99% of precincts reporting
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/WY/H/01/index.html
Posted on 11/08/2006 8:08:12 AM PST by Matchett-PI
Has Our Time Come? http://www.hereticalideas.com/
A **new study from the Cato Institute [see link below] suggests that libertarians might be the new swing vote.
The libertarian vote is in play. At some 13 percent of the electorate, it is sizable enough to swing elections. Pollsters, political strategists, candidates, and the media should take note of it.
After examining the relevant polling data, Cato concludes that libertarians and libertarian sympathizers constitute somewhere between 10 and 20% of the American population. Some explanations are offered as to why libertarians constitute such a bigger constituency than one might expect. First is that libertarians tend not to be as well-organized as other interest groups. Most groups that organize and try to exert political influence want some sort of government action: unions want favorable labor laws passed, the Christian Coalition wants abortion outlawed and anti-homosexual laws passed, environmentalists want pollution restricted and ecosystems protected, businesses want favorable tax and commercial laws. Libertarians generally don’t want government to take action, and are therefore less likely to organize into a pressure group because of that. It also argues that the difficulty people have in breaking out of the left-right liberal-conservative paradigm of politics keeps “populists” (authoritarians) and libertarians underrepresented. While most political scholarship accepts the inadequacy of a simple one-dimensional view of politics, it hasn’t sunk down into popular culture as strongly. Often talk shows and debate programs on television and radio will feature someone “from the left” and someone “from the right”, squeezing libertarians out of the picture.
An unexplored reason that might contribute is the higher prevalence of libertarianism among younger people than older people. The Cato paper notes this statistic but doesn’t explore its relationship to voter turnout. It explains the phenomenon this way. Younger people were more influenced by 2 of the most significant individualist movements of the 20th century: the ’60s counter culture and the ’80s Reagan Revolution. As a result, younger generations have seen both the socially liberal and the economically conservative side of individualism and turn to libertarianism as a way to emulate both ideals. The downside is that since younger people in general are less likely to vote, libertarians wind up underrepresented at the polls.
But don’t libertarian have to swing their votes to become a swing vote? Well, more and more frequently libertarian-minded people are losing the loyalty to the party they usually vote for (mostly the GOP), which puts their vote as a bloc in play.
Many commentators noted the high turnout in the 2004 election. Nationally, voter turnout increased 6.1 percent. That might help explain some of the swing in 2004. According to ANES data, libertarians reported turning out to vote at higher percentages than total respondents in 2000 and even higher in 2004.
This libertarian swing trend is particularly pronounced by age. Libertarians aged 18–29 many of whom were new voters in 2004 voted 71–42 for Kerry. Libertarians aged 30–49 voted almost completely the reverse, 72–21 for Bush.
Going back to the generational argument, I imagine that older individuals who can remember a time when the religious Right wasn’t nearly as omnipresent of a force in the Republican Party and therefore don’t automatically associate it with tirades about the moral dangers of homosexuality and feticide. So I can understand younger libertarians leaning more democratic than older ones who might remember the time of more Goldwater-like or even maybe Reagan-like Republicans.
What does all this mean in practical terms? What will we see coming out of the major political parties Conservatives resist cultural change and personal liberation; liberals resist economic dynamism and globalization. Libertarians embrace both. The political party that comes to terms with that can win the next generation.
It would really be great to see both political parties converge to a libertarian center. But as the article points out, the nature of libertarians makes them much harder to corral than other groups, which makes attracting us to their political parties a far more expensive and riskier proposition than going after churchgoers and soccer moms. Perhaps in time it will happen. But I doubt it will happen very soon.
** http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1718392/posts
Why Party Trumps Person. bttt [excerpted]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1733872/posts?page=123#123
A time-honored cliche heard every election year goes something like this: "I'm an independent thinker; I vote the person, not the party." This pronouncement is supposed to demonstrate open-mindedness and political sophistication on the part of the pronouncer. It's your vote, cast it any way you like - or not at all.
But idealism and naivete about the way our electoral process and system of government works shouldn't be mistaken for wisdom or savvy.
For better or worse, we have a two-party system. And party trumps person. Either a Republican or a Democrat is going to be elected... No one else has a chance.
..not the Libertarian candidate, nor the Communist, nor the Green. Minor party candidates are sometimes spoilers .. but they don't win.. elections. Ross Perot got 20 million popular votes in 1992, and exactly zero Electoral College votes.
In Europe's multiparty, parliamentary democracies, governing coalitions are formed after an election.
In our constitutional republic, the coalitions are formed first.
The Republican coalition includes, for the most part, middle- and upper-income taxpayers (but not leftist Hollywood millionaires and George Soros), individualists who prefer limited government, pro-market and pro-business forces, believers in American exceptionalism and a strong national defense, social-issues conservatives and supporters of traditional American values.
The Democratic coalition is an alliance of collectivists, labor unions (especially the teachers' unions), government workers, academics, plaintiffs-lawyers, lower- and middle-income net tax-receivers, most minorities, feminists, gays, enviros, and activists for various anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-military, anti-gun, one-world causes.
...party trumps person because [regardless of the individual who wins an election] the coalition will be served.
.. After the individual members of a new Congress have been seated, a figurative nose count is taken and the party with the most noses wins. That victory carries with it control of all committee and subcommittee chairmanships, the locus of legislative power.
Now, let's say you're a registered Republican voter who clearly prefers the Republican philosophy of governance. And you're a good-natured, well-intentioned person who happens to like an individual Democrat, a Senate candidate, who's somewhat conservative. You decide to cross party lines and vote for him.
As it turns out, he wins, beating a Republican and giving the Democrats a one-vote majority, 51-49, in the U.S. Senate.
Congratulations! You just got Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton as key committee chairs, and a guarantee that your Republican legislative agenda will be stymied.
That's the way the process works.
Does this mean that in a two-party system like ours it comes down to choosing between the lesser of two evils?
You bet it does.
That's not to say that either party is really "evil," that's just an expression.
If we had [300] million custom-tailored minor parties, everyone could find his perfect match.
But that's not practical.
You can be a purist and cast your vote symbolically with a boutique party, or be a player and settle for the least imperfect of the Republican or Democrat alternatives.
Your vote, your choice. ~ Mike Rosen http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1728426/posts
They won't do any better, but they won't do any worse either. The Pubbies have had 12 years to fix this! The lesser of two evils, when both options are evil, is no way to decide things anymore. I used to vote that way, but I have seen the light.
Oh, I don't know. It's nice to get a little respect for a change. Not admiration, but respect. At least it's something.
Personally, I think if you blame the Republican losses in this election on independent conservatives, you're smoking crack...but if you insist on seeing things that way, we can work with that too, as follows:
"Yes, we hate it that the lefty libs gained power, we hate it as much as you do. And if the Republicans don't start actually pursuing the agenda they say they stand for, we'll do it to 'em again."
The "libertarians" perenially forget an inconvenient fact.
The Dimorats NEVER vote "libertarian" on ANY policy issue that favors small government.
Thus the Libertarian party, by working outside the Republican party, instead of concentrating on a libertarian base in the GOP - where at least they have some natural allies - produces only one result at the polls - they do not get themselves elected and they undermine the one party in which they have some traditional allies.
Therefore, their policy ideas are not advanced very well in side government because they diminish the ranks of libertarian minded elected officials that are in the GOP, and would have welcomed their alliance, if only they had not been so stubborn as to leave their only allies to fight the Dim hordes on their own.
I am a Libertarian on a number of issues, and have been since the Goldwater days. But a Libertarian party is an ego trip on a suicide mission, and the nation has not been better for it, nor has Libertarian principles.
Conversely, social conservatives would be just as dumb to go out on their own if more Libertarians would come back to the GOP fold.
The common middle ground is (1)small government and (2)an originalist/federalist judiciary. There is enough there for both social conservatives and libertarians to agree on, while agreeing to politely and respectfully disagree on other issues.
Mike Rosen is naive. We are where we are because folks have been putting Party over person for years. We've put lots of RINOs in office hoping that by having them caucus with us, they would help us with conservative ideas and ideals. Instead, we got a wishy-washy, corrupt, porker of a government.
"FreeRepublic is, and always has been a conservative site, not a libertarian site. There's a huge, huge difference."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
posted by Jim Robinson
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts
These commentators were covering their butts ..they needed the "swing audience" as well after this carnage took place.
AARP's website was also promoted before the elections as www.dontvote.com. and that had to send a subliminal message to the older voter from the flashing of this promo across the media nightly.
However, the closeness of the race showed in some cases a more conservative Democrat[so they sold themselves]. Now they are under a microscope to perform or they will have their butts out on the street as well. '08 is not that far off so the spinning will continue and I doubt we will not have much of a breather from theatrics especially if they have no plan to initiate. The they will rely on calling committees to investigate the President and we start all over again. However, many voters will turn off the Old Main Stream Media as they voice now that they are sick and tired of "this guy is slime and this guy is a crook" mentality. Those in that group will go back to Survivor and Reality TV ;and I predict those in the MSM will have their ratings down from just plain lack of interest in Politics!!
And let's face it, it was not just Boortz, but just about all the pundits were against the President on some issue. Hannity, Laura, O'Reilly, etc. even Snow before he went to the Hill was saying the President was not going in the right direction on many issues. I had hoped Tony being there would have been a breath of fresh air for us, but I never saw any indication of it.
These same Right Wing pundits hammered in the message everyday hoping the President would listen and he declined to do so. Bush even invited them to the Oval Office, but perhaps way to late?
The Supreme Court judges were a positive thing for the Right, but the far Christian Right are the ones who have been given their walking papers. Likewise, the far Left was placed under house arrest until the election was over.
So are the Democrats moving back to more Conservative values, as that is where they know the votes are ?
Government was not working "for the people". When the Democrats themselves were butchered at the polls, they never gave up the fight to regain their power. In the US they do it with accusatory words, in Iraq, they do it with bloody force.
So I agree with you, as the races were so "strangely" close with the more Libertarian Right moving to an Independent stance which did just cost the Repubs their seats. I would also think that women voters went to the other side as well. But then inactivity within our government, as it was presented to the public over the media each night, just made people want change.
So these 'teach them a lesson' voters, before mentioned, voted either Independent or Conservative Democrat. And some are really just Closet Democrats. Look how the Right Wing Media in many cases loves Lieberman. Olympia Snowe in Maine got a landslide of votes in a Leftist state. Conservative Democrats holding hands with the Liberal Republicans aka Rhinos will be incontrol for the next couple years after some housecleaning is performed within the party on the Left, I predict, and I don't mean Pelosi's ordering custom drapes! She's the money lady for the Democrats and will be handled with kid gloves.
The democrats ran as social Conservatives this election. They won.
Bingo!
I think I heard the globalists say to both parties, as the Pharasees said to Judas, "See thou to that." -120-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well put, needs repeating.
I think we need to put the blame where it is due. On the Republican Party. We've had a lot of corruption in the party and a lot of RINOS. They are the ones who violated the trust of conservatives, and they paid dearly for it. That said, it's unfortunate that America has to suffer for their misdeeds.
To come out of the closet and admit they're liberals? Yes. I think so.
However:
If they continue to slam, means they have no plan.
And the voters were duped! SUCKERS!
I'm in NYS. Voted last night for conservatives I knew would not win. Solid libertarians are are what at one time were probably known as the loyal opposition, which every healthy republic needs. I've got a bit of the libertarian in me too, slightly right of center. Anyway, here's a bump for that loyal opposition. Hoping, of course, that it truly is loyal and truly is a viable opposition.
Please explain how this is any different from Bush's policies?
99% of precincts reporting
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/WY/H/01/index.html
Let's see ... Republicans failed to offer libertarians enough to get their vote and it's WHO'S fault?
Conservatives are the biggest group in the electorate, consituting 35 to 40 percent of the electorate, but conservatives are not enough for a majority.
To whom do conservatives want to appeal to attain a majority?
I'm not saying everything is A-O.K. when conservatives and libertarians get together. Obviously, libertarians are going to have to accept a big part of the conservatives agenda, and conservatives are going to have to accept at least a part of the libertarian agenda. Although neither side will be real happy with that, it will work.
That's why the Newt Gingrich-Dick Armey-Tom DeLay team were success, and why the Tom DeLay and the K Street Project approach to Congress didn't.
Could it come down to that one Libertarian swinging the entire Senate over??? They made mention of the Green in Virginia last night, but that Libertarian candidate in Montana really could turn out to be the difference.
They are generally Republican on economic issues (pro-free trade, pro-business, anti-tax) but Democratic on social issues except for gun rights (pro-abortion, pro-gay rights).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.