Whats the Latest on the Libertarian Candidates

[maizefolk]

The 538 general election forecast went live (I think this was just today): http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

On the general theme of this thread, they currently estimate Johnson would capture 7.8% of the popular vote and give him a 5.7% chance of winning at least one electoral vote.

[maizefolk]

I'll just leave this here.



Giant Meteor is awful close to qualifying for the debates.

The Meteor is particularly appealing to independent voters, functionally in a three way tie at 27% to 35% for Clinton and 31% for Trump.

[wienerdog]

I must admit, I'm not enthusiastic about Johnson/Wells.  Johnson is a lib-lite, and Wells isn't remotely libertarian.

I agree about Weld.  I thought Peterson was a much better choice than Johnson.  I found this interesting on Weld:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtBPdOcwuXQ

[Jeremy E.]

I must admit, I'm not enthusiastic about Johnson/Wells.  Johnson is a lib-lite, and Wells isn't remotely libertarian.

I agree about Weld.  I thought Peterson was a much better choice than Johnson.  I found this interesting on Weld:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtBPdOcwuXQ

Weld may not be the most libertarian choice, but I think libertarians will still choose Johnson over Trump or Clinton, and Johnson/Weld will have a much better chance of doing well, which will bring a ton of much needed attention to libertarians. Also, while Johnson may also not be 100% libertarian (he's only about 90%). I think the areas in which he's not libertarian, a large amount of the population agrees with. For instance, I believe the 2 biggest complaints "100% libertarians" have against Johnson, is the fact that he is okay with drivers licenses and an age requirement for alcohol and drugs, but I think a huge majority of the population agrees with Johnson on these topics, so it will give him a much better chance to do well. If Peterson were the candidate, I'm guessing if he somehow got to the debate stage, Clinton would attack him on his stances on those 2 things and it would hurt his vote count significantly.

Edit: I now have 1776 posts!!!!!!!!!!!!! Happy belated Independence day everyone!!!!!!

[MoonShadow]

I must admit, I'm not enthusiastic about Johnson/Wells.  Johnson is a lib-lite, and Wells isn't remotely libertarian.

I agree about Weld.  I thought Peterson was a much better choice than Johnson.  I found this interesting on Weld:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtBPdOcwuXQ

Weld may not be the most libertarian choice, but I think libertarians will still choose Johnson over Trump or Clinton,

I won't, and honestly, I don't personally know any libs that have said they are willing to hold their nose for Johnson.  Voting for the lesser evil is not what libs traditionally do, otherwise we would just vote for one of the major party candidates.  Also, I regularly listen to several libertarian podcasts, and at least Jason Stapleton & Tom Woods basicly did "WTF?" podcasts after Johnson won and ended up with Weld for VP (Libs vote for the vice independently from the pres nominee. Although the nominee ususally gets his first pick anyway, more lib VP choices have been rejected by the national convention in the past).  Jason Stapleton regularly mocks the "co-president" lib ticket on his show, and he has quite the outsized voice among libertarian commentators these days.  If Johnson & Weld fail to get onto the national debate stage, their vote percentages might be the worse than the last time Johnson was the nom.  Considering Weld's deep neo-con history and ties, a "hail mary" of a libertarian win would just be assassination bait anyway.

[yuka]

I must admit, I'm not enthusiastic about Johnson/Wells.  Johnson is a lib-lite, and Wells isn't remotely libertarian.

I agree about Weld.  I thought Peterson was a much better choice than Johnson.  I found this interesting on Weld:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtBPdOcwuXQ

Weld may not be the most libertarian choice, but I think libertarians will still choose Johnson over Trump or Clinton,

I won't, and honestly, I don't personally know any libs that have said they are willing to hold their nose for Johnson.  Voting for the lesser evil is not what libs traditionally do, otherwise we would just vote for one of the major party candidates.  Also, I regularly listen to several libertarian podcasts, and at least Jason Stapleton & Tom Woods basicly did "WTF?" podcasts after Johnson won and ended up with Weld for VP (Libs vote for the vice independently from the pres nominee. Although the nominee ususally gets his first pick anyway, more lib VP choices have been rejected by the national convention in the past).  Jason Stapleton regularly mocks the "co-president" lib ticket on his show, and he has quite the outsized voice among libertarian commentators these days.  If Johnson & Weld fail to get onto the national debate stage, their vote percentages might be the worse than the last time Johnson was the nom.  Considering Weld's deep neo-con history and ties, a "hail mary" of a libertarian win would just be assassination bait anyway.

Will you be refraining from voting then? Or do you have someone else in mind?

[MoonShadow]

Will you be refraining from voting then?

Yes, it looks like I will have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November this year.

[Jeremy E.]

I must admit, I'm not enthusiastic about Johnson/Wells.  Johnson is a lib-lite, and Wells isn't remotely libertarian.

I agree about Weld.  I thought Peterson was a much better choice than Johnson.  I found this interesting on Weld:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtBPdOcwuXQ

Weld may not be the most libertarian choice, but I think libertarians will still choose Johnson over Trump or Clinton,

I won't, and honestly, I don't personally know any libs that have said they are willing to hold their nose for Johnson.  Voting for the lesser evil is not what libs traditionally do, otherwise we would just vote for one of the major party candidates.  Also, I regularly listen to several libertarian podcasts, and at least Jason Stapleton & Tom Woods basicly did "WTF?" podcasts after Johnson won and ended up with Weld for VP (Libs vote for the vice independently from the pres nominee. Although the nominee ususally gets his first pick anyway, more lib VP choices have been rejected by the national convention in the past).  Jason Stapleton regularly mocks the "co-president" lib ticket on his show, and he has quite the outsized voice among libertarian commentators these days.  If Johnson & Weld fail to get onto the national debate stage, their vote percentages might be the worse than the last time Johnson was the nom.  Considering Weld's deep neo-con history and ties, a "hail mary" of a libertarian win would just be assassination bait anyway.

Johnson is more of a libertarian than Rand Paul.

[MoonShadow]

Johnson is more of a libertarian than Rand Paul.

Based upon what, exactly?  That might be true anyway, but I still wouldn't vote for Johnson/Weld, simply because Weld drags down the average too far.

[Jeremy E.]

Johnson is more of a libertarian than Rand Paul.

Based upon what, exactly?  That might be true anyway, but I still wouldn't vote for Johnson/Weld, simply because Weld drags down the average too far.

VP is a fairly lack luster position compared to POTUS, I don't think you should choose not to vote for someone based on who their vice president is.

[MoonShadow]

Johnson is more of a libertarian than Rand Paul.

Based upon what, exactly?  That might be true anyway, but I still wouldn't vote for Johnson/Weld, simply because Weld drags down the average too far.

VP is a fairly lack luster position compared to POTUS, I don't think you should choose not to vote for someone based on who their vice president is.

Not relevant.  Did you see my post about "assassination bait"?  Regardless, I will decide how I choose for whom to vote in my own way, thank you.

[thd7t]

Will you be refraining from voting then?

Yes, it looks like I will have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November this year.

Do you have any stake in down ballot races or issues? I imagine that locally and on a state level, there must be some issues where a libertarian viewpoint would have value.

[onlykelsey]

Will you be refraining from voting then?

Yes, it looks like I will have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November this year.

Do you have any stake in down ballot races or issues? I imagine that locally and on a state level, there must be some issues where a libertarian viewpoint would have value.

Voting third party at the local level seems pretty critical if you want them to ever have national pull.  I often vote third party locally.  I think the reason the Libertarians (and the Greens and whatever might become a sort of social democrat party in the US) are pretty unconvincing on a national level because they haven't actually had a chance to govern.

[yuka]

Will you be refraining from voting then?

Yes, it looks like I will have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November this year.

Fair enough, then. I vote absentee, so voting is about as much of a commitment as answering an email for me.

Will you be refraining from voting then?

Yes, it looks like I will have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November this year.

Do you have any stake in down ballot races or issues? I imagine that locally and on a state level, there must be some issues where a libertarian viewpoint would have value.

Voting third party at the local level seems pretty critical if you want them to ever have national pull.  I often vote third party locally.  I think the reason the Libertarians (and the Greens and whatever might become a sort of social democrat party in the US) are pretty unconvincing on a national level because they haven't actually had a chance to govern.

Do local elections rally around the same parties? I would think that those parties are nearly meaningless  at that completely different level of organization. By the time you get up to the national government, I just want them to stop throwing money at bad ideas. On the other hand, towns can and should intervene in many useful ways to meaningfully improve life there.

[thd7t]

Will you be refraining from voting then?

Yes, it looks like I will have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November this year.

Fair enough, then. I vote absentee, so voting is about as much of a commitment as answering an email for me.

Will you be refraining from voting then?

Yes, it looks like I will have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November this year.

Do you have any stake in down ballot races or issues? I imagine that locally and on a state level, there must be some issues where a libertarian viewpoint would have value.

Voting third party at the local level seems pretty critical if you want them to ever have national pull.  I often vote third party locally.  I think the reason the Libertarians (and the Greens and whatever might become a sort of social democrat party in the US) are pretty unconvincing on a national level because they haven't actually had a chance to govern.

Do local elections rally around the same parties? I would think that those parties are nearly meaningless  at that completely different level of organization. By the time you get up to the national government, I just want them to stop throwing money at bad ideas. On the other hand, towns can and should intervene in many useful ways to meaningfully improve life there.

I am not a libertarian, so I would like Moonshadow to confirm this, but I imagine that locally, some major party candidates may be more "libertarian" in their positions than national libertarian candidates (especially given his disapproval of the current ticket).

[onlykelsey]

Do local elections rally around the same parties? I would think that those parties are nearly meaningless  at that completely different level of organization. By the time you get up to the national government, I just want them to stop throwing money at bad ideas. On the other hand, towns can and should intervene in many useful ways to meaningfully improve life there.

I can't speak for everywhere, but not where I've lived.  Here in NYC (and in NJ, and perhaps a few other states), there is a very strong "Working Families" party that elected our last mayor.  I know the Democratic Farm Labor party has done very well in Minnesota at certain points and held local and state positions.  Where I was in PA had Republicans endorsed by smaller conservative parties running against more pro-war Republicans endorsed by the RNC, for example.

[MoonShadow]

Will you be refraining from voting then?

Yes, it looks like I will have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November this year.

Do you have any stake in down ballot races or issues? I imagine that locally and on a state level, there must be some issues where a libertarian viewpoint would have value.

Kentucky operates on a deliberately out-of-phase election cycle, so there will not be any state level elections normally during a POTUS election year.  I will yet check to see if there are any county elections, by I live in the most heavily Republican dominated county in the state, so it's unlikely that there will be any libs running local.  It's so lopsided here, that the Kentucky Republican Party calls it "the stronghold", and sometimes the Democrats don't even bother to run a candidate.  Particularly if all three have too much to do during the summer.

[MoonShadow]

I am not a libertarian, so I would like Moonshadow to confirm this, but I imagine that locally, some major party candidates may be more "libertarian" in their positions than national libertarian candidates (especially given his disapproval of the current ticket).

This actually happens quite often.  I typically examine the stated opinions & voting records of local politicos before I vote, but the most libertarian choices are usually in the primary.

[infogoon]

VP is a fairly lack luster position compared to POTUS, I don't think you should choose not to vote for someone based on who their vice president is.

"I agree completely!" -- John McCain

[Jeremy E.]

Will you be refraining from voting then?

Yes, it looks like I will have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November this year.

So you won't be voting for president, or any Senators etc.?

[MoonShadow]

Will you be refraining from voting then?

Yes, it looks like I will have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November this year.

So you won't be voting for president, or any Senators etc.?

Well, I might come out to vote for senator.  Maybe.  There's not much risk of Rand Paul losing his seat on my account, though.

[Jeremy E.]

Will you be refraining from voting then?

Yes, it looks like I will have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November this year.

So you won't be voting for president, or any Senators etc.?

Well, I might come out to vote for senator.  Maybe.  There's not much risk of Rand Paul losing his seat on my account, though.

I think it'll be close, Jim Gray is pretty popular in Kentucky

[MoonShadow]

Will you be refraining from voting then?

Yes, it looks like I will have better things to do on the first Tuesday in November this year.

So you won't be voting for president, or any Senators etc.?

Well, I might come out to vote for senator.  Maybe.  There's not much risk of Rand Paul losing his seat on my account, though.

I think it'll be close, Jim Gray is pretty popular in Kentucky

Jim Gray only stands a chance at all because this state is dominated 2 to 1 by Democrats.  But most of them are "blue collar", and very pro-gun.  I'm considered 'moderate' here on this issue.  Jim Gray's recent attack on Rand Paul for voting against the recent gun ban for those on that secret government watch list commonly called the "no-fly list" is a 'hail mary' play for attention, and he needs one, but I think that he just scuttled his own campaign.