not be the sum total of their candidacy.

When we see groups like the Socialist Worker's Party or whoever endorsing candidates, I am not really certain that they have any effect. If they are having an effect it is in incredibly NICHE situations, like an 80% democrat enclave of New York.

That said, McArdle did indicate that they are thinking of running Libertarians in states where there isn't competition like Alabama. In those cases, I could see a case to be made for the LP driving the Primary process for republicans...though it isn't clear to me how much of a difference they could make.

Anyways good food for thought.

[soldiermedic76]

Can you say the DSSA hasn't had influence on the Democrats after AOC and Bernie? They joined a coalition and got their people elected and as a result now seem to control the DNC. The Paul's have done far more for libertarian principles than Amish or Johnson or Jorgensen or Ventura ever did. Bernie has been able to shape a party just by caucusing with them, how much influence did Amish have, compared to Rand Paul? The problem with joining a coalition is you have to compromise. So, the question is do you compromise to move the needle, or stand strictly on principle while the needle moves decidedly the other direction? I voted LP at the top of the ticket in 2016 and 2020, but it's highly doubtful I will again, after the last two years. I knew my LP vote didn't matter as to who won in my state, so it felt good, but it didn't change anything. At the lower elections, it actually counted and I knew that LP candidates couldn't win, so I chose to vote for the party and candidate that was the closest to my classical liberal constitutionalists values, and that wasn't the one with a D after their name. And despite not liking many things about our current governor, I voted for him because his opponent was to undesirable and it was important to stop him (a continuation of the previous administration). I didn't even vote in the LP primary but in the Republican primary, because the LP had no chance, in a very libertarian leaning conservative state.

The real power is at the primary level. You want to shape policy, it's at the primary level those get decided. People think primaries are about get out the base, but the base is usually a coalition and the power to shift the narrative is in putting up candidates and endorsing candidates at the primary level. Even if you don't win, the party has to appeal to you to get you to vote in the general.

Look at Bernie, see how is primary runs have shifted the DNC. He isn't even a Democrat, but by running in two primaries he has the party kowtowing to him and his coalition. This has alienated other parts of the Democrats coalition, putting them up for grabs. The Republicans are making a concerted effort for them, but not much of an effort for the LP vote (despite the fact that some of these disaffected are at least partially sympathetic to classical liberalism). There is one of three options, they vote Republican or don't vote or they vote third party. All three options benefit the Republicans (the first the most, but the other two are almost as good). But the problem with either of the latter two is that the GOP has no incentive to appeal to them, instead the incentive is to keep them continuing this pattern. It's game theory. But, with those that choose the first option, the GOP has to pay attention to to keep them voting Republican.

The LP holds itself outside the process, by appealing only to those who choose the third option. Ron Paul almost was able to shift the GOP with his primary run, but then he endorsed a third party candidate in 2008, so he lost that clout. He became a write off and his message was destroyed in 2012. He stood on principle, but how much more power would he have had if he had played his cards differently in 2008? Bernie, on the other hand has gotten the Democrats to appeal to his base, has largely shifted the party platform with his runs, even if unsuccessful, and than strategic use of his endorsement.

The polls show the Republicans are open to a number of Libertarian goals (as are moderate Democrats), but rather than joining the conversation or trying to shape it, the LP is more worried about virtue signalling with perpetual also ran outsiders and then saying my spoiler candidacy means you need to appeal to me. But that isn't the case. The better play is for the Republicans to do what the Democrats have done to the Green Party since 2000, keep them off the ballot. The outsiders never get their voices heard, it's only after the join that people listen. From voting patterns, why would any party compete for their vote, when it's obvious that no matter how hard you try, over half of all people who vote LP will always vote LP? You don't get on the debate stage. You don't get press. You don't have any appeal to a candidate.

If I'm running as a candidate, why would I run my campaign to please followers of another candidate on the ballot? I've said often on here that many libertarians on here are as partisan as Ds or Rs. Why should I compete for partisans of another party, especially one that has won almost nothing of importance? Even if their coalition is similar to mine. Especially if that is the case. I'm far better served by supporting policies that keep them off the ballot, or restrict access to ballots. Your vote only matters if I actually believe I can win it, and the best way to do that is if you endorse me or others in my party.

I say Republicans because currently I think they are the most open to persuasion. But, there is room for the LP not to align with either party, but endorse candidates from both parties in the primary and then making an endorsement in the general based on who is closest to the parties views. Make the parties compete for your endorsement and be willing to give it. Run candidates in the primaries. Get on the stage, endorse candidates in the primaries. Make them want you, and that won't happen as an outsider.

[JoeB]

Must admit, your comparison of Paul vs. Sanders works.

[mad.casual]

you generally see them organized around single issues. MADD, NRA, Greenpeace, Unions, even AARP

ACLU? FIRE? WEF? Citizens United? Club for Growth? Heritage Action? Faith and Values Coalition? Free State Project?

It's certainly easier to start small and build a cohesive base in the full light of day with a singular cause, and organizing around the single issue of 'Liberty' has it's own set of problems, but I don't think the alternative is, by any means, an impossibility.

[Nardz]

Yea, but if you organize around "liberty" you can continue being a coward who won't make any real stand against totalitarianism, but pretend you're morally superior to everybody else because they don't want "liberty" like you do.

[Union of Concerned Socks]

if Republicans don't want Libertarian spoilers, they should adopt more libertarian positions.

Sadly, this level of thought is beyond nearly all Republican politicians.

[soldiermedic76]

Why would either party compete for a party votes when that party spends its resources running candidates that never had a chance to win, whose voters seem to be as partisan as they accuse others of? The parties don't compete for the LP vote because it's seen as irrelevant by one party (and antithesis to their coalition) and unobtainable by the party that at least some of it's coalition is amicable to it. Reason is the supposed premier Libertarian journalism outlet in the US. But what happened the last two days on here? Boehm's article yesterday afternoon and three articles today attacking the Republicans with little or no mention of far more egregious examples on actual Democratic officeholders. Why would the GOP candidates attempt to court the LP? It's seems clear that they don't want to be part of a coalition and would rather be contorarians. At least that's what it looks like to me, a pragmatic constitutional conservative who is sympathetic to a number of libertarian positions.

[Overt]

"whose voters seem to be as partisan as they accuse others of?"

Except this isn't what is happening, is it? The Libertarian Party's vote totals have gone between 1 and 4% depending on the election. Some percentage of that 3% seem willing to vote for someone else (assuming they didn't just stay home).

[soldiermedic76]

But it's the 1%. And how many states were decided by 1% last time? How many races will be this year? Also, that 3% that are persuadable, why change for them, when it's easier (and appeals to my base) to convince them the other party is worse and not voting for me, is a vote for the other 'evil' guy? That way I don't have to change to appeal, I just have to make the other candidate worse. I am not ever going to win that 1% anyhow, so why appeal to them?

[NOYB2]

Sadly, this level of thought is beyond nearly all Republican politicians.

That's because this level of thought is irrational and downright idiotic. McArdle's reasoning is idiotic.

[Nardz]

Libertarians aren't important, and it's a completely narcissistic way of thinking.

[Moderation4ever]

"if Republicans don't want Libertarian spoilers, they should adopt more libertarian positions."

I think statement this sums thing up very well. Republicans sometimes think they are entitled to the Libertarian vote. I disagree and would actually like to see each party work more for that vote.

[soldiermedic76]

Why should the Republicans adopt the platform of <5% party that always runs a candidate that tends to most heavily impact their coalition but refuses to be part of that coalition? There is no benefit to them. No matter how much they attempt to attract that vote, a vast majority of libertarians will still vote LP, because the Republicans can't fully embrace libertarianism without putting off other parts of it's coalition. However, if the LP endorses candidates, especially in the primaries, but also in the general, they agree to be part of a coalition, and candidates will factor that into their election strategy. They will compete for those votes. Look at the power of issue driven groups. They get heard because candidates crave their endorsements, and govern to please them. They have more power to shape the narrative than if they ran a Quixotic campaign for office. The LP either has to build a coalition, which seems unlikely, or be willing to join an existing coalition. It feels nice to say you're above it all, but that is the road to obscurity, not to getting heard.

[Agammamon]

"L.P. Chair Angela McArdle did not go so far as to endorse Masters, saying that her position precludes her from doing so."

So . . . it was already a non-story - I don't *expect* the LP to endorse rival parties - it a double non-story then.

[NOYB2]

I think statement this sums thing up very well. Republicans sometimes think they are entitled to the Libertarian vote. I disagree and would actually like to see each party work more for that vote.

Republicans and Democrats take political positions that split the electorate down the middle. That is the maximum amount of work you can expect from either party to "get the libertarian vote".

If you run a LP candidate, all you do is cause Republicans to work less hard to get the libertarian vote because there is less benefit doing so. That is, running LP candidates causes both parties to take less libertarian positions.

[soldiermedic76]

My question is what have libertarians done to indicate they are willing to be embraced? Notice the discussion is almost never about how Democrats can change to embrace libertarians. But the LP, Reason and many libertarians seem far more interested in attacking Republicans more so than Democrats. Why would Republicans think libertarians are willing to vote for them if they adopt more libertarian positions? Look at the flack the Pauls have gotten from leading libertarians. Has the LP ever endorsed or assisted Rand Paul? Or have they ran candidates against him? Criticized him?

[NOYB2]

I think most libertarians in the US know better than to support the LP (or Reason).

I also think Republicans are supporting libertarian positions to the extent they can; given the small percentage of libertarian-leaning voters in the US, you can't expect miracles.

[soldiermedic76]

Libertarian seems more regional. Much more popular in the west, especially the Rocky Mountain West, than other parts of the country. Not exclusively but definitely it's strongest base in the Republican, probably followed by the South but definitely overlap with Bible Belt. Midwest, it has some strength but is second fiddle to economic conditions, i.e. blue collar, former union ideals. In terms of the most libertarian states, I would rank Alaska first, Texas second and Montana third, Wyoming is probably fourth or fifth. Florida, Missouri and Kentucky are also somewhere in the top ten. The northeast, except Maine (and increasingly even there) least libertarian, plenty of libertarians in west coast, Colorado and New Mexico (and Arizona and Nevada to a lesser extent) but they would rather keep losing to the left rather than ally with Republicans. But it's fairly clear if we go by which states tend to embrace libertarian governing principles the most (and not get to caught up in cultural purity) they almost all are deeper red states.

[NOYB2]

The northeast, except Maine (and increasingly even there) least libertarian, plenty of libertarians in west coast, Colorado and New Mexico (and Arizona and Nevada to a lesser extent) but they would rather keep losing to the left rather than ally with Republicans.

I don't think there is a distinct group of libertarians that could ally with anybody. People hold libertarian positions to various degrees and strengths, and they select candidates that match their preferences. Until maybe a decade ago, both parties held a significant degree of libertarian positions, though Democrats have turned into semi-fascists since.

Self-identified libertarians are a tiny percentage of the electorate and most probably don't vote for the LP. In fact, the LP probably mostly attracts the "legal drugs, open borders" crowd and general protest voters, not a particularly libertarian group of voters.

But it’s fairly clear if we go by which states tend to embrace libertarian governing principles the most (and not get to caught up in cultural purity) they almost all are deeper red states.

The only way that is going to happen is if Americans become better educated about the failures of progressivism and the benefits of small government, particularly for the poor, immigrants, and minorities. But as long as the education system is in the firm grip of Democrat-aligned teachers unions, that's not going to happen.

[Nardz]

"what have libertarians done to indicate they are willing to be embraced?"

Absolutely nothing.
Look at the self-righteous, faux principled libertarians who frequently comment here.

[NOYB2]

According to McArdle, the L.P. primarily focuses on winning races but also seeks “to push the Overton window in the direction of liberty” by pressuring Republicans and Democrats to adopt more libertarian positions. She said that libertarians should shrug off Republican accusations that they are spoiling races; if Republicans don’t want Libertarian spoilers, they should adopt more libertarian positions.

That’s not how this works. In a two party race, Republicans adopt as many libertarian positions as they need to in order to get 50% of the vote.

If an LP candidate takes runs and takes, say, 4% of the vote, then the Democrats and Republicans will attempt to split the remaining 96% of votes down the middle, meaning that Republicans will necessarily adopt less libertarian positions if they want to win.

This is the usual effect of third parties in a WTA system.

And the fact that the LP just shrugs its shoulders when there is a real danger that a brain damaged, unaccomplished, trust fund baby, radical leftist may end up being the deciding vote in the Senate shows you how rotten the LP leadership is.

[Overt]

Your scenario doesn't make sense. What if the Libertarian wouldn't run? Would these people just magically vote for the Republican? By what logic?

Whether there is an LP candidate or not, the voter will chose the candidate that represents their ideals. The Republican actually has the advantage- since they have a higher likelihood of winning. All they have to do is get close enough to the LP candidate and that is 4% of the vote they can take.

[NOYB2]

Whether there is an LP candidate or not, the voter will chose the candidate that represents their ideals.

No candidate represents anybody's ideals. In fact, to most voters, both major candidates will look almost equally bad, and among those, they pick the candidate that is slightly less bad. That's the way the US system is supposed to work and it's a good system.

The Republican actually has the advantage- since they have a higher likelihood of winning. All they have to do is get close enough to the LP candidate and that is 4% of the vote they can take.

If they did that, they would lose a lot more than 4% of swing voters to the Democrats, so they would be worse off overall.

That's why it's rational for Republicans to view the votes going to the LP candidate as lost and then move more towards the left to take away votes from Democrats.

[Overt]

"If they did that, they would lose a lot more than 4% of swing voters to the Democrats, so they would be worse off overall."

So then why exactly would the Republican *ever* go after the libertarian voters?

The game you have setup results in the Republican never having any incentive to adopt libertarian positions. If there is an LP candidate, adopting libertarian policies loses him more votes with indies. If there is NOT an LP candidate, trying to get those voters with libertarian policies STILL loses him more votes with indies.

The rational play for the GOP member is to never adopt more libertarian policies, and just hope the libertarians vote for him as the lesser weevil.

[soldiermedic76]

The Republicans will go after the libertarian party when they think they have a chance to win it as part of a coalition. Running as a third party means they are an opponent, not a possible ally. Especially if they don't endorse ever. I am trying to build as big a coalition as possible, but that means focusing on those I see as winnable. Outsiders are never almost never seen as winnable. The facts show this. Jorgenson received less votes than Johnson, with neither party moving markedly towards the libertarian position. The parties have thus concluded their isn't a need to appeal to libertarians but instead focus on making the other candidate less desirable to libertarian leaning voters. Especially when core libertarians and supposed libertarian writers spend more time attacking one side, while often excusing or ignoring the other side. Why would I as a Republican candidate, reading Reason lately, or listening to Jorgenson with her anti-racists tweets and almost universal attacks on Trump and other Republicans, mainly for not being perfect enough, work for the libertarian vote? The left always has decided the libertarians only count to split the right vote. The question isn't why Republicans should embrace libertarianism but what has libertarians done recently to show Republicans they're open to being embraced?

[Overt]

"The Republicans will go after the libertarian party when they think they have a chance to win it as part of a coalition."

Oh please. The Republican Party will never go after the "Libertarian Party" ever, because that means nothing to them. They are going after voters. And they will go after voters with a libertarian streak if they think they can craft a set of policies that will keep them and the rest of their base united.

I'm sorry but you guys are torturing reality and logic out the window. We have seen for years in Kentucky what happens when a Republican courts libertarian voters. Rand Paul no problem getting the libertarian-leaning votes regardless of what the ankle biters in the LP or at Reason say. And we are about to see in AZ if courting libertarians will get Masters the votes needed to put him over the top.

[soldiermedic76]

That's actually my point. Paul wins because he is libertarian and Republican. But the LP still runs candidates against him. He wins in a state that is more libertarian leaning. But how many in the LP registered to vote for him in the 2016 primaries? Did the LP endorse him? No, so despite his being the most libertarian candidate, he failed to move the Republicans much to the libertarian position. And by the time the primaries moved into more libertarian territories he had dropped out. By the time Montana, my state, had it's primary it was between Trump, Cruz and one other candidate. I wanted Paul, but ended up voting Cruz, as the least worst. Trump by that time was the presumptive candidate. I voted for Johnson in the general, but not because I expected him to win but because it didn't matter. Johnson was a feel good vote. If I had had to decide I probably would have held my nose and voted Trump. But, not because he did anything to win my vote. He couldn't win my vote. He didn't have to. He didn't have to lift a finger to appeal to me. Or any of the nearly six percent of my fellow Montanans who voted for Johnson. We voted Johnson, and it didn't change anything. Jorgenson won less than half of Johnson's vote total and mainly was those of us who voted for her because we weren't open to voting for Trump. The states definitely shifted to the right, it's been leaning that way for decades but definitely shifted to the right. But at no time has the Republican party had to shift to capture libertarian voters, or leaners, and mostly weren't open to voting for the Republicans; it appears the decrease in LP shifted more towards Biden than Trump, probably because a good portion was a none of the above vote to begin with. Jorgenson won about the same percentage as Johnson won in 2012 in Montana, which indicates a dedicated marginal constituent, about 2-3%, who vote LP basically no matter what. So, this shows a small, marginal group who is as partisan as their major parties, who is in a state that has been traditionally open to libertarian principles, is shifting further red, and for which neither party actively campaigns for that 2-3%. In Montana. How do you think that plays in Pennsylvania? A far less fertile state for libertarian principles.

[soldiermedic76]

Our license plate might read the Treasure State but that's because Leave us the fuck alone state isn't appropriate nor would fit on a license plate.

[NOYB2]

No, so despite his being the most libertarian candidate, he failed to move the Republicans much to the libertarian position.

Like it or not: libertarianism is a fringe ideology in the US, less popular than socialism, Marxism, racism, or fascism. If fringe ideologies had a stronger effect on politics in the US, we'd be a totalitarian socialist or fascist state by now. Just look at the history of Europe.

If you want more libertarianism in US politics, the only way to achieve that is to change the minds of a large percentage of (future) voters. The best way to accomplish that is to take back the education system from radical leftists.

[NOYB2]

“If they did that, they would lose a lot more than 4% of swing voters to the Democrats, so they would be worse off overall.”

So then why exactly would the Republican *ever* go after the libertarian voters?

Politicians pick a mix of policies and positions in a way in which they split the electorate between them. What label you apply to yourself doesn't matter to them.

The rational play for the GOP member is to never adopt more libertarian policies, and just hope the libertarians vote for him as the lesser weevil.

Yes, that is how it is supposed to work. For some incomprehensible reason, you think that there is something wrong with "picking the lesser evil".

Libertarian policies only have a small influence on both Democrat and Republican politicians because libertarian-leaning voters are such a small percentage of the electorate. And if you add a LP candidate to the mix, that small influence diminishes further.

[Overt]

"Politicians pick a mix of policies and positions in a way in which they split the electorate between them."

But *you* are the one who said that adopting libertarian policies would turn off more indies than gain them libertarian voters.

If what you say is actually true, then your original post- BY YOUR OWN LOGIC- was inaccurate. You said that a Libertarian candidate leads Republican leaders to not adopt libertarian policies. That does not square with your contention that "if they did [adopted libertarian policies], they would lose a lot more than 4% of swing voters to the Democrats, so they would be worse off overall."

Those two statements are mutually exclusive.

[NOYB2]

You said that a Libertarian candidate leads Republican leaders to not adopt libertarian policies. That does not square with your contention that “if they did [adopted libertarian policies], they would lose a lot more than 4% of swing voters to the Democrats, so they would be worse off overall.”

I suspect that the problem here may be the term "swing voters".

What I mean is that there is a large percentage of voters with political views halfway between Democrats and Republicans; I call those "swing voters", but if you prefer, call them "moderate voters". Those voters do not include libertarians, because libertarian policy preferences differ greatly from both Democrats and Republicans.

There is also a small percentage of people with fringe views that will vote for a LP candidate. Let's call them "fringe voters".

If a candidate tries to gain back the fringe voters siphoned off by a fringe candidate, they will lose more moderate voters than they gain fringe voters.

This is not specific to LP candidates; it's the same with socialist, fascist, and theocratic fringe candidates. And this is a good mechanism, because it tends to keep fringe candidates out of office in the US. The problem with the LP is that it is represents fringe political views, political views that are less popular than even straight up socialism. If you want LP candidates to win, you actually need to change people's minds, you can't do it through election trickery.

[mad.casual]

The game you have setup results in the Republican never having any incentive to adopt libertarian positions.

Counterfactual to what actually happened in the Victor/Masters situation. Admittedly, still TBD whether Masters will win and hold good on any/all libertarian campaign promises but the process was an effective vetting of a TPD candidate by the LP. Leaps and bounds better than a 100-person gun control panels and bake the damn cake. Hell, in the context of other discussions, better than (e.g.) a Union or PAC donating to a candidate and *then* getting a face-to-face public vetting.

[NOYB2]

Can you be specific in what way the Republican candidate actually changed significant political positions in response to the endorsement?

[mad.casual]

Your scenario doesn’t make sense. What if the Libertarian wouldn’t run? Would these people just magically vote for the Republican? By what logic?

More critically, he’s advocating the TPD position of ‘column A’ and ‘column B’ voters rather than a Venne diagram of three (or more) circles. I don’t like RCV/IRV specifically because it forces the false dichotomy. The benefit it does offer is, still nominally, reducing voting down to more strict policy-decisions.

I’m certainly not in favor of overturning the whole election system and throwing out the EC tomorrow, but the idea that Biden gets to decide to forgive student loans without a vote is ludicrous. It may’ve made sense in 1776 when war could be initiated in a matter of days and it took weeks to get communications across the country and in certain circumstances in 2022 it still makes some sense but, the fact that we can’t, in a matter of days, figure out who wants to forgive student loans and who’s willing to pony up on their 1040 at the end of the year to pay for it and, instead, settle for a single moron that most of us voted for* is absolutely insane.

*Yeah, yeah.

[NOYB2]

More critically, he’s advocating the TPD position of ‘column A’ and ‘column B’ voters rather than a Venne diagram of three (or more) circles.

I'm not "advocating" anything. I'm stating a simple fact about WTA systems: the rational response of a Republican candidate to a LP third party candidate is to adopt less libertarian positions and move closer to the Democrats.

the idea that Biden gets to decide to forgive student loans without a vote is ludicrous. It may’ve made sense in 1776

The president couldn't forgive federal student loans in 1776 because the federal government was strictly limited back then. And that's the answer to most of these problems: strictly limited, small government and subsidiarity.

[soldiermedic76]

To be pedantic, the federal government barely even existed and was not anything like what occurred after 1783 or 1786, in 1776. Delegates weren't even elected but appointed and until 1776 was over halfway done, hadn't even declared itself a governing body rather than a body created to lobby the parent government. The EC didn't exist in 1776. The president was the president of the appointed continental Congress and had almost no duties other than those necessary to run meetings.

[NOYB2]

Well be pedantic with "mad.casual". I gave him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that by "1776" he generically meant "early America", because obviously, using exact date of 1776 is bullshit when discussing the role of the federal government in the US, since that was in flux for a couple of decades.

[mad.casual]

I’m not “advocating” anything. I’m stating a simple fact about WTA systems: the rational response of a Republican candidate to a LP third party candidate is to adopt less libertarian positions and move closer to the Democrats.

"Both parties attempt to split the vote down the middle." is not a simple fact about WTA systems, it's critically antithetic to WTA systems. You're confusing playing the cards, playing the man/voter, and playing the house. A WTA system guarantees that any random group of people sitting down to play will wind up playing against each other to the house's benefit, but the whole point is that the LP need not be random or adversarial in sitting down to play.

The GOP won't just adopt more Democratic positions unless the barrier or cost-benefit to Libertarian positions is higher than adopting Democratic ones. And it should be beyond retardedly easy to counter the DNC's offer of "Adopt CRT." or "Adopt Gun Control." or "Adopt vax mandates." or "Adopt GND." with something as retardedly appealing to the GOP as "OK, tighten the border, but cut welfare spending dollar-for-dollar."

And you may say, "Well, they'll just pay lip service to LP positions and then revert back to authoritarian positions." or "The cost-benefit of libertarian positions will always be higher." or "The game is rigged and the deck is stacked." or "The dems can offer a larger bankroll in support of Ukraine under the table." but then we're (still) well outside the realm of WTA arguments.

[NOYB2]

“Both parties attempt to split the vote down the middle.” is not a simple fact about WTA systems, it’s critically antithetic to WTA systems.

No, it is a simple game theoretic fact about WTA voting with two parties: they will adjust their message until each expects to get 50% of the vote. If the outcome differs substantially from a 50/50 split, one of the two parties screwed up. If a fringe political party like the LP enters the race, its voters simply become irrelevant. (If a centrist/moderate third party entered the race, it would displace one of the previously two dominant parties over time.)

the LP need not be random or adversarial in sitting down to play

In a first past the post system like most of the US, it is.

What you imagine is the possibility of some kind of horse trading, where libertarians run but then in the end compromise with Republicans to make Republicans more libertarian. And the reason you want that is because the LP is a fringe party with fringe views, and you’d like to see it have more power. But the US system is set up to prevent that, and that’s a good thing.

If you want a stable, free country, fringe political views should have little to no influence on politics. If you want more libertarianism in US politics, you need to actually do the hard work of changing the political views of a large percentage of Americans. There are no shortcuts.

And saying "we don't care if Fetterman gets elected" is certainly not going to persuade persuadable people to adopt more libertarian views; they will simply view you as a nutcase.

[soldiermedic76]

Education is one way, the power of endorsement is another way. Endorsing allows you to pick the candidates that most embrace your views. The NRA didn't start it's ILA until the 1970s. By the 1980s candidates where actively seeking, or rejecting, the endorsement and grading system. By the 1990s, it became important in one party in particular. That is with a membership of only 3 or so percent of the population, but a much larger percentage that were sympathetic to their issues. The same with libertarian principles. It's a fringe movement, but the percentage of independents and especially Republicans who are sympathetic is much larger. By endorsing candidates or using a ranking system akin the NRA, they may be able to induce candidates to seek that endorsement, moving the party, if those who are endorsed are successful, in that direction. It will probably never move completely, but it can move the needle in that direction.

[mad.casual]

The president couldn’t forgive federal student loans in 1776 because the federal government was strictly limited back then. And that’s the answer to most of these problems: strictly limited, small government and subsidiarity.

OK, now you’re just being contrarian. You realize we don’t have the government today that we had in 1776, right? You realize that even if we didn’t have one retard making decisions on behalf of 330M the decisions would still have to be made by one or more somebody elses (not necessarily the government but at least people, e.g., issuing loans, people receiving loans, and people offering services/accepting payment of the loans) right? That whether you’re an ancap, minarchist, full-on anarchist or artisanal pesco-libertarian the only way to get away from electing one retard once every 4 yrs. to make decisions on everything from oil pipelines in N. Europe and student loans is to divest from electing one retard every 4 yrs., right? I freely admit that handing the power to the deep state isn’t a better option, but by your own assertions, the current status quo has, in no way, avoided handing power to the deep state.

[NOYB2]

You realize we don’t have the government today that we had in 1776, right?

Yes, that is what I said: the federal government was strictly limited back then.

OK, now you’re just being contrarian.

No, you are just being an asshole.

[DWB]

Oh goodie .. another FAKE "libertarian" virtue signaling to her prog besties.

BARF

[Ghost on the Highway]

Let's not forget that the 2 Libertarian senate candidates in the Georgia 2020 election boldly stood fast, which forced a runoff. The Democrats seized on the opportunity and ended up taking the 2 senate seats. Gave Kamala the deciding vote. But hey, do your thing

[A Thinking Mind]

I wasn't exactly keen on Brian Kemp back in 2018, but he's been fantastic as a governor. He opposed lockdowns, he actually overruled several mayors who wanted to force lockdowns on their constituents, even going against Trump who was pushing him to lock things down. He refused to institute a mask mandate but advocated for mask-wearing on a voluntary basis. He's repealed some regulatory measures, he's been working with the legislature to do more, and he's working to reduce the tax burden in the state.

Not every candidate state-wide is good, but the most visible state-wide race is pretty libertarian. There's a few good libertarian candidates, but there's several libertarian peacocks who just want to look pretty. There's also some left-libertarians who just want legalized weed and opened borders, and beyond that are all-in on DEI initiatives and allowing CRT to be a mandate party of state education.

[soldiermedic76]

Another way to say what I've been saying is why would I try and win a voter who I agree with on 80% of issues that tells me that's not good enough? And then spends all their energy attacking me, rather than the other guy who only agrees with you on 20%? The problem is, as much as the LP and libertarians hate to admit it, they're a right wing party in the US. This country was founded on classical liberalism and enlightenment principles which make those the conservative by default stances. Libertarians decry cultural issues, but attack conservatives mainly because they aren't 100% on, guess what, cultural issues. And it's not even like there isn't room for compromise, but too many libertarians would rather never vote for the guy who agrees with them 80% but isn't willing to go as far as they want on cultural issues. Take abortion for example. Republicans appear to be coalescing around legal through the first trimester. The polls even show that's most popular among conservatives by far. But how many libertarians have called Republicans authoritarian since Dobb? How many times has Reason highlighted fringe abortion stances by conservatives? Now, ask yourself, how many stories has Reason ran or how many times has the LP condemned, the actions of the DHS in regards to tech censorship? How long did Reason even deny it was going on?

[Overt]

“Another way to say what I’ve been saying is why would I try and win a voter who I agree with on 80% of issues that tells me that’s not good enough?”

And another way of saying what I’m gonna say is this mythical voter is a figment of your imagination. You have created this caricature of a libertarian party voter in your head who is stomping their feet and throwing a temper tantrum.

” Libertarians decry cultural issues, but attack conservatives mainly because they aren’t 100% on, guess what, cultural issues.”

Soldier, this is insane. I had huge problems with Trump and exactly zero of them were “cultural”, unless we have to insist that immigration was cultural. And even then, my biggest problems with him were his hostility to free trade and his total abandonment of entitlement reform and fiscal sanity.

That isn’t to say that there weren’t some things to like about Trump (e.g. wars, judges and regulations). And I would have happily had 4 more years of his shit than Biden. But to act like it is 1998 and we are still talking about the Religious Right being the republican problem is just flat out wrong.

And yes, even as a libertarian who is culturally conservative, I do believe that the Republicans threaten to go over board on the cultural issues. Not because I dislike their cultural stances (I share many such values) but because I see them wasting MASSIVE opportunities to capitalize on pent up rage and make real reforms to school choice and other public funding. Instead they are wasting all their powder on silly bandaids.

[Nardz]

^proves soldiermedic's point

[NOYB2]

You have created this caricature of a libertarian party voter in your head who is stomping their feet and throwing a temper tantrum.

I would be surprised if most LP voters are actual libertarians. LP results are so poor that it's likely mostly generic protest votes or people who happen to like some sound bite.

Most people who hold libertarian beliefs, even self-identified libertarians, probably don't vote for the LP candidate.

I've voted LP twice in my life, and only when it didn't matter. But I was young and foolish. These days, I won't vote LP no matter what. I think the LP hurts the cause of libertarianism in the US.

[soldiermedic76]

You know you basically just made my case. Yes, some Republicans go overboard, because they are beholden to a coalition of similar but not necessarily identical voters. Pro liberty, socially conservative but think mostly the government should stay out of people's personal business? That's me to a nutshell. The difference is that I may vote LP as a protest vote if it doesn't actually impact the outcome, but in tight or important races, I vote Republican because they are far closer than the Democrats. I'm obtainable by the party, as are a number of voters in my state that are of similar disposition. So, Republicans in my state work to attract us. Because we can mean the difference, especially in primaries.

[soldiermedic76]

The power of the primary is ignored by most people. The reason that primaries tend to be preaching to the choir, base is because they are speaking to the base. This however, gives the base, which is often actually a coalition of similar but not identical voters, the ability to choose the candidate that they think best represents them. The primaries do shift the parties. Make politicians responsive to the needs and wants of the voters. And the reconciliation phase after the primaries also shifts the party, as the winner now has to make themselves attractive enough to their defeated foes supporters that they won't stay home or vote for someone else. This often entails embracing some of their primary opponents positions, in order to receive their endorsement. Or in some cases, Liz Cheney in Wyoming comes to mind, to reject their primary opponents positions. We don't have enough contested primaries in this country or enough participation in them. Mainly because of the power of incumbency. But the primaries are the best way to achieve change. Even if the incumbent wins, if the primary scares them enough, they have to change.

[Azathoth!!]

And another way of saying what I’m gonna say is this mythical voter is a figment of your imagination. You have created this caricature of a libertarian party voter in your head who is stomping their feet and throwing a temper tantrum.

Holy fuck.

Read what you just wrote.

If that caricature of a libertarian party voter is imaginary, Overt then YOU'RE imaginary. You even said Not because I dislike their cultural stances (I share many such values)

Damn.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

why would I try and win a voter who I agree with on 80% of issues that tells me that’s not good enough?

Here is another point. For some of us, the issue isn't about percentage of overlap with ideas. For some of us, the core issue is about the rationale in the first place. Neither Team Red nor Team Blue value liberty *for its own sake*. By voting for either Team Red or Team Blue, you are implicitly endorsing their rationale for liberty, rather than the IMO correct one.

Team Blue believes liberty ought to be subject to a utilitarian calculation. Liberty must be protected only if it is "worth it" by some cosmic social good. By voting for Team Blue, you are endorsing liberty via utilitarianism.

Team Red believes liberty ought to be subject to a morality test. Liberty must be protected only for those who are morally worthy. By voting for Team Red, you are endorsing a moralistic vision of liberty.

I don't think liberty should be subject to a utilitarian cost/benefit calculation and I don't think liberty should be subject to a morality litmus test. Who should I vote for?

[Azathoth!!]

Wrong.

Team Blue believes liberty ought to be subject to a utilitarian calculation. Liberty must be protected only if it is “worth it” by some cosmic social good. By voting for Team Blue, you are endorsing liberty via utilitarianism.

Team Blue does not believe in liberty at all. Team Blue believes that ideas that used to be considered 'civil liberties' should be rewarded, on a temporary basis as privileged boons given for service to the party or for exceptional ideological loyalty.

Team Red believes liberty ought to be subject to a morality test. Liberty must be protected only for those who are morally worthy. By voting for Team Red, you are endorsing a moralistic vision of liberty.

Team Red believes in Liberty as described in the Constitution--but is wary of libertinism. As long as one stays away from libertinism, and within the boundaries set forth in the Constitution one is pretty much free to do as they please.

I don’t think liberty should be subject to a utilitarian cost/benefit calculation and I don’t think liberty should be subject to a morality litmus test. Who should I vote for?

You will vote for the leftist, as you always do. You do not believe in liberty at all, Jeff. Every post you write makes this clear.

The funniest thing is that you seem to truly believe that you're fooling people by appending your name with 'radical individualist' and occasionally professing to love liberty while you simultaneously call for it to be curtailed.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Team Blue does not believe in liberty at all.

Oh that's nonsense. Sure they do, they just have a different conception of liberty than libertarians do. As I said, it is utilitarian in nature.

Team Red believes in Liberty as described in the Constitution

Bullshit. They undermine the Fourth Amendment, they pretend the 14th Amendment doesn't exist, they are increasingly hostile to the First Amendment.

And, guess what, the Constitution does not grant liberty. Even if they were scrupulous defenders of every word of the Constitution, it wouldn't constitute defending liberty *for its own sake*.

–but is wary of libertinism.

As I said - they believe in liberty only conditionally.

and within the boundaries set forth in the Constitution one is pretty much free to do as they please.

Like organize a Drag Queen Story Hour at a public library?

You will vote for the leftist, as you always do.

lol. I vote for the Libertarian, while we can count on you to vote for Team Red no matter how crazy or authoritarian they get, because you believe in tribe over principle.

[NOYB2]

Oh that’s nonsense. Sure they do, they just have a different conception of liberty than libertarians do. As I said, it is utilitarian in nature.

Team Blue values “freedom” in the Marxist sense: maximizing each individual’s ability to choose and act, free from governmental, social, and economic constraints.

Team Red values "freedom" in the libertarian and conservative sense, namely the ability to choose and act free from governmental constraints only.

Generally, in English, "freedom" in the libertarian/conservative sense is referred to as "liberty" while Marxist-style "freedom" is not.

[Libertariantranslator]

The fact that exterminating all Jews was only 1/25th of the Christian National Socialist platform of 1920 didn't make it desirable to anyone with a brain. The absence of a Libertarian Party was Hitler's great advantage--the advantage Nixon sought to restore after his hero Herbert Hoover was humiliated by the Liberal Party's prohibition repeal plank. (https://bit.ly/3fSacLM)

[perlmonger]

Who?

[JeremyR]

Really? Oz might be a quack, but Fetterman is basically AOC's brain (after being dropped several times) put into a Frankenstein's monster body.

He's a very hard core totalitarian socialist. And a racist.

Has any other candidate for Senate chased down an innocent black guy and held him at gunpoint? It's pretty shocking he's not in jail, much less a senate candidate.

[Libertariantranslator]

These cowardly evasions are what got Quisling, Pétain, Degrelle, Mosley and the Silver Shirts where they ended up after May 1945. Communists now whine abt innocent girls being driven into forced labor while redneck nationalsocialists struggle to pretend that leaf prohibition and forfeiture laws DON'T cause depressions. Both halves of the Kleptocracy are clearly totalitarian, so why not offer the voters the chance to vote against both (= for less coercion) and let the most hated totalitarian laws get repealed first?

[This Is The Zodiac Speaking]

Would

[One-Punch_Man]

I understand her take on not endorsing and support it. As a chair of a party you never endorse another party.

Oz vs Fetterman ...everyone should be concerned. Even before the stroke - Fetterman lived off dad till 40, destroyed a town, and married an illegal who is a witch. I know that scores him points here.

Now he is basically a vegetable being propped up so if he wins his wife takes over. Where has that happened before...it's going great right?

I know not everyone likes Oz. I didn't like him till this honestly. He actually does care.

Look you want to vote for a D, the Ds should have chosen another candidate in May. Or an independent could step up.

This just shows how broke and crappy the system is that if you have a D or R you win certain areas.

[NOYB2]

I don't understand the dislike people have for Oz. I mean, the guy was a highly educated and accomplished physician before his TV career. Even the "alternative medicines" he talked about on TV were hardly anything unusual.

I think people have been trying to character-assassinate Oz because of his association with Trump and because he aired an episode showing conversion therapy (yet still giving time to people opposing it as well). I think they particularly hate him because he is an educated, successful Muslim with moderate views who has left the Democrat plantation.

[Bill Dalasio]

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. I've looked at the guy's website and he's basically a bog standard moderate Republican. That's not my particular cup of tea. And I could see where a libertarian, or a Trumper, for that matter, might say that's not good enough. But, I also get he's running in Pennsylvania, and not Kentucky (based off of Paul and Massie). You're not going to get a particularly exciting candidate. What I don't get is, like you said, the people who've been telling me for the last twenty years "I would vote Republican, but they've just gone crazy.". This guy should be their wet dream.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

He actually does care.

I see. Oz's intentions are supposedly noble so that justifies everything else that he does, right?

And how do you know that Oz "actually does care"? I don't think you can peer into his soul and determine this, any more than you can peer into Fetterman's soul and determine that he *doesn't* care.

[NOYB2]

I see. Oz’s intentions are supposedly noble so that justifies everything else that he does, right?

What has he done that requires "justification"?

[MWAocdoc]

I would like to see any evidence that McArdle might have that the presence of Libertarian candidate "spoilers" on the ballot have pushed Democrat or Republican office holders towards more Libertarian positions. No? None? If anything, representatives and senators in Congress have become more polarized towards extreme authoritarianism. The "Tea Party" movement lasted for so short a time and had so little impact that I won't even think about counting it.

[Bill Dalasio]

The headline seems a little misleading. When the head of a party says, "Well, I can't endorse a candidate from a different party, but.....", I'd say it's pretty clear that that's, effectively, an endorsement.

[Libertariantranslator]

Definitely a Trumpanzee straddle...

[CrystalBernstein]

I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do for more information simply.

Open this link thank you...........>>> onlinecareer1

[Heresolong]

"The fact that [Dr. Oz] can't beat Fetterman in a race"

Wait, does she have some sort of crystal ball? Has Fetterman won the PA Senate seat even though the election hasn't actually happened? Facts are things like "Dr Oz is leading Fetterman in the RCP average" and "the media has been covering for Fetterman for two months now" and "Fetterman delayed the debate until after hundreds of thousands of voters had already submitted their mail in ballots, in order to hide the fact that he is really struggling with mental competency from his stroke".

But "The fact that [Dr. Oz] can't beat Fetterman in a race" is how the LP rolls I guess.

[Libertariantranslator]

I'm gonna MISS this Trumpanzee... zzzzZAPpp

[Mac61]

The way to get Americans to take the Libertarian Party seriously is to run a 30-something bro-dude comedian with no political experience as its presidential nominee.

[Libertariantranslator]

Especially a life-begins-at-erection, girl-bullying, Make Amerika Gag Agin illiterate redneck anarchist. Homeless Boothead would make Dave a good wannabee veep.
Serious hurt was what 4 million pro-choice votes for Gary did to The Looter Kleptocracy. Will it learn? (https://bit.ly/3QpGuKk)

[abuhurayrafiverr666]

click hare https://www.laroche-posay.us/our-products/face/face-wash/toleriane-hydrating-gentle-facial-cleanser-tolerianehydratinggentlefacialcleanser.html

[Jahfre Fire Eater]

I first became aware of the LP in 1987. Seemed like a good idea at first...until I realized that it wasn't really a political party. I see political parties as tools for amplyifying personal participation in the process of vetting, grooming and nominating electable candidates. The LP doesn't do those things.

It has always seem to me to be more like a faith-based after school club than a political party. Lots of emotion and peer-judged antics but very little long term effectiveness.

Nothing new this year.

[Libertariantranslator]

What is winning? (https://bit.ly/3NEXrz9)

[XM]

This is why the LP will never win anything, probably not for the next 100 years. They utterly incapable of forming any sort of coalition to advance any of their agenda. And they're so small and insular that they can't do anything without latching onto someone else.

Let's say in some jungle primary, the choice comes down to a libertarian and democrats. The GOP voters may reason "Better a libertarian who's sort of like us than a democrat". And then the libertarian candidate may win! In fact, a handful of libertarians serving in government probably received a fair amount of GOP vote.

But what about the LP? They'll probably put him through some ridiculous purity test. "Ewww he's turning restrictionist to get GOP vote, disavow both parties and vote for the no name LP candidate who'll get 1% of the vote".

You'll never, EVER know from reading this magazine, but a red tsunami is coming week. That's has to do with Donald Trump's energetic brand of nationalism and the democrat's terrible urban policy finally alienating their own base. The notion that the emerging demo would be attracted to hardcore libertarianism was always dubious. Yes, immigrants would like less red tape and school choice. They also need to see specific actions when their society is crumbling around them.

Cutting spending is a good foundational governance. But by itself it's not a resonating message to voters in a time of global crisis. "Both parties are bad" is technically correct in a vacuum, but stupid in practice, given who was behind so much of the destruction that led to country's downward spiral.

[Libertariantranslator]

The 4 million pro-choice votes cast for Gary and Weld flipped 13 States and turned looter fraud and bribery into a 3-party problem in which educated voters suddenly had leveraged clout. Looters have no choice but to either stop bullying, robbing and killing people or infiltrate, corrupt and damage the Libertarian Party. Go ahead... Ask yourself which path you expect either half of the force-initiating looter kleptocracy to take. (https://bit.ly/3AunUfM)

[Libertariantranslator]

Folks who understand freedom will abstain or vote for actual libertarian platforms and candidates, but anarcho-fascists and anarcho-communists are counterfeits, imitations, impostors, infiltrators and Trojans better ignored than supported. The original platform or the 2016 platform could work, but no substitutskis will do. NOTA is still a law-changing vote.