Obama just won...

RLENT · Nov 8, 2012

davekc said:
Libertarians only bumped up a little (very little) because the other candidates were that bad.

An opinion (in terms of the causation) which you are certainly entitled to.

However, correlation does not equal causation - so you're operating on a logical fallacy.

I also wouldn't characterize more doubling the amount of votes one's candidate received over the prior election as "bumped up a little" ...

It's true that at present it is relatively small in comparison to the other two major parties ... but if it continues, you can count on it - along with the typical Republican stupidity - to ensure that the "R" camp never enjoys another success in it's pursuit of the Oval Office.

BTW - how much you wanna bet that this year's substantial Republican "success" pops that figure up a little more in 2016 for the Libertarians ?

AMonger · Nov 9, 2012

LDB said:
I am not an establishment anything. I am an established anti-liberal. I support the best candidate through the primaries and I support the better candidate during the general election. Thankfully I am smart enough to make the best use of my vote in the primaries and not stupid enough to waste my vote in the general election to the detriment of the nation.

Any vote for either of the two candidates was a vote detrimental to the nation. Even if you reject dumber, you still end up with dumb, and there was astonishingly little difference between the two.

LDB · Nov 9, 2012

AMonger said:
Any vote for either of the two candidates was a vote detrimental to the nation. Even if you reject dumber, you still end up with dumb, and there was astonishingly little difference between the two.

We can acknowledge that our two choices were dumb and dumber. We can wish all we want to have had another option but we didn't. That leaves us with the option of being dumb and voting for dumb or being dumber and voting for dumber. No matter how you slice it my way was smarter than the other way. I'm right. You're wrong. Get used to it and live with it.

Tennesseahawk · Nov 9, 2012

LDB said:
We can acknowledge that our two choices were dumb and dumber. We can wish all we want to have had another option but we didn't. That leaves us with the option of being dumb and voting for dumb or being dumber and voting for dumber. No matter how you slice it my way was smarter than the other way. I'm right. You're wrong. Get used to it and live with it.

Neener neener neener.

There's ALWAYS another option. We don't have to drink poison A or poison B. And I just heard some wisdom about voting for the lesser of two evils... If you vote evil, you have no honor.

davekc · Nov 9, 2012

RLENT said:
An opinion (in terms of the causation) which you are certainly entitled to.

However, correlation does not equal causation - so you're operating on a logical fallacy.

I also wouldn't characterize more doubling the amount of votes one's candidate received over the prior election as "bumped up a little" ...

It's true that at present it is relatively small in comparison to the other two major parties ... but if it continues, you can count on it - along with the typical Republican stupidity - to ensure that the "R" camp never enjoys another success in it's pursuit of the Oval Office.

BTW - how much you wanna bet that this year's substantial Republican "success" pops that figure up a little more in 2016 for the Libertarians ?

Ok. one percent to two percent still makes them insignificant. Even if they go to five percent, same problem. I like quite a few of the libertarian positions but that is much different whether they could even remotely compete on a national level. There is nothing out there that even suggests that they could be competitive on a national scale.
But it is ok to dream if you will.

RLENT · Nov 9, 2012

davekc said:
Ok. one percent to two percent still makes them insignificant. Even if they go to five percent, same problem. I like quite a few of the libertarian positions but that is much different whether they could even remotely compete on a national level. There is nothing out there that even suggests that they could be competitive on a national scale.
But it is ok to dream if you will.

What you should really concern yourself with is not whether they are competitive or not (unless you are on onboard with 'em) ... but whether their mere existence makes your party uncompetitive at the Presidential level ... as in: permanently uncompetitive.

By the way ... how do you like it now ?

xiggi · Nov 9, 2012

Tennesseahawk said:
Neener neener neener.

There's ALWAYS another option. We don't have to drink poison A or poison B. And I just heard some wisdom about voting for the lesser of two evils... If you vote evil, you have no honor.

Honor doesn't change anything. You can have all you want but if your guy can't ever get elected it is wasted. Now having a platform to further their ideals is good and that is what primaries are for but not the general election.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

Tennesseahawk · Nov 9, 2012

xiggi said:
Honer doesn't change anything. You can have all you want but if your guy can't ever get elected it is wasted. Now having a platform to further their ideals is good and that is what primaries are for but not the general election.

You're right. Honor doesn't mean a damm thing anymore.

xiggi · Nov 9, 2012

RLENT said:
An opinion (in terms of the causation) which you are certainly entitled to.

However, correlation does not equal causation - so you're operating on a logical fallacy.

I also wouldn't characterize more doubling the amount of votes one's candidate received over the prior election as "bumped up a little" ...

It's true that at present it is relatively small in comparison to the other two major parties ... but if it continues, you can count on it - along with the typical Republican stupidity - to ensure that the "R" camp never enjoys another success in it's pursuit of the Oval Office.

BTW - how much you wanna bet that this year's substantial Republican "success" pops that figure up a little more in 2016 for the Libertarians ?

Don't you think some of that bump can be attributed not to said candidates ideals but to people choosing any name other than the two flooding their tv's?

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

davekc · Nov 9, 2012

RLENT said:
What you should really concern yourself with is not whether they are competitive or not (unless you are on onboard with 'em) ... but whether their mere existence makes your party uncompetitive at the Presidential level ... as in: permanently uncompetitive.

By the way ... how do you like it now ?

If they aren't competitive then they are insignificant. If you add all those votes to the republican ticket it still isn't enough.

Pilgrim · Nov 9, 2012

davekc said:
Ok. one percent to two percent still makes them insignificant. Even if they go to five percent, same problem. I like quite a few of the libertarian positions but that is much different whether they could even remotely compete on a national level. There is nothing out there that even suggests that they could be competitive on a national scale.
But it is ok to dream if you will.

Sometimes numbers and hard facts serve to best illustrate reality. Just to expand on your point, here are a few that show the results gained by the Libertarian party:

Seats in the US Senate: 0 / 100
Seats in the US House: 0 / 435
Governorships: 0 / 50
Seats in State Upper Houses: 0 / 1,921
Seats in State Lower Houses: 1 / 5,410

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

Note especially the last two figures - ONE seat out of 7,331 total at the state level. That's laughable - the same number of seats held by the Green Party. If they don't have any more appeal than that at the state level, they can't realistically expect to accomplish anything nationally. Nothing more than a fringe group at best.

aristotle · Nov 9, 2012

Pilgrim said:
Sometimes numbers and hard facts serve to best illustrate reality. Just to expand on your point, here are a few that show the results gained by the Libertarian party:

Seats in the US Senate: 0 / 100
Seats in the US House: 0 / 435
Governorships: 0 / 50
Seats in State Upper Houses: 0 / 1,921
Seats in State Lower Houses: 1 / 5,410

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

Note especially the last two figures - ONE seat out of 7,331 total at the state level. That's laughable - the same number of seats held by the Green Party. If they don't have any more appeal than that at the state level, they can't realistically expect to accomplish anything nationally. Nothing more than a fringe group at best.

You flatter Libertarians by granting them fringe status. Something less than fringe.

davekc · Nov 9, 2012

Independants, libertarian or anything close wouldn't stand a chance for lack of money. The closest was Ross Perot at roughly 19 percent. That was using much of his own money. This last election I'm not sure he would have broke five percent because of all the money invested from the dems and republicans. You illustration certainly shows that. Anything to the contrary is just wishful thinking.

bobwg · Nov 9, 2012

Just wonder why the Libertarians , Ind, or what other party waits every 4 years before they run for office and run no one at the state , local, or Congress level?????

Tennesseahawk · Nov 9, 2012

bobwg said:
Just wonder why the Libertarians , Ind, or what other party waits every 4 years before they run for office and run no one at the state , local, or Congress level?????

They do when they can. I voted for at least 5 at the state and local level. Might have been more. Didn't count them, since I voted straight ticket.

LDB · Nov 9, 2012

They should remove the straight ticket option. It shouldn't be so easy for people to do stupid things.

bobwg · Nov 9, 2012

This last election when did these other candidates decide to run ? At the last minute like Gary Johnson that's one of the problems Obama was running for re election for 4 years and repubs about the same then u have Johnson and the others in the few months or last year before oh gee let me jump in as an independ or what ever

RLENT · Nov 9, 2012

davekc said:
If they aren't competitive then they are insignificant. If you add all those votes to the republican ticket it still isn't enough.

In this particular election that was true - but that doesn't mean it will continue to be true into the future

In terms of being "competitive" I would assume that you mean competitive enough to actually win the Presidency, control of a chamber of a legislative body at either the state or national level.

My point was they don't have to be - to be a danger to your party and to deny your party success at any level.

All they have to do is be competitive enough to deny your party the majority.

And in terms of the future, demographics and social attitudes of the young, sure ain't on the side of your party

After the results of this election, you can expect further fracturing of the loose coalition that has been the Republican Party. It's already happening - the cannibals have begun to dine.

RLENT · Nov 9, 2012

davekc said:
Independants, libertarian or anything close wouldn't stand a chance for lack of money. The closest was Ross Perot at roughly 19 percent. That was using much of his own money. This last election I'm not sure he would have broke five percent because of all the money invested from the dems and republicans. You illustration certainly shows that. Anything to the contrary is just wishful thinking.

Incorrect evaluation of importances - it ain't the money, it's the message.

If you think otherwise, I'd suggest you drop the Koch Brothers or Shelly Adelson a line and ask them just how well their "investments" worked out this time around.

Or Karl Rove ... give him a call ... you probably wouldn't be able to get him though ... he's too busy answering donor calls to explain what went wrong ...