FOX "News" losing money

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Saying that the government shouldn't do much to interfere with how you live your own life is much more extreme than saying the rich are the source of all our problems or saying foreigners are the source of all our problems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

\(\)

FTFY.

A person who stands for office as a representative of the people on a platform of "Everyone should look out for themselves, and not give a fuck about other people" is pretty much doomed to fail with all but the dumbest of electorates.

No. The thing is the libertarian won't be offering up goodies to warrant bribes, hence won't get the big contributions. Make a system where it's state funded or only small contributions and they're electable.

Ahh. That explains why in other systems around the world, where elections are not strongly influenced by large campaign contributions, libertarians are so massively dominant.

Oh, wait.

I didn't say the would be dominant. I said they would be electable.

 

[laughing dog]

\(\)

Ahh. That explains why in other systems around the world, where elections are not strongly influenced by large campaign contributions, libertarians are so massively dominant.

Oh, wait.

I didn't say the would be dominant. I said they would be electable.

Anyone who is on a ballot is electable. If that was your meaning, then your point is moot. If you meant they had a real chance of gaining office, your response does not rebut bilby's empirical observation.

 

[bilby]

\(\)

Ahh. That explains why in other systems around the world, where elections are not strongly influenced by large campaign contributions, libertarians are so massively dominant.

Oh, wait.

I didn't say the would be dominant. I said they would be electable.

I know. And you are, demonstrably, wrong; They are elected at even lower rates than in the US.

 

[Elixir]

Libertarians are pretty much unelectable in a system run by legalized bribes. (ie, big donor campaign contributions)

Maybe THAT is why Citizens United was the "correct" decision?

- - - Updated - - -

A person who stands for office as a representative of the people on a platform of "Everyone should look out for themselves, and not give a fuck about other people" is pretty much doomed to fail with all but the dumbest of electorates.

I do believe that that condition is met.

 

[Underseer]

\(\)

Ahh. That explains why in other systems around the world, where elections are not strongly influenced by large campaign contributions, libertarians are so massively dominant.

Oh, wait.

I didn't say the would be dominant. I said they would be electable.

Anyone who is on a ballot is electable. If that was your meaning, then your point is moot. If you meant they had a real chance of gaining office, your response does not rebut bilby's empirical observation.

Yup.

It's an idiotic political ideology. The only reason it has traction in America at all is because the economic elites can use it to push for tax cuts, deregulation, and other things that further expand their wealth and political power.

No one votes for a candidate who believes in the Divine Right of Kings. That ideology only gains traction in nations where an elite class with outsize political influence can impose the ideology on the masses.

 

[lpetrich]

Every four years, the Libertarian party runs a candidate for President. They always lose by massive margins. The Libertarian party's platform is for minimal government. Police, courts, military and not much more. That is extremism with a large side order of derp. It hasn't been going anywhere for decades, and won't be popular for decades more. It is a silly ideology that is not going to ever be anything more than silly, unreasonable and a waste of time.

A contaminating factor is first-past-the-post voting. By Duverger's law, that leads to two parties. As Maurice Duverger himself explained, this is due to the spoiler effect. So a lot of people who might vote Libertarian may be unwilling to do so for fear of wasting their votes.

 

[Underseer]

Every four years, the Libertarian party runs a candidate for President. They always lose by massive margins. The Libertarian party's platform is for minimal government. Police, courts, military and not much more. That is extremism with a large side order of derp. It hasn't been going anywhere for decades, and won't be popular for decades more. It is a silly ideology that is not going to ever be anything more than silly, unreasonable and a waste of time.

A contaminating factor is first-past-the-post voting. By Duverger's law, that leads to two parties. As Maurice Duverger himself explained, this is due to the spoiler effect. So a lot of people who might vote Libertarian may be unwilling to do so for fear of wasting their votes.

And yet libertarianism gets more votes and is taken more seriously in America than any other modern industrialized democracy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If libertarianism was so great for the economic elite, why aren't more of them part of the LP?

 

[jonatha]

If libertarianism was so great for the economic elite, why aren't more of them part of the LP?

The existing parties are good enough and they can actually do things

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If libertarianism was so great for the economic elite, why aren't more of them part of the LP?

The existing parties are good enough and they can actually do things

They could try to put libertarian ideas into the big parties then, which they don't do. It is almost as if libertarian ideas aren't as great for the elite as some say they are.

 

[Canard DuJour]

If libertarianism was so great for the economic elite, why aren't more of them part of the LP?

Because it's just some useful idiocy to them. Better for them to fund a load of noisy think tanks.