Libertarian President in 2016?

[MaC]

From the LP newsletter I got this article.  It follows a timeline and I thought I would be cool to make an alternate history.

For responding please none of the following
1.the libertarians will never take ________
2.the libertarians are (insert derogatory comment here)

Also note, I live in a world of possibles.  I would appreciate people with comments _____ will never take (name of state) keep them to themselves.  I bet nobody in the 1920s thought VT would be a solid Democratic, nor MS would be a solid Republican.
That said, I start my timeline, following the article...

[MaC]

2004-2008

quote from article: In a three way race libertarians are handicapped in a way no other political party is: H.L. Mencken said elections are the advance auction of stolen goods.  Libertarians don't belive in stealing so they have no favors to promise, no roads, no parks.

goes on: Between now and 2008 the Democratic Party will split into radical and moderate wings.  The radical wing is tired of being taken for granted by the moderate wing of the party.

The radical's third party will lose the 2008 election, but will get millions of votes.  This will provide a battering ram for other third parties to ballot access and access to the debates, and lay rest the "wasted vote" argument.



Republican Gordon Smith/Mark Sanford 272EV 45%PV
Democrat Bill Richardson/Tom Vilsack 141EV 32%PV
Progressive Barbra Boxer/Russ Feingold 125EV 23%PV

[MaC]

2008 to 2012

Author doesn't make too many points about the change in 2012, except that LP membership does grow. 
"By 2012, the Republican party will split because once their Democratic foes have divided, there is no room for cultural conservatives and libertarians to stay in the same party.  The new libertarian party will attract former Democrats and even some progressives." 

I'm saving this part for the last map.  I will say though that the LP candidate is invited to the debates and the party grows larger in size.



It would take too long to come up with candidates.
Drk. Red is Progressive, Gray is Libertarian

Democrat 222EV 38%PV
Republican 214EV 34%PV
Progressive 70EV 17%PV
Libertarian 32EV 11%PV

[Alcon]

I find it kind of odd that the liberal vote by 2012 is at 55%, and the conservative vote only 34%.

This is interesting and all, but is pretty much fantasy.  Also, some very odd choices here - West Virginia goes Progressive when there is a party split between the Dems?  North Dakota goes Libertarian before South Dakota?

[MaC]

2012-2016

In these four years the LP will grow tremendously.
quote: In 2016 the new Libertarian Party candidate will win the presidential election.  Why? Because in a four way race, only the new Libertarian Party will express values that unite, rather than divide people: individual liberty, equality under the law, free enterprise, and lower taxes.
It is preciselt because libertarians don't steal from one group and give to another that it will emerge as the concencus party in an increasingly polarized and heterogenous society.  While other partys divide to conquer, only libertarians win by uniting voters.



Libertarians 411EV 56%PV
Democrats 61EV 18%PV
Republicans 61EV 17%PV
Progressives 5EV 9%PV

credit due to this topic to muon2 (for the future map data) and to Joseph L. Bast who wrote the article.

[MaC]

I find it kind of odd that the liberal vote by 2012 is at 55%, and the conservative vote only 34%.

This is interesting and all, but is pretty much fantasy.  Also, some very odd choices here - West Virginia goes Progressive when there is a party split between the Dems?  North Dakota goes Libertarian before South Dakota?

As for the states, I cannot say, time can only tell which way they trend.

The liberal vote is lower.  The red (not dark red) states are for the moderate Democratic candidate.  This candidate, could attract some conservative voters I suppose, but this map is supposed to be more ideology based.  Think of Republicans as getting further right, and the Democrats who stay with being moderate.

[Alcon]

I find it kind of odd that the liberal vote by 2012 is at 55%, and the conservative vote only 34%.

This is interesting and all, but is pretty much fantasy.  Also, some very odd choices here - West Virginia goes Progressive when there is a party split between the Dems?  North Dakota goes Libertarian before South Dakota?

As for the states, I cannot say, time can only tell which way they trend.

The liberal vote is lower.  The red (not dark red) states are for the moderate Democratic candidate.  This candidate, could attract some conservative voters I suppose, but this map is supposed to be more ideology based.  Think of Republicans as getting further right, and the Democrats who stay with being moderate.

I suppose...it still is a tad far-fetched.  This is a little too "convenient" if it's going for anything more than a Libertarian Party fantasy.

And it's not just the Democrats and the Republicans who'd have to change to make this happen.

[MaC]

well this is someone else's fantasy.  I'd like it to happen, but I'm doubtful.  I'm just applying maps and having fun with it.

[Gabu]

Uh, yeah, you go from a nonentity to 411 EVs in eight years... I sincerely hope that no Libertarian actually believes that this will happen.

The quote preceding the map in which you win is a ridiculous self-assurance of their own perceived superiority over all the other parties, to say the least.  If any Libertarians take this as truth, I really don't know what to say other than I feel sorry for how they'll likely feel in 2016.

I mean, I don't mean to put down the Libertarians, but there's a difference between being hopeful and, uh... this.

[MasterJedi]

Uh, yeah, you go from a nonentity to 411 EVs in eight years... I sincerely hope that no Libertarian actually believes that this will happen.

The quote preceding the map in which you win is a ridiculous self-assurance of their own perceived superiority over all the other parties, to say the least.  If any Libertarians take this as truth, I really don't know what to say other than I feel sorry for how they'll likely feel in 2016.

I mean, I don't mean to put down the Libertarians, but there's a difference between being hopeful and, uh... this.

I'll have to agree with Gabu on this one. The only way Libertarians come close to winning main elections is when the two parties disenfranchise voters. Take the last WI Governor's race. Libertarian got 10% of the vote because the race was so hateful.

[KillerPollo]

Uh, yeah, you go from a nonentity to 411 EVs in eight years... I sincerely hope that no Libertarian actually believes that this will happen.

The quote preceding the map in which you win is a ridiculous self-assurance of their own perceived superiority over all the other parties, to say the least.  If any Libertarians take this as truth, I really don't know what to say other than I feel sorry for how they'll likely feel in 2016.

I mean, I don't mean to put down the Libertarians, but there's a difference between being hopeful and, uh... this.

[Colin]

Uh, yeah, you go from a nonentity to 411 EVs in eight years... I sincerely hope that no Libertarian actually believes that this will happen.

The quote preceding the map in which you win is a ridiculous self-assurance of their own perceived superiority over all the other parties, to say the least.  If any Libertarians take this as truth, I really don't know what to say other than I feel sorry for how they'll likely feel in 2016.

I mean, I don't mean to put down the Libertarians, but there's a difference between being hopeful and, uh... this.

I'll have to agree with Gabu on this one. The only way Libertarians come close to winning main elections is when the two parties disenfranchise voters. Take the last WI Governor's race. Libertarian got 10% of the vote because the race was so hateful.

Yeah if I was a Libertarian I would be more worried about actually winning a state in the near future or getting above 1% in the popular vote again. This is, I'm sorry to say, pure fantasy and the maps aren't really all that correct either, even if their was an expanded Libertarian Party. For the Libertarian Party to ascend in any meaningful way it would basically need a complete, and I'm talking Whig-like, breakup of either the Republicans or both major parties, which probably will not happen. And anyway if the Libertarians are able to recieve 411 EVs in an election than they probably aren't the Libertarians that you would support. They would probably have more in common with Calvin Coolidge or Grover Cleveland and the old Gold Democrats or with modern moderate libertarians like myself. I hardly think that you would be able to fit into that party given your lack of willingness to compromise and your lack of understanding of the need for the Libertarian Party to moderate. Well continue with your wonderful wet dream because that's basically what it is.

[7,052,770]

Uh, yeah, you go from a nonentity to 411 EVs in eight years... I sincerely hope that no Libertarian actually believes that this will happen.

The quote preceding the map in which you win is a ridiculous self-assurance of their own perceived superiority over all the other parties, to say the least.  If any Libertarians take this as truth, I really don't know what to say other than I feel sorry for how they'll likely feel in 2016.

I mean, I don't mean to put down the Libertarians, but there's a difference between being hopeful and, uh... this.

Republican Party went from founding to the White House in 6 years so weird things could happen.  Not that I tihnk the Libertarians will win in 2016, but it's not totally outside the realm of possibility.

[MaC]

Republican Party went from founding to the White House in 6 years so weird things could happen.  Not that I tihnk the Libertarians will win in 2016, but it's not totally outside the realm of possibility.

like I said, I don't think, realistically most libertarians would think like this, but like I said, I live in a world of no impossibilities..

[Gabu]

Uh, yeah, you go from a nonentity to 411 EVs in eight years... I sincerely hope that no Libertarian actually believes that this will happen.

The quote preceding the map in which you win is a ridiculous self-assurance of their own perceived superiority over all the other parties, to say the least.  If any Libertarians take this as truth, I really don't know what to say other than I feel sorry for how they'll likely feel in 2016.

I mean, I don't mean to put down the Libertarians, but there's a difference between being hopeful and, uh... this.

Republican Party went from founding to the White House in 6 years so weird things could happen.  Not that I tihnk the Libertarians will win in 2016, but it's not totally outside the realm of possibility.

Well, yes, but that's because, if I recall correctly, the Whig Party basically fell apart and the Republicans filled the void of the "other party".  The circumstances today are very different, in that there are two well-established parties that likely are not going anywhere, at least in the next eight years.

I think the main issue with the Libertarians (or at least those like the author of this timeline) is that they seem to genuinely believe that everyone in the world agrees with them and all they need to do is get people to recognize that and then they'll become the beloved rulers of America forever.  I say that this is an issue because it isn't really true.  I've been exposed to what the Libertarians stand for and I wasn't swayed in any big fashion.  I don't see why I would be an anomaly.

[MaC]

you aren't swayed with any ideology at all Gabu are you? 

[Gabu]

you aren't swayed with any ideology at all Gabu are you? 

Well excuse me for attempting to find the right hole for the right block instead of attempting to pound every single one of them through the triangular hole.

[MaC]

you don't have any basic premises upon which most policies should take place?
Obviously, there are flaws with each ideology, granted.  But, if you don't have any ideology, for what standards do you measure your stances?  In order words, what reason do you have for believing what you believe?
For me, it's the basic idea that people should not be forced into anything they don't want.  It is wrong to use force, and it is only justifyable when protecting your life, liberty, and property.