Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Of 'likely voters?' or even 'registered voters?'tpahl said:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Badnarik in Debates.htm
68% of people think he should be in the debates and most people still have not even heard of him. Just imagine how much they will support him after they start hearing from him in the media.
tpahl said:People eligible to vote. too often polls exclude people who identify themselves as not likely to vote. Most people who do not support the Republicans and democrats are the people that are not likely to vote. Which makes sense. If you see little difference between the two parties why would you waste your time voting? Including all americans is much more meaningful.
tpahl said:It is meaningful in more than the feelings category. The point of the poll is that there is a large segment of society that would like to see Badnarik in the debate. Regardless of whether they decide to vote or not is not important. Elections and debates are for the benifit of all eligible voters not just the ones that chose to go to the polls. If Badnarik is not in the debates, then obviously far less people will go vote on election day because they willl have not heard of a candidate that they find worth voting for.
As for you not being excited by Badnarik. I am not really sure what that has to do with whether he be included in the debates.
tpahl said:It is not about feelings. It is about how likely voters is a relative term. If people see badnarik in the debate they become a likely voter.
That is not being idealistic. it is being realistic. Realistically people are more likely to vote for a candidate when they are included in the debates. Currently the debate rules say that candidates are included if they poll at a certain level in some select polls. These polls then do not even ask about certain candidates 9despite being on the ballot in all 50 states) AND they ask for likely voters when most non republicans and non democrats are not likely voters (unless they hear about other candidates).
In other words the Rs and Ds have a system set up to be a self fulfilling prophecy. And on top of that as this poll shows, it is a system that most people are not happy with.
As for Badnarik not having an issue that resonates with you, that is too bad. He is however strogly in favor of the 2nd amendment (unlike bush and kerry). he is for greatly reducing spending (unlike bush and kerry). He is for ending the drug war (unlike bush and kerry). He is for ending the war in Iraq (unlike bush and kerry). I am curious what issue would excite you enough to vote for a libertarian candidate. It seems that just offering such an alternative even if it did not excite would still be a good idea in the presidential debates.
Kathianne said:Sorry to disagree with you. The Libertarian Party is this close to having many GOP in their hand. They fail election after election to close the deal. Nader has a better chance!
Those that are not voting now, will not vote.
You are fighting a losing battle. For god's sake man, the country is at war! If not now, when?
gop_jeff said:I would love to have the Libertarians in the mix, along with the Greens. The libertarians might pull 1%. They have no strong party structure and they are less well known than both the Greens and the Reform party. And I can't wait until Badnarik rolls out the Libertarian position that we need a drastically smaller military when there remains a serious threat of terrorism.
Kathianne said:just the fact that if you didn't vote in last election, your unlikely to do so now.
tpahl said:What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that we should not have third partys during war time? Or are you just upset that Badnarik is against using troops in nation building exercises?
now you are being disingenuous, you know better. Shame on you!
tpahl said:If you are presented with the same two poor options. Look at it this way. lets say you are allergic to tomatos. You live in a big commune where you vote on what to have for dinner every night. Everynight you the top two choices are Spaghetti with tomatoe sauce sauce or angel hair pasta with tomato sauce. Being allergic to tomatoes you can not eat either because they both have tomatoe sauce. How likely is it that you will vote? Now suppose that a good 1/3 to 1/2 the population was not voting because they too had some problem with two or just did not care enough to really vote because either way they felt they were getting essentially the same result.
The only people left voting would be the people that really liked one or really disliked the other. Now you as the commune cook decide to see if maybe there is some other choice that people would like. Would you ask only the people that voted or the whole population? Of course if you do not provide a new choice you are correct that the people that did not vote the night before will not vote again. But if you gave a third choice like chicken, i bet you would find alot of those non voting people decide to start participating again. This was true when Ventura ran for governor. It was true when perot ran for president. And it would be true for Badnarik if he were included in the debates. But unfortunately the system set up asks only the people that are already happy with the choices rather than all the people.
No. I have no clue what you are talking about. What does the wartime thing have to do with what we are discussing?
Travis
gop_jeff said:I would love to have the Libertarians in the mix, along with the Greens. The libertarians might pull 1%. They have no strong party structure and they are less well known than both the Greens and the Reform party. And I can't wait until Badnarik rolls out the Libertarian position that we need a drastically smaller military when there remains a serious threat of terrorism.
Kathianne said:Let's take this very simply. I already have said I'm predisposed to the Libertarian message. You wish to confuse it all with tomatoes and war. That is your party's problem encapsulated.
tpahl said:I am not trying to confuse things. You are the one that brought up some point about us being in a war. I am still not sure what you meant by that. This will be my third time asking. What did it have to do with the rest of the thread?
As for the tomato analogy, I was trying to explain to you why 'likely voters' is not a useful group to poll and why 'eligible voters' is far better. Whether you lean libertarian or not, is not really relavent. My arguement was not aimed at trying to convert you to libertarianism. It was aimed at convincing you that polls are more accurate when they reflect eligble voters.
Considering that you brought up the war comment and not explained it and I was discussing polling not libertarianism, i fail to see how you can come up with the conclusion that this is the libertarian parties problem encapsulated.
Kathianne said:Came up in post #9, which does need an answer.
tpahl said:yes, I know when you brought it up. I do not understand your question, 'if not now when?' What are you refering to? please explain post #9 for me. I am genuinely confused.
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.
The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.
