For whom did you vote?

[OL FU]

No ****. I have said much to 89's confusion that I voted for Johnson more to align myself with the libertarian view point than to align myself with Johnson. I have also said many times, I can't call myself a full blown libertarian just that my views point more in that direction and I would love to see the country move that way.

Never voted libertarian before in a presidential election, so this seemed like the perfect opportunity.

I voted for Gary Johnson FWIW. I just don't find libertarianism to be a viable economic policy.

If we're relying on the Elon Musks out there to reduce carbon emissions (assuming that's neccesary), cure Alzheimer's and cancer, bring about personalized medicine, and create the next generation of space technology we're not going to be competitive. We've got to invest in R&D if we want to get back to make America make things again.

That, and we're almost at the point where a dollar spent by a welfare baby momma is more beneficial than how a two millionth dollar will be used by a rich guy.

I have no problem with a protest vote, though, and if ever there was an election to do it, 2016 was it.

Just to make sure I understand, you're a dunderhead too

and yes, I think part of the issue with the Libertarian party is that they take small government to the extreme. Whether it is R&D, or the elimination of too many regulations, elimination of a large part of the social safety net, in my opinion they are headed in the right direction but take it way to far. This isn't the 1700's.

[Ivytalk]

I voted for Gary Johnson FWIW. I just don't find libertarianism to be a viable economic policy.

If we're relying on the Elon Musks out there to reduce carbon emissions (assuming that's neccesary), cure Alzheimer's and cancer, bring about personalized medicine, and create the next generation of space technology we're not going to be competitive. We've got to invest in R&D if we want to get back to make America make things again.

That, and we're almost at the point where a dollar spent by a welfare baby momma is more beneficial than how a two millionth dollar will be used by a rich guy.

I have no problem with a protest vote, though, and if ever there was an election to do it, 2016 was it.

Just to make sure I understand, you're a dunderhead too

and yes, I think part of the issue with the Libertarian party is that they take small government to the extreme. Whether it is R&D, or the elimination of too many regulations, elimination of a large part of the social safety net, in my opinion they are headed in the right direction but take it way to far. This isn't the 1700's.

Goddammit, I miss the 1700s!

Seriously, your argument takes us right back to the two-party system. If the Republicans co-opt the Libertarians and the Donks cherry-pick the "best" of the Greens (if there is such a thing), what do you have left?

[kalm]

Just to make sure I understand, you're a dunderhead too

and yes, I think part of the issue with the Libertarian party is that they take small government to the extreme. Whether it is R&D, or the elimination of too many regulations, elimination of a large part of the social safety net, in my opinion they are headed in the right direction but take it way to far. This isn't the 1700's.

Goddammit, I miss the 1700s!

Seriously, your argument takes us right back to the two-party system. If the Republicans co-opt the Libertarians and the Donks cherry-pick the "best" of the Greens (if there is such a thing), what do you have left?

That's why we need to find ways to strip the major parties of any control over the election process (think debates). Remove the power of the R's and D's behind a name and you confuse a good chunk of the electorate and they might have to actually do a little research and pay attention.

[OL FU]

Just to make sure I understand, you're a dunderhead too

and yes, I think part of the issue with the Libertarian party is that they take small government to the extreme. Whether it is R&D, or the elimination of too many regulations, elimination of a large part of the social safety net, in my opinion they are headed in the right direction but take it way to far. This isn't the 1700's.

Goddammit, I miss the 1700s!

Seriously, your argument takes us right back to the two-party system. If the Republicans co-opt the Libertarians and the Donks cherry-pick the "best" of the Greens (if there is such a thing), what do you have left?

I don't see how it does that. The republicans (generally) are anti abortion, anti gay marriage, etc. The democrats more and more are for state controlled everything. The libertarians can be (as always stated) socially liberal, fiscally conservative with a much smaller federal government. Clearly (imho) taking the best from both parties while doubling down on government size in a way that Republicans never will. My issue is simply a lot of libertarians want to dismantle the social safety net. Now maybe that is possible if done overtime. I personally think dismantling that would cause havoc. I may be wrong. I certainly think the safety net needs reform and downsizing. I just think the elimination of it would bring an American version of Robespierre.

[89Hen]

89Hen wrote in Kasich, iirc.

What % of the vote did Kasich get?

Too small to measure. What about this is so hard to get? I made no pretense that my vote for Kasich mattered in any way. My entire problem with many of the Johnson voters here was their insistence that their vote was a rallying cry for a third party or a real jab at the two party system. It was neither. It fell on the deaf ears of the nation.

[89Hen]

Nah, my "confusion" was more contempt for people that thought a vote for Johnson was really sticking it to the establishment. I correctly predicted that his vote total would be a drop in the bucket and the LP vote this election would barely be a footnote in history.

4,053,546 votes nationwide. That's a big fucking drop.

Florida
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

All four states were Clinton's had she been able to woo the Johnson voters (or had Johnson not been running).

That's 69 electoral college votes, and she's your president.

Fuzzy math there Z. I'm sure a few Johnson voters would have voted Trump. And I can just as easily say Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, New Hampshire, Minnesota... would have been Trump's had he been able to woo the Johnson voters (or had Johnson not been running).

[89Hen]

4,053,546 votes nationwide. That's a big fucking drop.

BTW, third party candidates popular vote:

1992 Ross Perot - 19,743,821
1968 George Wallace - 9,901,118
1996 Ross Perot - 8,085,402
1980 John Anderson - 5,719,850
1924 Robert LaFollette - 4,833,821
1912 Teddy Roosevelt - 4,120,609

Cripes, Ralph Nader almost got 3M in 2000. This was by far the most discontent electorate in my lifetime. The fact that Johnson couldn't garner more is pretty damning.

[GannonFan]

4,053,546 votes nationwide. That's a big **** drop.

BTW, third party candidates popular vote:

1992 Ross Perot - 19,743,821
1968 George Wallace - 9,901,118
1996 Ross Perot - 8,085,402
1980 John Anderson - 5,719,850
1924 Robert LaFollette - 4,833,821
1912 Teddy Roosevelt - 4,120,609

Cripes, Ralph Nader almost got 3M in 2000. This was by far the most discontent electorate in my lifetime. The fact that Johnson couldn't garner more is pretty damning.

I agree with Hen here. The Ross Perot thing was the event in our lifetime that a legitimate third party could've popped up and it didn't. 19M votes in that election was almost 20% of the national vote. That's huge numbers. Johnson, by comparison, got 3% of the vote, Stein got 1%. Heck, Trump didn't even win the popular vote and he still had a very sizeable electoral lead and still was 3% point better than Bill Clinton was when he won in '92. Besides, I'm of the belief that, if you look back at our history, 3rd parties are never long term things - they're always temporary and they always end up melding in with one of the other major parties and we get back to a duopoly. I think that's the steady state outcome for this country and this form of government.

[CID1990]

BTW, third party candidates popular vote:

1992 Ross Perot - 19,743,821
1968 George Wallace - 9,901,118
1996 Ross Perot - 8,085,402
1980 John Anderson - 5,719,850
1924 Robert LaFollette - 4,833,821
1912 Teddy Roosevelt - 4,120,609

Cripes, Ralph Nader almost got 3M in 2000. This was by far the most discontent electorate in my lifetime. The fact that Johnson couldn't garner more is pretty damning.

I agree with Hen here. The Ross Perot thing was the event in our lifetime that a legitimate third party could've popped up and it didn't. 19M votes in that election was almost 20% of the national vote. That's huge numbers. Johnson, by comparison, got 3% of the vote, Stein got 1%. Heck, Trump didn't even win the popular vote and he still had a very sizeable electoral lead and still was 3% point better than Bill Clinton was when he won in '92. Besides, I'm of the belief that, if you look back at our history, 3rd parties are never long term things - they're always temporary and they always end up melding in with one of the other major parties and we get back to a duopoly. I think that's the steady state outcome for this country and this form of government.

You're right- the party that wins is the party that is able to coalesce the largest number of voters under the tent. Generally, the span of compromise isn't that great- fiscal hawks don't find it hard to be in bed with social liberals in many cases

The problems for me is that things have gotten so extreme that I find portions of each party's base to be unconscionable, and BOTH sides are stuck on two things: 1) it is our responsibility to fix the world, and 2) the health of the dollar is granted

As long as more than 80% of the American population fits into those two paradigms (and it is likely more than that ), I will continue to vote 3rd party as a matter of principle. I could give a sh1t what their chances are, and I have no illusions about the hegemony of the two monied parties

[BDKJMU]

4,053,546 votes nationwide. That's a big **** drop.

BTW, third party candidates popular vote:

1992 Ross Perot - 19,743,821
1968 George Wallace - 9,901,118
1996 Ross Perot - 8,085,402
1980 John Anderson - 5,719,850
1924 Robert LaFollette - 4,833,821
1912 Teddy Roosevelt - 4,120,609

Cripes, Ralph Nader almost got 3M in 2000. This was by far the most discontent electorate in my lifetime. The fact that Johnson couldn't garner more is pretty damning.

Its even worse if you go percentages. All of those electorates were way smaller. Heck, the early 1900s were a fraction of the current one.

[Ivytalk]

I agree with Hen here. The Ross Perot thing was the event in our lifetime that a legitimate third party could've popped up and it didn't. 19M votes in that election was almost 20% of the national vote. That's huge numbers. Johnson, by comparison, got 3% of the vote, Stein got 1%. Heck, Trump didn't even win the popular vote and he still had a very sizeable electoral lead and still was 3% point better than Bill Clinton was when he won in '92. Besides, I'm of the belief that, if you look back at our history, 3rd parties are never long term things - they're always temporary and they always end up melding in with one of the other major parties and we get back to a duopoly. I think that's the steady state outcome for this country and this form of government.

You're right- the party that wins is the party that is able to coalesce the largest number of voters under the tent. Generally, the span of compromise isn't that great- fiscal hawks don't find it hard to be in bed with social liberals in many cases

The problems for me is that things have gotten so extreme that I find portions of each party's base to be unconscionable, and BOTH sides are stuck on two things: 1) it is our responsibility to fix the world, and 2) the health of the dollar is granted

As long as more than 80% of the American population fits into those two paradigms (and it is likely more than that ), I will continue to vote 3rd party as a matter of principle. I could give a sh1t what their chances are, and I have no illusions about the hegemony of the two monied parties

I am attending a local Libertarian Party meeting next week, chiefly in order to see whether they have any political talent -- or if they are all whackjobs. I've always said that you need to build parties from the ground up. If they are whackjobs, I'll keep my Republican registration intact. If not, I'll consider a switch.

A Libertarian is running in a special Delaware state senate election later this month. If the GOP candidate wins, the Senate will become Republican majority for the first time in about 40 years. The GOP candidate is facing an uphill battle in terms of Donk voter registration edge and a Donk feminazi candidate who has some name recognition. That said, the Republicans did beat an incumbent Donk woman in another district last November. Hard to say whether the Libertarian will take more votes from the Dem or the Rep.

[CID1990]

You're right- the party that wins is the party that is able to coalesce the largest number of voters under the tent. Generally, the span of compromise isn't that great- fiscal hawks don't find it hard to be in bed with social liberals in many cases

The problems for me is that things have gotten so extreme that I find portions of each party's base to be unconscionable, and BOTH sides are stuck on two things: 1) it is our responsibility to fix the world, and 2) the health of the dollar is granted

As long as more than 80% of the American population fits into those two paradigms (and it is likely more than that ), I will continue to vote 3rd party as a matter of principle. I could give a sh1t what their chances are, and I have no illusions about the hegemony of the two monied parties

I am attending a local Libertarian Party meeting next week, chiefly in order to see whether they have any political talent -- or if they are all whackjobs. I've always said that you need to build parties from the ground up. If they are whackjobs, I'll keep my Republican registration intact. If not, I'll consider a switch.

A Libertarian is running in a special Delaware state senate election later this month. If the GOP candidate wins, the Senate will become Republican majority for the first time in about 40 years. The GOP candidate is facing an uphill battle in terms of Donk voter registration edge and a Donk feminazi candidate who has some name recognition. That said, the Republicans did beat an incumbent Donk woman in another district last November. Hard to say whether the Libertarian will take more votes from the Dem or the Rep.

Be prepared to be disappointed. There are some very sane, smart people in the LP but they make up about 50 percent of the party (and as political parties go, it is *loosely* organized..... which is not surprising for a bunch of people who would rather be at home, left alone, and not having to be political)...

But the fringe of the group is certifiably batsh1t crazy. I'm talking colanders on heads and a few Spandos types... remember the LP doesn't necessarily attract Jeffersonians and minimalists - it also attracts people who want small government because they think the government has already stuck a microchip up our asses.

The entire party is judged completely by these latter types

[cx500d]

Comparing 2 elections in our lifetime without an incumbent running.

1992 Bill Clinton/HW Bush > Hillary Clinton/Trump
1992 Perot 19,743,821/18.91% > Johnson 4,489,233/3.27%

Heck, even in 1996 with Bill Clinton & Dole, and Perot already seen as nutty, Perot got over 8 million of a smaller electorate/8.4%.

Not sure what you are talking about. HW Bush was the incumbent in 1992.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

4,053,546 votes nationwide. That's a big fucking drop.

BTW, third party candidates popular vote:

1992 Ross Perot - 19,743,821
1968 George Wallace - 9,901,118
1996 Ross Perot - 8,085,402
1980 John Anderson - 5,719,850
1924 Robert LaFollette - 4,833,821
1912 Teddy Roosevelt - 4,120,609

Cripes, Ralph Nader almost got 3M in 2000. This was by far the most discontent electorate in my lifetime. The fact that Johnson couldn't garner more is pretty damning.

Well consider me a lifetime discontented. I voted for Anderson, Perot and Johnson.

[Gil Dobie]

BTW, third party candidates popular vote:

1992 Ross Perot - 19,743,821
1968 George Wallace - 9,901,118
1996 Ross Perot - 8,085,402
1980 John Anderson - 5,719,850
1924 Robert LaFollette - 4,833,821
1912 Teddy Roosevelt - 4,120,609

Cripes, Ralph Nader almost got 3M in 2000. This was by far the most discontent electorate in my lifetime. The fact that Johnson couldn't garner more is pretty damning.

Well consider me a lifetime discontented. I voted for Anderson, Perot and Johnson.

Add me to the list Paul twice and McMullen.

[BDKJMU]

Comparing 2 elections in our lifetime without an incumbent running.

1992 Bill Clinton/HW Bush > Hillary Clinton/Trump
1992 Perot 19,743,821/18.91% > Johnson 4,489,233/3.27%

Heck, even in 1996 with Bill Clinton & Dole, and Perot already seen as nutty, Perot got over 8 million of a smaller electorate/8.4%.

Not sure what you are talking about. HW Bush was the incumbent in 1992.

6.93 moment. Fixed it.

[89Hen]

BTW, third party candidates popular vote:

1992 Ross Perot - 19,743,821
1968 George Wallace - 9,901,118
1996 Ross Perot - 8,085,402
1980 John Anderson - 5,719,850
1924 Robert LaFollette - 4,833,821
1912 Teddy Roosevelt - 4,120,609

Cripes, Ralph Nader almost got 3M in 2000. This was by far the most discontent electorate in my lifetime. The fact that Johnson couldn't garner more is pretty damning.

Well consider me a lifetime discontented. I voted for Anderson, Perot and Johnson.

[houndawg]

Goddammit, I miss the 1700s!

Seriously, your argument takes us right back to the two-party system. If the Republicans co-opt the Libertarians and the Donks cherry-pick the "best" of the Greens (if there is such a thing), what do you have left?

That's why we need to find ways to strip the major parties of any control over the election process (think debates). Remove the power of the R's and D's behind a name and you confuse a good chunk of the electorate and they might have to actually do a little research and pay attention.

Every seat in the House is up in '18. Vote against every incumbent. Clearly we can all agree on that?

[kalm]

That's why we need to find ways to strip the major parties of any control over the election process (think debates). Remove the power of the R's and D's behind a name and you confuse a good chunk of the electorate and they might have to actually do a little research and pay attention.

Every seat in the House is up in '18. Vote against every incumbent. Clearly we can all agree on that?

89 likes this idea. He can still make a difference by voting for one of the major parties...or abstaining...

[BDKJMU]

That's why we need to find ways to strip the major parties of any control over the election process (think debates). Remove the power of the R's and D's behind a name and you confuse a good chunk of the electorate and they might have to actually do a little research and pay attention.

Every seat in the House is up in '18. Vote against every incumbent. Clearly we can all agree on that?

Or if ypu believe in term limits of say 8 years House and 6 (or 12) Senate, then vote against anyone exceeding that.

[Ivytalk]

BTW, third party candidates popular vote:

1992 Ross Perot - 19,743,821
1968 George Wallace - 9,901,118
1996 Ross Perot - 8,085,402
1980 John Anderson - 5,719,850
1924 Robert LaFollette - 4,833,821
1912 Teddy Roosevelt - 4,120,609

Cripes, Ralph Nader almost got 3M in 2000. This was by far the most discontent electorate in my lifetime. The fact that Johnson couldn't garner more is pretty damning.

Well consider me a lifetime discontented. I voted for Anderson, Perot and Johnson.

Lifetime discontented, so you drink Bud Light. No wonder.

[houndawg]

Every seat in the House is up in '18. Vote against every incumbent. Clearly we can all agree on that?

Or if ypu believe in term limits of say 8 years House and 6 (or 12) Senate, then vote against anyone exceeding that.

Replace them all every two years. Reduce their salaries and cut their benefits.

[AZGrizFan]

Well consider me a lifetime discontented. I voted for Anderson, Perot and Johnson.

Lifetime discontented, so you drink Bud Light. No wonder.

Not anymore, jackwagon.

[Ivytalk]

Lifetime discontented, so you drink Bud Light. No wonder.

Not anymore, jackwagon.

Moved up to the high-end swill?

[Ivytalk]

I am attending a local Libertarian Party meeting next week, chiefly in order to see whether they have any political talent -- or if they are all whackjobs. I've always said that you need to build parties from the ground up. If they are whackjobs, I'll keep my Republican registration intact. If not, I'll consider a switch.

A Libertarian is running in a special Delaware state senate election later this month. If the GOP candidate wins, the Senate will become Republican majority for the first time in about 40 years. The GOP candidate is facing an uphill battle in terms of Donk voter registration edge and a Donk feminazi candidate who has some name recognition. That said, the Republicans did beat an incumbent Donk woman in another district last November. Hard to say whether the Libertarian will take more votes from the Dem or the Rep.

Be prepared to be disappointed. There are some very sane, smart people in the LP but they make up about 50 percent of the party (and as political parties go, it is *loosely* organized..... which is not surprising for a bunch of people who would rather be at home, left alone, and not having to be political)...

But the fringe of the group is certifiably batsh1t crazy. I'm talking colanders on heads and a few Spandos types... remember the LP doesn't necessarily attract Jeffersonians and minimalists - it also attracts people who want small government because they think the government has already stuck a microchip up our asses.

The entire party is judged completely by these latter types

Well,it was an interesting evening. There were 8 people in attendance: a mid-60s real estate appraiser, a 50-something woman bus driver, a 50-something small business-woman from Wilmington (who might hold some statewide party office) who never stopped talking all night, a 20-something musician, a 20-something friend of his who was "just visiting," the county party chair, a mid-40s dude whose profession I never quite caught, and me. Very loosely structured business session and lots of philosophical talk.Most of the regulars had run for city, county, or state offices multiple times. They were all friendly enough once I took the first step and made an introduction, and the political discussion was pretty good. However, they were a pretty introverted group. Not a single "can't miss" political leader in the bunch. They were pretty much resigned to perpetual fringe party status.I had hoped that the evening would be a first step on a "Damascus Road" journey toward full-fledged LP membership, but it was actually a setback. I'll probably end up staying in the GOP and fighting the small-l libertarian fight within it, as frustrating as that effort is in the Age of Drumpf.