Libertarian Republicans

[Akno21]

This is for libertarian Republicans out there.

How far to the left on economics and the right on social issues would the Republicans have to drift for you to abandon the party? People often talk about huge rifts among Democrats, and I believe them, but what about the GOP. How much federal involvement on social issues and deficit spending would it take for you to vote Libertarian in the Presidential Election, or switch party registration, or would you still vote for the GOP no matter what they do, assuming the Democrats will always be "worse".

[KEmperor]

Well, significantly far.  Mainly because the Democrats would have to move as well, otherwise it wouldn't be feasable anyway.  As long as the Democrats continue to talk about nonsense like "social justice," repealing existing tax cuts, and continue to play the race card by pandering to minorities, there is no chance of me voting for them.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I would never abandon the Party.

As for it abandoning me, I dunno, but I doubt it.

[YRABNNRM]

Well, significantly far.  Mainly because the Democrats would have to move as well, otherwise it wouldn't be feasable anyway.  As long as the Democrats continue to talk about nonsense like "social justice," repealing existing tax cuts, and continue to play the race card by pandering to minorities, there is no chance of me voting for them.

[bullmoose88]

This is for libertarian Republicans out there.

How far to the left on economics and the right on social issues would the Republicans have to drift for you to abandon the party? People often talk about huge rifts among Democrats, and I believe them, but what about the GOP. How much federal involvement on social issues and deficit spending would it take for you to vote Libertarian in the Presidential Election, or switch party registration, or would you still vote for the GOP no matter what they do, assuming the Democrats will always be "worse".

The Libertarian Party is, and will never be, an acceptable alternative to the GOP or even the Democrats for that matter because being pragmatic is a foreign concept. As long as that party is busy fighting an ideological war rather than coming up with a platform that can be supported by your average or almost average american...they're simply not relevant.

[angus]

I'm not particularly loyal to any party, but technically (and only technically) I'm a California Republican and a small-l libertarian, so I'll give it a shot:  the social issues are largely irrelevant.  Sure, all things being equal, I'd choose the guy that wants to decriminalize drugs and prostitution, open borders for all to come and go as they please, and allow two loving men to marry, but all things are really never equal are they?  I've voted for third party candidates in the past, for President, Governor, and congress, but I'm not changing my registration based on non-economic issues.  As for the economic issues, I'm a centrist (or just a scosh left of center according to the most-favored political quiz on this forum) which puts me somewhere between the libertarians and the socialists.  Probably about halfway in-between them, as a pragmatic matter.  So then it's really the Democrats and the Republicans fighting over my vote, in general, and not the far right (libertarians) or the far left (socialists).  And on that note, I'd say I'm as likely to vote for a republican for congress as a democrat.  But you needn't worry that I might ever vote for a libertarian.  Well, for congress anyway.  As for attorney general, I ALWAYS vote for a libertarian, when I'm in a state (e.g., CA) where that's an elected office.  IMHO, that's the perfect philosophy for a jurist, attorney, or litigator.  Neither the Dems nor the GOP have shown much capacity in this regard.  And the strength of their respective lobbyists have affected their objectivity. 

[opebo]

I think it is a very safe bet for the GOP to ignore 'libertarian Republicans' as they are a very tiny part of the electorate, and do no contribute significantly to Republican victories.

[King]

I think it is a very safe bet for the GOP to ignore 'libertarian Republicans' as they are a very tiny part of the electorate, and do no contribute significantly to Republican victories.

Let it be know that I am the first one to respond to Opebo's 10,000 post.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think it is a very safe bet for the GOP to ignore 'libertarian Republicans' as they are a very tiny part of the electorate, and do no contribute significantly to Republican victories.

I'm waiting for Bullmoose to point out that he thinks he knows one other person like him who hasn't left the party yet.

[angus]

opebo, possibly, and I'm more of a left-wing republican than a libertarian republican, so I don't have any special insight, but I think you may be incorrect.  Specifically, it cannot win on the votes of plutocrats and religious fanatics alone, and the fact that it is thoroughly troucing all 29 other parties, combined, at the moment suggests that its winning votes outside those two stereotypical constituencies.  Admittedly, it may have more to do with the abject unattractiveness of their primary rival party than their own attractiveness.  I suppose there's no way to know really., but I simply disagree with your statement, and wanted all to know that.

[DanielX]

I think it is a very safe bet for the GOP to ignore 'libertarian Republicans' as they are a very tiny part of the electorate, and do no contribute significantly to Republican victories.

Depends on your definition of libertarian. A Republican in say, Montana, Arizona, or Alaska, is very much more libertarian then a Republican from Alabama, Arkansas, or Kentucky.