New numbers from Gallup show libertarian-leaning voters remain more than 20 percent of the electorate, David Boaz blogs:
The Gallup Poll has a new estimate of the number of libertarians in the American electorate. In their 2014 Gallup Governance Survey they find that 24 percent of respondents can be characterized as libertarians (as compared to 27 percent conservative, 21 percent liberal, and 18 percent populist).
Independent voters, a large swatch of whom are socially tolerant, fiscally conservative (that is, “libertarian,” whether they know the term or not) sway elections. If the GOP wins big next Tuesday, it will be in large measure because libertarian-leaners find the Democrats’ economically stifling regulatory overreach, reckless expansion of entitlements and general mismanagement of baseline federal responsibilities (at home and abroad) more threatening than the GOP’s social intolerance and perceived indifference to those who legitimately need assistance.
And I think the advancement of freedom to marry via the courts, despite GOP political opposition, has neutered this issue among independents/libertarians who support both marriage equality and economic growth that’s driven by the private sector (a view anathema to the Obama, Hillary and Warren Democrats).
Note: I am leaving aside here the relatively small group of self-identified libertarian faithful who vote for Libertarian Party candidates. They, too, can sway very close elections but pale in number compared to independent voters whose political loyalty isn’t tied to either major party and who, in a general sense, favor social and fiscal freedom from an overly intrusive government.
Populists, by the way, favor a bigger government footprint on the economy and are socially conservative—think Mike Huckabee. They’re the worst of all political possibilities.
47 Comments for “When the Democrats Lose the Libertarian-Leaners, They Lose Elections”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Credit for the victories of Sam Brownback, Tom Cotton, Joni Ernst and other hard-core social conservative Republican candidates will be claimed by many — FRC and NOM included, I suppose — but perhaps you are right, Stephen — we’ll owe the continued 2014 anti-gay drift of the Republican Party to libertarians. I hope not, but you’re probably right. Ezekiel 33:6 comes to mind.
posted by Lori Heine on
What an utter load of crap. So that’s what the aggressives are going to keep telling themselves after Tuesday.
Of course. Lie on.
Stephen is absolutely right, Tom, but live on in your delusional little bubble. Let the people with pretty hair on MSNBC and the other (heavily corporate-funded) “progressive” media tell you libertarians are to blame for not voting for the quacks and frauds you support.
And we’ll keep on not voting for them. And you’ll keep trying to scare us with horror stories of scary social conservatives. Whom we won’t vote for, either.
I don’t vote for frauds. Period. I don’t care which big-corporate political party fronts them.
The only way the people who do the work in this country to take our country back is to pull the plug on this idiocy. Lesser evils need to be sent packing. They aren’t good enough anymore.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen is absolutely right, Tom, but live on in your delusional little bubble. Let the people with pretty hair on MSNBC and the other (heavily corporate-funded) “progressive” media tell you libertarians are to blame for not voting for the quacks and frauds you support.
Delusional, now, am I? And a liar, too. Before I was just “the enemy”.
But let me ask you this: If Stephen is absolutely right , as you say he is, then didn’t the libertarian-minded who “favor social and fiscal freedom from an overly intrusive government” but vote for Sam Brownback, Tom Cotton, Jodi Ernst and other social conservatives make a choice to vote for the social conservatives, favoring “fiscal freedom” over “social freedom”?
Delusional though I may be, and a liar, too, but libertarian-minded voters will be making a choice between this election, as they always do, and if Stephen is right, they will be making a choice to put social conservatives into or back into office. And if your response is any indication, they won’t take responsibility for the choice, either.
posted by Lori Heine on
Tom, you are switching back and forth between “libertarian” and “libertarian-minded.” Sorry. I’m going to call you on it.
Libertarian-mindedness is nothing but a ploy (which incidentally isn’t working very well) on the part of social conservatives to get libertarians to think they’ve seen the light and begun to care about freedom.
The ploy does work with the sort of people who vote for social conservatives anyway. And they probably will vote for the same candidates they usually do.
What does that prove? That (A) Statists think the people who vote for them are stupid. (B) Many of them are. (C) People who are willing to use government violence against others are often also willing to lie.
Power becomes the whole point–an end in itself. And any means by which it might be obtained can be rationalized as necessary.
I think this is a disgusting mentality. I won’t vote for it in either party. Go on believing the manipulative nonsense about libertarians electing social conservatives all you want to. But your implication–that we MUST vote for unacceptable candidates, simply because there’s something holy or noble about voting in and of itself–is arrogant and obnoxious. It is tantamount to tell us how to think.
We don’t like how you think. Why the hell would we want to think that way?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Authentic libertarians, like my brother-in-law, want nothing to do with either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party — they vote Libertarian.
The “libertarian-minded” — those who affiliate with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party — are, for the most part, pretenders, libertarian wannabees. And if Stephen’s assertion is right, those libertarian wannabees are about to vote for hard-core social conservatives in large numbers.
So much for their dedication to “equal means equal”.
posted by Mark Peterson on
Remember after the 2012 elections, when we heard that gay rights were a “gatekeeper” issue (at least for younger voters, and to some extent for the type of libertarian voters Stephen is describing)? Hard to say that argument was correct anymore as libertarian types trend toward people like Joni Ernst or Cory Gardner.
As Lori points out, libertarian voters are swing voters. But we’ve learned in this election process that lots of libertarians–and young voters–seem to have no problem voting for fanatically anti-gay candidates like Ernst or Gardner. Lots of libertarian voters might support gay rights in theory, but it doesn’t look like the issue is very important to them, and it’s certainly not a “gateway” for many of them.
posted by Lori Heine on
Voters are threatened by aggression in candidates of the opposing party. This is exactly how statist aggression perpetuates itself in politics.
We need to take a few steps back, breathe, and look at what’s going on here.
I agree that some people (young voters are not automatically libertarian) will vote for social conservatives if they think the only alternative is big-government, statist, meddling leftism. That says less about social conservatism than it does about the toxicity of statist leftism.
Heterosexual voters, even those who support gay rights, are concerned about a lot of issues right now. We may get tunnel-vision about gay rights, because they matter so much to us. But this election year has bombarded voters with a bewildering variety of issues.
Many issues, but few plausible answers. That accounts for a lot of the voter fatigue so evident this year.
posted by Mark Peterson on
But the Democrats represented “big-government, statist, meddling leftism” in 2012 as well (as opposed to the “big-government, statist, meddling rightism” of candidates like Ernst and Gardner). And the argument of the autopsy was that gay rights was a “gateway” issue–certain types of voters wouldn’t consider the Republican Party (despite the Democrats’ “big-government, statist, meddling leftism”) unless the party became more tolerant.
The party didn’t become more tolerant (Ernst supported a state constitutional amendment to strip gays and Iowa of the right to marry they’ve had for five years; Gardner opposes marriage and ENDA), and it looks like it didn’t matter. They’re running in purple states, not deep red states.
Imagine if Ernst and Gardner opposed interracial marriage rather than same-sex marriage, and opposed job protections for black people rather than gay people. I think those positions would be disqualifying among all but hard-core Republicans. It’s clear, on the other hand, that lots of swing voters (libertarian voters and young voters) have no qualms in voting for these fanatically anti-gay candidates. Gay rights isn’t a “gateway,” and it looks like it just isn’t very important to them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Heterosexual voters, even those who support gay rights, are concerned about a lot of issues right now. We may get tunnel-vision about gay rights, because they matter so much to us. But this election year has bombarded voters with a bewildering variety of issues.
Which takes me back to a point we have learned over and over again — gays and lesbians cannot count on straights to achieve equality, no matter how “well-intentioned”, and no matter that we need straight support in order to achieve our goals.
We have made the gains we’ve made because we took responsibility for our issues, went to work and worked for them, bringing straights to the equality table, little by slowly.
As Mark points out, correctly I think, straight support for “equal means equal”, among the young as well as older voters, is mostly theory. We know that because “equal means equal” always polls way down the list of issues for straight voters — typically being considered important by 1-2% of the voters polled.
As Lori points out, those of us who have been active in the fight tend to get “tunnel vision” about “equal means equal”, but I think that is important that we do so. If we don’t fight to keep the issue alive and kicking, who will? If we don’t, who will?
Mark’s comments about “libertarians” and young voters prodded a thought.
Much has been made of the fact that “libertarian” Republican and younger Republicans, both of which seem to favor “equal means equal” in theory, are going to bring the party around. Stephen has made that argument a million times on IGF.
Now he argues that it is voters of like mind — the “libertarian leaning” (presumably including those younger Republicans he speaks about frequently) “who support both marriage equality and economic growth that’s driven by the private sector” — are opting to vote for social conservative candidates, obviously putting “economic growth that’s driven by the private sector” over “marriage equality”.
It seems to me that this is an indication that when push comes to shove, “libertarian” Republican and younger Republicans can no more be counted on than any other straight voters. And that leads me to repeat what I’ve often said in response to Stephen in a number of ways: “If conservative gays and lesbians want to change the Republican Party, then they need to start working for change in the Republican Party, rather that sitting back passively and waiting for others to do it for them.”
Gay and lesbian Republicans had a great opportunity to do so this election cycle. Dan Innes and Richard Tisei were two gay candidates running for Congress. Both took the equality fight to social conservatives in the party. Innes lost his primary; Tisei prevailed.
Neither got much visible support from Stephen and other “libertarian” gay and lesbian Republicans (although LCR has endorsed Tisei), presumably because neither is closely enough aligned with the “libertarian” Republican agenda to garner support. In contrast, Carl DeMaio, who self-describes as “libertarian”, and is gay but argues that “social issues” aren’t important and gives no indication at all that he is willing to take the fight to social conservatives, is getting the support.
In my view, this is just another case of putting “equal means equal” down the list to the point where it doesn’t count for much, just as theoretical support for “equal means equal” doesn’t count for much among straight voters, “libertarian” or not.
posted by Houndentenor on
You must have far different options than I do. In one race today my choices was between a Teavangelical Republican (whose website reads something from The Onion mocking Tea Partier religious right nuts), a Libertarian whose website was full of conspiracy theory rantings, and a Green Party candidate who had no chance and was far to the left of me but good on a few things and not going to get elected anyway. The Republican is going to win and go to Austin and rant about the homosexuals and how Obama was born in Kenya. Yay me! A corporatist phony would have been an improvement over my options in that race. If you have two of those to choose from allow me to feel jealous for a moment. I know you want better and I do too, but the fact that a welfare fraudster like Rick Scott can get elected governor and might get re-elected shows just how corrupt our politics are. Others can point to corrupt Democrats and they will be correct. We need a major overhaul and we aren’t going to get there by people staying home.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I will credit gerrymandered safe GOP districts, voter suppression (e.g., voter ID laws and fewer early voting days), and the nature of Senate terms creating the opportunity for any gains on Tuesday…. that and a feckless election strategy by the Democrats that has seemingly returned to the “don’t hit me days” of pre-2008.
Should the GOP gain control of Congress, then nothing is going to change — the President will veto anything that lurches to far to the right — the GOP ne Tea-vangelical apparatchiks will see to it that no real governing is done in hopes of somehow persuading voters in 2016 to swing their way.
And lest we forget who really holds sway in the GOP these days…
posted by Mike in Houston on
It’s these folks:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zmoaDYAHyYA/VFd_5_UI5lI/AAAAAAADMc4/-muiL4rzMX8/s1600/RefuseShirt.jpg
posted by Houndentenor on
Oh joy. That’s my home town. Here’s the skinny on Houston for those who’ve never lived there. Houston is rather unique in that the city annexed most of the county before people who would normally be out in a suburban town could incorporate. So once you are out past the 610 loop you are in areas that in Dallas or just about any other big city would be the “white flight” suburbs. That’s who’s causing this ruckus. Parker was elected three times (and can’t run again) and the religious right has hated her and foamed at the mouth over her but she’s been the best mayor Houston has had in decades, maybe ever. She steered the city through some rough times including a major hurricane (Ike). So they are mad as hell that they can’t always get their way and they aren’t going to on this one and stunts like that are the reason why. A lot of Houston is a little bit homophobic, but no one likes open displays of bigotry like that. They’ve shown their hand and aren’t even bothering to sugar-coat their message with “I’m for equal rights, just not special rights” any more. Expect this crowd to get louder and crazier over the next few years, but they have lost bigtime.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Being “socially tolerant, and economically conservative” is not really libertarian….although it is part of a narrative that the libertarian-right wants to promote.
I suspect that the Midterm was pretty typical — the party in power tends to lose seats and likely midterm voters tend to be more conservative then voters in say, a presidential election.
posted by Mark J on
Stephen, I’m afraid that as usual, your crazy Republican partisianslip is showing. The only problem you see with the GOP is their social intolerance. Which is a problem that affects you personally. Otherwise, their other lone problem isn’t really a problem at all, just a “perception” issue.
While the Dems, on the other hand are “stifling” and “reckless” and guilty of gross “overreach” and “mismanagement.”
Really? Can we look at a few actual FACTS?
First, the Obama administration has helped usher in the greatest expansion of civil rights for the LGBT community we have ever seen. This is not a trivial thing, and never would have happened under the GOP. NEVER. They are fighting it still.
And a few economic facts:
* We have now had 63 straight months of economic expansion;
* We are in the middle of the longest period of private-sector job creation in American history;
* Unemployment has dropped from 10.1% in 2009 when Obama took office to 6.1% currently;
*The federal deficit has been reduced by two-thirds since 2009;
* Federal spending has increased only 1.4% annually, the lowest rate since Eisenhower;
* The stock market is at an all-time high.
* Health cost are starting to come under control, despite the growing eldercare of the baby-boomers.
Obama has been great for business.
So what, again, is your problem with him?
He is slightly center-right. And to lump him in with Warren shows how skewed your GOP blinders make you.
Silliness.
posted by Houndentenor on
LOL. That Mike Huckabee crowd IS the GOP. At least most of it. I realize in the area where you live that doesn’t seem to be true, but that’s the base: social conservatives who love big government so long as it’s telling people what they can do with their bodies and showing up with big checks for them (and not the non-white people).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Populists, by the way, are those who favor bigger, more activist government but are socially conservative, or at least not liberal, on social issues—think Mike Huckabee. They’re the worst of all political possibilities.
Wisconsin’s Republican Party is dominated by hard-core social conservatives. The small-business moderates — Congressman Tom Petri, State Senator Dale Schultz, to name the last of the line — have long been driven out.
In Wisconsin, in almost all cases, a vote for a Republican candidate for state or federal office is to vote for a candidate who is solidly anti-equality.
posted by Clayton on
According to the Libertarian party’s current platform, government is to have no role in personal relationships, including, not just marriage, but adoption, child custody, immigration, or military service.
Really? In what utopian future? Let’s leave marriage outside of the picture for the moment: How does the Libertarian party envision adoption, child custody, and immigration taking place completely outside of the realm of law? I’m sometimes accused (with some justification) of living in an idealistic bubble, but even I can see that a certain degree of government regulation is indispensable in all of these areas, and since all of these are intimately tied to (and logistical extensions of) marriage law, well, you’ll excuse me if I can’t take the Libertarian party seriously, because of these and many other issues.
That said, I’ll readily agree with Stephen that populists in the mold of Huckabee are the worst of all possible worlds, but since the current Republican party seems ruled by the likes of Huckabee, Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Palin…well, it will be a long time before I vote Repubican again. And this is from someone who voted for Reagan.
posted by Jorge on
Mike Huckabee is many things, but I wouldn’t consider populist to be one of them, unless you’re looking only at Republican voters.
First, the Obama administration has helped usher in the greatest expansion of civil rights for the LGBT community we have ever seen. This is not a trivial thing, and never would have happened under the GOP. NEVER. They are fighting it still.
It probably would have happened faster if Joe Biden were president.
Well, I can’t complain about that with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal. I was a little nervous about Congress passing something, but in the end it was the right speed.
But I also think a Biden administration would have done more to respect religious freedom. I wish the Obama administration would speak out against some of the petty attacks by individuals and governments against people who do not wish to support gay marriage. There I think change has happened too abrasively.
He is slightly center-right. And to lump him in with Warren shows how skewed your GOP blinders make you.
Umm… no he isn’t.
Someone Barack Obama’s age who comes to support gay marriage late and very reluctantly is more likely to be center-left than center-right.
Obama believes in an exception to late-term abortion for the “health” of the mother, a more progressive version of the more popular “life” of the mother exception.
He supported and signed green energy and cap-and-trade laws. One is only popular among the left, the other is a solidly progressive idea.
Among several different possible ways to pass health care reform in Congress (an idea that everyone in Congress conceded was coming), he threw his support largely behind Nancy Pelosi and had it pass on a party-line majority. A center-right politican choosing between two reform ideas, one by the Republican party and one by the Democratic party, would simply never choose the one by the Democratic party.
Calling President Obama center-left is wishful thinking among a group of naive liberals who think they control the country. Calling him center-right is just bizarre. The only set of policies he approaches center-right on are national security and defense spending. On these and foreign policy, he is consistently to the left of the neoconservatives of the Republican party, sometimes markedly so, but he is closer to them than, say, Ron Paul.
posted by Doug on
First, as I recall, cap & trade was originally a Republican idea. Secondly, GWB had Republican majorities in both the House and Senate for a number of years and never proposed any realistic health care reform.
posted by Jorge on
Secondly, GWB had Republican majorities in both the House and Senate for a number of years and never proposed any realistic health care reform.
That aligns with what I said. Health care reform was an election issue in 2008. Barack Obama and the Democratic party won. That’s when everyone realized there was a mandate for health care reform.
Among several different possible ways to pass health care reform in Congress (an idea that everyone in Congress conceded was coming), President Obama threw his support largely behind Nancy Pelosi and had it pass on a party-line majority. A center-right politican choosing between two reform ideas, one by the Republican party and one by the Democratic party, would simply never choose the one by the Democratic party.
President Bush is known for at least four domestic reform ideas, two successful, two failed: Social Security, immigration, Medicare, and education. I’m not too familiar with his Medicare reform. The other three were pretty center-right.
posted by Mark J on
I should have said that by any historical, rational, normal standard, Obama is center-right. It is only because of the crazy rightward lurch the GOP has taken in the last few decades that he is considered a Leftists. Many of his policy positions (torture, health care reform, taxes, perpetual war, hawkish foreign policy and social security to name a few) were/are conservative positions. Until he proposed them and the GOP immediately declared them to be lefty socialist ideas.
Obama’s view on GLBT rights is progressive, but that one issue hardly makes him a Lefty. Many conservatives (Cheney) believe the same.
Need I remind you that by today’s standards of left/right, the demi-god Reagan would be considered center-left. Which he certainly was not by any reasonable, historical standard.
We just live in unreasonable times.
posted by Lori Heine on
No, we live in times when the average citizen gets his/her notions about politics out of a comic book. Thus does one big-corporate-toady party representative of all goodness and light–out to save the world–while the other is the bringer of evil, darkness and doom.
By any standard of basic human decency and rationality, both Bush and Obama are war criminals, who have overseen the deaths of thousands of innocent people for the sake of big oil profits. To use a standard like center, left or right to apply to mass murderers is absurd.
posted by Jorge on
It is only because of the crazy rightward lurch the GOP has taken in the last few decades…
Too bad. Once Reagan entered the list of the greatest presidents in US History, the center got re-written.
And if you’re not talking about Ronald Reagan, I have very little idea what you’re talking about.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Populists, by the way, favor a bigger government footprint on the economy and are socially conservative—think Mike Huckabee. They’re the worst of all political possibilities.
Populism is political philosophy urging social and political system change that favors “the people” over “the elites”, or favors the “common people” over the rich and “wealthy business owners”. Mike Huckabee fits that definition only in an alternate universe.
posted by Kosh III on
“big-government, statist, meddling leftism.
This is the GOP/TeaNut/Conservative Nannies who tell us who to marry, who to love, what color of skin is better, what religion to follow etc etc
Warren is not opposed to private business, just the massive abuses of private business. It was NOT goverment that caused the Bush Recession, it was greed by Wall Street and the various businesses aligned with it. Their pursuit of money at the cost of life and liberty for everyone else is the problem, not Sen. Warren’s attempts to rein in their evil actions.
posted by Lori Heine on
Thanks for clearing that up. Elizabeth Warren is Captain America. The “Teanuts” are archvillains, like the Joker or Doctor Doom. When does this edition come out at newsstands? I’m sure it will be a collectible someday.
God help our country if this is the mentality of the average voter.
posted by Kosh III on
If only it were realized by the average voter. Who do you blame for the Bush Recession since you seem to give the crooks on Wall street a pass?
Remember how BofA committed fraud hundreds of thousands of times and got away with it?
Remember how BP committed crimes against humanity(poisoning the Gulf which now has a blob of oil on the bottom of the sea the size of Connecticut) and the murder of employees and got away with it?
Look outside your cozey Phoenix bubble of Democratic control to places where the Teanuts are firmly in control:
here they are pushing a constituional amendment to outlaw all abortions and allow the govt to make health decisions for people–so much for less govt intrusion.
Free speech? Not if it’s Occupy protesters who were rounded up in the middle of the night–right after Herr Governor said nothing would be done to interfere.
The Legislature has destroyed teachers unions, they continue to attack public schools and push to sell the kids to for-profit charters and give vouchers for discrimanatory “Christian” academies.
given hundreds of millions in welfare to corporations(poor poverty-stricken VW)
One company got 300 million in exchange for the promise of 1000 jobs–they took the money and moved the factory to RED China. Funny how righties love COMMUNIST countries.
They have abolished mandatory lunch breaks for certain classes of employees and are trying to expand it to all employees. They destroyed workers comp.
They constantly push anti-gay legislation with continued success.
And that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
Why not move here and be a third-class citizen?
posted by Lori Heine on
Since I ” seem to give the crooks on Wall Street a pass?”
Kosh, are you really that ignorant, or are you merely hoping that other commenters here will be?
Left-libertarians–anarchists–would see corporate charters revoked and big corporations turned over to their workers. How, precisely, is that “giving Wall Street a pass?”
If we have our way, Wall Street will eventually cease to exist. At least in a form remotely recognizable by people today.
Yes, libertarians of all stripes get blocked from political debates, have to fight to get on ballots and are disappeared from mention by the corporate media because we’re so damned anxious to “give Wall Street a pass.”
If you truly believe that, then you are a very ignorant and intellectually lazy human being.
posted by Kosh III on
YOu seemed to be denying that Wall Street was culpable since you were name-calling Sen. Warren who is at least trying to curb their excesses. Certainly no one else in govt is. The “libertarian” darling of Rand Paul isn’t but he’s just another poseur after power to control other peoples lives_the perfect Republican.
Givng the corporations to the employees sounds suspiciously socialist–not a bad thing at all. 🙂
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I realized at dinner tonight that I have made it through this entire political season without seeing or hearing a single political ad. I think that’s a first for me. And very lucky even for someone like me, who watches television about an hour or two a month (except for NASCAR, which I follow ardently), and doesn’t listen to radio. It doesn’t mean anything, but I thought it worth reporting, just for fun. I’ll be damn sure that I don’t turn on the tube tonight.
posted by Don on
I’m less inclined to agree with Stephen’s assertion that Republican successes today will mean a shift along libertarian swing voters. There are many factors at play here. One of which is the fundamentals of off-year elections surrounding turnout. Republican turnout holds stable across election years. Democrats turn out in greater numbers when there is a president on the ballot.
Here in Florida, it will be hard to say what was the key factor for the governor’s race. Scott has lost key conservative constituencies. The healthcare industry is coming at him hard because of Obamacare. He cost them a fortune and they’re pissed. And how often do you have a Charlie Crist running? That has so many variables in it that I don’t see how anyone can say “well, it was this . . . ”
I think Scott had a hard road. People are generally ticked at him, but they can’t say exactly why. And these are my rock-ribbed republican friends.
All I do know is that if Crist wins, we get marriage equality in Florida. it’s a campaign promise to drop the appeals immediate. AG Bondi should skate to an easy win. But I’m sure she will be super-happy to have this over. it’s the only thing she took a beating on.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m less inclined to agree with Stephen’s assertion that Republican successes today will mean a shift along libertarian swing voters. There are many factors at play here.
All of the various Republican constituencies will claim credit for Republican victories today, particularly the fringe constituencies. Tony Perkins will be crowing that his dark visions of the coming “boxcars” and allusions to Hilter saved the day. Stephen will be crowing that his dark visions of the coming Reign of Terror saved the day. And so on. Every constituency in the Republican Party will be trying to leverage the election results to advantage looking toward 2016. It is the nature of the political game.
It is all bullshit. This is a complex election.
Stephen is just getting the so-called libertarian claim in ahead of the pack. I think that Stephen’s claim is mostly hot air and self-puffery, which I why I put my discussion of his contention as a conditional (“If Stephen is right …”).
But there is one fact that cannot be denied — almost every voter who votes Republican today, for whatever reason, is voting for a social conservative, and by putting social conservatives into office, is helping cement the social conservative lock on the party for another election cycle.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I figured that Stephen only used the “L” word in a click-baiting bid to get Lori all riled up.
posted by Lori Heine on
No, it is bait for ignorant, catatonically-programmed remarks generalizing about “all” libertarians. Or indicating, by generalization, to such an effect.
This stuff is very entertaining, and actually quite informative. I learn a lot about what the ruling class is telling the public. Just like switching back and forth between MSNBC and Fox to hear the Punch-and-Judy show of rival B.S. indoctrination. It’s quite a hoot.
I can’t answer for why Stephen writes the things he does, although I do agree with him more often than do many other commenters here. What I do here is, as I always do in conversation with those who appear to believe the propaganda, find out what’s being heard, said and believed.
Does this rile me up? No. But it has been comments like many of those I’ve read here that have actually convinced me that this time, I don’t dare vote. If this is the sort of twaddle those in power are telling people, then they really are too untrustworthy to deserve any votes.
The nonsense is coming about equally from both sides. Neither has a monopoly on it.
posted by Mark J on
@lori
I’ve left you alone until now, and this isn’t something I ever really say, but I agree with you when you say you don’t dare vote.
Please don’t. Please don’t vote.
Not because I worry about whichever way you might cast your single vote. But you, with your anarchist-libertarian views and all of these crazed comments on this thread sound more than a little unhinged.
And I hate to think about you at some crowded polling place. With sane people.
I would hate to be standing next to you in line or at a voting booth.
So please, do us all a favor and keep the crazy home today. And vote by mail next election cycle.
posted by Lori Heine on
Mark J., you perfectly illustrate yet another point. Anyone who takes more seriously the “progressive” principles you pretend to espouse must automatically be branded as crazy and dangerous. Hypocrites and poseurs establish a bogus standard of progressivism and conveniently dismiss anybody who goes beyond that standard as nuts.
Thanks for illustrating so clearly that this principle is true. I realize that you lack the intellectual candlepower to figure out that citizens can register their opinions without voting. You’re still back in eighth grade. Duh, vote.
posted by Mark J on
Huh? Word salad. Is this Sarah Palin?
posted by Lori Heine on
Wow, what droids and toadies “progressives” have become. You’re nothing but an alternative form of conservative, just as dedicated to big-corporate politics as usual and the defense of the status quo.
The very thought that at some time in the future, corporations might no longer be able to function as vacuum-cleaners for government support scares you so much that anyone who mentions the notion is CRAZED! You are a good little suck-up, aren’t you?
What utter phonies “progressives” have become. Turns out that behind the blather, the term means nothing. You rail against social conservatives–who are losing the support of the American people and can no longer dominate–and you must dredge their ghosts up every chance you get.
Sarah Palin! That really is the best you’ve got. How pathetic.
posted by Mark J on
Please seek professional help.
posted by Lori Heine on
Goodness, it really is junior high school forever for you, isn’t it? You’ve reached for every moronic brickbat you could grab.
That really is the best you can do, I suppose. Yawn.
posted by Mark J on
@lori
Perhaps others here are used to our lunatic ravings and rantings.
Please seek professional help.
posted by Don on
Well, I would like to say good luck to Carl DeMaio today. (and fingers crossed for Stephen) I think he will be good for the ongoing debate and could provide much to the discussion of “the gay community” in politics. Mostly because he won’t be just one more LGBT progressive, or progressive lite. I do sincerely hope that all the horrific press actually is just dirty politics gone wild. And I would love for Stephen to have a big win.
While we frequently disagree, mostly on form rather than result, I am grateful for Stephen’s forum here and enjoy the thoughtful back and forth among the participants. I won’t stay up to see if it’s champagne for Carl tonight, but I hope Stephen gets to tell us all “I toldja so” come midnight on the Left Coast.
posted by JohnInCA on
Wait, am I reading this wrong, or is Stephen blaming marriage equality for GOP wins? Um… shouldn’t this be a *good* thing as far as he’s concerned?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Wait, am I reading this wrong, or is Stephen blaming marriage equality for GOP wins? Um… shouldn’t this be a *good* thing as far as he’s concerned?
Perhaps, but very indirectly. The gist of his argument seems to be that (1) because marriage equality has been won, for the most part, this takes the issue off the table for “libertarian-leaning” voters, (2) because marriage equality is off the table for these voters, they can safely vote for social conservative Republicans, and will do so.
Um… shouldn’t this be a *good* thing as far as he’s concerned?
I think for Stephen it is a win-win. He gets his marriage equality cake and gets to eat it, too.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Lunatic ravings,” Mark J.?
What a poster child of “progressive” enlightenment you are! Nasty, childish, bigoted, ignorant–reaching for every mindless, bumper-sticker argument or epithet you can find.
When the Democrats win big tonight, we’ll all know why. You’re their typical voter. And that’s just so attractive to the adults in this country.
Stigmatizing those with mental health issues, just to throw a jab against someone who’s disagreed with you in an argument! My, how evolved you are!
I used to think people like you were the bottom of the barrel. But I encounter them so often in conversations with “progressives” that I suppose you’re simply what the average has come to be.
Keep it up. Perhaps you can become the leftist version of a Gay Patriot commenter. Now, there’s a standard to uphold.
posted by Jorge on
I realized at dinner tonight that I have made it through this entire political season without seeing or hearing a single political ad. I think that’s a first for me.
I came pretty close, too 😀
But there is one fact that cannot be denied — almost every voter who votes Republican today, for whatever reason, is voting for a social conservative, and by putting social conservatives into office, is helping cement the social conservative lock on the party for another election cycle.
If social conservatism is so terrible to countenance, maybe Democrats should govern like social centrists instead of like radical social progressives.
Enough tries of hitting politicians upside the head in a selective left-right pattern and they will get things right.
Michael Goodwin of the NY Post wrote a very passionate argument Sunday for voting Republican for every single federal office. He blames every single Democrat in Congress for allowing President Obama to govern so ideologically (you’ve heard the litany before). Well, my Representative ran uncontested. He’s extremely popular. So I decided to apply a similar reasoning for the statewide races.