• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

Jason Harvestdancer said:
Let us say, for example, that about 1% of Libertarians vote Democrat and 2% vote Republican. That means that twice as many vote Republican.
Click to expand...


Better yet, let's quote an excerpt from the above-linked Cato article:

Our data show that libertarians have generally voted Republican—66 percent for Ronald Reagan in 1980, 74 percent for George H. W. Bush in 1988, and 72 percent for George W. Bush in 2000. But they are not diehard Republicans. John Anderson and Libertarian Party candidate Ed Clark got 17 percent of the libertarian vote in 1980, and Ross Perot took 33 percent of the libertarians in 1992.
Click to expand...


Of course you will no doubt quibble with the definition of libertarian as you have appointed yourself the final arbiter of who fits that designation, but that aside, the article indicates that when it comes time to go to the polls, libertarians vote overwhelmingly Republican.
 
As I said, the polls say "even though these people don't consider themselves libertarian, we will call them libertarian". You conveniently snipped that part out.

Tell you what, let us use a carefully constructed definition, the way they do. Say we define "libertarian" as "anyone who supports drug legalization and gay marriage." Now non-self-identifying libertarians primarily vote Democrat.

Yes, you want them to support Republicans, so you're not going to bother to investigate the carefully constructed definition. It suits your purposes so it is therefore good enough,
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
As I said, the polls say "even though these people don't consider themselves libertarian, we will call them libertarian". You conveniently snipped that part out.
Click to expand...

I could not have snipped that quote out, as it is not to be found in the article in question.


Of course, since you are the Anointed One among "True Libertarians" you may disagree with those splitters from Cato, but here's the relevant quote from the article as to how they justify labeling people who don't have the "Jason Harvestdancer Official Seal of Approval" as being libertarian:

In all of these calculations, we use a broad definition of libertarian. We include both individuals who would self-identify as libertarian and individuals who hold libertarian views but may be unfamiliar with the word. It is clear that many people who hold libertarian views don’t self-identify as libertarians. One Rasmussen poll found that only 2 percent of respondents characterized themselves as libertarians, even though 16 percent held libertarian views on a series of questions.

Gallup consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents to be libertarian. We used a narrower definition, and we found that in 2004 libertarians accounted for 13 percent of the voting-age population and 15 percent of actual voters.
Click to expand...


I understand that you don't like other folks challenging your self-appointed role as arbiter of all things libertarian, but I think Cato is being eminently fair in their labeling.



Edited to follow up on your edit:

Say we define "libertarian" as "anyone who supports drug legalization and gay marriage."
Click to expand...


Let's say we don't move the goalposts so much.
 
If I'm moving the goalposts, so are they. They even admit they are using a "broad definition" and "hold libertarian views but may be unfamiliar with the word." Which libertarian view are they using? Did you bother to ask that?

But you like their goalposts and don't like mine, so theirs are right and mine are wrong.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Let us say, for example, that about 1% of Libertarians vote Democrat and 2% vote Republican. That means that twice as many vote Republican.

I've seen those polls before. They consist of "even though these people don't call themselves libertarians we will call them libertarians in order to prove a point." Then again, people think Rand Paul is libertarian, even though he explicitly denies it.

By the way, the data also shows that the party was founded by David Nolan and not Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

Let's not say that unless you actually have some data to share which backs your statement up.

Jason Harvestdancer said:
As I said, the polls say "even though these people don't consider themselves libertarian, we will call them libertarian". You conveniently snipped that part out.

Tell you what, let us use a carefully constructed definition, the way they do. Say we define "libertarian" as "anyone who supports drug legalization and gay marriage." Now non-self-identifying libertarians primarily vote Democrat.

Yes, you want them to support Republicans, so you're not going to bother to investigate the carefully constructed definition. It suits your purposes so it is therefore good enough,
Click to expand...

Any common English reading of the piece indicates their criteria. Perusing any other material on that site indicates that they consider libertarians to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative - which most rational people would agree are what libertarians acually describe themselves as. See:

Cato said:
Our new research finds that 15 percent of American voters are libertarian rather than liberal or conservative. People generally say that a liberal favors government intervention in the economy and protection of civil liberties, while a conservative is opposed to both economic intervention and the expansion of civil liberties. Libertarians oppose government intrusion into both the economy and personal freedoms.

Our research drew on recent data from the Gallup Poll, the Pew Research Center Typology Survey, and the University of Michigan’s American National Election Studies. We used questions on both economic and social issues that would allow us to distinguish libertarians from liberals and conservatives.

In all of these calculations, we use a broad definition of libertarian. We include both individuals who would self-identify as libertarian and individuals who hold libertarian views but may be unfamiliar with the word. It is clear that many people who hold libertarian views don’t self-identify as libertarians. One Rasmussen poll found that only 2 percent of respondents characterized themselves as libertarians, even though 16 percent held libertarian views on a series of questions.

Gallup consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents to be libertarian. We used a narrower definition, and we found that in 2004 libertarians accounted for 13 percent of the voting-age population and 15 percent of actual voters.
Click to expand...

You've provided no data to support your proposition, nor any rationale for why we should suspect the Cato definition or classification of a libertarian as nonstandard. More to the point, what reason would we have to even believe that Cato would do such a thing - you are surely aware of what the Cato Institute is, correct? What reason would they have to cast libertarians as something they are not?
 
They provided the data, I don't need to. They admit they are using a "broad definition". How much more clear do you need it to be?

They admit they are classifying people as libertarian who do not do so for themselves, and that they are using a specialized non-standard definition. THEY ADMIT THEY ARE USING A SPECIALIZED NON-STANDARD DEFINITION!

But you like their results, so you like their definition. You won't bother to think over the implications of what they wrote, because you like the results so you like the definition.

They admit they're using a non-standard definition, but because you like the results you like their non-standard definition.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
They provided the data, I don't need to. They admit they are using a "broad definition". How much more clear do you need it to be?

They admit they are classifying people as libertarian who do not do so for themselves, and that they are using a specialized non-standard definition. THEY ADMIT THEY ARE USING A SPECIALIZED NON-STANDARD DEFINITION!

But you like their results, so you like their definition. You won't bother to think over the implications of what they wrote, because you like the results so you like the definition.

They admit they're using a non-standard definition, but because you like the results you like their non-standard definition.
Click to expand...

A plain English reading of the words they've committed to print indicates that they're not using a non-standard definition of libertarian/libertarianism - what they're doing is identifying individuals who have libertarian proclivities regardless of whether they self-identify as libertarians. Read the linked fulltext pp22 A Note on Validity which shows their methodology for sanity checking their categorization.

Now it's certainly not perfect, but it's the best data that I've been able to get my hands on.

And your contention that I 'like' the results is absurd. Why should I like or dislike whatever outcome they conclude? If you have better data then show it.
 
Deepak said:
A plain English reading of the words they've committed to print indicates that they're not using a non-standard definition of libertarian/libertarianism -
Click to expand...


The only definition which matters to Jason is his own. He's decided that nobody can be a libertarian unless he approves.
 
Deepak said:
And your contention that I 'like' the results is absurd. Why should I like or dislike whatever outcome they conclude?
Click to expand...

It isn't obvious? If someone wants to lump two disparate groups together, so if a specialized non-standard definition lumps the two together then that specialized non-standard definition becomes good. It is a question of motive.

Do you desire to lump together Libertarians and Republicans? Yes or no? If yes, that explains why you like their specialized non-standard definition.
 
What about the great whores' race anyway. We have from time to time had candidates with an altruistic motive. They generally score lousey in the talleys because they are not big enough whores. If a guy calls himself a libertarian, then let him be one. It seems we all pretty much see how they work and it ain't pretty. Libertarians can definitely be whores too. For that matter, so can Bernie Sanders. The only people I don't count out completely as whores are green party candidates and they are clearly not in the running though their platform is the best for the country....
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
What?

KeepTalking said:
Republicans whom they vote for exclusively
Click to expand...

What?

It makes sense in a way - someone who underinformed about the Libertarian Party that he thinks it was founded by Ron Paul would also think that we vote Republican.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the Libertarian Party was founded by Ron Paul any more than you said the Republican Party was founded by Lincoln. You have a had a couple of pages now to show that Libertarians don't vote Republican, and all you have been able to come up with is "Those aren't True Liberterians!"
 
bigfield said:
angelo said:
There's no such thing as a free lunch, even in an idealistic world!
Click to expand...

That is (unintentionally) an argument in favour of parties who are for sustainable economies. Green parties fit that description more closely better than, say, parties that still think economic neoliberalism is a good idea.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Joe Public pay and pay through the nose until bled dry! Greece anyone?
 
The Donald is now polling second in the Republican Field!
 
I suppose there are so many lunatics running, that this shouldn't be surprising. The poll indicates Jeb has a relatively sizable lead. Trump does have a problem, Christie entered, so there is another in your face blowhard in the race. Rubio's fall isn't good, as isn't Walker's. Rubio is too much like Bush. Walker is a fucking asshole. So once again, it looks like a strong race for second.
 
Do you think we will have an 'anyone but Bush' campaign like last time with Romney?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom