| DISCUSSION | ||||
 |
| |||
Not saying the accuracy will be there, as it mostly seems to be yet another opportunity for the anti-Weld crowd to beat their collective chests. Amash seems to be doing the best so far so that may be worth documenting? | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
11/18-11/24 Patrick Byrne 67% Bill Weld 33% 11/19-11/25 Larry Sharpe 76% Bill Weld 24% Justin Amash 67% Larry Sharpe 33% Justin Amash 87% Mark Cuban 13% | ||||
11/21-11/27 Justin Amash 88% Bill Weld 12% 11/23-11/29 John McAfee 64% Bill Weld 36% While I'm reasonably certain that Weld would be able to at least beat John McAfee at the convention and this was mostly a way for Weld haters to sound off, he clearly has a base problem after the 2016 campaign. | ||||
 |
| |||
| ||||
| |
| |||
| ||||
| ||||
| |
| |||
| ||||
 |
Rufus: Also remains to be seen in a party where the Pragmatic Caucus has been increasingly ascendant whether they would sooner side with a left-libertarian or a radical.
As someone who isn't too familiar with the factions (formal or otherwise) in the Libertarian Party, can you explain differences between the left-libertarians and the radicals? I tended to assume they were somewhat similar. Are there other factions of note aside from the three you mentioned? | |||
| |
| |||
Radicals - orthodox AnCaps, live in a philosophy book and are always the ones to oversimplify complex problems based on theory while shunning any real world evidence to the contrary. Some decent folks in there all this notwithstanding. Mises - the propertarians and conservatarians. To them, the end all and be all of any issue is property rights. Some reasonable overlap with the Radicals. In my judgment, these are an even worse parody of Libertarians than the Radicals because they feed into every Randian stereotype that turns us off to the left and center which would otherwise be good allies. Praggies - classical liberals, Jeffersonians, centrists, incrementalists, yada yada. Plurality of the party that wants to be a serious force and willing to make concessions. Remains to be seen if a Bill Weld candidacy will be too big of a concession for them. Probably 40-45% of the party. LibSoc - runs the gamut from Georgists to AnComs. Want vocal support for the plight of the poor and marginalized rather than market indifference. The ones that make the Mises scream "commies!" and run to the LNC and try to get them excommunicated. Small but vocal force. Audacious - the weirdos. Fun in small doses but piss most people off when a camera is rolling because they make the party look immature. Some overlap with LibSoc but to my knowledge do not have a consistent ideological faction. It appears as though the online debate linked above was sponsored by the Radical Caucus and featured aligned candidates, which would explain why Zoltan was not there. | ||||
| |
I wouldn't have thought about differences between the Radicals and the Mises people, but that makes sense. | |||
| |
| |||
I think the last Chair election might help to differentiate them as well. Josh Smith was the Mises Caucus candidate and everybody knew it. He was touted as a real challenge to Sarwark, but in the end had virtually no draw outside his base. I haven't scoured the known votes but it would seem that Sarwark swept the Praggies and the unaffiliateds as well as took the bulk of Radicals. | ||||
E Pluribus Unum: Bill Weld has the potential barring a backlash due to him being a Republican Governor like in 2016.
I don't think the Republican governor thing hurts him as much as his vouching for Clinton during the late stages of the campaign and that he has a sketchy past on the Second Amendment. For much of the party faithful, gun rights are the most important issue or damn near. Personally, I know the "he endorsed Hillary!!" thing is bull but that he even went so far as to make that connection plausible is frustrating. I'm not #NeverWeld but short of him polling above where Johnson was to where debate inclusion is a serious likelihood I'm not sure I would cast my vote for him at convention. | ||||
| |
[Link] | |||
| |
Rufus: There is a fair bit of overlap between the Radicals and Mises but one can usually count on the former on non-economic issues like immigration or capital punishment to back the platform strongly, while the Mises often have carried some ugly baggage with them from the Republicans.
This implies to me that the Libertarians/"libertarians" that end up going fascist/white nationalist/etc tend to be from the Mises faction, at least in terms of outlook if not explicitly-declared alignment. Does this line up with your experiences in the Libertarian Party, or with libertarians generally? | |||
E Pluribus Unum: I brought up the Republican Governor aspect due to Darryl Perry's speech at the 2016 Convention
It is a valid criticism for sure. Always talk against being a failed Republican B-plan party. Zeus the Moose: This implies to me that the Libertarians/"libertarians" that end up going fascist/white nationalist/etc tend to be from the Mises faction, at least in terms of outlook if not explicitly-declared alignment. Does this line up with your experiences in the Libertarian Party, or with libertarians generally?
It does. One of Smith's problems in the Chair race was association with Liberty Hangout and like orgs/people who are less than explicitly against alt-right infiltration. Mises are so anti-left that they sometimes find their would-be allies on the right carry even uglier baggage than the conservatarians. This is why I'm not a fan of the faction or any sidling up to the right whatsoever. | ||||
| [View Next Page] | ||||