[x]

The Republican party that used to win elections in congress as well as for the Presidency consisted of old money country club republicans, culture conservatives and libertarians who wanted their votes to mean something. These three groups had little use for each other but had enough similarity of interest to work together to win the elections. The culture conservatives and the libertarians have split and now the country club members see little in common with the culture conservatives.

Most of those who jumped ship to Obama fall in that "country club" category.

And there is that split between libertarians and social conservatives.

But rank and file support for libertarian ideas ebbs and flows. Or it follows a cycle from a low point, like 1936 or 1964 to a high point like 1984.

When people feel the shoe of government regulation and taxation pinch, they get together to fix things (so long as they believe that that degree of regulation or taxation isn't necessary). When the shoe doesn't pinch, people stop caring about big government. Committed libertarians and small government devotees aren't a large part of the population.

[Tribune7]

And there is that split between libertarians and social conservatives.

Which I think is mostly the fault of social conservatives. True libertarians at least respect the pro-life view and are willing to tag along to a point. And with regard to gay marriage, no true libertarian would want to expand the role of government, add to the burden of clogged divorce courts, give new Social Security transfer privilages etc.

OTOH, regulating on-line gambling, banning the sale of horse meat etc., regulating campaign speech etc. will drive any sensible libertarian away.