Will the Libertarian Party Field A Candidate Against Presidential Candidate Rand Paul?

[Carlybee]

Understandable. The funny thing is that they have better voting records (using an average of the JBS and Freedomworks scorecards) than every single Democrat. So as bad as they are, it could be worse.

Just to illustrate, the JBS cumulative scorecard has McCain at 64% and Graham at 63% - not good scores at all. But the highest Dem is Heitkamp at 40%, and she is an anomaly as most of the Dems are at 25% or less.

Oh I don't defend Dems at all but it's not just their voting record that concerns me, it's their hawkish intent on foreign policy...then there are people like Santorum who would have us a theocracy.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Understandable. The funny thing is that they have better voting records (using an average of the JBS and Freedomworks scorecards) than every single Democrat. So as bad as they are, it could be worse.

Just to illustrate, the JBS cumulative scorecard has McCain at 64% and Graham at 63% - not good scores at all. But the highest Dem is Heitkamp at 40%, and she is an anomaly as most of the Dems are at 25% or less.

I don't use either JBS or Freedomworks scorecards to assess political figures...I use my own criteria which includes checking on FP and civil liberties votes. If I recall, JBS and Freedomworks both ignore those issues.

 

[Brett85]

I don't use either JBS or Freedomworks scorecards to assess political figures...I use my own criteria which includes checking on FP and civil liberties votes. If I recall, JBS and Freedomworks both ignore those issues.

I don't think so. Freedomworks scored the Amash amendment that placed limits on NSA surveillance, and JBS regularly includes votes on the Patriot Act and foreign policy issues as part of their scorecard.

 

[supermario21]

The problem is I think some of us are far too generous with Democrats, assuming they're all like Kucinich and at least good on war and civil liberties. The House is decent, but the Senate Democrats with an exception of maybe Wyden and Udall are just absolutely terrible.

 

[compromise]

Based on Gary's frequent attacks on Rand, I think it's likely he's considering a 2016 LP presidential run.

 

[Christian Liberty]

One does not equal the other.

We are a two party system, and with some rare exceptions we have always been a two party system going back to the founding of our country. A lot of that has to do with how we hold our elections (winner take all) and the makeup of our legislative bodies (majority party control). If we had a parliamentary system, things would be different I suppose.

But just because we have a two party system does not mean you are required to vote for the "lesser of two evils". For one, the primary process gives people from all wings of the party the opportunity to compete for the ballot spot in the general election. Massie, Rand, Amash and others have all got to where they are today by competing in and winning primary contests. So the opportunities lie in the primaries. Then when the general election comes, if one is not pleased with the choices, they can abstain. Sure there may be minor party candidates on the ballot for emotional voters who need to "feel good" about their vote. But personally, with very rare exceptions (only one in recent memory) I prefer to abstain rather than vote for a minor party candidate, as I believe that my vote for them is an endorsement of their folly.

If you've got McCain against Obama, what's wrong with someone like Chuck Baldiwn running and playing spoiler? You say its "Folly" but why?

Granted, if they actually expect to win, I understand, but their goal could well be to make someone else lose and make a point, that not every conservative who cares will vote for a McCain.

Understandable. The funny thing is that they have better voting records (using an average of the JBS and Freedomworks scorecards) than every single Democrat. So as bad as they are, it could be worse.

Just to illustrate, the JBS cumulative scorecard has McCain at 64% and Graham at 63% - not good scores at all. But the highest Dem is Heitkamp at 40%, and she is an anomaly as most of the Dems are at 25% or less.

They weight all issues equally, IIRC. Which I understand, anything else might be biased, but some of us don't view a vote on a tax increase and a vote to go to war in Iraq as being exactly the same.

I don't think so. Freedomworks scored the Amash amendment that placed limits on NSA surveillance, and JBS regularly includes votes on the Patriot Act and foreign policy issues as part of their scorecard.

I understand that, but there are numerically less of those votes, nonetheless they are the most important ones.

I'm no fan of Kucinich, but I think anyone who would prefer Lindsey Graham over him has too much faith in the GOP. At least Kucinich tries to do the right thing, and doesn't want to spend American blood sweat and treasure in foreign wars.

 

[FrankRep]

Based on Gary's frequent attacks on Rand, I think it's likely he's considering a 2016 LP presidential run.

How embarrassing for the Libertarian Party.

 

[enoch150]

Understandable. The funny thing is that they have better voting records (using an average of the JBS and Freedomworks scorecards) than every single Democrat. So as bad as they are, it could be worse.

Just to illustrate, the JBS cumulative scorecard has McCain at 64% and Graham at 63% - not good scores at all. But the highest Dem is Heitkamp at 40%, and she is an anomaly as most of the Dems are at 25% or less.

When a Democrat is President, JBS scores for Republicans go up and scores for Democrats go down. When a Republican is President, Republican scores go down and Democrat scores go up. On average, Republican scores are better, but when a Republican is President, the good Democrats score higher than the bad Republicans.

 

[enoch150]

Well NJ is hardly conservative, most everyone knows that. And my area in SC is probably one of the most libertarian districts in the country, surely in the South - we have Tom Davis as our State Senator and Mark Sanford as our Congressman. I find it odd that if a party wants to grow and have some influence that they don't do a lot (if any) traditional means of growing a party. I know they exist down here, as they do run candidates for office (as they did in NJ), but it's almost as they exist on paper more so than an actual physical presence.

I found a registration number of 330,811 from January 2013, according to Ballot Access News. Does anyone know where we can find some historical data on their party registration. I was actually surprised at how low that number is (there are around 177 million registered voters in the US, so the LP is about 0.01% of all registered voters). Sometimes I think folks like us spend more time talking about the LP than it is worth talking about.

That 330,811 number is for 30 states. The other states either only publish the total registration, but not the party breakdown, or in a few cases they don't have party registration at all. Also, there are, by my count, five different ways to register as a Libertarian in Connecticut, only one of which is public data. I could register as a Libertarian with the state or federal party, and as a Republican at the town hall. Many libertarians here did exactly that so that they could vote in the Republican primary.

That being said, most libertarian candidates only run paper candidacies and in places like Connecticut, they usually only run a handful every other year. Very few actually put time and money into it beyond ballot access. But even here in Connecticut, which is almost as anti-libertarian as it gets, a few libertarians have come close to winning an election for state rep, when they put time and money into it. I know of one occasion where they had more votes than the Democratic candidate, and another where they had more votes than both the Republican and Democratic candidates in one town of a multi-town district. No one that I know of has put in the time serving on local boards and commissions and tried to work their way up.

But in a state like Connecticut, even the Republican party barely treads water, and often doesn't run candidates in certain areas. For example, my state rep district has had a Democrat for about 35 years now and on 5 occasions there was no Republican opposition. When they do run, they usually lose by 25%. In a district like that, it might actually benefit the Republican if a Libertarian were on the ballot and ran to the left of the Democrat. It couldn't hurt. The Republicans have already demonstrated that they can't win.

 

[FrankRep]

I don't use either JBS or Freedomworks scorecards to assess political figures...I use my own criteria which includes checking on FP and civil liberties votes. If I recall, JBS and Freedomworks both ignore those issues.

You recall falsely. The John Birch Society supports non-interventionism and obeying the Constitution.

Ron Paul supports the JBS.


Ron Paul on the Importance of the John Birch Society

 

[philipped]

I look at it like this, in 2012 a liberty-minded candidate on the national level wouldn't even get remotely close to a fair amount of attention (Ron Paul), here we are in 2013 and I literally see a new article about Rand Paul and mentioning his "potential 2016 presidential run" every week. Some people may not agree with his social conservatism, him leaning toward evangelicals or his stance on the drug war, but in my opinion, he is the best thing the Liberty movement has for the national level so far. I hope that Rand is reaching out to all these other groups besides the Libertarian-wing of the GOP and Independents to strengthen his party influence in a large amount.

When he has a good amount of his party solidly with him, I believe he will take his "libertarian-leaning" views and sprinkle them into the minds of the social cons, evangelicals and such. It may not work all together but it could lighten up the mood for them and allow them to make some space for us in the Rand circle. AS FOR THE LP, they are there own party with their own rules and own situations. I personally DO NOT wanna see them compromise to assist Rand Paul in anyway, if they know what's good for them they should actually pick a candidate that makes Gary Johnson look like a joke to better increase their chances of dominance toward 2016.

Something like this would just solidify my voting plans for 2016. If either Rand just goes too much toward social cons & such, i'll jump his ship and land on the much smaller LP candidate's boat. If he keeps the Libertarians and the young libertarian-minded people close to him during his campaigning then I'll stick with him till the party nominates someone. If the RNC decides to NOT go with Rand, I still have that same LP candidate. I refuse to do what a lot of people did last year and just vote R because he's a RINO.

And I also agree with whomever posted that the LP should seriously focus on getting somebody in atleast 1 state level position in every state. But learning quickly thanks to this site, I don't see that happening. I convinced a friend of mine to register Libertarian, I never did it but now that Rand is getting this much attention in 2013, I registered Republican and will be doing whatever I can to assist in the primaries in Florida where he might have a chance if Rubio doesn't run, FUCK JEB BUSH.

 

[milgram]

I really like what Rand has accomplished within the GOP, but since I'm not in a battleground state I'll be supporting the LP in 2016 (and beyond).

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Based on Gary's frequent attacks on Rand, I think it's likely he's considering a 2016 LP presidential run.

Gary is such a petty man. He could be in the Senate right now doing some actual good if he swallowed his ego.

 

[economics102]

I admit I didn't read all 18 pages of this thread, but have you guys considered that the LP running a candidate might actually help Rand?

If they ran a candidate, that candidate would probably get a record low vote total. Meanwhile, as you may recall, Rand has established himself as a mainstream conservative. A Libertarian Party candidate in the mix would only add to that contrast. Imagine Rand saying, "I'm not a Libertarian. If you want a libertarian candidate, there's a party for that."

 

[speciallyblend]

Yes, i will be supporting the LP Candidate!

 

[IndianaPolitico]

If the LP ran a candidate against Rand Paul, I really think it would look ridiculous. They would be better off attempting to connect themselves with Rand, thus giving them a general election "victory" they could tout.

 

[radiofriendly]

If the LP ran a candidate against Rand Paul, I really think it would look ridiculous. They would be better off attempting to connect themselves with Rand, thus giving them a general election "victory" they could tout.

Let them run Bob Barr against Rand Paul...lol!
I'm of the opinion that more candidates will make Paul stronger. It will also give the Adam Kokesh voters somewhere to go.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Let them run Bob Barr against Rand Paul...lol!
I'm of the opinion that more candidates will make Paul stronger. It will also give the Adam Kokesh voters somewhere to go.

Ridiculous comment on so many levels.

 

[radiofriendly]

O sure

Ridiculous comment on so many levels.

That was the idea...

 

[cajuncocoa]

That was the idea...