|
|
On November 19 2012 05:02 farvacola wrote:
I was referring to the various bond levies and tax hikes approved in states like California, Georgia, and Florida, in addition to state pension protections passed in Illinois. I had a list assembled of every state that passed a "big government" issue, I'll have to dig it up.
I'm not saying that Democrats didn't broadly win this election. Of course Democrats destroyed the Republicans in everything but the governor's races.
I'm saying that the libertarian wing is somewhat stronger than you realize, and a lot of libertarians simply don't care for the Republican Party..
|
On November 19 2012 04:51 cLAN.Anax wrote:So I was correct earlier. The Republicans have to concede to the left, rather than both parties becoming more moderate, in order for the country to "move forward." If there's no difference between the Dems and Reps, and both candidates look like flippant moderates, then the conservative vote will simply lie dormant. Should a viable candidate spring up in 2016 or 2020 that appeals to the right ( may even be hoping for a third party candidate from, say, the Libertarian or Constitutional parties), I imagine many Democrats and liberals will be in for a rude awakening. Don't trust everything you see in the polls, on the news, or via the web. Some voices only speak on Election Day.
Why are you repeatedly telling us to not trust the polls right after an election where poll aggregation predicted the result virtually to the dot?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 19 2012 05:01 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 04:54 Souma wrote:
When you have a two-party system, generally you have both parties having to pull towards the center. It's just how it is. Sure the ultra-conservative vote is lying dormant, but so is the ultra-socialist vote.
btw if this election's taught us anything, it's trust Nate Silver. Doubting the ultra-socialist vote is nearly as strong as the far right voter base. I'd imagine they've already fled the U.S. to more liberal-favoring countries like those in Europe, or Canada up north. And it's not totally based in history. Like I said, I would have voted for Romney, if he had a more reliable record as a rightie.
There are more far right voters than there are far left voters, but it's all really negligible in the grand scheme of things. Plus there are two types of "far right" voters - the social conservative and the libertarian.
And you are basing it on history and an anecdote. While you would have voted for Romney if he was more conservative, the electorate did not share the same sentiment. If you aren't going to trust Nate Silver now... then you're hopeless, at least until the next election that might prove him wrong.
|
On November 19 2012 04:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 04:51 cLAN.Anax wrote:So I was correct earlier. The Republicans have to concede to the left, rather than both parties becoming more moderate, in order for the country to "move forward." If there's no difference between the Dems and Reps, and both candidates look like flippant moderates, then the conservative vote will simply lie dormant. Should a viable candidate spring up in 2016 or 2020 that appeals to the right ( may even be hoping for a third party candidate from, say, the Libertarian or Constitutional parties), I imagine many Democrats and liberals will be in for a rude awakening. Don't trust everything you see in the polls, on the news, or via the web. Some voices only speak on Election Day. The problem is that you seem to be listening to everything but the voices of election day. Even if we are to widen our scope and go beyond the presidential election, "big government" state issues passed all over the country, hardline Republicans lost hard fought senate battles, and Democrats picked up far more House seats than the Republican redistricting should have allowed. There is literally nothing substantial that indicates some unpronounced libertarian/conservative population, and the results of the election speak for themselves.
And as I mentioned before, the conservative base remains silent if there is no candidate that they want to rally behind (source). If anything, these vocal voices of election day should go to show that the left and far left have someone to champion, whereas the right does not.
|
On November 19 2012 05:05 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:02 farvacola wrote:
I was referring to the various bond levies and tax hikes approved in states like California, Georgia, and Florida, in addition to state pension protections passed in Illinois. I had a list assembled of every state that passed a "big government" issue, I'll have to dig it up. I'm not saying that Democrats didn't win this election. I'm saying that libertarians are somewhat stronger than you realize.
Even Gary Johnson said the libertarian turnout was far less than he had expected; I really am waiting for someone able to point to something credible as it pertains to this shadowy libertarian demographic, because up to this point its all been whispers and assurances from those already convinced of the libertarian platform. Approving marijuana legalization and the approval of same-sex marriage are not libertarian signposts, not even close, so your going to need more evidence if you really want to suggest that libertarians are stronger than they appear.
Edit: You can point out the lower turnout, but you cannot simply assume that the reduction in turnout is lost conservative voters.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 19 2012 05:09 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 04:57 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2012 04:51 cLAN.Anax wrote:So I was correct earlier. The Republicans have to concede to the left, rather than both parties becoming more moderate, in order for the country to "move forward." If there's no difference between the Dems and Reps, and both candidates look like flippant moderates, then the conservative vote will simply lie dormant. Should a viable candidate spring up in 2016 or 2020 that appeals to the right ( may even be hoping for a third party candidate from, say, the Libertarian or Constitutional parties), I imagine many Democrats and liberals will be in for a rude awakening. Don't trust everything you see in the polls, on the news, or via the web. Some voices only speak on Election Day. The problem is that you seem to be listening to everything but the voices of election day. Even if we are to widen our scope and go beyond the presidential election, "big government" state issues passed all over the country, hardline Republicans lost hard fought senate battles, and Democrats picked up far more House seats than the Republican redistricting should have allowed. There is literally nothing substantial that indicates some unpronounced libertarian/conservative population, and the results of the election speak for themselves. And as I mentioned before, the conservative base remains silent if there is no candidate that they want to rally behind ( source). If anything, these vocal voices of election day should go to show that the left and far left have someone to champion, whereas the right does not.
And somehow you think these people are remaining silent because their candidates are not conservative enough? What?
There are like ten thousand reasons why someone may not vote on election day, and considering turnout rates are predominantly lower in democratic-leaning groups, your link does not hold much water.
If you guys really wanted to make your voices heard, you should have just voted Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode. Gary Johnson was an incredibly respectable candidate even if I dislike libertarianism myself. That's how you get your voice heard.
|
On November 19 2012 05:12 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:05 acker wrote:On November 19 2012 05:02 farvacola wrote:
I was referring to the various bond levies and tax hikes approved in states like California, Georgia, and Florida, in addition to state pension protections passed in Illinois. I had a list assembled of every state that passed a "big government" issue, I'll have to dig it up. I'm not saying that Democrats didn't win this election. I'm saying that libertarians are somewhat stronger than you realize. Even Gary Johnson said the libertarian turnout was far less than he had expected, I really am waiting for someone able to point to something credible as it pertains to this shadowy libertarian demographic, because up to this point its all been whispers and assurances from those already convinced of the libertarian platform. Approving marijuana legalization and the approval of same-sex marriage are not libertarian signposts, not even close, so your going to need more evidence if you really want to suggest that libertarians are stronger than they appear. Edit: You can point out the lower turnout, but you cannot simply assume that the reduction in turnout is lost conservative voters.
I thought gay marriage and marijuana legalization were the two classic signposts of libertarian (and liberal) ideology. Dates back to Friedman at the very least. They're certainly not conservative or authoritarian signposts.
|
On November 19 2012 05:01 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 04:54 Souma wrote:
When you have a two-party system, generally you have both parties having to pull towards the center. It's just how it is. Sure the ultra-conservative vote is lying dormant, but so is the ultra-socialist vote.
btw if this election's taught us anything, it's trust Nate Silver. Doubting the ultra-socialist vote is nearly as strong as the far right voter base.
This is undoubtedly true (we don't have a religion to help us along), but mostly because people who might otherwise be leftists are distracted by identity politics. Once the right loses that battle (inevitably) we are going to see a resurgence of socialists, imo at least (since I'm just as biased as you in the opposite direction). Demographic shift is only gonna be on my side, here...
I'd imagine they've already fled the U.S. to more liberal-favoring countries like those in Europe, or Canada up north.
nah, just talk about it all the time  we're still here....
|
On November 19 2012 05:14 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:09 cLAN.Anax wrote:On November 19 2012 04:57 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2012 04:51 cLAN.Anax wrote:So I was correct earlier. The Republicans have to concede to the left, rather than both parties becoming more moderate, in order for the country to "move forward." If there's no difference between the Dems and Reps, and both candidates look like flippant moderates, then the conservative vote will simply lie dormant. Should a viable candidate spring up in 2016 or 2020 that appeals to the right ( may even be hoping for a third party candidate from, say, the Libertarian or Constitutional parties), I imagine many Democrats and liberals will be in for a rude awakening. Don't trust everything you see in the polls, on the news, or via the web. Some voices only speak on Election Day. The problem is that you seem to be listening to everything but the voices of election day. Even if we are to widen our scope and go beyond the presidential election, "big government" state issues passed all over the country, hardline Republicans lost hard fought senate battles, and Democrats picked up far more House seats than the Republican redistricting should have allowed. There is literally nothing substantial that indicates some unpronounced libertarian/conservative population, and the results of the election speak for themselves. And as I mentioned before, the conservative base remains silent if there is no candidate that they want to rally behind ( source). If anything, these vocal voices of election day should go to show that the left and far left have someone to champion, whereas the right does not. And somehow you think these people are remaining silent because their candidates are not conservative enough? What? There are like ten thousand reasons why someone may not vote on election day, and considering turnout rates are predominantly lower in democratic-leaning groups, your link does not hold much water. If you guys really wanted to make your voices heard, you should have just voted Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode. Gary Johnson was an incredibly respectable candidate even if I dislike libertarianism myself. That's how you get your voice heard.
That is precisely what I did. Sadly, the third party candidates are simply not viable to get elected. My parents tried voting third party once; said they paid for it with 4 years of Clinton.
|
I'm pretty much an European Democratic Socialist. They certainly exist, if not nearly to the extent of, say, the Tea Party or Birthers.
|
haha yes clinton, the infamous maoist
|
On November 19 2012 05:14 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:12 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2012 05:05 acker wrote:On November 19 2012 05:02 farvacola wrote:
I was referring to the various bond levies and tax hikes approved in states like California, Georgia, and Florida, in addition to state pension protections passed in Illinois. I had a list assembled of every state that passed a "big government" issue, I'll have to dig it up. I'm not saying that Democrats didn't win this election. I'm saying that libertarians are somewhat stronger than you realize. Even Gary Johnson said the libertarian turnout was far less than he had expected, I really am waiting for someone able to point to something credible as it pertains to this shadowy libertarian demographic, because up to this point its all been whispers and assurances from those already convinced of the libertarian platform. Approving marijuana legalization and the approval of same-sex marriage are not libertarian signposts, not even close, so your going to need more evidence if you really want to suggest that libertarians are stronger than they appear. Edit: You can point out the lower turnout, but you cannot simply assume that the reduction in turnout is lost conservative voters. I thought gay marriage and marijuana legalization were the two classic signposts of libertarian (and liberal) ideology. Dates back to Friedman at the very least.
Therein lies the essence of the problem of conflating the two in terms of judging respective issue passage; that same sex marriage and marijuana legalization passed is no more an indicator of libertarian success than it is of liberal success. In fact, at least in the state of Washington, the state agency and government control that are mandated as part of the marijuana legalization bill make any declaration of "libertarian" success rather spurious at best.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 19 2012 05:18 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:14 Souma wrote:On November 19 2012 05:09 cLAN.Anax wrote:On November 19 2012 04:57 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2012 04:51 cLAN.Anax wrote:So I was correct earlier. The Republicans have to concede to the left, rather than both parties becoming more moderate, in order for the country to "move forward." If there's no difference between the Dems and Reps, and both candidates look like flippant moderates, then the conservative vote will simply lie dormant. Should a viable candidate spring up in 2016 or 2020 that appeals to the right ( may even be hoping for a third party candidate from, say, the Libertarian or Constitutional parties), I imagine many Democrats and liberals will be in for a rude awakening. Don't trust everything you see in the polls, on the news, or via the web. Some voices only speak on Election Day. The problem is that you seem to be listening to everything but the voices of election day. Even if we are to widen our scope and go beyond the presidential election, "big government" state issues passed all over the country, hardline Republicans lost hard fought senate battles, and Democrats picked up far more House seats than the Republican redistricting should have allowed. There is literally nothing substantial that indicates some unpronounced libertarian/conservative population, and the results of the election speak for themselves. And as I mentioned before, the conservative base remains silent if there is no candidate that they want to rally behind ( source). If anything, these vocal voices of election day should go to show that the left and far left have someone to champion, whereas the right does not. And somehow you think these people are remaining silent because their candidates are not conservative enough? What? There are like ten thousand reasons why someone may not vote on election day, and considering turnout rates are predominantly lower in democratic-leaning groups, your link does not hold much water. If you guys really wanted to make your voices heard, you should have just voted Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode. Gary Johnson was an incredibly respectable candidate even if I dislike libertarianism myself. That's how you get your voice heard. That is precisely what I did. Sadly, the third party candidates are simply not viable to get elected. My parents tried voting third party once; said they paid for it with 4 years of Clinton.
Well, good on you. Now convince every other too-conservative-to-vote person to vote third-party and you might actually get 5% of the votes! :D
Your parents should be glad Clinton got to office. He passed DOMA (not that he had much of a choice), repealed Glass-Steagall... it's like a conservative's wet dream.
|
On November 19 2012 05:20 farvacola wrote:
Therein lies the essence of the problem of conflating the two in terms of judging respective issue passage; that same sex marriage and marijuana legalization passed is no more an indicator of libertarian success than it is of liberal success. In fact, at least in the state of Washington, the state agency and government control that are mandated as part of the marijuana legalization bill make any declaration of "libertarian" success rather spurious at best.
Um, libertarians care about negative externalities just as much as liberals. As far as I'm aware, the controls on marijuana are quite similar to the controls on alcohol or cigarettes in Washington.
Of course, the laws are somewhat more restricted; antagonizing the federal government is a bad idea for legalization.
|
On November 19 2012 05:22 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:20 farvacola wrote:
Therein lies the essence of the problem of conflating the two in terms of judging respective issue passage; that same sex marriage and marijuana legalization passed is no more an indicator of libertarian success than it is of liberal success. In fact, at least in the state of Washington, the state agency and government control that are mandated as part of the marijuana legalization bill make any declaration of "libertarian" success rather spurious at best. Um, libertarians care about negative externalities just as much as liberals.
This is not my impression of libertarianism...
edit: but the controls are not the same. You're allowed to brew beer. You can't grow cannabis.
|
On November 19 2012 05:24 sam!zdat wrote:
This is not my impression of libertarianism...
Some libertarians have the weird "free market will sort it all out" thing. Or Coasian solutions to externalities.
But there's pretty much no libertarian who would, say, privatize the army because the free market would compensate for the loss of positive externalities.
On November 19 2012 05:24 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: but the controls are not the same. You're allowed to brew beer. You can't grow cannabis.
Even making alcohol has its restrictions. You're allowed to brew beer and make wine, but not allowed to distill alcohol without a permit.
You're not allowed to grow unlicensed marijuana. Licensed marijuana is legal.
|
On November 19 2012 05:22 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:20 farvacola wrote:
Therein lies the essence of the problem of conflating the two in terms of judging respective issue passage; that same sex marriage and marijuana legalization passed is no more an indicator of libertarian success than it is of liberal success. In fact, at least in the state of Washington, the state agency and government control that are mandated as part of the marijuana legalization bill make any declaration of "libertarian" success rather spurious at best. Um, libertarians care about negative externalities just as much as liberals. As far as I'm aware, the controls on marijuana are not dissimilar to the controls on alcohol or cigarettes here.
This is a troublesome declaration insofar as marijuana legalization is concerned; previous legalization bills in states like Colorado, California, and Oregon had far more grassroots libertarian support, and those bills were also totally bereft of state control and, more importantly, state distribution. If we are to look at the genesis of marijuana legalization in the US, the movement started off very, very "small government", only to shift towards the center as time went on, ending with the successes in Colorado and Washington. Libertarians are going to have to do the exact same thing if they want to stand chances during elections.
|
On November 19 2012 05:21 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:18 cLAN.Anax wrote:On November 19 2012 05:14 Souma wrote:On November 19 2012 05:09 cLAN.Anax wrote:On November 19 2012 04:57 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2012 04:51 cLAN.Anax wrote:So I was correct earlier. The Republicans have to concede to the left, rather than both parties becoming more moderate, in order for the country to "move forward." If there's no difference between the Dems and Reps, and both candidates look like flippant moderates, then the conservative vote will simply lie dormant. Should a viable candidate spring up in 2016 or 2020 that appeals to the right ( may even be hoping for a third party candidate from, say, the Libertarian or Constitutional parties), I imagine many Democrats and liberals will be in for a rude awakening. Don't trust everything you see in the polls, on the news, or via the web. Some voices only speak on Election Day. The problem is that you seem to be listening to everything but the voices of election day. Even if we are to widen our scope and go beyond the presidential election, "big government" state issues passed all over the country, hardline Republicans lost hard fought senate battles, and Democrats picked up far more House seats than the Republican redistricting should have allowed. There is literally nothing substantial that indicates some unpronounced libertarian/conservative population, and the results of the election speak for themselves. And as I mentioned before, the conservative base remains silent if there is no candidate that they want to rally behind ( source). If anything, these vocal voices of election day should go to show that the left and far left have someone to champion, whereas the right does not. And somehow you think these people are remaining silent because their candidates are not conservative enough? What? There are like ten thousand reasons why someone may not vote on election day, and considering turnout rates are predominantly lower in democratic-leaning groups, your link does not hold much water. If you guys really wanted to make your voices heard, you should have just voted Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode. Gary Johnson was an incredibly respectable candidate even if I dislike libertarianism myself. That's how you get your voice heard. That is precisely what I did. Sadly, the third party candidates are simply not viable to get elected. My parents tried voting third party once; said they paid for it with 4 years of Clinton. Well, good on you. Now convince every other too-conservative-to-vote person to vote third-party and you might actually get 5% of the votes! :D Your parents should be glad Clinton got to office. He passed DOMA, repealed Glass-Steagall... it's like a conservative's wet dream.
Oh I try. College kids so lazy and apathetic.... T_T
He pleasantly surprised us conservatives with many right-ish things while in office, namely balancing the budget, but I've never seen him as a genuine rightie. The issue of abortion, I believe, turned my parents off to him. Romney, for example, I saw as a Republican-"conservative" version of Clinton: appear to be conservative/liberal for the Reps/Dems in campaign, but serve practically in office as a moderate and do just enough to win the votes necessary for reelection. Pretty sure genuine conservatives saw right through Romney for what he was, though.
On November 19 2012 05:26 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:24 sam!zdat wrote:
This is not my impression of libertarianism... Some libertarians have the weird "free market will sort it all out" thing. Or Coasian solutions to externalities. But there's pretty much no libertarian who would, say, privatize the army because the free market would compensate for the loss of positive externalities.
Lol, I think so too. Though I've entertained the thought briefly in case it held validity.
|
On November 19 2012 05:28 farvacola wrote:
This is a troublesome declaration insofar as marijuana legalization is concerned; previous legalization bills in states like Colorado, California, and Oregon had far more grassroots libertarian support, and those bills were also totally bereft of state control and, more importantly, state distribution. If we are to look at the genesis of marijuana legalization in the US, the movement started off very, very "small government", only to shift towards the center as time went on. Libertarians are going to have the exact same thing if they want to stand chances during elections.
Such an argument is...flawed. Diehard libertarians aren't the only libertarians out there; political ideology is a spectrum.
By saying that completely unregulated marijuana bills were shot down earlier, you're only counting diehard libertarians as "real" libertarians. Same way a bill deregulating all firearms would attract diehard libertarians (and anarchists) only. No True Scotsman and all that...
The policy is certainly more moderately libertarian than completely unregulated legalization. But it's still libertarian, as it works towards more social choice.
|
On November 19 2012 05:34 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:28 farvacola wrote:
This is a troublesome declaration insofar as marijuana legalization is concerned; previous legalization bills in states like Colorado, California, and Oregon had far more grassroots libertarian support, and those bills were also totally bereft of state control and, more importantly, state distribution. If we are to look at the genesis of marijuana legalization in the US, the movement started off very, very "small government", only to shift towards the center as time went on. Libertarians are going to have the exact same thing if they want to stand chances during elections. Such an argument is...flawed. Diehard libertarians aren't the only libertarians out there; political ideology is a spectrum. By saying that completely unregulated marijuana bills were shot down earlier, you're only counting diehard libertarians as "real" libertarians. No True Scotsman and all that.
Hardly, I'm more referring to an analysis of winning issue structure, an analysis that indicates a drive towards the center, regardless of political affiliation. And I don't see how pointing out the failure of previously more libertarian issues indicates any sort of selection bias on my part; I am not discounting the presence of moderate libertarians, I am merely speaking on the problem of nebulousness as it pertains to estimating libertarian favor amongst the populace in regards to interpreting election results.
Edit: Social choice is not the discrete domain of libertarianism, that is my entire point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
