Colorado LP strikes deal with Republicans

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1668688736232546304

https://twitter.com/LPCO/status/1668657502895079424

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1668688736232546304
[... tweet ...]

https://twitter.com/JoshEakle/status/1668712975736209411

https://twitter.com/JoshEakle/status/1668716139042467842

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1668748833940029440

https://twitter.com/tweetingmatty/status/1668815924172922881

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1668699819878281218

 

[Swordsmyth]

It's about time.

 

[Voluntarist]

Whether we run a candidate or not can decide an election.

Who is that "We"? Who is it that actually decides whether the LP of Colorado will run a candidate or not (effectively: who decides whether the candidate the GOP is running is a liberty candidate or not)? Is there some sort of elitist executive committee in charge of the decision, or does the Colorado LP have a special election to decide? Haven't the individual LP members always had the ability to decide for themselves whether or not the GOP candidate is a "Liberty Candidate" ... and cast their individual vote accordingly? This is just taking away that individual choice.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Who is that "We"? Who is it that actually decides whether the LP of Colorado will run a candidate or not (effectively: who decides whether the candidate the GOP is running is a liberty candidate or not)? Is there some sort of elitist executive committee in charge of the decision, or does the Colorado LP have a special election to decide?

I don't know. (I'm just the messenger.)

I assume Colorado LP members nominate & select candidates at a state party convention (the same way the national LP nominates & selects POTUS candidates). If so, then presumably, if enough members in attendance at such a convention felt that the Republican candidate was sufficiently libertarian, then they would just move to forgo the usual nomination & selection process for that particular office - or they might go ahead and conduct the process, but vote for NOTA ("none of the above") if anyone did try to win the nomination. Alternatively, perhaps it could involve a cross-nomination, with the Republican candidate also receiving the Libertarian nomination (though it may be that such a candidate would have to explicitly seek both nominations.)

Haven't the individual LP members always had the ability to decide for themselves whether or not the GOP candidate is a "Liberty Candidate" ... and cast their individual vote accordingly? This is just taking away that individual choice.

As far as I know, they still do have that ability. No one can force them to vote otherwise than they wish (or prevent them from voting on the matter at all).

The Kentucky LP has already done exactly the same sort of thing by declining to waste time & resources by running anyone against Thomas Massie. This Colorado agreement just seems like a more formally-stated version of the same thing, with an explicit acknowledgment of the policy by the Republicans added in. IOW: The Colorado LP is saying to the Republicans "if you run some people like Massie, we'll try not to run anyone against them" and the Republicans are saying "okay, we'll try to run some people like that, then". As suggested by what I said previously, I assume that the question of whether the Republicans are actually running "someone like Massie" (or close enough to suit them) would be decided by the members at convention, with their decision being indicated by whether they end up actually nominating someone or not.

 

[CaptUSA]

I don't know. (I'm just the messenger.)

I assume Colorado LP members nominate & select candidates at a state party convention (the same way the national LP nominates & selects POTUS candidates). If so, then presumably, if enough members in attendance at such a convention felt that the Republican candidate was sufficiently libertarian, then they would just move to forgo the usual nomination & selection process for that particular office - or they might go ahead and conduct the process, but vote for NOTA ("none of the above") if anyone did try to win the nomination. Alternatively, perhaps it could involve a cross-nomination, with the Republican candidate also receiving the Libertarian nomination (though it may be that such a candidate would have to explicitly seek both nominations.)



As far as I know, they still do have that ability. No one can force them to vote otherwise than they wish (or prevent them from voting on the matter at all).

The Kentucky LP has already done exactly the same sort of thing by declining to waste time & resources by running anyone against Thomas Massie. This Colorado agreement just seems like a more formally-stated version of the same thing, with an explicit acknowledgment of the policy by the Republicans added in. IOW: The Colorado LP is saying to the Republicans "if you run some people like Massie, we'll try not to run anyone against them" and the Republicans are saying "okay, we'll try to run some people like that, then". As suggested by what I said previously, I assume that the question of whether the Republicans are actually running "someone like Massie" (or close enough to suit them) would be decided by the members at convention, with their decision being indicated by whether they end up actually nominating someone or not.

I see it like this... The national LP has limited resources to spend, so they have to focus their efforts. If the state LP's can work out a deal not to run a candidate because the GOP selected a candidate that is at least less objectionable, then the LP can direct resources elsewhere. Provided that this doesn't hamper ballot access in the next election cycle, it seems like a reasonable strategy.

I know this won't sit well with some, but the existing strategy has been an utter failure. Maybe choosing your battles will pay some dividends??


On the flip side, it does feel pretty early to start making deals, but I'm not in Colorado.

 

[Occam's Banana]

RELATED: Montana LP to endorse (small-L) libertarian candidates of any party

 

[Occam's Banana]

It's about time.

I agree. In fact, it's well past time the Republicans started running more pro-liberty nominees.

(Kinda makes one wonder why they hell they weren't already doing that ... hmmmm ...)

 

[Occam's Banana]

I agree. In fact, it's well past time the Republicans started running more pro-liberty nominees.

(Kinda makes one wonder why they hell they weren't already doing that ... hmmmm ...)

It's also well past time for Republicans who actually give a damn about liberty (instead of just libertarian-ish lip service) to start supporting Libertarian nominees when their own party's candidates suck. (I'm not gonna hold my breath on that happening, though ...)