Are Libertarians Spoiling the Midterm Elections?

Libertarian Party Vice Chair Arvin Vohra on the 2014 midterms

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Are Libertarians Spoiling the Midterm Elections?

HD Video Download

"When you give [Democrats and Republicans] your vote, you're telling them 'Go ahead, keep on doing what you're doing,'" explains Libertarian National Committee Vice Chair Arvin Vohra. "And when you vote for the Libertarian candidate you are telling them, in no uncertain terms, 'You do not have either my approval or my permission to grow or sustain big government: shrink it now.'"

As the midterm elections approach, Democrats and Republicans are making their final pleas to win over undecided voters, with some casting Libertarian candidates as "spoilers" in a few key races. But Vorha, himself running as a Libertarian for Maryland's 4th congressional district against Democratic incumbent Donna Edwards, dismisses the charge. Despite his low poll numbers, Vohra sees the act of casting a vote for the Libertarian Party as a pathway to reform. He quotes a former Libertarian candidate: "Not all politicians are smart, but they can all count." 

Vohra recently sat down with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie to discuss the 2014 elections, the issues that resonate across the country, and why he believes voting for the Libertarian Party is not throwing your vote away. 

Shot by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain. Edited by Swain.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive notification when new material goes live.

Comments

[John]

The only race that the Libertarian has a shot to make a difference in is the North Carolina Senate race. First, it is not clear that the Libertarian is going to draw that much more from the R than the D. Second, Hagan may not win regardless. Third, the GOP probably takes the Senate even if Hagan manages to win.

So I don't see how Libertarians are playing spoiler in this election.

[Pro Libertate]

There's also Florida. While I think visceral disgust at Crist will make him lose, regardless, Wyllie could pull enough votes from Scott to change the result.

If you are reading this and vote for Crist, you should seek moral counseling. I don't care what party you favor.

[John]

Scott seems to have a small lead. When you figure that this is likely to be a Republican wave election and Republicans generally out perform their polls, especially in states like Florida that are not blue, you have to figure Scott has a good chance.

I can't believe any state would elect Christ. He has to be in the running for America's worst politician and that is saying something.

[Pro Libertate]

I'd vote for Christ, not so much Crist.

[MegaloMonocle]

A closet SoCon, eh?

[Pro Libertate]

It would be nice to have an honest governor who is post-scarcity.

[Citizen Nothing]

The problem is all the Florida voters who mistakenly think that they ARE voting for "Christ" (as John so elegantly typed).
"Couldn't vote against Jesus, could I, Mabel? Looks like he changed his first name, though."

[Citizen Nothing]

Damn you, Pro Lib!

[Citizen Nothing]

Charlie H. Christ!

[Pro Libertate]

The H is for Hamiltonian Tan. That's why he won the last time, despite almost everyone in Florida thinking he was a slimy scumbag, before he was governor, before he switched parties, before he worked for a notorious law firm, before he. . .well, you get the picture.

[John]

Whatever the fuck his name is. You know what I mean. And why do you assume the L candidate is only drawing R votes. Crist is a former Republican. You would think at least a few Democrats would refuse to vote for him for that reason. That is what happened with Sarvis in the Virginia governor's race last year. He pulled more Dem votes than R votes because the D candidate was so horrible. Why not here? Or is that possibility just too horrible for you to contemplate?

[Pro Libertate]

Because today's Dems pull Dem regardless of how shitty the candidate is. The Republicans can have other motivations. Scott is quite unpopular and would likely lose to almost any candidate the Democrats cared to put up. Yet they found someone so bad that Scott will likely win.

You really can't have it both ways. If the GOP can be a home for a libertarian minority and the Democrats can't, then the LP will tend to pull a lot more from the GOP.

[sarcasmic]

And why do you assume the L candidate is only drawing R votes.

Because for the most part it is true. Democrats, more so than Republicans, want the government to control everything. Being that the government is We the People, then the more the government controls, the more the People control.

Liberty means teh rich and teh corporations control everything, and the People get screwed.

[John]

That has to change or the Libertarians are screwed. Without pulling Democratic voters they just serve to divide the right and put Democrats in total power.

[Pro Libertate]

The problem is that the total-state GOP is pretty effing bad, too. Without their just horrific performance in the early century, Obama couldn't have gotten away with half of the crap he's done.

The GOP is only useful if it reverses the growth of the state. If it's merely slowing things down. . .well, we're already sliding down the cliff.

[CampingInYourPark]

My cousin's daughter in FL just attempted suicide. This is his assessment of the problem:

"Seems Florida healthcare is far behind on children and suicide prevention."

If Florida would only improve it's services his problems would go away.

[Brett L]

Also, I have $100 bet with my wife on Scott winning. But I'm still voting Wyllie. Because my conscience isn't worth $100 and bragging rights. Although it has been fun to watch all of the Greens pretend that ol' Chain Gang Charlie gives a shit about anything green except money to fund his campaign.

[Brandon]

But we should vote R anyway, just to be safe, right?

[Paul.]

Are Libertarians Spoiling the Midterm Elections?

No... THEY'RE SPOILING AMERICA!

[Fist of Etiquette]

NO SPOILERS.

[Swiss Servator, spare a franc?]

ALERT, A SPOILER!

Wait, that isn't how it works...?

[Episiarch]

Jon Snow dies. Happy now?

[Protagoronus]

He turns into a wolf, then a dragon, then a pinecone. That is when he gets stepped on by Hot Pie.

[Fist of Etiquette]

All men must die, dummy.

[Brian D]

Valar Moronis

[flye]

Can't spoil something that's already rotten, amirite? High five!

[sarcasmic]

But, but, but it's the most important election of our lifetime! We must take the Senate back from Harry Reid! You can't throw your vote away! We can repeal Obamacare! Just vote for the Republicans! Don't throw your vote away on a libertarian! Vote for someone who can win! The most important election ever!

[Dr. Fronkensteen]

Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

[Swiss Servator, spare a franc?]

*whip cracks*

[Johnny Bravo]

And when you vote for the Libertarian candidate you are telling them, in no uncertain terms, 'you do not have either my approval or my permission to grow or sustain big government

Like they care.

[John]

They only care when they lose.

[SusanM]

And they stop caring when they win again.

[Swiss Servator, spare a franc?]

The "permission" part got me - approval, I understand. But what are you going to do, not pay taxes, or fight, should they keep growing government?

[Zunalter]

If only not paying taxes would hinder the growth of government, instead of accelerate the growth of deficits.

[SusanM]

Kinda OT but what if the Repubs get the senate but lose the house? Unlikely, perhaps but according to RCP there are enough toss-ups to make that happen.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....e_map.html

[John]

Very doubtful. The thing is that since it costs a lot of money to run a poll, the media doesn't run very acurate polls in House races generally. Only the candidates do that and they never let their real number leak. So the only good way to really tell what is going on in the House is by where parties are spending their money. Right now the Democrats are dropping big money is what were once thought to be safe races in Hawaii and Nevada and a few other places. That means they have not only given up on taking any red districts but also are worried about losing safe ones. That is a very bad sign.

[SusanM]

If that's the case then they won't. They need 11 seats but that's not going to happen if they're fighting to hang on to what they have.

[sarcasmic]

Ugh, I hope Cain doesn't win the House seat in Maine. She's one of those emotional authoritarians who cheerfully wants the government to be everything for everyone.

[Zunalter]

But, what about teh chidren? Think of TEH CHIDRENS!!

[Pro Libertate]

That's extraordinarily unlikely, verging on the insanely unlikely.

The Senate is very likely going to the GOP, but at least a few weird fluky moments could shift that. Like 100% absentee ballots for the Democratic candidate. That kind of non-fraudulent stuff.

[DK]

Actually, the Democrats would have to win all of their locks (163), likelies (7), leans (13), all of the tossups (24), all of the R leans (6), plus 5 of the R likelies (163+7+13+24+6+5=218). I'd say that is pretty much impossible.

[CampingInYourPark]

"When you give [Democrats and Republicans] your vote, you're telling them 'Go ahead, keep on doing what you're doing,'" explains Libertarian National Committee Vice Chair Arvin Vohra. "And when you vote for the Libertarian candidate you are telling them, in no uncertain terms, 'you do not have either my approval or my permission to grow or sustain big government: shrink it now.'"

How about you stop telling me what my vote means and I'll just vote for who I think the best candidate is? Deal?

[Brandon]

You're new to this internet thing, aren't you?

[nuffcedmcgreevey]

spoil
verb
1.
diminish or destroy the value or quality of.
"I wouldn't want to spoil your fun"
synonyms: mar, damage, impair, blemish, disfigure, blight, flaw, deface, scar, injure, harm; More

Seems to me that Republicans and Democrats are spoiling the elections.

[sarcasmic]

Nice.

[bassjoe]

There is no such thing as a spoiler.

If you as a candidate for office can't convince enough people to put you in that office, that's nobody's fault but your own. If people "should have" voted for you over another minor party candidate, maybe you should have given them a good reason to do so.

[Episiarch]

But don't you understand? TEAM BE RULED deserves those votes! In fact, they sort of think they own them. That's why the various TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE cheerleaders get so pissed when people talk about voting for the LP candidates. Those are their votes! They own you, and they get upset when you don't do as they want you to do.

[nuffcedmcgreevey]

Stealing votes from their rightful owners...the audacity.

[Swiss Servator, spare a franc?]

I may have convinced my wife to vote "L" rather than Donkey in at least one race...so does that make me a DOUBLE SPOILER???

[bassjoe]

"BE RULED... RED... BLUE"

I see what you did there...

[Mesoman]

In some ideal world, perhaps.

In the real world, Libertarians who have only a choice between D and R will mostly vote for R. So if you throw in a Libertarian, it is the R who loses the most votes.

The result: the Libertarians get the worst possible outcome - the L doesn't win, and the D does win.

Of course L's are spoilers, as are other small third parties. Bush would have won in 1992 except for Perot's third party bid. Gore would have won in 2000 except for Nader's third party bid.

There's a pattern: the votes always come from the main party candidate who is least objectionable to the Libertarians.

So unless you deeply and truly believe that the D and R are equally bad, or you know for sure that your vote won't turn the election, voting for the L is the wrong move.

[Brandon Magoon]

There is no evidence that "3rd" parties take votes away from the legacy parties and in fact there is quite a bit of evidence to support the theory that the legacy parties take votes from "3rd" parties. If you look at polling data (you know, facts and stuff) you see that "3rd" party candidates tend to under preform. That's the old party taking votes

[Vampire]

I agree. They giveth not a $hit. That is why government is incompatible with freedom. It would be similar to voting on whether a robber should continue to rob your house and use violence against you or not. And if you loose, you'll have to face four more years of that f"(k3r robbing your house.

Instead, shooting them dead on the spot for robbing your things, and not being ruled by any master, and not having to wait four years to be able to have a chance to vote on the thievery and violence to stop sounds far more logical, and in keeping with liberty.

[Citizen Nothing]

"sounds far more logical"
Ooooo-kaaaay.

[Rich]

f"(k3r

I learned something today.

[This Machine Kills MUH ROADZ]

Dude, this is Hit n' Run, no need to censor your fucking posts.

[sarcasmic]

[Swiss Servator, spare a franc?]

REDACTED

[GILMORE]

"And if you loose"

BABY YOU KNOW IT

[Cytotoxic]

You can't have freedom without government.

[Vampire]

Bull sheisser! Ireland didn't have a government for a thousand years. Even the Romans didn't mess with them, or tax them. Don't forget Iceland's over 300 year history of anarchy.

[Zunalter]

Though I am a skeptical about your claim...I much prefer this to be the point of contention to the current:
"Would you prefer a red or blue glove to be used by our agent for the rectal exam?"

[Redmanfms]

Bullshit, on both counts.

Ireland had clans with highly stratified hierarchies. The Romans didn't mess with Ireland because it was a resource devoid wasteland populated by constantly warring clans. If you think that's a positive example of anarchy, you're, well, fucking stupid.

Iceland had a communal governing council. Much of what ancaps write about the "Thing" are absurdly wrong historically.

[Emmerson Biggins]

Bullshit. Im experiencing it right now.

[Citizen Nothing]

I do think it would be funny if several races went Dem because of L candidates, and thus the Senate didn't flip. The resulting misery and oppression would be worth it just to see John's reaction the next day.

[John]

Why would that bother me? It is not like the Republican Senate is going to do anything or the Dems are going to do anything even if they keep the Senate.

What is interesting of course is that while that result would make you happy ans so happy that you fantasize about it happening, you don't seem to look forward to the opposite happening. Why is that? Is the purpose of the Libertarian party strictly to flip races one way?

[sarcasmic]

Is the purpose of the Libertarian party strictly to flip races one way?

No, you idiot. The purpose of the Libertarian party is to give pot smokers someone to vote for. That's it.

[John]

Citizen Nothing would seem to disagree. I was only asking the question. So take it up with him.

[Citizen Nothing]

The purpose of the LP is strictly to get your goat, John.

[Citizen Nothing]

And ass sex, Mexicans and pot, of course.

[Vampire]

You forgot to add fine china!

[John]

It seems to be failing in that regard then. But maybe if it started flipping races against Dems, they might succeed in getting yours.

[Citizen Nothing]

Yeah, boy. I luv me some Dems! Go Team Blue, Go Team Blue!

[John]

I don't know. If you don't, why do you get such a boner at the thought of them winning?

[Citizen Nothing]

The boner was due to the ass sex, Mexicans and pot. And why must you always bring my penis into the discussion?

[John]

Getting a boner over Mexican ass sex is a lot more normal that getting one over the Democrats winning. I don't believe you though.

[Cytotoxic]

The boner is in response to your butthurt and pathetic attempts to conceal it.

[Citizen Nothing]

(But not as much as I luv ass sex, Mexicans and pot, of course.)

[John Titor]

Look, it's either vote libertarian or start an armed rebellion. The latter option is not doable when you're a minority and you don't have public or military support. Plus some people have to go to work on Monday.

[This Machine Kills MUH ROADZ]

Well, to paraphrase T.E. Lawrence, you only need 2% of the population actively supporting your insurrection. The rest just need to be varying degrees of apathetic. I think we could get there within a decade or so, at least in some regions.

[John Titor]

The problem is that your opponents actively produce fanatics. On the other hand, they really seem to dislike guns, so I doubt they'd be good shots.

[This Machine Kills MUH ROADZ]

Exactly. My guess is they become somewhat less fanatical when the shit gets bad.

That or they starve to death. Ho-hum.

[GILMORE]

Forget 'libertarians' =
Obama Getting Ready to Blame Victims if Dems Get Ass Handed To Them

"The White House, bracing for an escalation of friendly fire should Democrats lose control of the Senate, has begun laying out its post-election defense by arguing that candidates are ultimately responsible for their own electoral outcomes. "The success of many of these Democratic candidates will depend on their own success in motivating voters that strongly supported the president in 2012," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Tuesday. "It's their name that's on the ballot.""

A very slight and subtle backpedal from, "my policies are on the ballot"

[John]

At some point the Democrats in Congress are going to get tired of losing in order to cover for his sorry ass. If the Dems hold onto the Senate, then Obama is going to be fine, since the Democrats in Congress will have not suffered for covering for him and will continue to do so.

If they lose, things will get interesting. Obama will be a lame duck and Democrats, particularly those in the Senate up for re-election in 2016, may decide covering for his ass might not be such a good idea. If that happens, the media will have a much more difficult time painting every scandal and fuck up as irrelevant or just the Republicans playing politics.

The Republicans won't change a whole lot of policies. But it will make life much harder for Obama and Democrats in general.

[creech]

The winner doesn't weigh his votes, he counts them. "They voted for me" is what he says, not "Well, 10% of my vote is more libertarian than so-con, and 20% wants gay marriage but still voted for me because of other issues, and...." In other words, no message is given. Losers, on the other hand, think about what they could have done to get another 2 or 3 or 4% of the vote. So if the LP is the
balance of power in a race, one major party or the other is going to think about ways to get their voters on their side next time. If all those inclined to vote LP instead vote for one of the other parties, then there is no way to quantify them, leading to them being given less attention by either the winner or loser.

[Pro Libertate]

Do politicians take vote baths, wallowing in winning ballots?

[Zunalter]

They actually Scrooge McDuck their campaign cash leftovers.

[GILMORE]

I am a firm believer that every election should have as candidates =

a) A Housepet (*Dogs, not cats = you can't trust a cat) and/or

b) A Potted Plant (*Ferns are good, don't require too much water, although cacti might be good wartime leaders)

... in order that candidates be able to accurately measure *exactly* how low people's opinion of them as human beings actually is.

[Swiss Servator, spare a franc?]

I'd vote for a barrel cactus.

[Rich]

Nice. Even better than "None of the above".

[AlmightyJB]

When libertarians start spoiling elections that will be a great day indeed. Not this year though.

[Winston]

When libertarians start spoiling winning elections that will be a great day indeed.

[AlmightyJB]

True dat. I think spoiling is the sign that winning is possible.

[Winston]

So where's the Bull Moose Party?

[JEP]

That would be such a great example to show that politics isn't about policy but about the political party.

Can you think of any individual alive today who inspires such trust and faith in the electorate they could start their own party and have a significant chance of winning the election?

There is not a single person out of 350 million citizens who would cause me to say "By God, I don't agree with that person on everything, but I trust them to make the correct decision and to be honest with me about how and why that decision was made."

[John]

Colin Powell. He could do it especially if the Democrats and Republicans both nominated real crazies. Imagine an election match up of Warren versus Huckubee. I would take Colin Powell as a third party candidate to win that every time.

I think Powell is massively overrated. But I don't think you can deny his popularity.

[MegaloMonocle]

Powell's popularity would not survive a real political campaign, I am quite certain.

The media, having paid off their race card by supporting Obama no matter what, wouldn't give him a pass. And he's such a soulless apparatchik that without active media support, he would just . . . sink.

[John]

He wouldn't sink if he were running against two ideologues like Warren and Huckabee.

If H Ross Perot can get 20%, Colin Powell could get that easy even if the major parties put up decent candidates. And if they put up bad ones? He would win.

[Homple]

The Bull Moose Party is busy splitting the Republican vote and giving the presidency to Woodrow Wilson I wonder how that will work out. Woodrow will keep us out of the war, anyway.

[Brandon Magoon]

The Bull Moose Party BEAT the Republican so if anything the Republican stole votes from the Bull Moose Party.

[Zunalter]

You mean the Pre-Progressives? No thanks.

[John]

Only if they are truly a bi partisan party and draw from both sides. If the Libertarian party gets bigger but does so becoming a party of disgruntled Republicans, they won't accomplish anything. The will have no influence on the Democrats since they won't have drawn any votes from them. They would maybe influence the Republicans but the Republicans will have lost and not be in power. So what good would that do?

Sure, maybe it would lead to some sort of sea change and cause the Republicans to see the light and unite with the Libertarians and sweep to power the next election. In a Disney story maybe. In the real world, the Republicans would probably conclude that they lost because they were not mainstream and liberal enough and get even worse or even if they got better the SOCONs or the old school conservatives would just go third party and stick it to Libertarians out of revenge.

The only way the Libertarians have a real effect is if they draw from both parties such that both parties have an incentive to move in the Libertarian direction. If that ever happens, that will be a good day.

[Citizen Nothing]

I completely agree, John. True story. But aren't you the one who often bemoans the "fixation" libertarians (or at least Reason) has on issues that might appeal to Dems, issues such as, oh, I don't known, ass sex, Mexicans and pot?

[John]

And in fairness, I was wrong about that. Will Wilkerson is a douche but he has a point for the reasons I say above.

The problem is that Libertarians' way of trying to get liberal supporters is to talk about how much that hate the Republicans and the SOCONS. That doesn't work because it doesn't provide liberals any reason to leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party hates Republicans and SOCONS too. So why not just vote that way if you are a liberal.

The problem is that Libertarians pride themselves on being able to separate culture war issues from economic and more serious issues. What they don't understand is that liberals don't do that. For liberals everything is a culture war issue. So talking about how much you love the gays and porn and such doesn't get liberals past the economic issues. So Libertarians have got to learn how to talk about and frame economic issues like culture war issues or they will never appeal to liberals.

And that is not impossible. The hard core left has managed to sell some truly elitist and horrible policies to liberal leaning people because they own the language to such a degree. Most Dem voters want to feel like they are helping the little guy. And the right has allowed the hard left to totally own the language in a way that only their policies are thought to do that. Change that and some dem voters will come over. But they will never come over because you hate SOCONS and love gays and such. They have no reason to.

[Citizen Nothing]

Ok. So this is where we punch each other in the shoulder and I buy you a beer.

[John]

I never hold grudges. I just give back as good as I get.

[Old Man With Candy]

Kick him in the nuts- when I mentioned that the L candidate for Senate here is beyond nuts, he wanted me to vote Republican.

*WHACK!!!* Take THAT, Johnny boy!

[John]

Old Man,

If your idea of supporting the libertarian party is voting for any candidate they put up no matter how bad, have fun.

And I didn't tell you to vote for the Republican, I suggested it. And I said if you couldn't do that, vote for the Green candidate.

Again, with supporters like you, why should the Libertarian party try and get better candidates?

[Old Man With Candy]

Like I told you, there's no Green candidate on the ballot, just R, D, and L.

The Libertarian Party as it is currently constituted, is never going to get good candidates, whether or not I vote for an R or a D in protests of this whacko (or for that matter, Bob Barr). There has to be a MAJOR mindset change, and there's no indications that's going to happen.

The very best we can realistically hope for is gridlock and endless partisan bickering while nothing gets done. And that's a pretty decent outcome, relatively speaking.

[James Anderson Merritt]

I normally require that Libertarian candidates demonstrate competence for their intended office (not the same as experience in that or other elected offices, mind you :-). My only exception is when it seems clear that the L cannot possibly win, but registering and voting L helps the party win ballot access via a sufficiently large vote tally. In that case, my vote for even a joke L candidate actually equates to a form of dollars: dollars I won't have to donate to the party in future election cycles to pay petitioners to secure ballot access.

In the last decade or two, however, the LP has fielded enough more-than-competent candidates in races on my ballot, so that I haven't had to face even that tiny ethical quandry. (Truth be told, since California passed the Top-Two primary a few years back, the LP has been fielding almost NO candidates on my general election ballot, so the question doesn't really come up at all 🙁 .)

[Winston]

The Republicans replaced the Whigs in part by getting the support of disgruntled Democrats in places like Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Maine.

Simple fact that if the GOP were to be subsumed by the LP than they would get all Republican voters and will have to get Democratic voters to pick up the slack.

[Winston]

Simple fact that if the GOP were to be subsumed by the LP than they would *not* get all Republican voters and will have to get Democratic voters to pick up the slack.

[AlmightyJB]

And I think that's doable. I don't thinks the yutes are completely lost to the progtards.

[MegaloMonocle]

I don't thinks the yutes are completely lost to the progtards.

These being the same yutes who can't tell the difference between drunken sex and rape, and see little value in things like "due process" for people accused of (some) violent crimes?

Those yutes?

[John]

Simple fact that if the GOP were to be subsumed by the LP than they would get all Republican voters and will have to get Democratic voters to pick up the slack.

That is wishful thinking. About a quarter of the Republican votes are SOCONS. And Libertarians hate SCONS. If the Libertarians took over the GOP the first thing they would do is kick the SOCONS out or tell them they could stay but they can shut the fuck up and give up on having any say in things. The SOCONs wouldn't take that and would either leave the party and go join the Dems or form a third party in revenge. No way would you ever be able to attract enough Democratic voters to make up for that.

You also have to remember Libertarians also hate anyone who isn't for open borders. So all of those GOP voters, of which there are many, would be kicked out too. Where do you plan to make up for those votes?

[Old Man With Candy]

If the Libertarians took over the GOP the first thing they would do is kick the SOCONS out or tell them they could stay but they can shut the fuck up and give up on having any say in things.

Bullshit. What the libertarians offer is the SoCons' freedom to run their families and businesses the way they choose, the freedom to live their spiritual values, without Big Brother forcing them to be "agents of 'social justice'" and violate their sincerely held precepts.

It appears to be difficult for you to think of the government as being anything other than authoritarian, isn't it? The choices in your mind seem to be limited to who has the authority to crush whom.

[John]

No libertarians bring SOCONs the right to get sued out of business for not serving gay weddings. It will a very long time before SOCONs forget Libertarians supporting judicially mandated gay marriage and in any way trust Libertarians to be anything but progs who want to smoke dope.

So you can forget keeping the SOCONs around to feel smug about.

[Old Man With Candy]

I was unaware that libertarians supported any such thing. Doing a search of Reason.... nope, 100% opposed to it, article after article. Maybe you confused Reason with Slate?

[Zunalter]

As a "SOCON" I call BS on your point.

[Zunalter]

^John...^

[AlmightyJB]

What I would hope it means is that we leave the socons, pax americana hawks, nannies,social justice assholes, etc, etc. holding their dicks.

[Winston]

Causing Republicans to lose will piss off the SJW warriors how?

[AlmightyJB]

I'm not talking about only stealing gop voters.

[John]

I suppose. Or they could leave you holding your dick as they leave the party and do to you what you just did to them.

Ultimately, there is not and never will be a "Libertarian Majority". There will at best be a collection of ad hoc majorities on various Libertarian issues. But there will never be a doctrinaire Libertarian majority. So your choice is figure out how to build those ad hoc majorities and how to pull both parties towards your position in various ways or sit around holding your dick pining for a perfect world that will never exist.

[AlmightyJB]

I get that but you don't have to piss in my coffee:)

[John]

I am an ENTJ, which is Myers Briggs for loud, obnoxious asshole. I just can't help myself sometimes.

[JEP]

I'm INTJ, which I guess means I'm a quiet, obnoxious asshole...

[AlmightyJB]

Funny you mentioned that. I just ran across mine last night. ISTP. I'm just a regular asshole:)

[Old Man With Candy]

I'm an ESPN, which means I'm watching baseball tonight.

[Zunalter]

As a "so-con" (?) I would definitely vote for the LP over some random 3rd Party.

[Brandon Magoon]

That already happened. Some people just refuse to see it.

[Cytotoxic]

Here's what we should really be talking about: how do we take over the Dems after this or the next electoral beating? There's no Reason the Kochtopus shouldn't be everywhere. Like Hydra.

[JEP]

I still like the idea of having a candidate run in each party (to double our chances of winning) and just campaign on everything the public wants to hear. Push every emotional button possible - kind of like Obama did in 2008.

After they're sworn into office, call for an immediate press conference.

"Ladies and gentleman of the press and citizens of the United States of America,...I'M A LIBERTARIAN, BITCHES!"

*drops mic and walks out*

[Cytotoxic]

I'd prefer he just whisper 'Heil Hydra' to his handlers at Cato and the Reason Foundation.

[John]

Serious question, wouldn't things be a lot better if there were a Rand Paul equivalent in the Democratic Party?

The closest thing to that would be Wyden I guess. But I don't think Wyden has near the pull in the Democratic Party that Paul does in the Republican Party.

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't or can't be a Democratic Rand Paul. Democrats were not always nuts.

[JEP]

Yeah, I think things would be a lot better.

My theory for why that hasn't really happened is that the Dems have been in power since 2008, and had all the momentum.

It's easier for the Repubs to split on issues because they haven't had a figure head since W. That creates a good opportunity for people like Rand Paul to gain traction.

If the Dems lose the next presidential election, they'll no longer have a figure head and I think you'll see the party to split into factions, and a more libertarian candidate might have a chance.

Just seems that if whatever you're doing results in your team gaining more power, then you keep doing it.

If what you're doing, looses your team power, then you try to do something different until you get it back.

[James Anderson Merritt]

I have to say that I am tired of statists running on a small government platform, who take off the mask and give us MUCH bigger and more repulsive government, once they achieve office. It would definitely be satisfying to see it go the other way for once. We can dream! 😉

[John]

About 40% or ore of the country are loyal Democrats. I guess it takes a special kind of political genius like yours to see how writing all of them off and doing nothing to appeal to them is the true path to power and influence.

[Cytotoxic]

Maybe you should read my post again. With your limited cerebral function set to 'on'.

[John]

I assumed you were being sarcastic. If not, good for you and my mistake.

[Gary1206]

"And when you vote for the Libertarian candidate you are telling them, in no uncertain terms, 'you do not have either my approval or my permission to grow or sustain big government: shrink it now.'"
You can "tell" them all ya want but since they won't be elected, guess it's all academic anyway: point: Dem or R....they win.

[TheWildWebster]

Ah yes, and a party that continues to lose is obviously not going to get the message either.
http://thewildwebster.wordpres.....hypocrisy/

[TheWildWebster]

http://thewildwebster.wordpres.....hypocrisy/

[Locris]

And the result is? More Obama like government.
If that is what one prefers then by all means, vote for the Libertarian.
Maybe Libertarians should run under the Republican label.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/.....cks-obama/

http://www.trevorloudon.com/20.....merica-ad/

And by his own words, his policies are on the ballot. So it seems that the Democrat party has pretty well been taken over at a minimum by a Socialist mindset, if not in total.

[Bannu]

"And when you vote for the Libertarian candidate you are telling them, in no uncertain terms, 'You do not have either my approval or my permission to grow or sustain big government: shrink it now.'"

They wouldn't even care if only three people voted and one of them was a swing voter, just to keep the charade of free elections alive.

[lucilleesmith]

my co-worker's mother-in-law makes $84 /hr on the internet . She has been without work for eight months but last month her paycheck was $21951 just working on the internet for a few hours. check out the post right here....
???????? http://www.paygazette.com

[James Anderson Merritt]

The Libertarians aren't "spoiling" these races. The putrid choices given to us by the R&Ds; have already spoiled them. The Libertarians are there to freshen the air with good sense and hope, and, if and where they win, to take out the rotten trash.

[WilliamMBecker]

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail

---------------------- http://www.jobs700.com

[TxJack 112]

The GOP is at a loss as to how to address Libertarians. They love us because we support smaller, less intrusive government and all the other fiscal items they push, but attack us on the social issues like same sex marriage and drugs. However, what I am really sick of hearing is the BS that voting for Libertarians is "throwing away your vote" and/or Libertarians cause the GOP to lose. The simple truth is if the GOP actually had principles and stopped acting like Democrats, they would attract more voters. You cannot claim to want government to stay out of your life and then demand they define marriage according to your personal values only. You cannot say you are for fiscal responsibility and then continue to spend billions on a drug war that cannot be won. The GOP is dominated by squishy, Neo-Cons and that is why they lose elections, not because Libertarians are on the ballot.

[Politics of Logic]

I so want to be an all-in Libertarian, but this article demonstrates the absolute near-sighted, cut your nose off to spite your face obstinance of the Libertarian movement.

When the Communists got rebuked, they didn't go away, they went quiet an reemerged as democrats, moving the party Left until we now have Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Barack Obama as the leaders.

Ron Paul did more for the Libertarian movement than anyone in at least a generation. He didn't do it by complaining, losing elections, and actually sending the WORST option to Congress. He did from INSIDE the Republican party. If Libertarians actually care about promoting the ideas of Liberty, they would do by joining the Republican party and working to move the party toward Liberty. It won't happen overnight, but with time and little persistence, the "Establishment" will be much more Liberty-friendly and the country will be better off.

Now, quit being the "take my ball and go home" crowd and do something to actually advance the Libertarian agenda. I'm tired of the complaining.

[Mildred111]

Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

[Mildred111]

Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

[plusafdotcom]

Love that district... Gerrymandering, anyone? Great example!

[Fakia]

If we are spoiling elections, that's good. Libertarian ideas can find expression by electing candidates that then act on them. Those candidates can be LP affiliated or not.

Libertarian ideas win when either party adopts them as part of their platform, or when officials act in a libertarian fashion to avoid hemorrhaging votes.

Close elections where LP candidates "split" the spread, are literally the only thing that will make either party change how it acts. As long as they believe their voters are chained to them like dogs to a tree, they'll do what they want. If they know they might well lose the election, they have an incentive to do the right thing.