The Libertarian Party as our vehicle

[P3ter_Griffin]

Taking over the libertarian party?

Yea, nay?

Seems like a much more feasible thing than taking over the republican party. We could fund-raise to get our message to the airwaves and our candidates elected. We could get rid of the stupid and wasteful primary system and have party officials select candidates to run the different races. We could know who our candidates are going to be before the dem and republican primaries even start so we could get cheaper tv advertising for the name recognition early, and keep up the pressure later with cheaper forms of outreach. We could direct funds where it makes sense and pull funds from areas where it doesn't. Build a lean mean fighting machine and grow our expanse as success allows. Proven success defeating establishment dems would surely open up more sources of funding. Change the party by-laws so we don't have to worry about losing control of the party...

And it doesn't really need to be seen as 'taking over', I'm sure many who hold positions in the party are willing to go a different direction if it provides greater chance for success.

This isn't super long or well thought out but that is because it is not a project for an individual. What say you? How tough a task is this to accomplish? Where is a sensible place to begin in planning out such a task? How do we get from where we are now to in control of the national Libertarian party and rules committee?

Thanks.

 

[CaseyJones]

actually it would probably be best to run as fiscally conservative dems for awhile as they will be winning house and senate seats with a republican in the white house

 

[phill4paul]

actually it would probably be best to run as fiscally conservative dems for awhile as they will be winning house and senate seats with a republican in the white house

What a screwed up "Game of Thrones" American politics is, eh?

 

[CaseyJones]

What a screwed up "Game of Thrones" American politics is, eh?

I've read the books, I dislike G.R.R. Martin

 

[phill4paul]

I've read the books, I dislike G.R.R. Martin

Why?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Until the LP can prove that it can get substantially more than its usual 1%, I'm not ready to abandon the GOP strategy.

We might well see that happen this cycle, with the LP emerging as a serious third party challenge to the GOP/Dems.

So, for the moment, I say hold your fire. Reevaluate on November 9th.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

actually it would probably be best to run as fiscally conservative dems for awhile as they will be winning house and senate seats with a republican in the white house

One thing I'll say about the dems is they are much better pets then the republicans. When there union leaders, community organizers, political leaders, etc tell them to vote for candidate X they do. The Bernie crowd is a little different but that is because they don't think the left is left enough, they wouldn't help us. We would not get a candidate through the primary of any political race of consequence.... meaning I think the best we could do would be city/county level... and that really depends on the locale too. We'd get shit on in Minneapolis for instance, the candidates the left runs there are hand picked.

Part of the reason for going after a party rather than trying to get an individual elected is so we can focus on building infrastructure, donor relations, and a long term plan, something with a lasting ability to get the funds to run different candidates... whereas running a politician the greatest donation amounts will come from people interested in getting that one candidate elected, and the entire focus will have been on getting that one candidate elected.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Until the LP can prove that it can get substantially more than its usual 1%, I'm not ready to abandon the GOP strategy.

We might well see that happen this cycle, with the LP emerging as a serious third party challenge to the GOP/Dems.

So, for the moment, I say hold your fire. Reevaluate on November 9th.

I'm saying though part of the problem with the LP's success is the LP itself and that with better leadership and direction candidates would have better results... because instead of focusing on unwinnable races we'd focus on winnable ones. We sure could run a pres candidate, but would it make much sense to allocate a lot of resources to it at this point? And I agree this isn't a short term thing but what they hey else we got to focus on till November 9?... not that individuals focused elsewhere need to focus their attention here just a little chit chat to see what such a plan would look like... taking over the lp that is.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm saying though part of the problem with the LP's success is the LP itself and that with better leadership and direction candidates would have better results... because instead of focusing on unwinnable races we'd focus on winnable ones. We sure could run a pres candidate, but would it make much sense to allocate a lot of resources to it at this point? And I agree this isn't a short term thing but what they hey else we got to focus on till November 9?... not that individuals focused elsewhere need to focus their attention here just a little chit chat to see what such a plan would look like... taking over the lp that is.

I agree with you that the LP needs reforming and could be a lot more successful with different people in charge.

...and we could be those people.

But to join the LP and do this, we'd have to leave the GOP, no?

You can't be a registered member of two parties simultaneously.

And I'm wary of giving up on the GOP until the LP shows us some flicker of life.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Taking over the libertarian party?

Yea, nay?

Seems like a much more feasible thing than taking over the republican party. [...]

LOL CRY @ need for discussion of feasibility of libertarians "taking over" the Libertarian party ...

 

[Origanalist]

LOL CRY @ need for discussion of feasibility of libertarians "taking over" the Libertarian party ...

Laugh, cry, or just WTF?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

It's not about libertarians taking over the Libertarian Party.

It's about competent libertarians ousting the incompetent libertarians who currently control the Libertarian Party.

For instance, job #1 after we seize the reins will be to fire whatever jackass thought this guy was a good Senate candidate.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

I agree with you that the LP needs reforming and could be a lot more successful with different people in charge.

...and we could be those people.

But to join the LP and do this, we'd have to leave the GOP, no?

You can't be a registered member of two parties simultaneously.

And I'm wary of giving up on the GOP until the LP shows us some flicker of life.

Right on right on, I see what you're saying. I live in WI and we have open primaries so no need to register for a party. I tried registering GOP but when I went to the local GOP office it wasn't there, they didn't answer the phone nor have an answering machine, and wouldn't respond on twitter.

It definitely wouldn't be a one size fits all. If we weren't running a candidate in an area and it is a state you could only vote by party affiliation and the GOPer was better than the DEM, or vice versa if it happened to be so, then it would make sense to be registered to that party.

That is definitely something to think about and consider.

At the same time our individual votes don't have a great influence. So giving up our ability to vote GOP to run the Libertarian party would be a net positive... we should hope at least!

For anyone:

do you need to have control of the state libertarian parties to influence (vote on) the leaders of the national libertarian party?

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

LOL CRY @ need for discussion of feasibility of libertarians "taking over" the Libertarian party ...

haha. To be honest I don't know much about the current leaders. I looked up the chair a little but I could only find stuff relevant to 2016 election... I'll look more at some point but I didn't come across anything stating his principles. They may well be 'super hardcore' for all I know. But I don't get the feeling they have a great plan to change anything, just essentially wasting money.... but I do speak out of ignorance. I haven't followed the party or their actions closely.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

It's not about libertarians taking over the Libertarian Party.

It's about competent libertarians ousting the incompetent libertarians who currently control the Libertarian Party.

For instance, job #1 after we seize the reins will be to fire whatever jackass thought this guy was a good Senate candidate.

haha. He has some great flaws but I had thought he was a good candidate at one point. But I really see the hateful and violent approach, like him or X, more inflammatory than helpful at this point. Ron had great success and he did not pluck on those strings. If we're going to battle though I'll gladly let Invictus rally the troops.

 

[William Tell]

Taking over the libertarian party?

Yea, nay?

Nay.

It is a waste of time.

I appreciate third parties in general elections, but they are not winning elections because they don't put in the needed work. And it probably would cost 10 times as much to be elected as a Libertarian as it would as a Republican, if it is even possible to win a significant race as an LP candidate.

Not to go Collinz on everybody, but most people in the liberty movement simply do not understand how elections work. There are legislative races for example that have been won in Republican primaries by liberty candidates, with a few thousand votes. By working hard and targeting the GOP base. If these same candidates had ran these same races as Libertarians, it would require tens of thousands of votes because they would be won in the general election not the primary. It would require more volunteers and more money, which makes it almost impossible since you won't find more volunteers, and you will probably raise less money since no one takes third parties seriously. It is also complicated by the fact that an LP candidate would try to win with votes from all parties. This means a different sort of marketing. Running in a GOP primary is usually pretty simple, you just say you are the real "conservative", if you can convince a plurality or majority of the primary voters who turn out that you are, you win. Provided you survive the gutter politics they always throw at you.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Nay.

It is a waste of time.

I appreciate third parties in general elections, but they are not winning elections because they don't put in the needed work. And it probably would cost 10 times as much to be elected as a Libertarian as it would as a Republican, if it is even possible to win a significant race as an LP candidate.

Not to go Collinz on everybody, but most people in the liberty movement simply do not understand how elections work. There are legislative for example that have been won in Republican primaries by liberty candidates, with a few thousand votes. By working hard and targeting the GOP base. If these same candidates had ran these same races as Libertarians, it would require tens of thousands of votes because they would be won in the general election not the primary. It would require more volunteers and more money, which makes it almost impossible since you won't find more volunteers, and you will probably raise less money since no one takes third parties seriously. It is also complicated by the fact that an LP candidate would try to win with votes from all parties. This means a different sort of marketing. Running in a GOP primary is usually pretty simple, you just say you are the real "conservative", if you can convince a plurality or majority of the primary voters who turn out that you are, you win. Provided you survive the gutter politics they always throw at you.

You make a very good point.. similar I think to what R3v is saying.

Are there areas where this would not be the case though? Kind of in line with what I was saying about targeting specific races. For instance... again I'm speaking out of mostly ignorance... but would Alaska and NH be potential areas where the people are more apt to vote 3rd party? And so what you mention would be in a severely diminished form?

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Besides the Party, leadership is even more important. If Ron Paul or someone with similar principles joined LP to lead it, I would support it without hesitation.
There is still a lot I need to know about (past track record/political actions taken against Iraq War etc) current LP leaders.

 

[William Tell]

You make a very good point.. similar I think to what R3v is saying.

Are there areas where this would not be the case though? Kind of in line with what I was saying about targeting specific races.

I'm not sure. There are always exceptions to the rule. If the major party candidates have scandals or there is some kind of other large discontent, a serious third party candidate may have a chance, especially if the third party candidate is well decently funded, or a former officeholder.

For instance... again I'm speaking out of mostly ignorance... but would Alaska and NH be potential areas where the people are more apt to vote 3rd party? And so what you mention would be in a severely diminished form?

Well, I'm mostly ignorant of other states as well. I think some areas are more pro third party than others, what I don't know is whether any of them are enough so to really make the difference. MN had significant third party activity for a while with their Independence party or whatever it was called, not sure it was really any use to liberty activists though.

Now, I would love it if a third party and some donors got some candidates, researched their races and what they need and for once provided them with enough support to try to make them actually competitive. Say, hypothetically try to win a state legislature seat or 3 in rural Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming, maybe NH like you mentioned. Some place where a winning candidate would make a difference, and they wouldn't be totally breaking the bank with an experiment like that.

I would love to be proven wrong, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that the third parties want to try, let alone anyone who wants to donate more than a few bucks.

 

[phill4paul]

Nay.

It is a waste of time.

I appreciate third parties in general elections, but they are not winning elections because they don't put in the needed work. And it probably would cost 10 times as much to be elected as a Libertarian as it would as a Republican, if it is even possible to win a significant race as an LP candidate.

Not to go Collinz on everybody, but most people in the liberty movement simply do not understand how elections work. There are legislative races for example that have been won in Republican primaries by liberty candidates, with a few thousand votes. By working hard and targeting the GOP base. If these same candidates had ran these same races as Libertarians, it would require tens of thousands of votes because they would be won in the general election not the primary. It would require more volunteers and more money, which makes it almost impossible since you won't find more volunteers, and you will probably raise less money since no one takes third parties seriously. It is also complicated by the fact that an LP candidate would try to win with votes from all parties. This means a different sort of marketing. Running in a GOP primary is usually pretty simple, you just say you are the real "conservative", if you can convince a plurality or majority of the primary voters who turn out that you are, you win. Provided you survive the gutter politics they always throw at you.

It. Is. A. Waste. Of. Time.

We all knew it was rigged. Beyond all odds we supported, worked for, dedicated life and wealth to Ron Paul. We know where that went. This whole DNC shit should clue anyone else in. We experienced it and now Dems do.
Voting ain't going to change shit. Ever.
Succession might. But, who has the balls for that?