Getting rid of Holcomb

[SwikLS]

Lots of people like to declare what motivates people to disagree with us. Maybe instead of finding the most sinister reasons, be a little more evidence based. Because they want to split the vote isn’t a very well supported evidence based claim. If it’s all that difficult for you to figure out why Libertarians vote for Libertarians, and you won’t bother to consider all the ways you might be different as a primary motivation, maybe you should just ask Libertarians.

Here’s a clue. The card carrying, Ayn Rand worshipping real ass Big “L” Libertarians don’t agree with a lot of the Republican platform. They don’t agree on abortion, gays, drug war, military spending, foreign entanglements, patriot act, citizens united, basically most social issues, and the list could go on and on. Just because they share some common positions, they are not right wing per se, though some are. Many are left wing.

If you really have to guess why, rather than just assuming some nefarious reason, like, oh, they must just want to split the vote, maybe you could recall all the arguments with INGO’s Mr Jarrell. That dude was the epitome of the reason that many Libertarians won’t vote for Republicans. It’s because, though they also distrust government, support the 2a, etcetera, they are not Republicans.

Do you think the democratic socialists in the D party said the same thing about the D establishment? No of course they didn't. They have worked within the D party to pull it further to the left and look where they are now.

 

[jamil]

Do you think the democratic socialists in the D party said the same thing about the D establishment? No of course they didn't. They have worked within the D party to pull it further to the left and look where they are now.

I'm not making judgement of the value of Libertarians' principles either way. You may not have been on INGO when we had a fairly large number of Libertarians here posting day to day. If you ask a Libertarian they'll tell you they're voting their principles and not some overall strategy to get more Libertarians elected under the umbrella of Republicans. Many of the hated Republicans about as much as Democrats. Have you watched South Park? To them the difference between R's and D's amounts to a choice between a douche and a turd.

Since you mentioned Democratic Socialists, they're quite different in contrast with Libertarians. Progressives are all about strategy. Everything is political. Everything is a means to an end. It looks to me like they're trying to force the establishment Democrats out of the party leadership. They're an overall fringe, but they are well organized and have a lot of political power. So yeah, that's definitely a different animal altogether from Libertarians. You're not going to convince a card carrying real ass Libertarian to work within the system. We had those debates with them years ago.

 

[KLB]

They're opposed to Abortion, favor gay marriage, and are starkly different from Republicans on many social issues. What common ground on those social issues do they have with Republicans? They're opposed to onerous gun laws, big government, "tax the rich" policies, etcetera. What common ground on those issues do they have with Democrats? They're doomed to their one or two percent every election, and on the rarest occasions, maybe 5. You could ask them to compromise some things to join one side or other, and many of them do. But they tend to be the uncompromising types, which many on INGO should understand.

Okay, for you Republicans who complain about libertarians voting for Libertarians as if you own their votes, here's a very hypothetical situation. Let's say the winds were different. Suddenly a crap ton of people turned real ass big L Libertarian, and now they're one of the two big parties. For you Republicans that still hold to your traditional values, what will you compromise to join the Libertarians so that Democrats don't get in office? You gonna give up your fight against Abortion? Give up your drug war? Stop caring about gay marriage? Give up your chamber-o-commerce? You gonna really vote for that? Some of you would. Some of you won't.


Disclaimer: nothing should be taken here as an endorsement of the LP. It's just an exercise to try to understand Libertarians better than the straw objects we construct to represent them.

Again you have all Republicans and Democrats walking in lockstep. There is no list of issues that every Republican or every Democrat will agree with the party they vote for on.
Abortion is not the end all issue of every Republican voter.
Gay marriage is in the past, but the L party actually favors the .gov getting out of marriage. They just think until that happens everyone should be treated the same.
All Democrat voters don't believe in gun control, in wealth redistribution, or that social justice should be the one rule to rule them all.

If people were to look at their platform, I imagine a lot more would find things they like. Everyone knows though that they can't win. You are just throwing away your vote or voting for the other party if you vote for them, so why bother.

 

[jkoontzie]

I've always said the way forward for Ls is to run as Rs but under the sub category of Libertarian Conservative. Since they haven't done that it just tells me they are more interested in splitting the vote on the R side which helps Ds.

As for Rs (particularly the establishment types) they would rather be 2nd place in a two man race than let outsiders in to run things. Case in point, Never Trumpers.

Conversely why don’t republicans join forces with libertarians when you have a repugnant candidate? I vote my conscience same as members of either major party. It isn’t just a protest vote, I believe in and support a large part of the libertarian platform some of which aligns with both parties ideology. I won’t support either one though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jamil]

Again you have all Republicans and Democrats walking in lockstep. There is no list of issues that every Republican or every Democrat will agree with the party they vote for on.
Abortion is not the end all issue of every Republican voter.
Gay marriage is in the past, but the L party actually favors the .gov getting out of marriage. They just think until that happens everyone should be treated the same.
All Democrat voters don't believe in gun control, in wealth redistribution, or that social justice should be the one rule to rule them all.

If people were to look at their platform, I imagine a lot more would find things they like. Everyone knows though that they can't win. You are just throwing away your vote or voting for the other party if you vote for them, so why bother.

Again, I haven't argued that this shouldn't be the case. I'm just saying why it is not the case. You cannot count on hardcore Libertarians to vote the way you want them to. I've argued that point with the INGOtaraians a lot back when they were very active here. No dice. Not happening. Might as well accept that they're not closeted Republicans who would vote for republicans but for their stubbornness. They have different priorities.

 

[two70]

Conversely why don’t republicans join forces with libertarians when you have a repugnant candidate? I vote my conscience same as members of either major party. It isn’t just a protest vote, I believe in and support a large part of the libertarian platform some of which aligns with both parties ideology. I won’t support either one though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One reason is that some of us realize that voting for a Libertarian is a great way to replace a Holcomb with a Whitmer or a Beshear. As bad as Holcomb has been, he's at least been better, however marginally, than the Democrat Governors to our north and south.

 

[NKBJ]

Well OK, was thinking that I'd even vote for a yelller dog but you've got me scratching my head.

How do you avoid rewarding Holcomb's behavior at this point?
Or is that even possible as long as the republithugs and dummycrats have the political monopoly that pushes the globalists' agenda?

 

[Expat]

Well OK, was thinking that I'd even vote for a yelller dog but you've got me scratching my head.

How do you avoid rewarding Holcomb's behavior at this point?
Or is that even possible as long as the republithugs and dummycrats have the political monopoly that pushes the globalists' agenda?

You don't. You tell Holcomb and politicians of his ilk that they can **** you any way and any time they want and you will stay bent over holding your ankles with a smile on your face.

 

[dusty88]

Well OK, was thinking that I'd even vote for a yelller dog but you've got me scratching my head.

How do you avoid rewarding Holcomb's behavior at this point?
Or is that even possible as long as the republithugs and dummycrats have the political monopoly that pushes the globalists' agenda?

The bold here is the key to the problem. I see phrases like "libertarians need to get serious" or "invest money". If we've allowed your taxpayer $$ to be used for the primaries of the major parties, and don't rebel about how they set up rules that prevent anyone else from gaining traction, then we are contributing to the likelihood that is what we are going to continue to get.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I mostly agree here. But a few comments. In my previous posts I gave one explanation of why you can't have nice things. People can ride their principles into the dirt. You can't expect a Libertarian to vote for any establishment Republican, even when that might be a better strategy in the long run. We're not going to think in terms of strategy though because we all want the things that we think are nice. There's always a "them" to defeat.

I've been a Libertarian for at least forty years. I've never voted for a Libertarian candidate in a presidential election for the simple reason that to do so is effectively the same as voting for the Democrat.

Voting purely on "principle" without strategy is a recipe for failure.

 

[jamil]

I mostly agree here. But a few comments. In my previous posts I gave one explanation of why you can't have nice things. People can ride their principles into the dirt. You can't expect a Libertarian to vote for any establishment Republican, even when that might be a better strategy in the long run. We're not going to think in terms of strategy though because we all want the things that we think are nice. There's always a "them" to defeat.

I've been a Libertarian for at least forty years. I've never voted for a Libertarian candidate in a presidential election for the simple reason that to do so is effectively the same as voting for the Democrat.

Voting purely on "principle" without strategy is a recipe for failure.

Agreed. But to some people principle is a higher value. INGO is not going to convince them otherwise.

 

[KLB]

OMG. Let's try some a simple example.

Democrat 5 votes
Republican 6 votes

Joe Blow votes Libertarian, so now we have

Democrat 5 votes
Republican 6 votes
Libertarian 1 vote

Now please explain how that is the same as

Democrat 5 votes
Republican 6 votes

Joe Blow votes Democrat, so now we have

Democrat 6 votes
Republican 6 votes

Not voting for someone is not the same as voting for someone else.

 

[JettaKnight]

I've been a Libertarian for at least forty years. I've never voted for a Libertarian candidate in a presidential election for the simple reason that to do so is effectively the same as voting for the Democrat.

Voting purely on "principle" without strategy is a recipe for failure.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

OMG. Let's try some a simple example.

Democrat 5 votes
Republican 6 votes

Joe Blow votes Libertarian, so now we have

Democrat 5 votes
Republican 6 votes
Libertarian 1 vote

Now please explain how that is the same as

Democrat 5 votes
Republican 6 votes

Joe Blow votes Democrat, so now we have

Democrat 6 votes
Republican 6 votes

Not voting for someone is not the same as voting for someone else.

Now do it with a fixed voter base of 11 total voters. Joe Blow is one of the 11, and he doesn't want to vote for the Republican out of principle. Now the results would be
Democrat 5 votes
Republican 5 votes
Libertarian 1 vote.

He hasn't added a vote to the Democrat, but he has taken one away from the Republican.

 

[foszoe]

I reject the assumption of a fixed voter base.

Now do it with a fixed voter base of 11 total voters. Joe Blow is one of the 11, and he doesn't want to vote for the Republican out of principle. Now the results would be
Democrat 5 votes
Republican 5 votes
Libertarian 1 vote.

He hasn't added a vote to the Democrat, but he has taken one away from the Republican.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I reject the assumption of a fixed voter base.

Well, that's fine, but if the assumption is that a Libertarian's vote would have gone to the Republican if they weren't pissed at the Republican, then the example still holds up. And since that's what's being discussed, I still think it works. If they were going to vote Libertarian no matter what, then they're not part of the situation being discussed (getting rid of Holcomb).

 

[foszoe]

I believe that is still a fixed base because it assumes a vote WILL be cast not MAY be cast.

Well, that's fine, but if the assumption is that a Libertarian's vote would have gone to the Republican if they weren't pissed at the Republican, then the example still holds up. And since that's what's being discussed, I still think it works. If they were going to vote Libertarian no matter what, then they're not part of the situation being discussed (getting rid of Holcomb).

 

[BugI02]

You don't. You tell Holcomb and politicians of his ilk that they can **** you any way and any time they want and you will stay bent over holding your ankles with a smile on your face.

And sadly, though it might make you feel good, history says long before Holcomb notices such a protest vote (if he ever does) he'll either be on to the next elected office or drawing a comfy pension

When I look at the Indiana legislature, I see a pretty comfortable margin in the senate at 40R to 10D, the house is a little more iffy at 67R to 33D. Fine for day to day but if it came to a veto override you would be vulnerable to Romneyism. The main chance to alter Holcombs behavior would seem to be to begin backing Republicans who back limited government for seats in the House and make explicitly clear what you expect prior to the primaries as well as stay the course even if you lose. The cost of a challenger losing in the primary is low, but if you enable a truly veto-proof majority in the house and if you indeed have one in the senate your first order of business can be to rein in any governors ability to overreach. Keeping emergency authority intact but requiring periodic (28 days seems common) re-affirmatiion of actions by the legislature seems popular but is less effective as a limitation - look at how successful the panic-mongers have been at convincing people we must do something and resisting changing course once they do (see Whitmers pronouncement that she would veto any legislation restricting the authority she is currently abusing)

If you want to punish Holcomb now, have at that windmill. I expect the timing of his action was politically calculated to have him out of reach of any consequences and positioned to dodge blame if it comes off the rails. The shortest path to get his attention would be to back candidates for the house who support limiting this and future governors and be successful at it

Voting for a candidate with little or no chance of winning IMO is analagous to voting your proxy for 100 shares of Google or Facebook to support a dissident slate of directors who stand no chance and couldn't do anything anyway because the founder still owns a controlling interest - pure theatrics

 

[BugI02]

I reject the assumption of a fixed voter base.

So do the dead voting/ballot box stuffers

Care to elaborate, perhaps with data on how candidate enthusiasm affects number of people who vote and then perhaps some insight into how enthusiastic the average voter is for the current slate

Third parties need another Teddy Roosevelt to deal with the enthusiasm gap, and I don't see one on the horizon - and what ever became of the Bull Moose party anyway. Ripple in the stream, TR went on to do good things the party sank w/o a trace

 

[Thor]

There's a reason Joe Donnely's campaign was out campaigning for the Libertarian candidate in very election he ran here...it's not because it was going to hurt his totals.