Only if you're lucky and don't have anyone exciting running at all, either within your party or on the other side. I mean, Bush is the only recent president who didn't have much passion behind him, but look at the two stiffs he was running against. They could have been replaced with a cardboard replica. His stupidity was almost endearing, compared to the Ents running for the Democrats.
Money is a big player in American politics. I wish I had your optimism, and I do hope you prove me wrong, but I see a Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton race in our future. Unfortunately.
Yes it will. That's why the Republicans kick ass, dude.
If you recall, Republicans were on the edge of becoming totally irrelevant. Why? Because it was the same pandering to the old straight white men year after year. The only reason they won in 2014 was because they were riding an anti-Obama wave. Any other time and they would have gotten their asses handed to them like they always do.
Likewise, while it's important the Democrats start appealing to their own again, focusing only on their liberal base will do the same. As perotista pointed out, neither party base is large enough to ride into the white house alone. I think a balance in between the two extremes (on one extreme going Republican lite and on the other extreme becoming isolated) would be ideal for the party.
Most Americans are not very nuanced in their politics. They like the idea of swallowing a platform, no matter how nonsensical it might be when you look under the robe.
Most Americans are independent.
In the Democratic party, yes it is.
There are plenty of pro-gun Democrats.
In the corrupted excuse we have for a libertarian party? YES! Any of them!
I think you're confusing Libertarians with the lame ass embrassed Republicans like Rand Paul and such.
Almost none of us here on DP represent that. You don't represent Libertarians. I don't represent Democrats.
If only! :2razz:
In the general American sense, the Libertarian party is extremely pro-business,
As much as I vehemently disagree with the LP on economics, I do have to say that they are pro-market not pro-business. They consistently hold positions that are general thought to be unfavorable to business. Legalizing drugs (bye bye big pharma and prison industrial complex), ending wars overseas(definitely not a favorable position to big weapons manufacturers and oil companies), ending all corporate welfare, ending the bank bailouts, stimuluses, etc. I definitely don't like the idea of (unfettered) free markets, I feel like that would send income inequality way up through the roof, but the LP definitely not pro-business in the sense that the term is commonly used by Republicans and business conservatives.
Anyway, I was more talking about left-libertarians. To use DP posters as examples: Myself, Kobie, fedup, DocileLion, Era, ikari, taco (he doesn't have the lean displayed, but he has expressed sympathies with left-libertarianism before), so on and so forth. None of the posters I just mentioned are a part of the Democratic Party but likely all would be with a few tweaks on civil policy, social policy, and foreign policy. Along with a sharp shove back to the left on economics. A tweak like, well, Jim Webb.
but they wouldn't even get to that point of contention with Webb, because they'd reject him the moment they saw the "D" by his name.
Not really true. Obama got a fair amount of libertarian support in '08, especially since the Libertarian nominee was absolute crap.
Nope, but most of the party is.
But I'm not talking about courting the party, I'm just talking about courting "small l" libertarians. The
party probably won't budge no matter what you do. As a member of the party myself (yeah, I know, but I hold my nose on the economics so I can get the social issues/civil issues/foreign policy) I have seen how dedicated they are to making the LP a major party. So it doesn't really matter who you put up. The independent libertarians, however, are easy snags if you push the civil liberties, social freedoms, and the anti-war policies.