Why does the Libertarian party fixate on Presidential politics?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Or if I'm wrong, and the Libs do compete on the state level, please correct me. I am but a poor northeasterner with little knowledge of the rest of the country.

It seems like the wrong way to build a political party IMO. No bench (for the Presidency) no legislative record, no organic fundraising network, no organizers building up capacity.

Why?!

[Angrie]

1) Presidential races are higher information. In most local races, voting is blindly partisan. In Presidential races, it can depend on personalities and candidates more. Thus, if a libertarian or other third party candidate can attract some media attention, they at least have some prospect of getting a respectable share of the vote.

2) Libertarians are not concentrated enough in any one area in order to focus on a local or statewide race. Local races typically rely on local donors, local volunteers, etc, which requires some concentration of local support. Because of lack of this sort of concentration, most organization and communication for Libertarians and other third parties occurs online and in very occasional, sparsely attended meetings and conventions.

3) Repeatedly to point 2, it is easier to get people involved in and excited in a Presidential race.

[Associate Justice PiT]

1) Presidential races are higher information. In most local races, voting is blindly partisan. In Presidential races, it can depend on personalities and candidates more. Thus, if a libertarian or other third party candidate can attract some media attention, they at least have some prospect of getting a respectable share of the vote.

2) Libertarians are not concentrated enough in any one area in order to focus on a local or statewide race. Local races typically rely on local donors, local volunteers, etc, which requires some concentration of local support. Because of lack of this sort of concentration, most organization and communication for Libertarians and other third parties occurs online and in very occasional, sparsely attended meetings and conventions.

3) Repeatedly to point 2, it is easier to get people involved in and excited in a Presidential race.

     On the other hand, local races are cheaper to play in. Libertarians do whatever to get 0.5% in a Presidential election; if they spent the same money on MT-SEN, then they might make a real impact that would in turn get them some actual attention. Minor parties rarely make an impact at the Presidential level.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

    On the other hand, local races are cheaper to play in. Libertarians do whatever to get 0.5% in a Presidential election; if they spent the same money on MT-SEN, then they might make a real impact that would in term get them some actual attention. Minor parties rarely make an impact at the Presidential level.

Exactly.

Also, you'll never be able to get the attention you *want * (aka: look at this great political phenomenon that people might support!) in a Presidential without a sound local organizational base of support.

[Angrie]

Exactly.

Also, you'll never be able to get the attention you *want * (aka: look at this great political phenomenon that people might support!) in a Presidential without a sound local organizational base of support.

If there were a central Libertarian planner who could sit down and plan a sensible strategy to direct resources on the basis of what makes sense for the Libertarian party in the long run, picking a race like MT-SEN to focus on might well indeed make sense. But the problem is how does the national Libertarian party motivate Libertarians in Arizona, Georgia, and New York that they should just donate to a MT-SEN race, and that they should only care about that rather than what is going on in their own states and nationally?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

....they do compete in statewide races, but I'm in total agreement that they should focus less on the presidential race in the near future. They certainly should nominate a ticket, but do they really need to spend their war chest on it?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ Actually, they tend to do much better in senate/governor races than the presidential. See FL and IL Gov. 2014 for two quick examples.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

^ Actually, they tend to do much better in senate/governor races than the presidential. See FL and IL Gov. 2014 for two quick examples.

Wylie did great here. Had Rick Scott not been so good a Governor, I'd have voted for him. My friends were surprised that I backed Scott even as Wylie grew in the polls.

[Indy Texas]

In local/state races, it would make more sense for them to offer tacit alliances to one of the major parties.

Say, in an race that has the potential to be very close, the Libertarians pick one or two issues and see which major candidate will agree to pursue them. In return, the Libertarians would withdraw their candidate from the race and encourage Libertarians to support that major candidate.

It's an imperfect substitute for the fusion tickets that are possible in New York or the joint lists that some parliamentary systems allow.

[Associate Justice PiT]

^ Actually, they tend to do much better in senate/governor races than the presidential. See FL and IL Gov. 2014 for two quick examples.

Wylie did great here. Had Rick Scott not been so good a Governor, I'd have voted for him. My friends were surprised that I backed Scott even as Wylie grew in the polls.

     And these are large states that are expensive to campaign in. If they can get 3-4% there, a small state with libertarian sympathies could see that become 15-20% quite easily.

[mencken]

^ Actually, they tend to do much better in senate/governor races than the presidential. See FL and IL Gov. 2014 for two quick examples.

Wylie did great here. Had Rick Scott not been so good a Governor, I'd have voted for him. My friends were surprised that I backed Scott even as Wylie grew in the polls.

     And these are large states that are expensive to campaign in. If they can get 3-4% there, a small state with libertarian sympathies could see that become 15-20% quite easily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_gubernatorial_election,_1982

Of course that was accomplished with Koch money.

[Badger]

Because it would demonstrate they don't have the realistic ability to get elected to even a state senate seat anywhere in the county, and damned few state house seats outside AK, MT (maybe), or NH.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Because it would demonstrate they don't have the realistic ability to get elected to even a state senate seat anywhere in the county, and damned few state house seats outside AK, MT (maybe), or NH.

At least in northern New England, where State Senate districts only represent 21k, 40k, and 55k (VT, ME, and NH respectively) it's decidedly pretty possible a Libertarian could win some of them.

(Especially the upper CT River valley in VT and NH, and northern Maine, where politics run pretty right wing and left wing libertarian anyway)

[Bismarck]

They always have candidates for Indiana governor and are in the debates. There was a guy who ran as a libertarian in Brownsburg for county council and got about 15 % against the republican and no democrat.

[hopper]

This is my view: This is the year of opportunity for the Libertarian Party to make a name for itself in Presidential Politics. You have two flawed candidates(Hillary and Trump) as the nominees for the 2 major political parties for President. Its a good opportunity for the Libertarians to make inroads in Presidential Politics.

In my opinion voting for the Libertarian Candidate(Johnson) is the only answer to solving our problems. With Hillary and Trump its just more of the same old same old. Vote Gary Johnson in November!

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

This is my view: This is the year of opportunity for the Libertarian Party to make a name for itself in Presidential Politics. You have two flawed candidates(Hillary and Trump) as the nominees for the 2 major political parties for President. Its a good opportunity for the Libertarians to make inroads in Presidential Politics.

In my opinion voting for the Libertarian Candidate(Johnson) is the only answer to solving our problems. With Hillary and Trump its just more of the same old same old. Vote Gary Johnson in November!

Sure. I think the Libs have a pretty good opportunity to make an impact this cycle.  But my point is - why 1972-2012? 

If the Libertarians had been drafting behind the GOP on the state level, scoring state leg victories where the GOP couldn't, endorsing 'liberty minded' (aka deregulation and corporate tyranny ((had to let my left flag fly for a second))) GOP candidates, and building a bench and legislative record on the way, they would be so much better positioned for a moment like this one.

Speaking as someone who has seen big campaigns before, the Libertarian party simply doesn't have the resources (money, institutional knowledge, base of operatives to draw from, and firms to contract with) to mount a serious run.

Who will do their data work? Who will run their field operation? Who will target their television advertisements? Hell, who will write them?

These questions would all be answered if the Libs had spent the past 30 years building capacity playing small ball preparing for a time when people were actually dissatisfied with both parties at the same time.

[IceSpear]

^ Actually, they tend to do much better in senate/governor races than the presidential. See FL and IL Gov. 2014 for two quick examples.

Wylie did great here. Had Rick Scott not been so good a Governor, I'd have voted for him. My friends were surprised that I backed Scott even as Wylie grew in the polls.

Would you have voted Wylie if The Criminal committed $2 billion worth of Medicare fraud rather than a scant $1.7 billion?

[RaphaelDLG]

If they want to actually win, their strategy makes no sense.  Theu should start locally instead.  If they want to try to get their message out, I guess the presidential race is the best place to do that.

[Vosem]

Because the purpose of third parties in America is to affect the dialogue, not to actually win anything.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

5% of the PV = government funds.  After that happens, they can invest more in state and local races.

[This account no longer in use.]

I believe you mean a state welfare check, ascott.

[Badger]

Because it would demonstrate they don't have the realistic ability to get elected to even a state senate seat anywhere in the county, and damned few state house seats outside AK, MT (maybe), or NH.

At least in northern New England, where State Senate districts only represent 21k, 40k, and 55k (VT, ME, and NH respectively) it's decidedly pretty possible a Libertarian could win some of them.

(Especially the upper CT River valley in VT and NH, and northern Maine, where politics run pretty right wing and left wing libertarian anyway)

Then why don't they? answer: The LP isn't a viable political party.

Perhaps the greatest example of fail here is NH where house districts run about 3k population and, despite a supposed libertarian presence with the Free. State movement and what have you, they still can't get anyone elected.

[sparkey]

Then why don't they? answer: The LP isn't a viable political party.

Perhaps the greatest example of fail here is NH where house districts run about 3k population and, despite a supposed libertarian presence with the Free. State movement and what have you, they still can't get anyone elected.

The NH House is one of the few places we've elected big-L Libertarians to, though. I don't have a full list, but in the past we've had at least Steve Vaillancourt and Don Gorman in the NH House.

Smaller districts help, but don't come anywhere near giving us proportional representation, of course. Uniform district-based FPTP election systems across the country is what kills us. If one state were to adopt actual proportional representation, then it would be more worthwhile to focus on local races.

[ElectionsGuy]

It doesn't. Look at the last congressional elections, the libertarians ran a nominee in almost every state, and in many races they got into the debates. Many L nominees got 2-5%, its just that nobody talked about them.

[Kingpoleon]

Yeah, the Libertarians could feasibly win in Alaska. Would Andre Marrou consider running for Senate or House in 2018? He will be 79, but on the other hand, an impressive showing/winning the primary would be pretty impressive.