• 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!

Did the Libertarian Party score a "victory" in the election?

Did the Libertarian Party score a "victory" in the election?

  • Total voters
    27
radcen said:
Did the Libertarian Party score a "victory" in the election?

According to this source, the Libertarian Party (LP) ticket of Gary Johnson & William Weld had 3.27% of the popular votes cast cast for them. Considering that the LP usually gets <1%-ish, can this spike in votes be considered a "victory" of sorts?

Or, is it just an anomaly considering the magnitude of the crap sandwich we had to choose from otherwise?
Click to expand...

No they did not score. If anything, they went out of their way to remain in the background. They still have not clearly identified their platform or their agenda in order to show people that they are a complete departure from the GOP. So they will clearly remain in the shadows until they do.
 
radcen said:
Did the Libertarian Party score a "victory" in the election?

According to this source, the Libertarian Party (LP) ticket of Gary Johnson & William Weld had 3.27% of the popular votes cast cast for them. Considering that the LP usually gets <1%-ish, can this spike in votes be considered a "victory" of sorts?

Or, is it just an anomaly considering the magnitude of the crap sandwich we had to choose from otherwise?
Click to expand...

Mmm, not really because given how hated Trump and Clinton were, they had the opportunity to really get ahead of the curve as it were. Given how the system is rather rigged, and that they don't get coverage by the mainstream press less it's negative, they did do better.

But really if they want to make gains, they're going to need to get out there and become visible. I know it's hard and that all the cards are stacked against it, but it's the only way to compete.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It needed to be better than Perot's 18% in 1992.
Click to expand...

Yep and, as I said, they also need to win some states. Perot's 18% resulted in a grand total of zero electoral votes. As I also said, they need to work on winning some local and state elections. If they can't do that then there is no hope of third parties ever being able to win the presidency. They can't possibly win 270 electoral votes so the best they can hope for is to deny the other two parties of reaching 270 but, even if that were to happen, the House would then vote on who becomes president and the House is filled with Democrats and Republicans. The House needs to be filled with Independents or third parties.
 
Moderate Right said:
Yep and, as I said, they also need to win some states. Perot's 18% resulted in a grand total of zero electoral votes. As I also said, they need to work on winning some local and state elections. If they can't do that then there is no hope of third parties ever being able to win the presidency. They can't possibly win 270 electoral votes so the best they can hope for is to deny the other two parties of reaching 270 but, even if that were to happen, the House would then vote on who becomes president and the House is filled with Democrats and Republicans. The House needs to be filled with Independents or third parties.
Click to expand...

That's really the thing that third party people don't understand. It isn't enough to get a couple of people voting for you, you have to actually win the election. But not only can they not get anywhere remotely near enough votes, they don't seem to understand the process by which their candidates might get into office. They just spin their conspiracy yarns for why they keep losing year after year, they can't quite figure out what they might have to do to win. Losing in every election isn't hard to do. Actually winning once seems to be impossible for them.
 
Cephus said:
That's really the thing that third party people don't understand. It isn't enough to get a couple of people voting for you, you have to actually win the election. But not only can they not get anywhere remotely near enough votes, they don't seem to understand the process by which their candidates might get into office. They just spin their conspiracy yarns for why they keep losing year after year, they can't quite figure out what they might have to do to win. Losing in every election isn't hard to do. Actually winning once seems to be impossible for them.
Click to expand...

That's also sometimes a delusion shared by major party candidates when they see crowds of thousands of voters at all of their campaign stops and then wonder why they got shallacked in the election. They don't seem to understand that millions of people vote so, so what if thousands of people show up at your rallies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom