Support NeoGAF

[BlastProcessing]

I don't like Johnson or Stein at all, and Hillary is better than both in my opinion, but if a third party actually wins a state this year, would this potentially open any kind of floodgate for third parties to be in future elections?

Not without a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution says that a candidate has to get over half of the Electors (270) to win. If nobody get's there then the lame duck house picks from the top 3 finishers.

As long as that's the case, you can't have a stable system with more than 2 parties.

 

[ascii42]

Not without a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution says that a candidate has to get over half of the Electors (270) to win. If nobody get's there then the lame duck house picks from the top 3 finishers.

As long as that's the case, you can't have a stable system with more than 2 parties.

Even without that, things would still tend towards two parties anyway.

 

[dLMN8R]

I don't like Johnson or Stein at all, and Hillary is better than both in my opinion, but if a third party actually wins a state this year, would this potentially open any kind of floodgate for third parties to be in future elections?

No.

If third parties seriously want to win elections, and not just pop up every 4 years like an impotent wet fart, then they need to get serious about local and state elections first.

Right now neither the Green party nor the Libertarian party has any sort of competent local or state infrastructure. They have no clear organization. They have no long-term plans. They have no clear agenda. And to make it worse, their platforms are filled with pandering to the dumbest conspiracy theories out there.

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/19/24362128/dan-savage-on-jill-stein-just-no
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/201...persons-dishonest-response-to-my-podcast-rant

There are, according to the best calculations, 520,000 elected offices in the United States. The Greens, again, are running 117 candidates in this cycle. I'm gonna fire up my vintage Casio FX-4000P calculator and do a little math. Divide 117 by 520,000 and you get... .0002.

Their attempts so far are pathetic. They don't deserve to win local and state elections right now given how disjointed and terrible their efforts have been, and because of that they absolutely have no chance of winning at the national level. And they certainly don't deserve to win anything either.


You can't stick your head in the sand for four years at a time, pop it out and whine a bit as presidential elections pick up, and expect anyone to give a shit about what you have to say.

 

[Not]

This is actually great.

Better libertarians than whatever the fuck the Republican Party is now.

Plus, it splits dat vote

 

[BlastProcessing]

Even without that, things would still tend towards two parties anyway.

Agreed. But it's completely impossible under the current Constitution.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

The problem is, that person isn't getting out of the primary. If we could somehow get rid of the primary process, and just name this person, ya. That might work.

I think a socially moderate but fiscally conservative party could get enough of the vote to eek out a win. The thing is, they're going to have to fix their demographic problems somehow.

That's the conventional wisdom, but Obama wasn't supposed to get out of the primaries either. I don't think it's that unlikely for a unicorn to get the nomination. McCain and Romney, hell even Bush 1/2 and Dole, weren't that far off the mainstream. Pair that with some charisma and an ability to keep their foot out of their mouth...

It would be nice if all these people claiming they'll vote for Johnson actually understood the policies that Johnson stood for.

As for me

Spoiler

(outing me as a Johnson voter in case that wasn't already apparent)

, I understand the policies he stands for, and while I disagree with several:

1. I agree with more of his positions than I do the other candidates
2. He's not going to get elected anyway
3. On the issues I disagree with him, even if he did get elected, he would be unlikely to pass. Conversely, the issues I agree with him the most tend to be the ones where he would have more control over (war on drugs, militarization of the police, foreign intervention, etc...)

 

[Erevador]

That's the conventional wisdom, but Obama wasn't supposed to get out of the primaries either. I don't think it's that unlikely for a unicorn to get the nomination. McCain and Romney, hell even Bush 1/2 and Dole, weren't that far off the mainstream. Pair that with some charisma and an ability to keep their foot out of their mouth...


As for me

Spoiler

(outing me as a Johnson voter in case that wasn't already apparent)

, I understand the policies he stands for, and while I disagree with several:

1. I agree with more of his positions than I do the other candidates
2. He's not going to get elected anyway
3. On the issues I disagree with him, even if he did get elected, he would be unlikely to pass. Conversely, the issues I agree with him the most tend to be the ones where he would have more control over (war on drugs, militarization of the police, foreign intervention, etc...)

Also worth noting that Johnson strictly believes in limiting his own power. He sees the job of the president as being largely the job of keeping the government running, and signing or vetoing legislation. Beyond that his "agenda" wouldn't necessarily be particularly aggressive.

In many ways the idea of a Democratic majority in the Senate, a Republican majority in the House, and a couple of moderate centrist Libertarians in the executive branch... it all sounds like a fairly solid recipe for balanced government and social harmony.

Obviously extraordinarily unlikely to happen, but wouldn't really be anyone's nightmare scenario if it did.

 

[SirNinja]

I hope he wins Utah.

Plant that seed

According to 538, he has a 0.2% chance if the election were held today. Polls+ forecast puts him at 0.1%. The chances of him winning ANY electoral votes whatsoever are 1.4%. I wouldn't put money down on it.

It's Hillary versus Trump this year. Period. The sooner Johnson/Stein/Bernie-or-bust voters realize that, the better. Don't get me wrong - I'd like to see a third party crop up too - but that's a journey whose destination is still much farther away than anyone wants to admit.

It would be nice if all these people claiming they'll vote for Johnson actually understood the policies that Johnson stood for.

Instead, he's just the reactionary bullshit you end up when you decide to uncritically believe all the nonsense out there about Hillary.

Also this. Some "seeds" really aren't worth planting.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

This is what I anticipate. GOP becomes a regional nationalist party and the Libertarians become the second party. The Libertarians are going to have to work on purging their party of white nationalists, though, but I think they can actually do that more easily than the GOP at this point.

In this theoretical example, do Libertarians and the GOP form some sort of coalition in the House and Senate or do they just cede control of the legislature and presidency for the foreseeable future?

Actually why aren't there regional third parties? Like, their presidential candidates have been much more successful (Wallace, Thurmond, La Follette) at gaining electoral votes and it seems like winning legislative seats would be much more possible with some sort of coherent, regional message. I mean, that's kind of what the Farmer-Labor party of Minnesota was before it became the DFL right? Why aren't there any other examples like that?

 

[User 463088]

That's the conventional wisdom, but Obama wasn't supposed to get out of the primaries either. I don't think it's that unlikely for a unicorn to get the nomination. McCain and Romney, hell even Bush 1/2 and Dole, weren't that far off the mainstream. Pair that with some charisma and an ability to keep their foot out of their mouth...

Obama's not a great example. He was considered unlikely because of who he was going up against more than anything. But, ehaving said that, Obama didn't have to tact to the fringe left to get or maintain support. The base of the Democratic party's primary electorate is not so far left that it's contrary to what the majority of Americans believe. The base of the GOP's electorate IS so far right yo have to tact too far to ever make your way back to the middle.

I think a moderate Republican could do decently well in the General. They could stem the tide with educated whites, and bring back some Hispanic voters. I just can't see this person surviving the parade of insanity (aka the GOP primary).

 

[Super_Cobra]

Go Johnson! He should of been the best option.

 

[Erevador]

I think a moderate Republican could do decently well in the General. They could stem the tide with educated whites, and bring back some Hispanic voters. I just can't see this person surviving the parade of insanity (aka the GOP primary).

This is exactly why we need the Libertarians. Rand Paul was by far the most reasonable person in the primaries this year, being hugely critical of hawkishness and saber rattling against Iran, and saying the drug war was a massive failure, morally wrong, and had a racist outcome. His campaign didn't even get out of the gate, though a lot of what he was saying would have resonated beyond the Republicans' increasingly radical voter base.

Gary Johnson has just about everything that was good about the Paul critique, but without the creeping Religiosity and social conservatism.

 

[ascii42]

I think a moderate Republican could do decently well in the General. They could stem the tide with educated whites, and bring back some Hispanic voters. I just can't see this person surviving the parade of insanity (aka the GOP primary).

McCain and Romney were. The problem was appealing to the far right to get through the primaries then trying pivoting back for the general election made them look flip floppity. I kind of wonder how Romney would be doing if he were the nominee this time around. Probably well.

 

[Erevador]

McCain and Romney were. The problem was appealing to the far right to get through the primaries then trying pivoting back for the general election made them look flip floppity. I kind of wonder how Romney would be doing if he were the nominee this time around. Probably well.

Both McCain and Romney could have been moderate saviors for the Republican party at one point, but both of them went increasingly off the rails in the years prior to their latest presidential race. Romney got more and more socially conservative, and McCain has gotten ever increasingly hawkish. Sad to see in both cases.

I'd say Johnson's running mate former Massachusetts Governor William Weld is everything those two failed to ultimately become. He's always been resolutely pro-choice. Always been resolutely for gay marriage. He paid a serious cost with the Republican party for those stances, which is a big part of why he didn't become more of a national figure, unlike Romney.

 

[Clockwork5]

Go Gary, Go.

 

[Lord Frieza]

I don't want him to make the debates because he has no real chance of winning, and having an extra person there would allow Trump to pull the same bullshit he pulled during the primary debates. I want him one on one and destroyed lol.

Hillary isn't going to allow Trump to pull the same bullshit he did in the primaries. Unlike the GOP candidates there, she actually knows how to debate and how to go with the ebb and flow. I mean, I guess Trump and Johnson could just go at each other, but I'm 100% confident that Hillary can handle just about anyone in debating

 

[Lathentar]

McCain and Romney were. The problem was appealing to the far right to get through the primaries then trying pivoting back for the general election made them look flip floppity. I kind of wonder how Romney would be doing if he were the nominee this time around. Probably well.

McCain had no chance. Obama is a generational candidate combined with coming off the tail end of an unpopular president at the start of a recession. Not sure it would have been possible for any candidate to win.

Romney would likely be killing Hilary if this was his first time running instead of last cycle, assuming he could make it through the primary.

 

[Lord Frieza]

McCain had no chance. Obama is a generational candidate combined with coming off the tail end of an unpopular president at the start of a recession. Not sure it would have been possible for any candidate to win.

Romney would likely be killing Hilary if this was his first time running instead of last cycle, assuming he could make it through the primary.

Vanilla ass Romney wouldn't have been killing anyone lol. This idea that Hillary would be totally destroyed by anyone other than Trump is such nonsense.

 

[Clockwork5]

Hillary isn't going to allow Trump to pull the same bullshit he did in the primaries. Unlike the GOP candidates there, she actually knows how to debate and how to go with the ebb and flow. I mean, I guess Trump and Johnson could just go at each other, but I'm 100% confident that Hillary can handle just about anyone in debating

She couldn't handle Obama and he isn't even that great in a debate setting.

 

[Lord Frieza]

She couldn't handle Obama and he isn't even that great in a debate setting.

What? She handled Obama fine. It's generally considered that she got the best of him in most of the '08 primary debates. She's an incredible debater, probably the best in politics right now.

 

[HStallion]

She couldn't handle Obama and he isn't even that great in a debate setting.

People involved with both their campaigns called it the tightest most hard fought race any of them have ever fought. She handled Obama pretty damn well all things considered.

 

[dLMN8R]

It's also a complete fallacy to assume that Clinton would be using the exact same strategy as she's using now if she were up against an opponent who was competent and/or sane.

Look, the main reason Trump and his surrogates are doubling-down on this nonsense story about her being "sick" is because she's not playing his game like he's used to. He expects his opponent to be as petty as he faced in the primaries - stooping to his level, bickering about every single little detail, etc. Instead, Clinton is simply doing what she always does: brush off the attacks and respond to legitimate questions or concerns. Not to feed the troll and play right into his hands.

She doesn't play into his hands, so he pivots and makes up shit about her being sick.

 

[Rentahamster]

Is there any survey that analyzes how many Johnson voters would otherwise vote for Hillary and how many would otherwise vote for Trump? As per social policy, Johnson is almost the same as Bernie. No other candidate is as free market as Johnson, though.

The point being, I see a lot of folks thinking that a strong Johnson is only good for Hillary when I'm not so sure about that.

 

[metalslimer]

She couldn't handle Obama and he isn't even that great in a debate setting.

Ok who exactly do you think is a good debater? Because if Obama and Hilary don't fit that bill especially in the 2008 setting then there haven't been any in modern political history.

 

[Casimir]

I don't like Johnson or Stein at all, and Hillary is better than both in my opinion, but if a third party actually wins a state this year, would this potentially open any kind of floodgate for third parties to be in future elections?

Probably not. If a policy position is popular enough to make a viable third party candidate, one or both of the traditional parties will adopt the position in some fashion and thereby usurp the potential third candidates votes.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Is there any survey that analyzes how many Johnson voters would otherwise vote for Hillary and how many would otherwise vote for Trump? As per social policy, Johnson is almost the same as Bernie. No other candidate is as free market as Johnson, though.

The point being, I see a lot of folks thinking that a strong Johnson is only good for Hillary when I'm not so sure about that.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/769200766745735169

 

[excelsiorlef]

This is actually great.

Better libertarians than whatever the fuck the Republican Party is now.

Plus, it splits dat vote

Meh he's taking from Clinton just as much apparently....

I guess because some lefties would literally rather go further right than vote Clinton because god knows why,

 

[ascii42]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/769200766745735169

Yeah, I expect there are a decent amount of #neverHillary Bernie supporters that will ultimately vote for Hillary once it gets down to it.

 

[B-Dubs]

Probably not. If a policy position is popular enough to make a viable third party candidate, one or both of the traditional parties will adopt the position in some fashion and thereby usurp the potential third candidates votes.

Not only that but neither of the "major" third parties has the infrastructure needed to take advantage of such a thing and it would still do absolutely nothing to change first past the post.

 

[Chris R]

Is there any survey that analyzes how many Johnson voters would otherwise vote for Hillary and how many would otherwise vote for Trump? As per social policy, Johnson is almost the same as Bernie. No other candidate is as free market as Johnson, though.

The point being, I see a lot of folks thinking that a strong Johnson is only good for Hillary when I'm not so sure about that.

I'm probably going to vote Johnson but if I had to pick between Trump and Hillary I'd vote Hillary.

It doesn't matter though since

a) The election will be called by the time I cast my vote
b) Hillary and/or Johnson aren't winning Alaska's 3 electoral votes anyways

 

[Odrion]

Your polls aren't fading.
Your polls aren't fading.
Your polls aren't fading.

I can't see them fade.

 

[ahoyhoy]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/769200766745735169

Clowns going from Bernie to Johnson were not listening to Bernie at all (or were just paying attention to the message of "revolution" without any of his specifics).

Libertarians winning would probably make life worse for everyone except the top 1%. Expect that wealth gap to climb more.

 

[digdug2k]

Meh he's taking from Clinton just as much apparently....

I guess because some lefties would literally rather go further right than vote Clinton because god knows why,

I kinda wonder how he gets those stats. Like if its comparing three-way races to two-way ones, I would imagine that Hillary's numbers include "Republicans who hate Trump". That makes more sense to me than angry Bernie supporters.

 

[Rentahamster]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/769200766745735169

I see. Thanks.

I guess because some lefties would literally rather go further right than vote Clinton because god knows why,

Clowns going from Bernie to Johnson were not listening to Bernie at all (or were just paying attention to the message of "revolution" without any of his specifics).

If someone who leans libertarian feels more strongly about the social issue aspect of libertarianism, while also wanting to put support behind an actual candidate that has a decent shot of winning while also shaking up the status quo, then libertarian support of Bernie doesn't seem so far fetched. There are a lot of variables.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I kinda wonder how he gets those stats. Like if its comparing three-way races to two-way ones, I would imagine that Hillary's numbers include "Republicans who hate Trump". That makes more sense to me than angry Bernie supporters.

It's frankly probably both.

I see. Thanks.





If someone who leans libertarian feels more strongly about the social issue aspect of libertarianism, while also wanting to put support behind an actual candidate that has a decent shot of winning while also shaking up the status quo, then libertarian support of Bernie doesn't seem so far fetched. There are a lot of variables.

The libertarian party is clown shoes, and in no world does Johnson have a "decent" shot at winning.

Unless you mean they thought Sanders had a decent shit and that too was not true either.

 

[Doominated]

The sad part about this is that it's not even mildly exciting. Johnson's insane and the entire Libertarian party is totally nuts right now. It's not a viable 3rd party because half of their policies could even come close to working in reality.

It's just a phenomenally weak election cycle is all.

 

[bender]

Ok who exactly do you think is a good debater? Because if Obama and Hilary don't fit that bill especially in the 2008 setting then there haven't been any in modern political history.

Bill Clinton was the last great one I remember. It's probably why I don't think much of Hillary's speaking chops as I tend to compare her to her husband.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Bill Clinton was the last great one I remember. It's probably why I don't think much of Hillary's speaking chops as I tend to compare her to her husband.

As a speaker, Hillary is pretty mid-tier. I don't think most disagree there. She has some gems, like yesterday's great speech on Trump and his alt-right associations, but for the most part it's nothing special. But as an actual debater, she's pretty much second to none. Speech-giving and debating are separate avenues.

 

[RustyNails]

Dude hasn't gone through the rough and tumble of primaries like Hillary and even a shitstain like Trump went through, garnering between 15-20 million votes. How many people even voted for him in libertarian primaries? Is such a thing even in existence? Why should he deserve your vote for coasting?

 

[Rentahamster]

The libertarian party is clown shoes, and in no world does Johnson have a "decent" shot at winning.

Unless you mean they thought Sanders had a decent shit and that too was not true either.

I meant the latter, and Bernie is a member of one of the two major national parties, and did have a decent shot at winning the primary. I'm also not talking about the Libertarian Party per se, but of the small L libertarian philosophy in general. The social policy side is largely in agreement with the Green Party, and with Bernie.

 

[bender]

As a speaker, Hillary is pretty mid-tier. I don't think most disagree there. She has some gems, like yesterday's great speech on Trump and his alt-right associations, but for the most part it's nothing special. But as an actual debater, she's pretty much second to none. Speech-giving and debating are separate avenues.

Both rely on a charisma that she doesn't have which is why I'd disagree with that second to none as a debater assessment.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I meant the latter, and Bernie is a member of one of the two major national parties, and did have a decent shot at winning the primary. I'm also not talking about the Libertarian Party per se, but of the small L libertarian philosophy in general. The social policy side is largely in agreement with the Green Party, and with Bernie.

This is a bogus myth that needs to stop being repeated.

The Libertarian Party platform and libertarian ideology isn't supportive of *select* liberal social causes. It simply doesn't give a shit. In some instances, this has the same end result - gay marriage and legal weed, yay!

This runs into problems when you start talking about repealing things like the Civil Rights Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act or other legislation designed to protect vulnerable members of society. Sure, you can be gay, or trans, or black, or a woman, or disabled, but don't expect the government to help you out. All you can do is pray to the invisible hand that local businesses decide it's better for their bottom line to have your business even if that comes as an inconvenience to themselves.

Many libertarians also support leaving these matters up to the states. Boy, that sure sucks if you live in a deep red state that can barely come to grips with recognizing you as a person! Live free or die!

Also, do you see healthcare, education, poverty etc. as social issues or economic issues? Because I'd say they overlap strongly and those are certainly not points in which the Libertarians and liberals are generally in agreement.

Don't try and sell libertarians as a perfect combination of social liberal + fiscal conservative. It's an ideology unto itself that barely overlaps with liberalism and any Bernie supporter going to Johnson is either a moron or a one-issue voter (but I repeat myself).

 

[B-Dubs]

Both rely on a charisma that she doesn't have which is why I'd disagree with that second to none as a debater assessment.

Even Obama has admitted that she regularly beat him in 2008.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Both rely on a charisma that she doesn't have which is why I'd disagree with that second to none as a debater assessment.

What does charisma have to do with debating? I feel like you're mixing up two concepts.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

A Libertarian selecting a supreme court justice sounds terrible.

 

[KRod-57]

I would really like to see third party candidates included in the debates, but realistically a third party candidate doesn't have a chance of winning elections unless we were to install a ranked voting system

A Libertarian selecting a supreme court justice sounds terrible.

why is that?

protecting the 4th amendment and a woman's right to choose.. seems okay to me

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I'm also not talking about the Libertarian Party per se, but of the small L libertarian philosophy in general. The social policy side is largely in agreement with the Green Party, and with Bernie.

I don't think you can divorce the economic platform from the social platform so easily, even if you remove social conservative influences like the religious right.

IMO, libertarian types too often tend to take the "leave the free market to its own devices; don't legislate morality" track to the point where that hands-off economic policy has detrimental social implications. You know, the train of thought that leads to the extremely naive idea that the government is not required to enforce anti-discrimination laws against private businesses because the free market would naturally turn against racist businesses anyway.

That's not out of the norm for them at all, either. Rand Paul caught a lot of flack for precisely this viewpoint during his first Senate campaign.

Even if libertarians "only" subscribe to the "fuck you; got mine" philosophy on the economic side of things, that still bleeds over to social issues and negatively impacts marginalized groups. Apathy is not a positive governing ethos.

I'm not really sure how the policies of a socialist-leaning person like Bernie meshes with that in the slightest, and I think any voter that swings across both sides of that pretty stark line has a pretty shallow commitment to or understanding of a lot of the related issues.

EDIT: Aaron beat me to all of this.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I would really like to see third party candidates included in the debates, but realistically a third party candidate doesn't have a chance of winning elections unless we were to install a ranked voting system



why is that?

protecting the 4th amendment and a woman's right to choose.. seems okay to me

It would be a states rights and gun nuts wet dream.

 

[Rentahamster]

This is a bogus myth that needs to stop being repeated.

The Libertarian Party platform and libertarian ideology isn't supportive of *select* liberal social causes. It simply doesn't give a shit. In some instances, this has the same end result - gay marriage and legal weed, yay!

This runs into problems when you start talking about repealing things like the Civil Rights Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act or other legislation designed to protect vulnerable members of society. Sure, you can be gay, or trans, or black, or a woman, or disabled, but don't expect the government to help you out. All you can do is pray to the invisible hand that local businesses decide it's better for their bottom line to have your business even if that comes as an inconvenience to themselves.

Many libertarians also support leaving these matters up to the states. Boy, that sure sucks if you live in a deep red state that can barely come to grips with recognizing you as a person! Live free or die!

Also, do you see healthcare, education, poverty etc. as social issues or economic issues? Because I'd say they overlap strongly and those are certainly not points in which the Libertarians and liberals are generally in agreement.

Don't try and sell libertarians as a perfect combination of social liberal + fiscal conservative. It's an ideology unto itself that barely overlaps with liberalism and any Bernie supporter going to Johnson is either a moron or a one-issue voter (but I repeat myself).

I'm not trying to sell anything. The whole situation is nuanced, and it would be a waste to throw away a whole bunch of potential political support just because those people happen to label themselves as libertarian.

Johnson, as a candidate, is also not that popular among the more hardcore Libertarians, anyway. He was booed for saying that he would have signed the Civil Rights Act, and he told the North Carolina legislature that their anti-trans bathroom laws were wrong and that they should stop. Just because he supports states rights doesn't mean that he takes it to the extreme and would enable states to unjustly discriminate. He understands what federalism should be.

Also, in my previous post, I wasn't talking about the Bernie (first choice) supporter going to Johnson (second choice), but rather people who would normally support a candidate like Stein or Johnson but instead put their support behind Bernie in the beginning because that was the next best thing who actually had a decent shot of winning. In this case, they would be moving from their second choice, Bernie, to their first choice - Johnson or Stein. Because Bernie's out.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Is there any survey that analyzes how many Johnson voters would otherwise vote for Hillary and how many would otherwise vote for Trump? As per social policy, Johnson is almost the same as Bernie. No other candidate is as free market as Johnson, though.

The point being, I see a lot of folks thinking that a strong Johnson is only good for Hillary when I'm not so sure about that.

When you switch from the 3 or 4 way race to a head-2-head instead, Hillary and Trump both gain roughly the same amount. So Johnson is really only dragging the maximum votes for everyone down.

Dude hasn't gone through the rough and tumble of primaries like Hillary and even a shitstain like Trump went through, garnering between 15-20 million votes. How many people even voted for him in libertarian primaries? Is such a thing even in existence? Why should he deserve your vote for coasting?

Johnson was nearly gaffed out of the nomination when he dared to argue that people should have driver's licenses to drive cars.

Libertarians are nuttier than squirrel shit. Take the craziest "Supply Side Jesus, the Market is the One True God" Republican, and then realize that Libertarians think that such a Republican is too much of a federalist to govern. These people don't care about anyone but themselves. (Edit: and weed, of course. Can't forget the weed).