from a reply elsewhere

[solarbird]

Upright Republicans - ones to whom any of the supposed small-government principles ever mattered at all, or, for that matter, one to whom any of the claimed GOP principles ever mattered at all - need to understand that the GOP is no longer their party.

And if they want to take their party back, they need to cause the GOP to lose in 2016. There are times, no matter how much you don't like it, that you need to lose an election to win the future, and when you do that, you need to do it in a clear and visible way.

Fortunately, there is a clear and visible way to do that, and the way to do that in 2016 is to vote for Gary Johnson. Gary gets 5%, and it will be an extremely clear message: you can't win without us.

Because right now, at this moment, the GOP is an unrestrained horde of overt racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, and absolutism, it is a party of chaos and strong-man leadership, the opposite of law, the inverse of order. A GOP victory in this condition would be a tremendous loss for all the principles of small and hands-off government. Both parties will be mass rule, and the one least historically aligned against that will have won with that as their standard, and will not turn away for decades, if ever.

The GOP must lose this election, and it must be clear why.

Gary Johnson won't win; the Libertarian party is a joke. I say that as someone who has voted big-L more than not. A lot of people will say, therefore, that you are "throwing away your vote."

That's horseshit. This election, if you're on the small-government side, it's the only way not to throw away your vote, and it's the only shot at not losing the GOP to the mob.

The GOP must lose 2016. Badly. And it must be clear why. Responsible, upright Republicans must vote Gary Johnson in 2016. He won't win - but you will.

Comments

[ex_inklessej388]

I hear you but arn't the Democrats having the same desire to run to third party candidates? I fear that if both establishment parties see droves of their own supports run to third party candidates that it will only ensure a Trump victory. This is an observation from a Canadian however who is just watching the show from arm's reach. In Canada, we have seen countless times that a conservative leader moves into power because the left is split. The incentive to head to the polls and support Leader X is typically stronger, in my experience, with agitated voters such as those who support Trump. If the left is split and the right is split, won't that just give Trump enough wiggle room to pull this off? It is kind of scary.

[solarbird]

The Democratic base is already talking about this in fairly clear terms, at least, amongst the Bernie Sanders supporters. In short, the idea is already clearly there.

Dissatisfaction with Trump is clear in the Republican party, but the idea of shifting to Johnson is less well established, and the reasons for it are not well articulated beyond "never Trump." I'm trying to give them a positive reason to take a positive action.

[solarbird]

See also.

[ex_inklessej388]

I got that. But...splitting the vote I fear will only ensure a Trump victory. If we use your logic and look to defeat the Donald (which I agree with wholeheartedly, especially as a Canadian which I telling), than we should all be throwing our suppory behind the Democratic candidate who in this case is Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, splitting the vote down each side will ensure that every vote for Trump gains more traction and more power and with the silly but strong base he has, he will almost certainly lock in the White House.

[ex_inklessej388]

Thanks for this. :)

[solarbird]

Ah. You're assuming these are people who can be talked into voting for Hillary Clinton.

They cannot be talked into voting for Hillary Clinton. They will not do it.

The options I'm trying to divert them from are saying "well, he's the Republican, I'll vote for him anyway" and "I just won't vote."

[vostoklake]

I am saying precisely the same thing to my leftist friends: "The GOP must lose 2016. Badly." Can you imagine what happens if a Trump victory leads to a Marine LePen victory in France? That fascist harridan is leading in the polls right now.

[marahmarie]

Am preferring the latter to the former. Repubs of any integrity have good reasons to sit this one out.

[solarbird]

Between those latter two choices, absolutely. We're in full agreement there. I just think a stronger signal of NO is sent by voting for Johnson - at least, if he can climb up into the 4-5% range.

[marahmarie]

You split the vote that way. Splitting amongst Repub-leaning voters is not so bad, because Trump will lose by a certain percentage, anyhow. He's got voters to throw away because he still wouldn't win if he had them. You split the Dem-leaning ones, though, and you've got problems. Good chance that's how you'll get Trump. No mandate, and a clearly laughable majority, but that is how.

[solarbird]

Anyone who does not want Mr. Trump to win the election wants to split the Republican vote. That includes many Republicans, ones who will never vote for Ms. Clinton, and are choosing between voting for Mr. Trump Anyway, and not voting at all.

It is these regular, reliable, Republicans who need a third, positive action, to keep them from deciding, "well, Hillary is a monster, not voting won't do anything, I may as well vote for our monster." I'm trying to give them a way to send a clear message, which is to say, a positive action that will do a thing

Games

[marahmarie]

Anyone who does not want Mr. Trump to win the election wants to split the Republican vote.

I was saying he'll lose by nth percentage points, anyway, which I think he probably will. In fact, I agreed with you: split his vote. Not sure what you're getting a bit hot under the collar for.

But! splitting the vote is generally not a positive action. If I thought it was, I would have voted for (or written in) Ron Paul the last however many times he ran, because his thoughts have always been a bit closer to where my politics actually lie.

Knowingly splitting the vote on purpose to help one candidate win or lose is cynical and dishonest. Just vote your heart, your politics and what you believe in. If I wasn't voting Hillary you can be damn sure I wouldn't sniff up some third-party candidate I know I'm not interested in to convince myself to vote for them just to keep one of the mainstream candidates from either winning or losing.

(I might just not vote at all. Not voting is also a vote, and does send a message. But I've never been in the situation before of not being able to find something to like about somebody mainstream, so I can't speak to how I'd actually solve that problem. I always vote. For somebody. Who I can basically believe in) .

Similarly, something about Ron Paul's ideology makes me do somersaults of joy in my head but I didn't cast my vote or write-in for him because I know he's not going to win and I wasn't trying to screw up the tallies for anyone else. If I can't have Ron then I just fall back to what I am - liberal -and just vote for whoever falls closest to that.

[batyatoon]

I feel like voting Libertarian as a Republican is throwing away your vote, and it's doing so as a deliberate public statement: "I would rather feed my vote into a woodchipper than let Trump win."