(11-09-2016 07:28 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  The LP had their shot at going mainstream and blew it. The US had two of the least popular candidates in modern political history going against each other and they didn't make much of a dent besides (debatably) playing spoiler. It is unfortunately that the system for third party candidates is impossible to beat in its current form, but nevertheless the LP still had the most electable presidential ticket in their history (in terms of prior experience as well as their stance on the issues compared with past candidates and others within the LP) yet still finished well below the 5% threshold for federal funds.

If I was the LP, I'd take a hard look at this cycle and see that running for president is a fool's errand; wrong as it may be, we live in a political framework designed for two-parties, and they'll do anything they can to hold onto power. The LP should concentrate their future efforts on local and state-level offices imo, but I'm guessing they'll keep trying for president and nominate more of a 'true' libertarian in the mold of Austin Petersen going forward. The only hope of the US shifting towards a libertarian-leaning government lies in the likes of Paul and Amash basically taking over the GOP from the inside, and I'll be rooting for that to happen. But that wasn't happening anytime soon even if Clinton won, let alone now that Trump has.

The purpose of running for President is the same as having a college football team......to make people aware of you nationally.

There isn't much point of running local or state races if your party is not recognizable.

They should continue doing what they are doing. It is essentially all that they can do.

(11-09-2016 09:50 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  If a political party like the Libertarian party want to actually make some head way. Then they need to focus on an state or area of the country.

If I was the Libertarian party. I would focus on the Dakotas. I would put as much support that I could into those states.

That is being done in New Hampshire. Google "Free State Project".

The same thing they do after every election, go out back and light up a blunt.

(11-09-2016 10:56 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  The same thing they do after every election, go out back and light up a blunt.

I do that anyways.

With the current instability in the GOP the *BEST* thing libertarians could do is try to re-establish the liberty leg of the republican party.

If you can't poll better than 5% nationally against these two then you'll never do it.

Where does it go?

Away, hopefully.

(11-09-2016 07:28 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  The LP had their shot at going mainstream and blew it. The US had two of the least popular candidates in modern political history going against each other and they didn't make much of a dent besides (debatably) playing spoiler. It is unfortunately that the system for third party candidates is impossible to beat in its current form, but nevertheless the LP still had the most electable presidential ticket in their history (in terms of prior experience as well as their stance on the issues compared with past candidates and others within the LP) yet still finished well below the 5% threshold for federal funds.

If I was the LP, I'd take a hard look at this cycle and see that running for president is a fool's errand; wrong as it may be, we live in a political framework designed for two-parties, and they'll do anything they can to hold onto power. The LP should concentrate their future efforts on local and state-level offices imo, but I'm guessing they'll keep trying for president and nominate more of a 'true' libertarian in the mold of Austin Petersen going forward. The only hope of the US shifting towards a libertarian-leaning government lies in the likes of Paul and Amash basically taking over the GOP from the inside, and I'll be rooting for that to happen. But that wasn't happening anytime soon even if Clinton won, let alone now that Trump has.

Good post, and I largely agree with everything you said.

Johnson's platform could've been a home run. But he lacked the charisma and on-camera confidence to sell it, and he thought he could get by on generalities without studying up on the details.

The LP has the image of being a camp of anarcho-nutters and 'black helicopter' types, and based on some of their members, the perception is valid. And I think that guilt by association partially bogged down the more moderate Johnson. A lot of people who didn't take the time to learn Johnson's (and Weld's) actual talking points simply went the route of, "OMG, they want to get rid of police, fire departments, road repair, and turn us into a law of the jungle Somalia!!!11"

So the LP will continue to have the pragmatics vs. the dogmatics infighting. With Johnson sputtering and not fulfilling the high hopes, not to mention the ill advised Bob Barr experiment, I can see the dogmatics returning to the fold in 2020. I can also see Austin Peterson with an inside track, but WOTS is that he painfully un-likeable by many within the party. I know little about him, but I caught bits of Larry Sharpe and he came off as a cool, poised speaker who could gain attention.

I agree that the most probable route is the promotion of the libertarianish ideas from within a major party (the Amash and Ron/Rand types). Unfair as it is, plopping the R or D next to your name elevates the perception that you're "serious". Third parties have this "scary" perception and your margin of error on gaffes is very small, i.e. Aleppo. If you're R or D, you can say and do dozens of dumb, questionable things and get away with it.

(11-09-2016 07:57 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The LP made much better showings in some Indiana state races yesterday - getting an infrastructure in place at the state level will allow them to make real changes.


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note7 using Tapatalk. Hey, do you smell anything burning?

I've said this a million times.. how many Libertarian candidates make serious in-roads in their state electios? I"d say VERY few, because they don't bother trying

Get a few Libertarian state reps and senators and then work up to say "we've done well at the state level", now we'll show you what you can do at a national level.

BUt they REFUSE to do that.

I'm extremely disappointed about the Libs not getting 5%. There desperately needs to be a legitimate 3rd option for those of us that want fiscal responsibility but can not stand the republican stance on social issues. Not to mention the GOP hasn't actually been fiscally conservative in years.

(11-09-2016 07:35 PM)muffinman Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 07:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  What was their vote % end up at?

Looks like they got 3%

What I'm seeing right now on a British website is

Clinton 47.67
Trump 47.48
Johnson 3.24
Stein 0.97
All others 0.64

i agree that the libertarians should start identifying as such on local and state levels. the platform might appeal to folks when it's more personable. oh, these hedons might be on to something

Wow, I agree with HoD on something.

LP is as niche as it gets. The reason it hasn't gained traction is simple: very few people think that way.


You don't have numbers. You never will get numbers.

Disband. Focus your energy elsewhere.

(11-10-2016 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Wow, I agree with HoD on something.

LP is as niche as it gets. The reason it hasn't gained traction is simple: very few people think that way.


You don't have numbers. You never will get numbers.

Disband. Focus your energy elsewhere.

Actually, most people have a Libertarian bent. More people than are far left wing or right wing. The LP just cannot translate that into political power due to the political system's inherent biases, duopoly control, and the fact that their leadership is primarily loons.

(11-10-2016 12:33 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Wow, I agree with HoD on something.

LP is as niche as it gets. The reason it hasn't gained traction is simple: very few people think that way.


You don't have numbers. You never will get numbers.

Disband. Focus your energy elsewhere.

Actually, most people have a Libertarian bent. More people than are far left wing or right wing. The LP just cannot translate that into political power due to the political system's inherent biases, duopoly control, and the fact that their leadership is primarily loons.

But see the problem is for most people its a *bent* and you don't form a party around a *bent*.... I'm not libertarian enough to go whole hog into the party but I do have a bent. So what the need to do is establish themselves as a force in one or both of the major parties.

(11-10-2016 12:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:33 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Wow, I agree with HoD on something.

LP is as niche as it gets. The reason it hasn't gained traction is simple: very few people think that way.


You don't have numbers. You never will get numbers.

Disband. Focus your energy elsewhere.

Actually, most people have a Libertarian bent. More people than are far left wing or right wing. The LP just cannot translate that into political power due to the political system's inherent biases, duopoly control, and the fact that their leadership is primarily loons.

But see the problem is for most people its a *bent* and you don't form a party around a *bent*.... I'm not libertarian enough to go whole hog into the party but I do have a bent. So what the need to do is establish themselves as a force in one or both of the major parties.

I don't think they have a place in either major party. Liberty isn't a real big priority in the power/influence/money game.

They need to stay the same but get rid of those who want to focus more on the Liberty to be oddballs than on the fundamental core Liberties.

Ah yes, "liberty".

In other words, "let me get away with whatever I want, without any consequences". That kind of "liberty".


No sir. Not gonna let you or anyone else run amok like that.

(11-10-2016 01:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:33 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Wow, I agree with HoD on something.

LP is as niche as it gets. The reason it hasn't gained traction is simple: very few people think that way.


You don't have numbers. You never will get numbers.

Disband. Focus your energy elsewhere.

Actually, most people have a Libertarian bent. More people than are far left wing or right wing. The LP just cannot translate that into political power due to the political system's inherent biases, duopoly control, and the fact that their leadership is primarily loons.

But see the problem is for most people its a *bent* and you don't form a party around a *bent*.... I'm not libertarian enough to go whole hog into the party but I do have a bent. So what the need to do is establish themselves as a force in one or both of the major parties.

I don't think they have a place in either major party. Liberty isn't a real big priority in the power/influence/money game.

They need to stay the same but get rid of those who want to focus more on the Liberty to be oddballs than on the fundamental core Liberties.

Yeah they are always gonna have fundamental issues with both parties, and both parties are actually all about large government, just large in the way they want them. You are never going to balance the budget without cutting both entitlement programs and military spending drastically. The problem is each major party wants to cut one and increase the other and that does no good.

Yeah ... and that's why so many voters made "balancing the budget" their #1 issue, this election.

(11-10-2016 01:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:33 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Wow, I agree with HoD on something.

LP is as niche as it gets. The reason it hasn't gained traction is simple: very few people think that way.


You don't have numbers. You never will get numbers.

Disband. Focus your energy elsewhere.

Actually, most people have a Libertarian bent. More people than are far left wing or right wing. The LP just cannot translate that into political power due to the political system's inherent biases, duopoly control, and the fact that their leadership is primarily loons.

But see the problem is for most people its a *bent* and you don't form a party around a *bent*.... I'm not libertarian enough to go whole hog into the party but I do have a bent. So what the need to do is establish themselves as a force in one or both of the major parties.

I don't think they have a place in either major party. Liberty isn't a real big priority in the power/influence/money game.

They need to stay the same but get rid of those who want to focus more on the Liberty to be oddballs than on the fundamental core Liberties.

But it *can* be...

(11-11-2016 02:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ah yes, "liberty".

In other words, "let me get away with whatever I want, without any consequences". That kind of "liberty".


No sir. Not gonna let you or anyone else run amok like that.

Your "in other words" is incorrect.