or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 121

post #1801 of 8748
And yet the libertarian candidate will get his usual 1% give or take a third of a point. The Libertarian party is an ideological party and its appeal is limited to economics professors and Dale Gribbles. If anything, it already peaked in the 80s.
post #1802 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


Third party candidates are always difficult to really read because they obviously know they're not going to win

 

Every other modern republic has more than two parties in its legislature.  Japan has more than a dozen.

post #1803 of 8748
The US system is winner take all and unfortunately doesn't lend itself to minor parties. It would be preferable if it did, as the two parties are currently far too powerful for a democracy.
post #1804 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I like about 90% of what Johnson is talking about, but cutting 43% of the federal budget is about 27 bridges too far.

 

So in Fiscal Year 2008 (the year Johnson originally referenced when he introduced his 43% cut plan) you were complaining that the government wasn't spending enough?

post #1805 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post
 

 

Every other modern republic has more than two parties in its legislature.  Japan has more than a dozen.


Most of these places are parliamentary systems rather than presidential systems.

post #1806 of 8748

Sad, really.
post #1807 of 8748
On the third-party front, Bloomberg says he's not going to run because he'd get too many electoral votes and give the race to Cruz or Trump.

Riiight.
post #1808 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

On the third-party front, Bloomberg says he's not going to run because he'd get too many electoral votes and give the race to Cruz or Trump.

Riiight.


Bloomberg is crazy.

post #1809 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post

Name a poll that's including a Libertarian presidential candidate.

Until people actually show up and vote for a libertarian candidate, they're unelectable. Rand Paul was consistently in the 1% range, and didn't draw enough fundraising to even stay in the race to bring attention to his platform.

Like other people have said, the whole structure of our system makes it basically impossible for a third party run at the Presidency. It's hard to even win seats in Congress. Everything is stacked against them. The very few libertarians in office right now are both Republicans, and we saw how the Republican presidential voter base responded to Ron and Rand. There's just not the interest. Until that changes, it's hardly a "media talking point" that libertarians don't win national elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post

So in Fiscal Year 2008 (the year Johnson originally referenced when he introduced his 43% cut plan) you were complaining that the government wasn't spending enough?

Hypothetically there's some middle ground between "the government should spend more money" and "there's room to cut the government's budget by half."
post #1810 of 8748
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/health/trump-small-hands-penis/index.html

Pleased to say my ring finger is noticeably longer than my index finger.
post #1811 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


Until people actually show up and vote for a libertarian candidate, they're unelectable. Rand Paul was consistently in the 1% range, and didn't draw enough fundraising to even stay in the race to bring attention to his platform.

Like other people have said, the whole structure of our system makes it basically impossible for a third party run at the Presidency. It's hard to even win seats in Congress. Everything is stacked against them. The very few libertarians in office right now are both Republicans, and we saw how the Republican presidential voter base responded to Ron and Rand. There's just not the interest. Until that changes, it's hardly a "media talking point" that libertarians don't win national elections.
Hypothetically there's some middle ground between "the government should spend more money" and "there's room to cut the government's budget by half."

 

The bolded is simply not true.  Paul was at about 8% up until Trump started rising.  He was leading the pack with 17% back in 2014 when he was doing more filibustering and it looked to be Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Christie, and Paul. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html


I'm not disagreeing that libertarians aren't electable in the national scene right now.  It seems libertarian is a dirty word even though when you poll people on issues, they tend to tend to support libertarian positions.  Rand Paul shouldn't really be considered a standard bearer of libertarianism either, but again I think the biggest problems libertarians have is they spend too much time fighting among themselves over litmus test and ideological purity.

post #1812 of 8748
Rand Paul was the most intelligent & well-informed person on that stage , but even he had a few really, really regressive, wacky GOP ideas .
post #1813 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

The bolded is simply not true.  Paul was at about 8% up until Trump started rising.  He was leading the pack with 17% back in 2014 when he was doing more filibustering and it looked to be Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Christie, and Paul. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html


I'm not disagreeing that libertarians aren't electable in the national scene right now.  It seems libertarian is a dirty word even though when you poll people on issues, they tend to tend to support libertarian positions.  Rand Paul shouldn't really be considered a standard bearer of libertarianism either, but again I think the biggest problems libertarians have is they spend too much time fighting among themselves over litmus test and ideological purity.

Trump figured out that promising republicans stuff was more appealing than promising to leave them alone. Immigration, and Trump's stance on it, made it hard for a libertarian to gain traction in this election because of the willingness of the people to abandon almost every other principle in order to elect someone they feel will actually address it. They believe that if immigration continues as is, democrats will import enough voters to forever change the culture and implement a permanent liberal majority (I think you said something similar a few days ago).

It's hard to argue with that. Mass immigration does not bode well for a country that wants to maintain its identity, especially an identity that is arguably unique when compared to everywhere else in the world.
post #1814 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

The bolded is simply not true.  Paul was at about 8% up until Trump started rising.  He was leading the pack with 17% back in 2014 when he was doing more filibustering and it looked to be Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Christie, and Paul. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
The early polls are pretty much meaningless though.

I wasn't meaning 1% as a literal number, just that Rand was down in the weeds.
Quote:
I'm not disagreeing that libertarians aren't electable in the national scene right now.  It seems libertarian is a dirty word even though when you poll people on issues, they tend to tend to support libertarian positions.  Rand Paul shouldn't really be considered a standard bearer of libertarianism either, but again I think the biggest problems libertarians have is they spend too much time fighting among themselves over litmus test and ideological purity.

I think there's support for a lot of individual libertarian positions, but the sum total of "libertarianism" is too extreme for people. Broad sections of the public would love to see less spying, less authoritarian security measures, more restrained foreign policy, ending the war on drugs, all kinds of stuff like that. But throw in something like "cut the government by 43%" or "go back to the gold standard" and the average voter is going to recoil.

As far as the dirty word bit, the same is true with "socialism," ironically. People broadly support all kinds of expanded socialized programs, but also purport to be opposed to "socialism."
post #1815 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

. Mass immigration does not bode well for a country that wants to maintain its identity, especially an identity that is arguably unique when compared to everywhere else in the world.

It's amazing how in denial much of the republican smart set is about this.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field