Libertarians might co-nominate Rand Paul

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

http://benswann.com/in-2016-libertarians-could-co-nominate-rand-paul/ would be interesting

[Small L]

I don't see this happening. Most of the Libertarians who would support this will vote for Paul in the Republican primaries instead. The LP also has a lot of party first people who would fight like crazy to stop something like this.

Paul's rhetoric is a bad fit for the party anyway.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

I don't see this happening. Most of the Libertarians who would support this will vote for Paul in the Republican primaries instead. The LP also has a lot of party first people who would fight like crazy to stop something like this.

Paul's rhetoric is a bad fit for the party anyway.

I could see this scenario leading to the breakup of the party, maybe by a narrow margin Paul is nominated but then a sizable minority forms a breakaway "True Libertarian" Party and nominates there own candidate.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

I don't see this happening. Most of the Libertarians who would support this will vote for Paul in the Republican primaries instead. The LP also has a lot of party first people who would fight like crazy to stop something like this.

Paul's rhetoric is a bad fit for the party anyway.

I could see this scenario leading to the breakup of the party, maybe by a narrow margin Paul is nominated but then a sizable minority forms a breakaway "True Libertarian" Party and nominates there own candidate.

This has happened so many times in American history that your probably right.

On the bright side, this could lead to the Republican Party becoming more libertarian.

At the same time with Bernie Sanders primary candidacy which long-term could be the equivilant of Ron Paul's 2008 candidacy we could see the seeds of Democrats becoming more populist and the "Populist vs Libertarian" realignment that you (I think it was you) predicted in another thread.

[Free Bird]

Yes please

[BaconBacon96]

I'm not sure if Gary Johnson will like that.

[Indy Texas]

The Libertarians are going to end up like the Populists after 1896...

Except the Populists were a far more relevant party than the Libertarians have ever been.

[morgieb]

Junk party!

[ElectionsGuy]

Seems unlikely. Many of the hardcore libertarians (who make up the libertarian convention) are very upset with Paul, so him being co-opted, nonetheless a consideration at all would surprise me.

[Maistre]

Good news. It would be great to have a viable second option in case the fat man wins the nomination.

[RR1997]

Paul is not libertarian enough to be a part of the Libertarian Party.

[Indy Texas]

The Libertarians are going to end up like the Populists after 1896...

Except the Populists were a far more relevant party than the Libertarians have ever been.

Well, the Populists did win a few states in the 1892 election, so you are right. You are pretty sharp. Shoot an email to my buddy Ted Cruz, he needs people like you on his staff.

You missed my point. The Democrats had to co-opt the Populist platform and voter base post-1892 because their presence was making it considerably harder for Democrats to win races. The Democrats unnecessarily lost a lot of Senate and House races in the South and West to Republicans during that era because of the Populists playing the spoiler.

Libertarians have never gained a large enough following in their own right to pose this sort of threat to Republicans. They aren't a major party. They are a rounding error. The GOP doesn't need them or their voters in the way that the 1890s Democrats needed the Populists.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

The Libertarians are going to end up like the Populists after 1896...

Except the Populists were a far more relevant party than the Libertarians have ever been.

Well, the Populists did win a few states in the 1892 election, so you are right. You are pretty sharp. Shoot an email to my buddy Ted Cruz, he needs people like you on his staff.

You missed my point. The Democrats had to co-opt the Populist platform and voter base post-1892 because their presence was making it considerably harder for Democrats to win races. The Democrats unnecessarily lost a lot of Senate and House races in the South and West to Republicans during that era because of the Populists playing the spoiler.

Libertarians have never gained a large enough following in their own right to pose this sort of threat to Republicans. They aren't a major party. They are a rounding error. The GOP doesn't need them or their voters in the way that the 1890s Democrats needed the Populists.

Not so much the Libertarian Party per say but the GOP might in the future need to adopt some aspects of Libertarianism (small l) to remain politically relevant and appeal to younger voters.