• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2016 Democratic Presidential Primary

2016 Democratic Presidential Primary (Choose as many as you like)


  • Total voters
    19
So there is a pretty popular thread where posters are discussing their likely choices for a Republican nominee. Thought I'd start one for the Democrats. So, here we are. Who do you favor to win the 2016 Democratic primary?

Here is the latest polls on the Democratic Nomination:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination

With more than a year to go before the primaries, the polls above mean little except to show where things stand now. But the nomination seems to be Hillary's to lose if she wants it baring some unforeseen happening or event. The favorite to win the Democratic nominations by about 9-1 odds has to be Hillary at this point in time.

But who would I like to win? I think Hillary, Webb or Biden would reach across the aisle and try to work with the other side, so any of those three would be fine with me. Sanders is way out of touch with my political views and ideology, but I respect his honesty. A politician being honest is about as rare as water on the sun. I would be fine with him also. Warren, O'Malley and Cuomo are as far out of touch as Sanders without the honesty. Enough said.

Now if they held the Georgia Democratic Primary today and I was to vote in it, I would vote for Webb and if he wasn't around for whatever reason, then Hillary followed by Biden.
 
I have never voted Democrat in a presidential election before. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2008 and Gary Johnson in 2012. With that being said, I would definitely vote Democrat if they put up either Jim Webb or Bernie Sanders.
 
At the grassroots level he wasn't all that popular, but from a media and party leadership perspective he was definitely the token boy. Much like Clinton, he had the money and the contacts.

I saw no passion for him from anywhere whatsoever. Not in life, not on DP, and not in the media.

You just said most of the Dem base is centrists, moderates, and independents. The voters Hillary appeals to best.

No -- I said there's enough of them for it to make a difference. And a LOT of those independents are actually liberals who left the party because the Dems aren't actually liberal anymore.

The centrists are impossible to predict. They're all over the place. Any candidate will get at least some of them.

The moderates? Well, look. It's really unlikely anyone in the GOP field is going to appeal to most moderates. Plus, they're a minority within a minority. The Dems need to stop worrying so much about them, and focus on actually being Democrats -- something they haven't done for at least 20 years.

Mehhh, I can definitely see your point but that has just not translated into the general attitude I've seen from the party. Everyone is Ready for Hillary and while there are a few progressives rooting for Sanders/Warren and a few left-libertarians rooting for Webb, most seem to be lining up behind Clinton.

Like Romney, I see no enthusiasm for her in life, or on DP, or from within her party. The moaning of "dynasty!" has already begun, and she hasn't even decided if she's going to run yet.

Playing center-right is bad, I agree, but he's not center-right. He's actually quite liberal on the economics. He is rather like Warren in that he is an outspoken critic of Wall Street and income inequality. Where I see him making a difference is guns/immigration for the independent cons and civil liberties/foreign policy for the libertarians.

Yeah, but we're talking about Democrats. His gun stances are losing propositions right out of the gate, and so are at least some of his immigration stances. Appealing to libertarians is a completely foolish thing to do. For every libertarian they gain, they're going to lose 2 Democrats, because they have virtually no stances in common apart from gay marriage. So what good does that do them? Guns alone won't be enough to sway libertarians. His fiscal policy will switch most of them right off. If he wants them, he's going to have to give up twice as many Democrats. That's foolish.

Looking a little closer at him, he's also going to have some problems with women and gays based on some prior votes and work he did (some decades ago, and some rescinded, but that won't stop them). Most Dems won't point this out because they're running as "Republican Lite," but if there's a real liberal in the field, you can bet they're going to hammer on it as hard as the day is long, and it's going to cost him even more Dems.

If there is even one real liberal in the race, Webb is toast.

Do I think that's entirely legit? No. But that's what's going to happen, because that's the American public, and that's American politics.

You might like something -- and I might too, in some cases -- but that doesn't mean it's a viable strategy in a national, remember?

I can conceive of a halfway viable strategy for Webb, but I can also conceive of much better candidates who have a much better chance of actually winning, without costing Democrats their own people and forcing them to make up the difference by trying to sway people from some other party.

If Dems want to win, they need to stop trying to appeal to cons or libertarians or whatever else, and just appeal to Dems. The fact that they don't is why they lose so much.
 
Last edited:
If Dems want to win, they need to stop trying to appeal to cons or libertarians or whatever else, and just appeal to Dems. The fact that they don't is why they lose so much.

Both parties fault at trying to appeal to their extremes.
 
Both parties fault at trying to appeal to their extremes.

Appealing to mainstream liberals is not extreme. And that is what the Dems have failed to do for the majority of the last 20 years.

Most Dems these days plot to the right on a political compass. Forget "extremes" -- they've moved so far away from liberal that it's almost like they're trying to grab RINO's instead of their own party.

The Democrats' problem is that they don't appeal to anyone.
 
Appealing to mainstream liberals is not extreme. And that is what the Dems have failed to do for the majority of the last 20 years.

Most Dems these days plot to the right on a political compass. Forget "extremes" -- they've moved so far away from liberal that it's almost like they're trying to grab RINO's instead of their own party.

The Democrats' problem is that they don't appeal to anyone.

A very popular, if not sympathetic point.

If one party pivots strongly to their base, it is highly advisable for the other party to go after the moderates and make the former seem isolated.

As of this moment, your idea would be popular among both parties. It sounds nice, but one party must always look to be the one with "reasonable" appeal (I.e. Tossing aside the base).
 
Both parties fault at trying to appeal to their extremes.

Both are increasingly convinced that their bases are ignored, while the other party is rabidly going the other direction. It's kind of comical, really.
 
A very popular, if not sympathetic point.

If one party pivots strongly to their base, it is highly advisable for the other party to go after the moderates and make the former seem isolated.

The Republicans don't have the same base they did back in the day. Their base these days is, firstly, reactionaries, and secondly, the politically ambivalent who are just tired of Dems never getting anything done on any metric, liberal or otherwise.

The political Democrats today are literally conservatives. All they ever do -- because since they've shirked the idea of supporting liberal policy, it's all they can do -- is try to keep things the way they are. That is a type of moderate conservatism (in action, if not necessarily in root cause).

The plan of "appealing to the moderates" hasn't worked, because the fact is, we still have a lot of liberals in this country. And the Democrats are losing more of them every election by continuing to be nothing but moderate conservatives, and gaining a few more moderates hasn't made up for losing so many liberals.

We don't have a liberal major party. We have conservatives and reactionaries.
 
Both are increasingly convinced that their bases are ignored, while the other party is rabidly going the other direction. It's kind of comical, really.

Well, they both are, in a way. Neither are appealing, on issues, to the average person, certainly.
 
Hillary's in there like her swimwear. No doubt about it. She has name recognition, has the money, has Bill, and has detached herself from Pres Obama enough that people will forget about that part of it. Plus, she understands this may be her last opportunity to run so she'll push hard to make it. I don't think anyone can hang with her from the Democratic party honestly. Warren is the Ron Paul of the Democratic Party in that she has a small but fervent support base that will always get her name in the discussion but never get her over the hump.
 
Hillary's in there like her swimwear. No doubt about it. She has name recognition, has the money, has Bill, and has detached herself from Pres Obama enough that people will forget about that part of it. Plus, she understands this may be her last opportunity to run so she'll push hard to make it. I don't think anyone can hang with her from the Democratic party honestly. Warren is the Ron Paul of the Democratic Party in that she has a small but fervent support base that will always get her name in the discussion but never get her over the hump.

If anything, that's unfortunate, because she was never more popular than she was as Obama's Sec of State during his first term.

Hillary didn't generate a ton of passion the first time around, and she won't this time either. If there's someone even mildly exciting, she'll lose. If she wins, count on liberal voters staying home -- that's what they do when there's no one interesting.

Warren is coming 2nd or 3rd behind Clinton right now according to an earlier link. And that's considering that a lot of people aren't especially politically aware, and won't have heard about her at all until if/when she makes a run, so obviously that's affecting her numbers. Who's she fighting for second with? Biden, someone everyone knows about.

Warren is most definitely the dark horse of the race if she chooses to run. And let's not forget, dark horses tend to do well for the Democrats in recent decades. They tend to win, in fact.
 
If anything, that's unfortunate, because she was never more popular than she was as Obama's Sec of State during his first term.

Hillary didn't generate a ton of passion the first time around, and she won't this time either. If there's someone even mildly exciting, she'll lose. If she wins, count on liberal voters staying home -- that's what they do when there's no one interesting.

Warren is coming 2nd or 3rd behind Clinton right now according to an earlier link. And that's considering that a lot of people aren't especially politically aware, and won't have heard about her at all until if/when she makes a run, so obviously that's affecting her numbers. Who's she fighting for second with? Biden, someone everyone knows about.

Warren is most definitely the dark horse of the race if she chooses to run. And let's not forget, dark horses tend to do well for the Democrats in recent decades. They tend to win, in fact.
Biden has no chance IMO. The guy has said and will say too many stupid things to make it. I think he's entertaining personally but the media crucifies anyone that isn't spit and polished so severely that any one gaff takes a person totally out of the running. It'll be Clinton, even if it isn't enthusiastic. I don't think the Democratic Party is ready for the let down of 2016 personally. There is no Barack Obama around the corner that will stir up their base this time. He was a rare candidate in that he inspired a lot of people to vote that normally wouldn't. I don't think that will be repeated for a long time. By either party.
 
I saw no passion for him from anywhere whatsoever. Not in life, not on DP, and not in the media.

You don't need passion to win these days. Just money. An unfortunate truth. :(

No -- I said there's enough of them for it to make a difference. And a LOT of those independents are actually liberals who left the party because the Dems aren't actually liberal anymore.

Hey, I agree the Dems need to be more liberal if they are to win. I definitely don't disagree on that point. I've been saying it to anyone that would listen. That's why I, personally, rarely vote Democrat. I'd rather stick with the Greens or even the Libertarians. If I wanted to vote for Republicans I'd just vote in the real deal. :shrug:

The centrists are impossible to predict. They're all over the place. Any candidate will get at least some of them.

True, but some can get more than others.

The moderates? Well, look. It's really unlikely anyone in the GOP field is going to appeal to most moderates. Plus, they're a minority within a minority. The Dems need to stop worrying so much about them, and focus on actually being Democrats -- something they haven't done for at least 20 years.

Again, I don't disagree. But the Dems can't focus on just their liberal base. That would be dumb IMO. Get back to the left on economic policies absolutely, but don't just focus on pandering to the staunch liberals. Appealing to one base won't win an election.

Yeah, but we're talking about Democrats. His gun stances are losing propositions right out of the gate, and so are at least some of his immigration stances.

Not necessarily. His immigration stance is pretty ok, this is coming from someone who supports open borders. Secure the borders amd grant amnesty to those already here. It's reasonable and pragmatic.

As for his guns stance? It's not exactly illiberal to support gun rights.

Appealing to libertarians is a completely foolish thing to do.

I absolutely and 100% disagree.

For every libertarian they gain, they're going to lose 2 Democrats, because they have virtually no stances in common apart from gay marriage.

Not true in even a remote sense.

Guns alone won't be enough to sway libertarians.

It's not just guns though, that's the point. Webb has an extremely strong record on both foreign policy and civil issues. His social issues also have quite a bit of appeal to libertarians. Webb would have the libertarian vote easy and wouldn't really need to alienate as many liberals as you seem to think to do it. You think Jeb Bush would do a better job at courting the libertarians? Chris Christie? Ted Cruz? Rick Perry? Fat chance! But Jim Webb, yeah he could do it.

His fiscal policy will switch most of them right off.

Not all libertarians are fiscally on the right.

Looking a little closer at him, he's also going to have some problems with women and gays based on some prior votes and work he did (some decades ago, and some rescinded, but that won't stop them).

That is a valid concern for sure. But I think he could work something out. He's not the only Dem to have some past baggage on social issues.
 
Biden has no chance IMO. The guy has said and will say too many stupid things to make it. I think he's entertaining personally but the media crucifies anyone that isn't spit and polished so severely that any one gaff takes a person totally out of the running. It'll be Clinton, even if it isn't enthusiastic. I don't think the Democratic Party is ready for the let down of 2016 personally. There is no Barack Obama around the corner that will stir up their base this time. He was a rare candidate in that he inspired a lot of people to vote that normally wouldn't. I don't think that will be repeated for a long time. By either party.

I agree. So the fact that he has no chance, and his numbers are probably maxed out, makes it even more clear Warren is the only seriously contender currently on the stage. Her numbers have a lot of room to grow due to simple awareness, to say nothing of switching over, and she doesn't have the recent history that Biden does. Because what Warren does is stir up the base, dude. That's exactly her thing.

It's just that, so far, the politically unaware haven't heard of her. Once they do, Hillary has a serious problem on her hands.

Though if I were Warren, unless something colossal happens, I would wait for 2020. The Dem's chances are remote in 2016, simply due to America's tendency to decide they hate whatever party is in power right now and vote for the other one.

Unless the Republicans totally screw Congress (and how much worse could it be screwed than what both parties have already done?), I think it's wiser for her to wait.
 
Nah. Clinton has the star power, Clinton has the money, and Clinton has the contacts. To continue my analogy to the 2012 Republican primaries, Clinton is the Mitt Romney of the 2016 primary. She's favored to win by those with the power and the money to make it happen.

Fortunately, the GOP has no analog to Obama to compete with Hillary.
 
I agree. So the fact that he has no chance, and his numbers are probably maxed out, makes it even more clear Warren is the only seriously contender currently on the stage. Her numbers have a lot of room to grow due to simple awareness, to say nothing of switching over, and she doesn't have the recent history that Biden does. Because what Warren does is stir up the base, dude. That's exactly her thing.

It's just that, so far, the politically unaware haven't heard of her. Once they do, Hillary has a serious problem on her hands.

Though if I were Warren, unless something colossal happens, I would wait for 2020. The Dem's chances are remote in 2016, simply due to America's tendency to decide they hate whatever party is in power right now and vote for the other one.

Unless the Republicans totally screw Congress (and how much worse could it be screwed than what both parties have already done?), I think it's wiser for her to wait.

If Hillary decided not to run, then Warren would stand a good chance to win the nomination in 2016. Problem is, she simply doesn't have the name recognition Hillary does, which means that the GOP would stand a chance of winning. And I think you're flat wrong when it comes to Hillary's chances in 2016 - she's going to break that glass ceiling.

Assuming that Hillary does win in 2016, then (if Hillary stays healthy), Warren's going to have to wait until 2024.

And can the Republicans win? Barring health problems or a total train wreck of a scandal against Hillary (and no, Benghazi won't help them), she's going to win. Personally I'd prefer Warren...but Hillary's a heck of a lot better than anyone from the GOP.
 
You don't need passion to win these days. Just money. An unfortunate truth. :(

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.

Hey, I agree the Dems need to be more liberal if they are to win. I definitely don't disagree on that point. I've been saying it to anyone that would listen. That's why I, personally, rarely vote Democrat. I'd rather stick with the Greens or even the Libertarians. If I wanted to vote for Republicans I'd just vote in the real deal. :shrug:

Again, I don't disagree. But the Dems can't focus on just their liberal base. That would be dumb IMO. Get back to the left on economic policies absolutely, but don't just focus on pandering to the staunch liberals. Appealing to one base won't win an election.

Yes it will. That's why the Republicans kick ass, dude.

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.

And how did people vote on the ballots? Straight Democrat. Anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-worker benefits, etc, etc, etc...

Not necessarily. His immigration stance is pretty ok, this is coming from someone who supports open borders. Secure the borders amd grant amnesty to those already here. It's reasonable and pragmatic.

As for his guns stance? It's not exactly illiberal to support gun rights.

In the Democratic party, yes it is.

I agree with you on an ethical level, but that isn't how party politics work. Look at the ballots. Party politics are not ethically consistent.

It's not just guns though, that's the point. Webb has an extremely strong record on both foreign policy and civil issues. His social issues also have quite a bit of appeal to libertarians. Webb would have the libertarian vote easy and wouldn't really need to alienate as many liberals as you seem to think to do it. You think Jeb Bush would do a better job at courting the libertarians? Chris Christie? Ted Cruz? Rick Perry? Fat chance! But Jim Webb, yeah he could do it.

In the corrupted excuse we have for a libertarian party? YES! Any of them!

We're not talking about what it should be, or what would be consistent, or what makes sense. We're talking about how people vote, and what these parties actually are.

Almost none of us here on DP represent that. You don't represent Libertarians. I don't represent Democrats.

In the general American sense, the Libertarian party is extremely pro-business, 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 all libertarians are fiscally on the right.

Nope, but most of the party is.

That is a valid concern for sure. But I think he could work something out. He's not the only Dem to have some past baggage on social issues.

True. And the other one with a big suitcase that comes immediately to mind is Hillary.
 
If Hillary decided not to run, then Warren would stand a good chance to win the nomination in 2016. Problem is, she simply doesn't have the name recognition Hillary does, which means that the GOP would stand a chance of winning. And I think you're flat wrong when it comes to Hillary's chances in 2016 - she's going to break that glass ceiling.

Assuming that Hillary does win in 2016, then (if Hillary stays healthy), Warren's going to have to wait until 2024.

And can the Republicans win? Barring health problems or a total train wreck of a scandal against Hillary (and no, Benghazi won't help them), she's going to win. Personally I'd prefer Warren...but Hillary's a heck of a lot better than anyone from the GOP.

I have 6 words for you.

Obama versus McCain.

Clinton versus Bush.

Neither Obama nor Clinton was well-known... before they ran for president and mopped the floor with their celebrity-status Republican opponent. Dark horses do well for the Democrats.
 
Biden has no chance IMO. The guy has said and will say too many stupid things to make it. I think he's entertaining personally but the media crucifies anyone that isn't spit and polished so severely that any one gaff takes a person totally out of the running. It'll be Clinton, even if it isn't enthusiastic. I don't think the Democratic Party is ready for the let down of 2016 personally. There is no Barack Obama around the corner that will stir up their base this time. He was a rare candidate in that he inspired a lot of people to vote that normally wouldn't. I don't think that will be repeated for a long time. By either party.

If you don't think Hillary can stir up the base, you're greatly underestimating her. But the base of either party simply isn't enough in a presidential election, as the GOP simply doesn't seem to get. Hillary's greatest advantage...is the GOP's insistence on doing whatever it takes to piss off the minorities in its eternal quest to stir up its increasingly way-far-to-the-right-of-Goldwater base. As long as your politicians keep playing the "I'm-more-conservative-than-the-other-guy" circular firing squad game, the Dems will hold the White House.
 
So there is a pretty popular thread where posters are discussing their likely choices for a Republican nominee. Thought I'd start one for the Democrats. So, here we are. Who do you favor to win the 2016 Democratic primary?

If the leadership of the Democratic party is doing any type of math, they would probably run a Clinton-Cuomo ticket. I haven't heard too much of Cuomo running, but a 2X term governor from New York would be a big boost to the ticket. Besides, governors usually make good executives.

Either way, I'll vote for Gary Johnson if he runs again.
 
I have 6 words for you.

Obama versus McCain.

Clinton versus Bush.

Neither Obama nor Clinton was well-known... before they ran for president and mopped the floor with their celebrity-status Republican opponent. Dark horses do well for the Democrats.

And the key is in your last seven words - "Dark horses do well for the Democrats." I don't ever remember the GOP having a dark horse candidate win a presidential election. Ever.

And I don't think you have any realistic hopes of one on the horizon, either, thanks to the increasing polarization of the parties. Liberals by their very nature are more likely to listen to someone they've never heard of, even if that person looks and sounds differently, and even if they've got a funny name. Conservatives, OTOH, are less likely to do so, but are more likely to pay more attention to someone more familiar to them.

I know that may sound offensive to you, but it's not meant to be offensive...and both ways certainly have their advantages and disadvantages. But the above is why dark horse candidates do well for the Dems...and not so much for the GOP.
 
If the leadership of the Democratic party is doing any type of math, they would probably run a Clinton-Cuomo ticket. I haven't heard too much of Cuomo running, but a 2X term governor from New York would be a big boost to the ticket. Besides, governors usually make good executives.

Either way, I'll vote for Gary Johnson if he runs again.
The leadership of the Democratic party doesn't pick the candidates, voters in the various primaries do. + I don't very many democrats are aching to vote for Cuomo.
 
I agree. So the fact that he has no chance, and his numbers are probably maxed out, makes it even more clear Warren is the only seriously contender currently on the stage. Her numbers have a lot of room to grow due to simple awareness, to say nothing of switching over, and she doesn't have the recent history that Biden does. Because what Warren does is stir up the base, dude. That's exactly her thing.

It's just that, so far, the politically unaware haven't heard of her. Once they do, Hillary has a serious problem on her hands.

Though if I were Warren, unless something colossal happens, I would wait for 2020. The Dem's chances are remote in 2016, simply due to America's tendency to decide they hate whatever party is in power right now and vote for the other one.

Unless the Republicans totally screw Congress (and how much worse could it be screwed than what both parties have already done?), I think it's wiser for her to wait.

She would definitely be the front runner for the Democratic Party in 2020. I agree with you on that.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom