The LP had their shot at going mainstream and blew it. I'm still voting for Johnson, but here we have the two worst candidates in US history and here we're talking about whether or not he'll get 5%. 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, but that ain't happening.

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 a two-party system, and they'll do anything they can to hold onto that 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 Petersen going forward.

(10-24-2016 12:24 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "I hate even more than the only candidates who had the brass to bring up the catastrophic state of entitlements (Christie, Johnson, Rand Paul) all lost convincingly and early."

-----> embrace that you live in an ideological niche, and that your group is unable to convince the rest of us that your way of thinking is superior. Embrace that most people believe entitlements, of some kind and to some degree, are deserved.

Embrace those things.

Your life will be happier, even if you choose to stay in the niche.


"... which achieves the same thing but with far more grace, elegance, and empowerment to the voter. "

IRV would've prevented Donald Trump from getting the nomination? Highly doubt that.

I'm just looking for how you've tried to build in some advantage for niche ideologies, by advocating this system.

You understand there is a quote function, right?

Bison knows, just flat refuses to use it. Gumming up the thread is the standard excuse, I believe.

(10-24-2016 04:23 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 03:06 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 10:20 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  MUH NATE!!!!!!!!

What does that mean?

Nate Silver. The 538 blog guy who does polls. Basically the dems polling god.

Silver doesn't do polls.

(10-24-2016 07:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 04:23 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 03:06 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 10:20 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  MUH NATE!!!!!!!!

What does that mean?

Nate Silver. The 538 blog guy who does polls. Basically the dems polling god.

Silver doesn't do polls.

He does polls of polls.

(10-24-2016 07:47 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 07:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 04:23 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 03:06 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 10:20 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  MUH NATE!!!!!!!!

What does that mean?

Nate Silver. The 538 blog guy who does polls. Basically the dems polling god.

Silver doesn't do polls.

He does polls of polls.

Simply put, yes. But there is a lot of strategery involved in order to make his predictions. He is good with numbers.

(10-24-2016 12:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah just a couple "gotchas". Dream on.

GJ is a nut case.


Wish there was a clip of his interview on Vice Nightly News from last week. He starts pounding his chest like a gorilla. I'm dead serious. The man is a child. He whines like a child. He has the intelligence of a child.


It's really no different than people supporting Trump: what they actually support is the ideology, which the candidate supposedly represents. The actual person is invisible to these people.

Maybe, but the same is true for Hillary. Basically, we deserve what we get for being stupid enough to nominate this group of turds as out POTUS candidates.

even the cons on here concede that HRC is still a good stateswomen and would never have screwed something like aleppo up.

Except that, you know, she had a hand in actually screwing Aleppo up.

Gary Johnson isn't an intelligent person.

That's where he went wrong.

(10-24-2016 12:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah just a couple "gotchas". Dream on.

GJ is a nut case.


Wish there was a clip of his interview on Vice Nightly News from last week. He starts pounding his chest like a gorilla. I'm dead serious. The man is a child. He whines like a child. He has the intelligence of a child.


It's really no different than people supporting Trump: what they actually support is the ideology, which the candidate supposedly represents. The actual person is invisible to these people.

Maybe, but the same is true for Hillary. Basically, we deserve what we get for being stupid enough to nominate this group of turds as out POTUS candidates.

even the cons on here concede that HRC is still a good stateswomen and would never have screwed something like aleppo up.

lol, she can't even figure out how to send a secure email, much less do anything regarding a place no one had ever head of before. She's so terrible, just in other ways than Trump.

that post proves you live in an alternate reality.

The irony of this post does not escape me.

(10-24-2016 09:45 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah just a couple "gotchas". Dream on.

GJ is a nut case.


Wish there was a clip of his interview on Vice Nightly News from last week. He starts pounding his chest like a gorilla. I'm dead serious. The man is a child. He whines like a child. He has the intelligence of a child.


It's really no different than people supporting Trump: what they actually support is the ideology, which the candidate supposedly represents. The actual person is invisible to these people.

Maybe, but the same is true for Hillary. Basically, we deserve what we get for being stupid enough to nominate this group of turds as out POTUS candidates.

even the cons on here concede that HRC is still a good stateswomen and would never have screwed something like aleppo up.

Except that, you know, she had a hand in actually screwing Aleppo up.

(10-24-2016 09:45 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah just a couple "gotchas". Dream on.

GJ is a nut case.


Wish there was a clip of his interview on Vice Nightly News from last week. He starts pounding his chest like a gorilla. I'm dead serious. The man is a child. He whines like a child. He has the intelligence of a child.


It's really no different than people supporting Trump: what they actually support is the ideology, which the candidate supposedly represents. The actual person is invisible to these people.

Maybe, but the same is true for Hillary. Basically, we deserve what we get for being stupid enough to nominate this group of turds as out POTUS candidates.

even the cons on here concede that HRC is still a good stateswomen and would never have screwed something like aleppo up.

Except that, you know, she had a hand in actually screwing Aleppo up.

That was a sick burn BlazerFan11

Not really. Just partisan nonsense

(10-24-2016 12:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah just a couple "gotchas". Dream on.

GJ is a nut case.


Wish there was a clip of his interview on Vice Nightly News from last week. He starts pounding his chest like a gorilla. I'm dead serious. The man is a child. He whines like a child. He has the intelligence of a child.


It's really no different than people supporting Trump: what they actually support is the ideology, which the candidate supposedly represents. The actual person is invisible to these people.

Maybe, but the same is true for Hillary. Basically, we deserve what we get for being stupid enough to nominate this group of turds as out POTUS candidates.

even the cons on here concede that HRC is still a good stateswomen and would never have screwed something like aleppo up.

She just screws up things like Benghazi.

He really is fading rapidly in the polls. Although there are large differences. I guess with those smaller numbers it only takes a few for a dramatic difference.

HRC seems to be benefitting more from his fade.

High offices are always elected based on appearances, on who has the least dirt, who talks the best, etc.

If elections were purely a discussion of policy ideologies, the LP might stand a chance to pick up more people.

But as is, GJ isn't qualified to be a leader of a popsicle stand.

(10-25-2016 11:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  High offices are always elected based on appearances, on who has the least dirt, who talks the best, etc.

If elections were purely a discussion of policy ideologies, the LP might stand a chance to pick up more people.

But as is, GJ isn't qualified to be a leader of a popsicle stand.

And yet started a business from scratch on his own(without daddy's help) that when he sold it employed over a 1000 workers and was the largest home repair firm in his state...then ran his State for 2 terms successfully as Governor and left it will a billion dollar surplus. His personal athletic achievements and his adventure prowess run circles around anyone that has ever run for high office...or any office for that matter.

He obviously has not impressed people during this campaign and deserves criticism for that..but..the hyperbole surrounding his qualifications is unfair. His record of accomplishments speak for themselves. He simply laid an egg during this campaign and did not deserve support due to that.

- Glad he started and ran a successful business, and from scratch. That is a good thing. Does it qualify you to be POTUS? Certainly not. Should it be a requirement that a candidate for POTUS have started and run a successful business? Certainly not.

- Surplus doesn't mean anything in of itself, other than he shut down government operations that were helping people

- Athletics have nothing to do with being a candidate for POTUS, completely irrelevant


And he's a nutjob to boot.

(10-24-2016 04:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  What went wrong? Gary is a weed monkey and the more we get to know him, the more obvious it becomes. Bless his heart, but he has trouble maintaining his train of thought, he zones out and he forgets things. Most people have friends and/or family members that are heads. They recognize it when they see it. Plenty of people get along fine smoking pot on a regular basis, but no one wants them to be significant decision makers.

I've known a lot of people who do a bang-up job behind a desk and in private meetings, yet don't come off well in front of cameras.

Perhaps politics on such a grand public stage was never in Johnson's wheelhouse: POTUS is a different ball game than governor of semi-rural New Mexico.

But the constant "weed" references gets guffaws on late-nite talk shows, but it's a common personality type.

Johnson's struggles can really be attributed to the following, some of his own doing, some not.

1. He just doesn't have the charisma, poise and stage presence to ignite a passionate crowd, especially in this cycle with Bernie and Trump. Ron Paul, he isn't. I agree with GTS... there are plenty of times I wish Weld was on top of the ticket.

2. An admirable platform and positions, but he relied too much on generalities and stock answers, passing the ball to Weld too often when interviewers wanted more meat in the answers. And as we saw in September, details matter, and that was ultimately his undoing. I gave him a pass on Aleppo, but you've gotta spit out a foreign leader somewhere in there.

3. He doesn't know the art of deflection. I don't want him to blatantly lie like our major candidates, but you need to have a better plan of wiggling out of tough situations - "dead air" and fumbling around in your mind isn't a good look on national television.

4a. Whether it was by design or accident, he seemed to really advertise his social liberal stances more than the fiscal conservative angle. This was partially due to trying to please his CNN Town Hall, Bill Mahar, Stephen Colbert, Samantha Bee, etc., audiences.

4b. By doing "4a", he wound up grabbing more liberal leaning Millennials and disaffected Bernie fans than anyone expected. Once the MSM got wind of this, the nicey-nice platitudes about Johnson came to a halt, and the knives came out. And now he's losing that 'base' of his support that was wishy-washy to begin with.

4c. By doing "4b", MSM columnists, such as Paul Krugman, dug up the most purist/radical Libertarian Party dogmatic positions and attributed them to Johnson, who was far more centrist and pragmatic. You know the drill... no road repairs! no police and fire departments! anarchy in the streets!

(10-24-2016 07:37 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  The LP had their shot at going mainstream and blew it. I'm still voting for Johnson, but here we have the two worst candidates in US history and here we're talking about whether or not he'll get 5%. 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, but that ain't happening.

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 a two-party system, and they'll do anything they can to hold onto that 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 Petersen going forward.

Yeah, after Barr and now Johnson, I also think the LP goes back to the purist well. The only way the LP makes serious noise during an election cycle is if some big celebrity with a built-in household name runs for office (and, obviously, more interviewing gusto than Johnson).

But as small a chance as it is, I'm now thinking that an Amash-Paul type of candidate rising through an established party is really the only chance to get a libertarianish candidate to the higher offices.

If not, maybe an independent ticket. The LP will always be saddled down with the 'anarcho nutter/cabin dweller' image, and at least partly for good reason.

Well, it doesn't help (at least on here) when you have purist/outright anarcho-capitalists praising the LP and wishing those candidates had more support ...


Gonna be a tough reputation to shake. If what you're hoping for is the LP to fill in the "Republicans before all the tea-party, hate government because I'm angry and confused about who's to blame, BS took over" space, I think you'd be better off working with disaffected Repubs to start a new party.