• 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!

What would be considered a Libertarian Party "victory" in November?

What would be considered a Libertarian Party "victory" in November?

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Anagram said:
I don't think that's a good concept. Parties can participate in the game, and also legitimately note that the rules are stacked against them and work to change that.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you and I have some loose agreement that there needs to be more and easier paths for third parties to get into Congress.

But as long as we have a presidential system, it's almost always going to be one of two parties that takes the White House.
 
Phys251 said:
To be fair, you and I have some loose agreement that there needs to be more and easier paths for third parties to get into Congress.

But as long as we have a presidential system, it's almost always going to be one of two parties that takes the White House.
Click to expand...

For sure. And that likely wouldn't change if the Libertarians or any other party got into the debates. But at the same time, any candidate polling at say 5-10% with as little infrastructure and air time as a third party candidate gets probably deserves to have a platform in the debates. I think it's ok for the Libertarians to fight for that.
 
Debates are a means to an end, popularity. There's no victory in being in a debate if you don't turn that into votes. To that end, I voted for 10%+ popular vote.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I see you like the status quo, of a failing system.
Click to expand...

Not at all... In fact, I despise it. But I also know that making tilting at windmills the entirety of your effort to change is a bad idea. Showing the country that all you can do is fail at getting a candidate taken seriously isn't helping. Showing people at the local level that your candidates can lead and lead well would help immensely. I think that you are assuming that I'm opposing 3rd parties, but I support them wholeheartedly, I just hate the fact that the people running them and supporting them are so dumb. For me, it shows that parties like the "L's" aren't smart enough to lead, since they continue to squander their resources fighting a battle they can't currently win. The system needs to be changed and 3rd parties are one of the best ways to do that. But in order for any 3rd party to get taken seriously, they have to show that they can do more than lose Presidential elections every 4 years and then do nothing but whine about the system is rigged against them.
 
faithful_servant said:
Not at all... In fact, I despise it. But I also know that making tilting at windmills the entirety of your effort to change is a bad idea. Showing the country that all you can do is fail at getting a candidate taken seriously isn't helping. Showing people at the local level that your candidates can lead and lead well would help immensely. I think that you are assuming that I'm opposing 3rd parties, but I support them wholeheartedly, I just hate the fact that the people running them and supporting them are so dumb. For me, it shows that parties like the "L's" aren't smart enough to lead, since they continue to squander their resources fighting a battle they can't currently win. The system needs to be changed and 3rd parties are one of the best ways to do that. But in order for any 3rd party to get taken seriously, they have to show that they can do more than lose Presidential elections every 4 years and then do nothing but whine about the system is rigged against them.
Click to expand...
A successful city councilperson or mayor would have a good shot at getting elected to state government or as a House representative if they have city governing history to point to. They could then take their successful state or House term of office and work that toward the Senate, or even higher.
 
Henrin said:
Getting to two percent of the vote would be nice :D

Yeah, my expectations are low.
Click to expand...

Anything over that would be the #NeverTrump vote. It would be a chance to say, "Hey GOP, these could have been YOUR votes".
 
Phys251 said:
:lamo

If you don't like the rules, then don't participate in the game. This is not a difficult concept.
Click to expand...

Didn't Nicolas Maduro say something to that effect?
 
>


One that results and an even neither Trump or Clinton reaching 270 votes in the Electoral College sending the Presidential selection to the House of Representatives and the VP selection to the Senate and them being smart enough to select Johnson as a rejection of Clinton and Trump.



>>>>
 
Do libertarian leaning voters ever vote democrat?

I ask this because of the two major parties, democrats are far more authoritarian than republicans.
 
WorldWatcher said:
>


One that results and an even neither Trump or Clinton reaching 270 votes in the Electoral College sending the Presidential selection to the House of Representatives and the VP selection to the Senate and them being smart enough to select Johnson as a rejection of Clinton and Trump.



>>>>
Click to expand...

 
radcen said:
A successful city councilperson or mayor would have a good shot at getting elected to state government or as a House representative if they have city governing history to point to. They could then take their successful state or House term of office and work that toward the Senate, or even higher.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! A solid track record of candidates in a wide area of public service would do wonders for improving the chances of 3rd party candidates getting elected to national offices. When you can point to a dozen or so cities with strong 3rd party leadership, then your credibility as a 3rd party candidate goes up.
"Nothing breeds success like success."
 
Phys251 said:
Who is Nicolas Maduro and why should I even care?
Click to expand...

You should only care if you don't want to be a low information voter.
 
radcen said:
What would be considered a Libertarian Party "victory" in November?

"Victory" not necessarily being literal, as in winning the White House (though I'm going to include that as a poll option anyway), but being a major step forward and something to legitimately build on.
Click to expand...

I'd consider it a failure if they don't get in the debates. A good election for them would be to get in the debates and winning close to 20% of the vote. If they could win a state or two that would be big.

They need to do enough to where the next election they are still an option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Libertarian party does nothing but take votes away from the main two parties. I don't really have an issue with that. However, nothing that they do is really a victory. Moral victories don't count when you sign your country away to a lunatic.
 
ajn678 said:
The Libertarian party does nothing but take votes away from the main two parties. I don't really have an issue with that. However, nothing that they do is really a victory. Moral victories don't count when you sign your country away to a lunatic.
Click to expand...

Well, both of the main candidates are filth this time around, so no real harm there.
 
Henrin said:
Well, both of the main candidates are filth this time around, so no real harm there.
Click to expand...

I believe most people can look inward and decide which candidate they would rather be President. Especially on the left. If you are a Liberal and honestly say you won't vote for Clinton, that means you accept the fact that Trump might be President. Which I think goes against every possible modern Liberal idea. I can see where people on the right don't actually believe Trump is Conservative or that he will be Conservative in what he says. The fact is, one of them is going to be President. Most people can clearly decide who they believe in the lesser of two evils. Let's worry about fixing the system after we don't have two or three Supreme Court choices up for grabs.
 
ajn678 said:
The Libertarian party does nothing but take votes away from the main two parties. I don't really have an issue with that. However, nothing that they do is really a victory. Moral victories don't count when you sign your country away to a lunatic.
Click to expand...

it is projected that the swing states will pick clinton so you're safe
 
SDET said:
You should only care if you don't want to be a low information voter.
Click to expand...

Tell you what. You go knock some sense into these Trumpers, and then come back to me and talk to me about low-information voters.
 
ajn678 said:
The Libertarian party does nothing but take votes away from the main two parties. I don't really have an issue with that. However, nothing that they do is really a victory. Moral victories don't count when you sign your country away to a lunatic.
Click to expand...

Third parties won't be anything but vote spoilers until we use runoff elections.
 
Henrin said:
Well, both of the main candidates are filth this time around, so no real harm there.
Click to expand...

Unless you believe one can do substantially more harm than the other.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
What would be considered a Libertarian Party "victory" in November?

"Victory" not necessarily being literal, as in winning the White House (though I'm going to include that as a poll option anyway), but being a major step forward and something to legitimately build on.
Click to expand...

Libertarian victory would be breaking their record which broke other records, they need 2 electoral votes this time, to beat the indy vote record of one.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Unless you believe on can do substantially more harm than the other.
Click to expand...

This is the problem. There are multiple Supreme Court seats most likely up for grabs. This is a bigger issue than a 4 or 8 year Presidential campaign.
 
ajn678 said:
This is the problem. There are multiple Supreme Court seats most likely up for grabs. This is a bigger issue than a 4 or 8 year Presidential campaign.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree with Bush 43 that the senate should not be able to filibuster the vote for confirmations.

The constitution says advice and consent. Filibuster is part of the senate rules. Not part of the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom