How did the Libertarian Party do this election?[W:89]

RabidAlpaca said:

So how do you explain an 11% approval rating yet a 97% re-election rate? The most obvious explanation is that our political system was designed to shut out third parties.

Click to expand...

Because clearly, the American electorate doesn't see a better choice in the wings. If they honestly thought that Libertarian candidates (or Green/Constitution/whatever) were a better choice than what's in Washington, those people would get more votes. The fact that they do not get votes, especially for high office, is evidence that the American people don't take those candidates or their platform seriously.

haymarket said:

I certainly agree regarding the failed political philosophy. Which explains the rejection of Libertarians. However, when Ron Paul did change the letter after his name, he ended up in Congress for a pretty long run.

Click to expand...

But he never got to be President, nor even got close, which is what he really wanted. He's the poster boy for failed Libertarian philosophy.

haymarket said:

Not at all. The blatant hypocrisy of so many self proclaimed libertarians is worth of insult and derision. We will never have a viable third party in this nation as long as they are only pimples on the ass off the body politic. Wallace and Perot demonstrated that you can create a viable party which can garner votes. But as long as libertarians hate the democrats more than they love their own ersatz ideology - that will never happen.

Click to expand...

Do you insult and deride liberals who side with the Green Party until election day and then cast their votes for corrupt Democrats? I'm guessing no.

Cephus said:

And that's just conspiracy theorist nonsense common among Koolade drinking Libertarians. The fact is, Libertarian politics doesn't appeal to most American voters. It isn't money, it isn't fear, it's facts. Most people don't want libertarians in office. Most people see them as fanatics. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but that is the public perception in most cases.

Click to expand...

The public perception of libertarians is nill because most people don't even know what a libertarian is or associate it with the likes of the Tea Party.

And when it comes to money complaints, isn't the Libertarian Party portraying itself as the party of business?

Click to expand...

No. They are not the party of business. Nor do they potray themselves as such. They are the party of the market and want businesses to have to hold their own instead of getting bailed out, subsidized, and protected in the name of being "business friendly."

Why can it get no business contributions then?

Click to expand...

Because Libertarian candidates aren't usually establishment politicians with connections and the will to sell themselves to the highest bidder? Because Libertarian policies, for the most part, disfavor big business? There's a thousand and one reasons to explain that other than "they suck." i consider their lack of corporate funding to be the most attractive part of the party, not a downfall.

Cephus said:

It doesn't matter how many parties there are, only that the parties that exist are actually relevant to a sizeable percentage of the American public. American third parties have demonstrated that their message and platform simply doesn't appeal to any worthwhile number of voters. Even after 40 years, the Libertarians can't even get 5% of the vote in a Presidential election. That's pretty pathetic. Of course, I'm sure you'll try to find an excuse, some conspiracy theory for why your party's views simply do not resonate with the American people, but at the end of the day, it's who gets elected that matters and American third parties clearly don't.

Click to expand...

Clearly, you have me confused with someone else.

Ontologuy said:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Meaningless miniscule anecdote.

If you expect to hide the gigantic general rule behind a very teeny tiny exception, you will generate understandable derision.

Click to expand...

Teeny tiny exception? The first female VP candidate getting an electoral vote is ****ing huge. For that historic moment to be attributed to the LP seems to contradict the idea that they offer little to women.

Besides, it's not any less anecdotal than your claim that women don't like the Libertarian Party because we're weak and dependent.

Ontologuy said:

I do not understand this blind romance with the Libertarian Party.

The facts clearly show it's not a player.

The facts clearly show it appeals almost exclusively to the single, white, young, childless male attitudinal "philosophy".

Yes, Hugh Hefner's philosophy would most certainly be aligned with the Libertarian Party.

Indeed, the Libertarian Party is composed of more than 90 percent males.

It doesn't appeal to women in general, as it's "freedom, freedom, freedom!" mantra conflicts with the great majority of women's desire for safety and security in the child-raising environment, a desire that is in oppositional conflict with the Libertarian mantra.

Keeping an "eye" on how the Libertarian Party does each election, as if they are suddenly going to start winning, is the generally sarcastic definition of crazy: doing the same thing, over and over, expecting different results.

It's not going to happen.

The Libertarian Party will never be anything more than it already is: a bastion for the single, white, young, childless, male attitudinal "philosophy".

It's the party of the playboy.

Click to expand...

I disagree on the appeal. On paper, at least, it is very appealing, and is so across the board. Key aspect: on paper. Most people want to be pretty much left alone. In real life, however, most people also know that as an absolute it is not workable, and hence the lack of real support. It remains appealing to those who use it as a guise to allow them to justify their own selfishness. The "I have mine and I don't want to share" people.

TeleKat said:

No. They are not the party of business. Nor do they potray themselves as such. They are the party of the market and want businesses to have to hold their own instead of getting bailed out, subsidized, and protected in the name of being "business friendly."

Click to expand...

That's a good distinction. I'm going to use that.

Neomalthusian said:

Do you insult and deride liberals who side with the Green Party until election day and then cast their votes for corrupt Democrats? I'm guessing no.

Click to expand...

I don't even think there are enough of them to rise to the level of that pimple on the ass of the body politic given their terrible record.

Libertarian candidates, or any other third party, for that matter, are extremely important. They are our ONLY means of communicating our disgust with the two parties.

Only by voting libertarian will your party, be they republican or democrat, see the need for internal change.

I sometimes think that the threat posed by third parties (given the slim victory margins in many cases between the 2 main party candidates) are the only reason the 2 main parties haven't gotten worse than they are.

radcen said:

I disagree on the appeal. On paper, at least, it is very appealing, and is so across the board. Key aspect: on paper. Most people want to be pretty much left alone. In real life, however, most people also know that as an absolute it is not workable, and hence the lack of real support. It remains appealing to those who use it as a guise to allow them to justify their own selfishness. The "I have mine and I don't want to share" people.

Click to expand...

People, the great majority, they don't want to be "left alone".

This is the problem with the Libertarian ideology: it's an "I am a rock, I am an island" attitude born from being harmed by others in the past, so its acting-out reaction is to isolate.

It sees money as its savior from being socially interdependent and business ownership as the goal so one can either be a sole proprietor or hire others to do the managing and be left alone.

Idealization of money and its rules occurs so as to regulate socioeconomic behavior and thus all interpersonal interaction can be thought of as predictable and rational .. and thereby the Libertarian philosophy deludes itself it can escape being subjected to unpredictable and irrational behavior, a futile delusion.

The Libertarian philosophy thus over-emphasizes thinking and devalues feeling .. which is why few women find it truly appealing.

This is why over 90% of Libertarian Party members are male, especially young and emotionally unattached males, as it jibes with that persona.

TeleKat said:

Teeny tiny exception? The first female VP candidate getting an electoral vote is ****ing huge. For that historic moment to be attributed to the LP seems to contradict the idea that they offer little to women. Besides, it's not any less anecdotal than your claim that women don't like the Libertarian Party because we're weak and dependent.

Click to expand...

Yes, in reality, a teeny tiny exception in number, as I clearly presented.

Your idealization of the Libertarian Party and its mindset causes one to blow things out of proportion, miss the point, etc., all in the fantasized hope that one day the Libertarian Party will be a player.

It won't.

Ever.

Your "we're weak and dependent" is not at all what I was alluding to about women.

But, that's how your idealization of the Libertarian thinking-over-feeling "freedom, freedom, freedom!" mantra minimizing of security is going to skew it.

There's nothing "weak and dependent" about feelings and wanting to raise one's family in a safe and secure environment.

That truly does appeal to married middle-aged and over women with children .. and thus it have value for their male mates, too .. and these are very strong people, strong enough to live in the real world of real emotions and real interdependency and all of the unpredictable irrational aspects of being human.

That's reality.

For decades the Libertarian Party has been out there .. and for decades it doesn't ever do much better or much worse -- it's pretty much always just about the same.

And that's because its appeal, by philosophical definition, is merely to a small segment of the population: single, white, young, childless males.

Women who find the Libertarian Party attractive are simply very small in percentage amount compared to the percentage amount of men .. and those women who do, well, I would say they're more into thinking than feeling .. and have been hurt in the past by others and are simply looking for money and its "rules" to protect them.

Ontologuy said:

Yes, in reality, a teeny tiny exception in number, as I clearly presented.

Your idealization of the Libertarian Party and its mindset causes one to blow things out of proportion, miss the point, etc., all in the fantasized hope that one day the Libertarian Party will be a player.

It won't.

Ever.

Your "we're weak and dependent" is not at all what I was alluding to about women.

But, that's how your idealization of the Libertarian thinking-over-feeling "freedom, freedom, freedom!" mantra minimizing of security is going to skew it.

There's nothing "weak and dependent" about feelings and wanting to raise one's family in a safe and secure environment.

That truly does appeal to married middle-aged and over women with children .. and thus it have value for their male mates, too .. and these are very strong people, strong enough to live in the real world of real emotions and real interdependency and all of the unpredictable irrational aspects of being human.

That's reality.

For decades the Libertarian Party has been out there .. and for decades it doesn't ever do much better or much worse -- it's pretty much always just about the same.

And that's because its appeal, by philosophical definition, is merely to a small segment of the population: single, white, young, childless males.

Women who find the Libertarian Party attractive are simply very small in percentage amount compared to the percentage amount of men .. and those women who do, well, I would say they're more into thinking than feeling .. and have been hurt in the past by others and are simply looking for money and its "rules" to protect them.

Click to expand...

First of all, you have provided no backing to your claims about there being next to no women in the LP aside from anecdotal horse**** about women being too weak to embrace freedom.

Second of all, where did you get the idea that libertarians somehow don't support a safe and secure environment?

Third, you absolutely were trying to say that women are weak and dependent. That's exactly how I took that...as would most women. I can make choices for myself and take responsibility for those choices as well. Go figure. An independent woman. Your worst nightmare.

Fourth, don't speak for women. You're a man, I'm a woman. Not to play that card but I'm fairly sure I know a hell of alot more about the thought processes of women than you do. Just saying.

Fifth, I've seen you rail against the woman's right to choose at least a dozen times on this forum. So don't talk to me about appealing to women.

Lastly, the LP has grown immensely since it's creation and is easily the third biggest political party in the country. Libertarians rarely win elections, sure, but the same is true of all third parties. Has nothing to do with the philosophy of the party but the habitual voting for the lesser evils. So stop with that crap.

Since when does a people's government entail less security? Look at countries that have developed heavy-handed governments, and consider what has happened as a result of that: revolution, civil war, genocide, mass-censorship, labor camps and.. mysterious imprisonments without a jury (oh wait... sound familiar?). One would not exactly call these countries "safe and secure environments" to raise a family in. While the US hasn't gotten near as bad as some examples that could be given, we are getting close to a "1984" society. Government is not something that should be trusted. While it's early intentions are good, it soon becomes too powerful and begins feeding itself rather than its people. In the book, "The Giver", the government attempts to create a utopia free from war, pain, hatred, etc. But as a result from this, the people are reduced to something lower than human, void of feeling or compassion. They kill the weak and the old, and those that step out of the status quo for the good of society - at least, how the government views the best option.

I don't believe a more independent country is a bad thing that results in high crime rates or sweat shops, etc. I also think that once you start thinking that a government can always make you safer than your own will can, than you find yourself stuck under some bureaucrat's thumb. While the LP can sometimes bring forth radical ideas, their entire platform should not be thrown out as irrelevant.

As for an inability to campaign effectively, resources, while making the job easier, don't always win the ticket. The GOP and Democrats do well because they control the media, and in turn, the people. But the media has become something so flexible that it is very hard for the super-rich to soley control it. Anybody that knows how to work the media (and I guarantee you it is worked by the big two) can sway opinions, and it's no longer a requirement that you own a large newspaper firm. Strategy and efficient use of materials is more important that sheer strength; just look at Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu's army of Wu, a force of about 30,000 in a poor Chinese state, was able to outperform and defeat the powerful army of Chu, a force 10 times the size and with more wealth, because of strategic movement of troops and supplies, leadership, public opinion (which proved extremely important and gained him many allies), and will. Do no give up hope on any party based on it's income. Low income is, while still not entirely irrelevant, not a game-losing blow.

Kreton said:

Libertarian Election Results 2014

Link shows their numbers.

Clearly noone expected them to win any major races but they did ok in a few.

Based on your expectations for the Libertarian party how do you think they did?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Unless I've missed some news the Libertarian Party didn't take over the USA-yet. :roll:

Fill us in when it does.

Here's why no third party will ever become truly successful: The two parties will adopt any popular aspect in some form or another and "steal their thunder".

It has happened throughout most of American political history. Third parties almost always form with a limited platform, a "special interest" if you will. They are usually dismissible, but in the event that any part of their platform becomes popular, the two major parties will adopt it in some form. Most people, then feeling satisfied that their concerns are being addressed, abandon the weaker third party and stick with the stronger mainstream party. And why shouldn't they? They're now getting what they want and from a party that can actually pull it off.

These third parties eventually fade away as their sole purpose for being has been compromised.

RabidAlpaca said:

So how do you explain an 11% approval rating yet a 97% re-election rate? The most obvious explanation is that our political system was designed to shut out third parties.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Even though GOP and the Dems like to stress their differences, behind closed doors they actively collude to make sure third parties are out of the running during elections. The two big parties will differ on some issues but in the end they are birds of the same feather- they dont want any serious changes to be made and want to keep the status quo.

PoS said:

Absolutely. Even though GOP and the Dems like to stress their differences, behind closed doors they actively collude to make sure third parties are out of the running during elections. The two big parties will differ on some issues but in the end they are birds of the same feather- they dont want any serious changes to be made and want to keep the status quo.

Click to expand...

I just don't understand how anybody can be so naive as to think that the only reason third parties don't exist in the US is because they're not "attractive" enough. As if the Republicans and Democrats are attractive at 11%?

I can't even tell you how many people I've talked to who vote regularly for "the lesser of two evils". Most people have libertarian tendencies, (ie: socially liberal and fiscally conservative), but a third party has never won so people think they never will and that they'll be "throwing away their vote". My own father told me the Libertarians would probably represent him better, but he's so terrified that a democrat will get elected or re-elected if he does, so he votes GOP every time.

radcen said:

Here's why no third party will ever become truly successful: The two parties will adopt any popular aspect in some form or another and "steal their thunder".

It has happened throughout most of American political history. Third parties almost always form with a limited platform, a "special interest" if you will. They are usually dismissible, but in the event that any part of their platform becomes popular, the two major parties will adopt it in some form. Most people, then feeling satisfied that their concerns are being addressed, abandon the weaker third party and stick with the stronger mainstream party. And why shouldn't they? They're now getting what they want and from a party that can actually pull it off.

These third parties eventually fade away as their sole purpose for being has been compromised.

Click to expand...

Yes, true.

Indeed, most policies of the two wing parties (the liberal Democrats and the conservative Republicans) originated as centrist policies that were thus understandably popular .. and after adopting them into their ideology they modified them to morph them into something more at home in their ideology.

Third parties, like the Greens, Libertarians, Independents, and the like, that are wing-ish by nature, they don't stand a chance for that reason: they're wing parties, and thus will never appeal to the great majority who are centrist by nature.

But your first sentence here also partly describes why a true centrist party has never been formed that's been a player.

TeleKat said:

First of all, you have provided no backing to your claims about there being next to no women in the LP aside from anecdotal horse**** about women being too weak to embrace freedom. Second of all, where did you get the idea that libertarians somehow don't support a safe and secure environment? Third, you absolutely were trying to say that women are weak and dependent. That's exactly how I took that...as would most women. I can make choices for myself and take responsibility for those choices as well. Go figure. An independent woman. Your worst nightmare. Fourth, don't speak for women. You're a man, I'm a woman. Not to play that card but I'm fairly sure I know a hell of alot more about the thought processes of women than you do. Just saying. Fifth, I've seen you rail against the woman's right to choose at least a dozen times on this forum. So don't talk to me about appealing to women. Lastly, the LP has grown immensely since it's creation and is easily the third biggest political party in the country. Libertarians rarely win elections, sure, but the same is true of all third parties. Has nothing to do with the philosophy of the party but the habitual voting for the lesser evils. So stop with that crap.

Click to expand...

In California alone, little more than half of a percent of those eligible to vote are registered Libertarians (Google CAs Secretary of State and you can find the Excel spreadsheet to download that testifies so). It's not really changed over the decades. Really, 'nuff said about the "chances" of the LP ever being a player.

As to your oppositional defiance about women, your tendency to see non-libertarian women as "weak and dependent" is your own issue. So don't go wiping your sh!t onto me.

With regard to you being a woman and me being a man, that, in your opinion makes me "unqualified" to speak statistically on women, is, of course, pure nonsense. If you truly knew what appeals more to women and what doesn't you'd think twice about saying that the LP appeals to women as much as it does to men, as that's pure and common knowlege BS.

Your assumption that "pro-life" is male and "pro-choice" is female is, of course, preposterous, strongly indicating that you are out of touch with mainstream women.

The LP has simply not grown "immensely". That's laughable.

The libertarian philosophy is simply an extremist wing philosophy, a schizoid simultaneous left (social) and right (fiscal-economic) plotting on the traditional political spectrum. That's so absurdly extreme that libertarians had to invent their own spectrum ("the political compass") to spin legitimacy.

Sadly, the census does not track specific party affiliation, and state secretaries don't track party affiliation by gender or age, so neither you nor I can prove our assertions about the percentage of women who are members of the Libertarian Party.

But I've done sample polling with women I've known who would seem to identify with libertarianism, and none of them were registered with the Libertarian Party. I think my "less than 10% of registered Libertarians are women" statement is likely true.

The Libertarian Party appeals to young, white, single, childless male perspectives on life; the playboy philosophy. That's simply a fact. The reason the Libertarian Party will never be a player is because the young get older and mature, single people get married and love changes perspectives, they then have children, and boy will that change a person's attitude quickly.

So the Libertarian Party is simply a transition party, which accounts for why today it simply isn't any more or less of a non-player political party than it ever was.

60 percent of women, according to Keirsey ("Please Understand Me II") are feelers over thinkers, with men the opposite 60 percent thinkers. This is the only temperament component of the four that shows a gender preference.

Thus women are more apt to be communalists, and would find a "Justicerian" political party appealing.

Sure there are exceptions, but those are simply that: exceptions .. and most of those end up in the Republican Party, with the Democratic Party home to most women due to their security emphasis of economic-fiscal issues.

For a woman to identify with the playboy philosophy is .. noteworthy.

That's reality, Telekat.

Acceptance is really for the best.

Ontologuy said:

In California alone, little more than half of a percent of those eligible to vote are registered Libertarians (Google CAs Secretary of State and you can find the Excel spreadsheet to download that testifies so). It's not really changed over the decades. Really, 'nuff said about the "chances" of the LP ever being a player.

Click to expand...

Just an FYI, but I have been a libertarian since I was twenty-three and not once have I been registered with the Libertarian party.

I voted Libertarian in one of the races this past election as a pity vote and sop to efforts to get ballot access laws changed. But I don't think the 'Libertarian Party Moment' will ever come. They will forever be a very minor outlier with the occasional impressive showing.

Kreton said:

Libertarian Election Results 2014

Link shows their numbers.

Clearly noone expected them to win any major races but they did ok in a few. Based on your expectations for the Libertarian party how do you think they did?

Click to expand...

44 years, no congressmen, no senators, no governors, no presidents. Just a steady string of single digit results, and "winning" garbage elections that were unopposed.

44 years of complete and total failure, never even reaching 1% in a presidential race.

Sherman123 said:

I voted Libertarian in one of the races this past election as a pity vote and sop to efforts to get ballot access laws changed. But I don't think the 'Libertarian Party Moment' will ever come. They will forever be a very minor outlier with the occasional impressive showing.

Click to expand...

i believe the libertarians, also have been trying to change the Republican party from one, more based on...... individual freedom...so its a two fold movement.