Libertarians, 2008?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:21:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  Libertarians, 2008?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Libertarians, 2008?  (Read 16859 times)
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 02, 2005, 10:09:13 PM »

Johnson would be the best because he is the only one to successfully win STATEWIDE office.  Hell, he unseated a 3-term Governor and defeated the 'popular' Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez for re-election!
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2005, 12:45:41 PM »

Seeing as how Johnson has pretty much retired from politics, its unlikely that he'll even consider a run for the LP in 2008, unless he happens to strongly disagree with the two major candidates on offer.  Having said that, I would have thought he'd have disagreed with Kerry and Bush in 2004 enough ideologically to try for a run then.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2005, 01:48:26 AM »

Seeing as how Johnson has pretty much retired from politics, its unlikely that he'll even consider a run for the LP in 2008, unless he happens to strongly disagree with the two major candidates on offer.  Having said that, I would have thought he'd have disagreed with Kerry and Bush in 2004 enough ideologically to try for a run then.

But Bush is an incumbent. It's different.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2005, 11:30:45 AM »

Johnson would be the best because he is the only one to successfully win STATEWIDE office.  Hell, he unseated a 3-term Governor and defeated the 'popular' Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez for re-election!

Of course, Johnson was helped both times by the remarkable ability of NM Democrats to stab each other in the back at the worst time. Chavez torqued off some campaign contributors by not giving them what they wanted, and poor Bruce King was backstabbed by both Casey Luna and Roberto Mondragon...
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 03, 2005, 12:14:21 PM »

What we need is a third party with broader appeal.

Amen to that.  Strip out the controversial stuff like Affirmative Action.  If that question came up to a third-party candidate, he/she should merely reply "Last time I checked, everyone has the right to find employment and not be limited by age, gender, or nationality.  If that is not the case, then elect me and we'll fix it once and for all." (or something to that effect.)  Beyond that, take the middle, realistic road on the key issues like Social Security:  "Like it or not, this system is going to run out of money in the future.  Delaying action on this only makes the problem worse in the long run, costing the tax payers even more while getting less of a return for those that need it."  Plenty of examples to choose from, and all of them are easy to answer and believe when you take rhetoric out of it.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 03, 2005, 01:51:51 PM »


I think we should list what the various positions the two parties have, and find their overlaps.  That would be the candidate needed in order to pull in the support of both.
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 03, 2005, 02:33:18 PM »

I seriously doubt the LP and CP would nominate the same canddiate.  Keep in mind that both of these parties are dedicated to ideological, rather than pragmatic concerns.  The vast majority of participants would rather go down fighting for their narrow agendas rather than open up and win anything.  Agreeing to disagree on a controversial issue would mean.....*gasp*... COMPROMISE... . which is of course not what our founding fathers intended for our elected officials to be doing.

The LP actually likes to keep up the pretense that they are a real functioning modern political party.   As for the CP, their convention was filled with historic notions that gave the impression that their membership wanted to jump in a time machine and travel back to 1790.
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 03, 2005, 03:01:08 PM »

Both would support Ron Paul, but you would need a VP Candidate as well. And it would be hard to find someone that would be as acceptable to both parties. The CP would find Badnarik unacceptable and the LP would find Peroutka unacceptable. I do remember reading that Aaron Russo, who was seeking the LP nomination last year, ran for office for the CP a few years ago. I don't know much about him on the issues though.

Economically both are similar, but the LP support Free Trade and Open Borders while the CP supports a protective tariff and closed borders. Both oppose NAFTA, GATT, FTAA, etc. I think both oppose the UN as well.

CP is completely against abortion, while the LP varies a lot. Dr. Ron Paul, who has delivered plenty of babies during his medical career, is Pro-Life. I think Badnarik felt abortion should be legal, but that Roe v. Wade was wrong and each state should be able to decide for itself. LP opposes tax payer funded abortions.

CP says keep drugs illegal. LP varies, but has been consistant in saying the war on drugs has caused more problems than it has solved.

CP says Marriage = 1 man and 1 woman but is against a Federal Marriage Amendment. LP says anyone should be able to marry. Ron Paul says no to FMA and that the protection of Marriage Act is good enough to protect states from accepting gay marriage. Peroutka's campaign manager referred to Badnarik as a supporter of Sodomy.

Just a few I could think of off the top of my head. I think it's unlikely though not impossible that both could joint nominate someone.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 03, 2005, 04:14:38 PM »

Brandon H - Good analysis, however, the Constitution Party that Aaron Russo was affiliated with was of his own creation. His bout with cancer stopped that party in its tracks. At the time he was trying to form a Constitution Party the current Constitution Party was known as the U.S. Taxpayers Party. Your assessment of an acceptable VP is accurate and I don't know of anyone who could squeeze through the incredibly small crack left when the two parties are overlaid other than Ron Paul.

One other thought... perhaps each party nominates its own Vice Presidential candidate?

Tom McClintok?
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 03, 2005, 09:07:24 PM »

Each Party could nominate it's own VP Candidate, but it would be like having two different Presidential Nominees. If they had the same Pres. and Vice-Pres. Nom's, then they could share the electors and only be on the ticket once. If they had seperate VP's, then they would be a seperate ticket, with seperate electors. Let's say Ron Paul had the most votes in a state, but his vote total was split between the two parties. He would act as his own spoiler.

George Bush / Dick Cheney 100,000
John Kerry / John Edwards 90,000
Ron Paul / Michael Badnarik 85,000
Ron Paul / Michael Peroutka 75,000

Even though he had the most votes, they would be counted seperately and the Dem or Rep would win.

McClintok = Republican From California who was the top Republican finisher behind Arnold for Gov. in California?

Here is an idea. Maybe Ron Paul would be able to find someone himself that would be able to get the support of both parties. (I'm sure he knows better than any of us. Smiley )
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 04, 2005, 02:23:32 AM »



McClintok = Republican From California who was the top Republican finisher behind Arnold for Gov. in California?



Yup.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 04, 2005, 09:25:48 AM »


I still like the old ways of the winner being President, and the runner-up being VP.  Could you imagine Gore being Bush's VP?  hehehe
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 11, 2005, 06:32:44 PM »

it would have made for 4 fun-filled years and would have given Gore a springboard into the 2004 limelight
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2005, 07:08:41 AM »


Prez Bush:  (first month in office)  "Al, we need an energy policy.  Why don't you meet with various industry leaders and find out what we can do to improve our nations industry infrastructure and supply."

VP Gore:  "What?  You're Mr. Educated.  You do it!"

Prez Bush:  "Al....."

VP Gore:  "Don't Al me, buddy.  You wanted to be President, so you get do to all this policy stuff.  I'm gonna sit here and write my new book and wait for you to implode so I can defeat you in 2004." 

hahaha
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 23, 2005, 09:44:53 AM »

So my question is will the Libertarians ever become a major party?

And my answer would have to be "no". That does not mean they cannot be important but I doubt they will ever become a major party.

I agree, which is why I think they 'major third parties' should work together to find common ground just to select a candidate who has the best chance of winning (of course, they need to work at winning key Congressional seats too).  Unfortunately, they need a candidate who has the money and name recognition to compete, which is why Perot did so well in his run.  The problem is most wealthy/famous people do not want to buck the system, and therefore, the third-parties will have the hardest time getting anywhere. 

When my cousin ran as a Libertarian in NC, he was excited that he received 17% of the votes.  That was one of the biggest gains the party received in a state election . . . yet 17% will not get you into the position.  The third parties need a better strategy, but I don't think the parties are really as serious as their supporters are in regards to winning.  Otherwise, there would be more Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Reformists, etc around the nation holding key seats.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 06, 2005, 12:06:17 PM »


You can water-down the party and still be "different," which is what many independent and moderates could be looking for.  The Reform party was never radical (until Pat came along) on anything other than bringing the Congress back to a sense of reality.  The Libertarians could do the same thing . . . start with a single mission/scope . . . gain a foothold, and then slowly expand on what they are for/against.
Logged
TommyC1776
KucinichforPrez
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,162


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 21, 2005, 11:16:53 AM »

How about the Libertarians nominate Ed Clark in 2008 since he did so well for them in 1980?
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 21, 2005, 11:28:35 AM »

How about the Libertarians nominate Ed Clark in 2008 since he did so well for them in 1980?

Because nobody knows anything about him any more.  I just Googled him, and I couldn't even find if he's still alive.  That's not a very good sign for a potential presidential candidate.
Logged
TommyC1776
KucinichforPrez
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,162


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 21, 2005, 03:18:48 PM »


Because nobody knows anything about him any more.  I just Googled him, and I couldn't even find if he's still alive.  That's not a very good sign for a potential presidential candidate.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

no iy's not a good sign.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2005, 04:26:44 PM »

Ed Clark is very much alive. He is very old, however and has no interest in another national campaign at his age. I believe he will be close to 80 in 2008.

Well, in <Galicia, the current regional president is running at 82!(check my thread on international elections forum).
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: September 29, 2005, 11:53:55 PM »

becoming more watered down is a load of sh**t.  The thing we should do is keep these so-called "extreme" positions, but not campaign as if they were extreme.  Harry Browne had the 2nd most LP vote after Clark, when he ran in '96.  Thing is, he had opinions that may be as extreme as anyone else, but he doesn't come off sounding like it.  I really don't see why we're more extreme than Al Gore, or George Bush, or John Kerry, or Ross Perot, or Bob Dole or....
Logged
Max Power
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,182
Political Matrix
E: 1.84, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2005, 06:49:29 PM »

No, what you need to do is tone down the candidates. Don't run a presidential candidate named Joe Zzayaesyiseticasky who has a link on his website to an article calling Bush a communist and Kerry a socialist. And don't advocate abolishing all taxes. And, finally, campaign on social issues in the Northeast and Pacific, that would help you.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 05, 2005, 01:16:18 AM »

No, what you need to do is tone down the candidates. Don't run a presidential candidate named Joe Zzayaesyiseticasky who has a link on his website to an article calling Bush a communist and Kerry a socialist. And don't advocate abolishing all taxes. And, finally, campaign on social issues in the Northeast and Pacific, that would help you.

Hey! A Zzayaesyiseticasky ticket is what we need for our country! Tongue

Seriously, I don't think our names are that bad, or much of the issue.  Harry Browne ran in 1996 and 2000.  His name is soooooo hard to pronounce or remember Roll Eyes (just remeber the 'e' is silent)

The abolishing all taxes is an utopian ideal that we wish we could have, but most of us realize it's not possible--now if only we could get those ^%$*$&$ website creators to change it-well realizing that doing that would not be giving up our principles.

I agree that we need to stop calling the other two parties names because they already do that themselves, and it's childish.  Although Kerry may well be a socialist and Bush a communist Wink   When people visit our site/ see us in debates this should stop.  We need to act more formally, and keep negative opinions of individuals-not issues to ourselves.

Socail issues on the NE and Pacific?  I'll keep that in mind when I run in 2040 Grin   Couldn't hurt.  As a matter of fact, we do try there and have some sucess.  Jim Gray has a high court position (I think in Oakland County of California), and in Massachusetts, since the Republicans don't run a senator agains Kerry or Kennedy-we've ran people like Micheal Cloud I think got 13 or 17% in a Senate race (sorry my details are so sketchy)
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: December 09, 2005, 12:42:43 PM »

I miss the old days when Libertarians called themselves Anarchists Smiley
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2005, 01:04:34 PM »

I'm a no Libertarian - but I sometimes wish they could shake things up a bit in elections

Dave
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 16 queries.