Election 2016

[4/5]

except the millions of people he has brought together and helped legitimate will still be here.

Nate silver has his support among the electorate as a whole, nation wide, at around 6-8%. That's the same amount of people that believe the moon landing was staged. There will always be that amount of batshit crazy people around. This isn't new.

Sure, but their mainstream presence legitimates the far larger percentage of people who sympathize with the general positions even if they aren't fully on board the trump train. Now the intolerance of the other candidates looks moderate.

I think this is the real cause for concern.

[Norah]

I mostly agree with 4/5, but I do think the GOP needs to take a long look at demographics. You can't lose that much of the under 40 white vote and the minority vote and expect to win the presidency. White evangelicals and old people can only take you so far.

This is my main issue. They aren't reaching out to the younger voters (for the presidency) and they haven't for some time.

I don't know if it's "aren't reaching out" as much as it that young people simply don't share their social values. I've felt like this for at least the last 4 years, but I really do think if there was ever a time for a grassroots libertarian movement it's now.

I don't think there's a single ideology that annoys me more than libertarianism. It ensnares so many people who should know better.

It's infuriating, and so intellectually lazy. The thing is though, if Republicans truly hitched their wagon to libertarianism I think they could get a lot of young people on board.

[stip]

Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

The Republicans haven't had their stuff together for the past two, now three, elections. What makes you think they will in 2020?

I don't really agree with this. They won in 2004 despite the war that president started turning unpopular. They lost in 2008 in what in my opinion was a nearly unwinnable election for a Republican. The mere fact that they didn't get demolished in 2008 in the face of a perfect storm of events: popular new political face, economic collapse, and unpopular wars, is quite remarkable. In 2012 Romney was the guy from start to finish. Sure, there were moments here and there when that looked in doubt, but the party got their candidate. It just turned out that he was a pretty awful candidate (the same way John Kerry was an awful candidate) and that even against a polarizing president he just wasn't good enough to beat him. That, and Obama's ground game on election day was phenomenal both times.

And the party has done exceedingly well in the last two midterm elections. I think the "Republicans are in disarray" is very overblown.

I just reread your post, obviously you weren't talking about 2004. Oh well.

This guy gets it.

Because having either Trump or a guy who thinks the pyramids were just giant silos is having it together?

Neither of them are going to win, especially not Carson. I'm not saying the Republicans have a great pool of candidates in this primary. They don't. But from top to bottom their organization throughout the country destroys Democrats. They have spent two decades grooming leaders at the local and state levels. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now--I can look them up in a few minutes--but they are absolutely dominant at the state level which then translates to dominance in the House. Remember when Obama won in 2008 and people thought it was a wave election and the Democrats were going to dominate for a generation? How's that working out?

I mean, ultimately we've had a democratic president for 8 years and will probably go on for another 4-8 at this point...

There's more to government than the Presidency.

What?

People's live are probably impacted as much if not more by state and local politics, and the republicans are utterly dominant there. They outspend democrats to death, have been able to gerrymander districts (winning big in 2010 was huge) to help ensure their dominance. Plus low turnout elections tend to benefit republicans. Its going to take some time to dig them out.

[4/5]

I mostly agree with 4/5, but I do think the GOP needs to take a long look at demographics. You can't lose that much of the under 40 white vote and the minority vote and expect to win the presidency. White evangelicals and old people can only take you so far.

This is my main issue. They aren't reaching out to the younger voters (for the presidency) and they haven't for some time.

I don't know if it's "aren't reaching out" as much as it that young people simply don't share their social values. I've felt like this for at least the last 4 years, but I really do think if there was ever a time for a grassroots libertarian movement it's now.

I don't think there's a single ideology that annoys me more than libertarianism. It ensnares so many people who should know better.

Would you say you're more annoyed by the basic ideological tenets or the people who proclaim the superiority of said ideology?

[Norah]

Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

The Republicans haven't had their stuff together for the past two, now three, elections. What makes you think they will in 2020?

I don't really agree with this. They won in 2004 despite the war that president started turning unpopular. They lost in 2008 in what in my opinion was a nearly unwinnable election for a Republican. The mere fact that they didn't get demolished in 2008 in the face of a perfect storm of events: popular new political face, economic collapse, and unpopular wars, is quite remarkable. In 2012 Romney was the guy from start to finish. Sure, there were moments here and there when that looked in doubt, but the party got their candidate. It just turned out that he was a pretty awful candidate (the same way John Kerry was an awful candidate) and that even against a polarizing president he just wasn't good enough to beat him. That, and Obama's ground game on election day was phenomenal both times.

And the party has done exceedingly well in the last two midterm elections. I think the "Republicans are in disarray" is very overblown.

I just reread your post, obviously you weren't talking about 2004. Oh well.

This guy gets it.

Because having either Trump or a guy who thinks the pyramids were just giant silos is having it together?

Neither of them are going to win, especially not Carson. I'm not saying the Republicans have a great pool of candidates in this primary. They don't. But from top to bottom their organization throughout the country destroys Democrats. They have spent two decades grooming leaders at the local and state levels. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now--I can look them up in a few minutes--but they are absolutely dominant at the state level which then translates to dominance in the House. Remember when Obama won in 2008 and people thought it was a wave election and the Democrats were going to dominate for a generation? How's that working out?

I mean, ultimately we've had a democratic president for 8 years and will probably go on for another 4-8 at this point...

There's more to government than the Presidency.

What?

People's live are probably impacted as much if not more by state and local politics, and the republicans are utterly dominant there. They outspend democrats to death, have been able to gerrymander districts (winning big in 2010 was huge) to help ensure their dominance. Plus low turnout elections tend to benefit republicans. Its going to take some time to dig them out.

Shit, even Massachusetts has a Republican governor.

[stip]

I mostly agree with 4/5, but I do think the GOP needs to take a long look at demographics. You can't lose that much of the under 40 white vote and the minority vote and expect to win the presidency. White evangelicals and old people can only take you so far.

This is my main issue. They aren't reaching out to the younger voters (for the presidency) and they haven't for some time.

I don't know if it's "aren't reaching out" as much as it that young people simply don't share their social values. I've felt like this for at least the last 4 years, but I really do think if there was ever a time for a grassroots libertarian movement it's now.

I don't think there's a single ideology that annoys me more than libertarianism. It ensnares so many people who should know better.

It's infuriating, and so intellectually lazy. The thing is though, if Republicans truly hitched their wagon to libertarianism I think they could get a lot of young people on board.

they can't. It's as opposed to social conservatism as you could possibly be, and that coalition will only hold together in opposition.

[4/5]

Clinton will be president, it is known, which will insure a republican president in 2020. You heard it here first. I will not concern myself with this silliness any further.

The Republicans haven't had their stuff together for the past two, now three, elections. What makes you think they will in 2020?

I don't really agree with this. They won in 2004 despite the war that president started turning unpopular. They lost in 2008 in what in my opinion was a nearly unwinnable election for a Republican. The mere fact that they didn't get demolished in 2008 in the face of a perfect storm of events: popular new political face, economic collapse, and unpopular wars, is quite remarkable. In 2012 Romney was the guy from start to finish. Sure, there were moments here and there when that looked in doubt, but the party got their candidate. It just turned out that he was a pretty awful candidate (the same way John Kerry was an awful candidate) and that even against a polarizing president he just wasn't good enough to beat him. That, and Obama's ground game on election day was phenomenal both times.

And the party has done exceedingly well in the last two midterm elections. I think the "Republicans are in disarray" is very overblown.

I just reread your post, obviously you weren't talking about 2004. Oh well.

This guy gets it.

Because having either Trump or a guy who thinks the pyramids were just giant silos is having it together?

Neither of them are going to win, especially not Carson. I'm not saying the Republicans have a great pool of candidates in this primary. They don't. But from top to bottom their organization throughout the country destroys Democrats. They have spent two decades grooming leaders at the local and state levels. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now--I can look them up in a few minutes--but they are absolutely dominant at the state level which then translates to dominance in the House. Remember when Obama won in 2008 and people thought it was a wave election and the Democrats were going to dominate for a generation? How's that working out?

I mean, ultimately we've had a democratic president for 8 years and will probably go on for another 4-8 at this point...

There's more to government than the Presidency.

What?

People's live are probably impacted as much if not more by state and local politics, and the republicans are utterly dominant there. They outspend democrats to death, have been able to gerrymander districts (winning big in 2010 was huge) to help ensure their dominance. Plus low turnout elections tend to benefit republicans. Its going to take some time to dig them out.

This guy gets it.

[Norah]

I mostly agree with 4/5, but I do think the GOP needs to take a long look at demographics. You can't lose that much of the under 40 white vote and the minority vote and expect to win the presidency. White evangelicals and old people can only take you so far.

This is my main issue. They aren't reaching out to the younger voters (for the presidency) and they haven't for some time.

I don't know if it's "aren't reaching out" as much as it that young people simply don't share their social values. I've felt like this for at least the last 4 years, but I really do think if there was ever a time for a grassroots libertarian movement it's now.

I don't think there's a single ideology that annoys me more than libertarianism. It ensnares so many people who should know better.

It's infuriating, and so intellectually lazy. The thing is though, if Republicans truly hitched their wagon to libertarianism I think they could get a lot of young people on board.

they can't. It's as opposed to social conservatism as you could possibly be, and that coalition will only hold together in opposition.

That's a relief.

[stip]

I mostly agree with 4/5, but I do think the GOP needs to take a long look at demographics. You can't lose that much of the under 40 white vote and the minority vote and expect to win the presidency. White evangelicals and old people can only take you so far.

This is my main issue. They aren't reaching out to the younger voters (for the presidency) and they haven't for some time.

I don't know if it's "aren't reaching out" as much as it that young people simply don't share their social values. I've felt like this for at least the last 4 years, but I really do think if there was ever a time for a grassroots libertarian movement it's now.

I don't think there's a single ideology that annoys me more than libertarianism. It ensnares so many people who should know better.

Would you say you're more annoyed by the basic ideological tenets or the people who proclaim the superiority of said ideology?

I'm a theorist, so probably the tenets.

[4/5]

It's infuriating, and so intellectually lazy. The thing is though, if Republicans truly hitched their wagon to libertarianism I think they could get a lot of young people on board.

How is it more intellectually lazy than any other ideology?

[Norah]

It's infuriating, and so intellectually lazy. The thing is though, if Republicans truly hitched their wagon to libertarianism I think they could get a lot of young people on board.

How is it more intellectually lazy than any other ideology?

I guess the theory in and of itself isn't intellectually lazy, but I find that my peers who have bought into it just don't want to think things any further than "the gov'ment should just leave me alone!"

[4/5]

I mean this thread isn't about libertarianism so I'm not trying to derail it. Personally, I think a lot of the negative attitudes towards it are because so many people who advocate for it are so uncompromising and have a view of the world that doesn't always appear to be rooted in reality. I'd argue that a "moderate libertarian" view could provide a healthy alternative to what we have now from the two parties. But that probably doesn't exist. I guess that's kind of your point, probably.

[Norah]

I guess that's kind of your point, probably.

pretty much

[BurtReynolds]

Libertarianism is only half as lazy as you goddamned socialists and that ideology though.

[Norah]

Well, socialism involves doing things and libertarianism involves not doing things so I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you there.

[E.H. Ruddock]

I'm glad my bitching post about the electoral college didn't go any further. I'm too lazy to talk about it anyway.

[4/5]

It's infuriating, and so intellectually lazy. The thing is though, if Republicans truly hitched their wagon to libertarianism I think they could get a lot of young people on board.

How is it more intellectually lazy than any other ideology?

I guess the theory in and of itself isn't intellectually lazy, but I find that my peers who have bought into it just don't want to think things any further than "the gov'ment should just leave me alone!"

Yeah, that's really obnoxious. And I do think that a lot of people use the idea of being a "libertarian" to cloak some of their more negative preferences. But at the same time the basic idea of limited government, personal freedom, low taxes, etc. aren't bad ideas. They probably get trumpeted a little too loudly by overzealous people sometimes, though.

[4/5]

I'm glad my bitching post about the electoral college didn't go any further. I'm too lazy to talk about it anyway.

I fully intended to make you complain about it but then I said "libertarian" and that was that.

[Norah]

Guys, this has been a pretty good thread today.

[BurtReynolds]

I mean this thread isn't about libertarianism so I'm not trying to derail it. Personally, I think a lot of the negative attitudes towards it are because so many people who advocate for it are so uncompromising and have a view of the world that doesn't always appear to be rooted in reality. I'd argue that a "moderate libertarian" view could provide a healthy alternative to what we have now from the two parties. But that probably doesn't exist. I guess that's kind of your point, probably.

Any time you put a label your beliefs, people attack you as the worst possible incarnation of that belief. If you are a libertarian, you're a laissez faire capitalist monster, if you are a communist, you think Stalin was great, etc. Everything is so toxic now. Trump is right: ban the internet.