Who votes for Harry Browne?

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
Portrait of America has released the polling data they have gathered on the 577 Libertarian party respondents they have come across since July 1st.
http://www.portraitofamerica.com/

Apparently, Libertarians are more likely than supporters of any other candidate to A) not attend church and B) invest in the stock market.

In addition, the survey found that while less than 2% of Americans identify themselves as such, 16% share the same basic ideals.
 
Hmmm, interesting. I do know a number of church attending fundamentalist libertarians. The one thing is that none of them vote. They want nothing to do with political system. I'm not sure how widespread this is but it must have some effect on limiting the votes Libertarians get. And by the way most of them also play the stock market.
 
I am a libertarian / Libertarian, but I still plan on voting for Bush in this election.

A couple of years ago, the Wall Street Journal did a story about the libertarian philosophy, and cited stat's showing that about 40% of Americans hold such views. Who knows the right stat, but individual freedom and personal responsibility strike a chord with a lot of folks.

One of the more fascinating (in a disgusting way) features of this election is the almost phobic avoidance of Harry Brown by the media. As I recall, the Libertarians are still America's third largest party ... but in this election, only Nader and Buchanan seem to get mentioned in the context of 'third parties'. Really quite bizarre and irritating.

Regards from AZ
 
The LP just sent out a mailing about what they call the deliberate "Browne out" of the media not inclduing the Libertarian candidates.

BTW, I live in Massachusetts and will be voting Libertarian across the board. Believe me, I know that Harry won't make it this year, but Gore is going to carry all the electoral votes from here anyway.

I like to get the numbers higher for the LP especially for the newspaper tallys. It makes people think.

A vote for Bush would be a waste in this state, and the alternative is too grotesque to contemplate.

Boy do I miss Alan Keyes.


------------------
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seeknot your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
 
I'll probably vote for Harry. Idaho is known as the most Republican state in the nation, as such Gore getting our electorial votes is a non issue. Therefore I can vote my conscience and not feel like guilty about it..... Somehow the logic of that last sentence escapes me, but you know where I'm coming from.

Bri
 
There is a couple in our local Libertarian party who are very devout Christians. The wife home schools their five kids, which is cool. The very cool thing is that BOTH of them are running for local offices. Our county is officially running a FULL SLATE of (big L) Libertarians in this election...as a matter of fact, I believe we were only a couple short of the entire state running a full slate of candidates! woo-hoo!!!! :) :) :)
As far as who gets MY vote for President, I think Harry Browne pretty much says it all:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"Can I win? Probably not," Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne writes in the Wall Street Journal. "But if you vote for anyone else, you won't win either. Your candidate might win, but you won't get what you want. Government will continue to get bigger and more intrusive--and you'll have given this your approval. No matter what your reason for voting for Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore, your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement of every big-government proposal your candidate has made. Even though I may not win, every vote I get will be an endorsement, a statement, a declaration on behalf of smaller government. No one can confuse a vote for a Libertarian with a vote for more government. And if I get even one million votes, it could change politics in America forever."
[/quote]
He gets my vote....go, Harry!
Oh, yeah, Coinneach and I got to meet Mr. Browne when he was in Denver. I don't think the Libertarian party (or any party, for that matter) could have chosen a more dignified or eloquent candidate than Harry Browne. If he ever was elected President, I think he would be the most popular President in our nation's history. Good luck to him, I hope he gets his ten percent. I really admire him for the enormous effort he has put into his campaign. He knows he won't win the election, but his effort will make a small chink in the armour of the government as it is today. Thanks you, Harry Browne. May we all do so much for our children's liberties.
 
"...phobic avoidance of Harry Brown by the media."

Here's my take on this:

If we had a Libertarian majority, which reduced the size of government, thus reducing the ammount of scandal, the media would have almost nothing to report.

Also, the "lamestream" media are a bunch of socialists - they are AFRAID to show the sheeple a party that truly represents FREEDOM.

I first heard Harry Browne on a local talk show and they announced his appearance/speech at a hotel later that evening. I went after work and I was blown away by his philosophies of self destiny, self accountability and freedom. As a registered Republican, I felt like a liberal for the first time. Except for the abortion issue and the drug war thing, I agree 100%.

Are the sheeple ready for Harry Browne? Not yet. First they must WANT freedom.
 
Only if Colorado is a tight race between Gore and Bush will I vote for Bush since we can not survive Gore. If it looks to be a comfortable margin for Bush, then I will be voting for Browne. Regardless though, I'll vote for most of the rest of the Libertarian slate and for Republicans if there is no Libertarian candidate. Democrats in partisan city, state and national seats tend to vote with the pack regardless of their personal positions, thus I'll vote for none of them. The only exception being a local Democrat county commissioner who won't be going to any higher office due to age and because his Republican opponent is a dangerous die-hard planning & zoning regulator whom I'm fighting from my city council seat.

See this thread for a VERY thorough discussion of why to vote Libertarian. http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23225

[This message has been edited by Solitar (edited October 28, 2000).]
 
My wife and I are registered Libertarians. We vote Libertarian, but will vote Republican when there is no alternative or if the Republican candidate is both acceptable and viable.

Here in Oregon, we are in a dead heat between Gore and Bush. If I knew that it were a landslide either way, I'd vote for Harry. I just can't take the risk this time.

BTW, I heard Harry on the Michael Reagan show tonight (Friday). He was VERY good. If you want to hear a sound file of the show, go to http://www.reagan.com

The only Libertarian policy that I have reservations about is the weakening of the military. I also have some disagreements with the social stance of the Libertarian party. I reconcile them by reminding myself that removing government from a position of social influence is not the same as condoning a social issue I don't agree with. Instead, I am paving the way for my tax dollars to be freed up so that I may support private organizations and charities that reflect my views.

I am new to the party, but I'm seeking out my local party chapter to see what I can do to help.

------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF
USMC '87-'91

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our local "No compromise" chapter of the GOA. http://www.oregonfirearms.org
 
Longshot wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The only Libertarian policy that I have reservations about is the weakening of the military.[/quote]

Agreed. The Lib take is that most countries which dislike the U.S. do so because of "unfair trade practices," and if we would just treat them as equal trading partners, the threat of war would disappear. Rubbish. Some of our most vehemnet enimies are opposed to us simply because we represent freedom, and a Libertarian gov't would, in the eyes of these countries, be an even more extremist version of what we already have. They'd hate us with a pure purple passion.

I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Bush simply because of the Supreme Court appointments the next President will get to make. Some of the Supremes who will retire (or die) during the next administration are liberals, and getting a 6/3, 7/2, or 8/1 conservative court could go a long way towards rights restoration. Keep in mind that the SC will shape the way the laws are interpreted for the next 20 to 30 years. Hell, I remember when Rhenquist was appointed to the court; I was a junior in high school, and I'm now 45.

------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center
 
So here is a list of reasons why and how you should vote for Libertarians.

1) Assume that you live in a state in which Gore is very likely to have the majority. Because of the electoral college system of voting for president, your vote for Bush or Gore will simply disappear. You can use your vote for Harry Browne (the Libertarian candidate for President) to effectively send a message that you want the insane "War on Guns" stopped.

2) Assume that you live in a state in which Bush is very likely to have the majority. Because of the electoral college system of voting for president, your vote for Bush or Gore will simply disappear. You can use your vote for Libertarians to effectively send a message that you want the insane "War on Guns" stopped.

3) Assume that you live in a state in which the race is tight. Every vote counts so that your guy can capture the electoral college votes. Do this: Find a close friend who is going to vote for Gore but would rather vote Libertarian. (There are a lot of people who love the Libertarian message of freedom but are not so hot on the gun issues; they'll eventually come around.) Now make an agreement with your close friend: each of you will vote your preference for a Libertarian. This way you will not be tipping the balance towards someone you don't want. (Another way to do this is for you and your friend to vote by absentee ballot and peek at each other's
ballot before it is sent off.)

4) If you just can't bring yourself to pull the lever for anyone but the presidential candidate of your choice but you like our Libertarian message of freedom and responsibility, then, please, vote Libertarian for all the races that you don't care deeply about and PLEASE register as a Libertarian.

Libertarians trust you to use your guns wisely. Please use your vote wisely as well. Vote Libertarian.
 
Solitar, I'm not sure where your logic comes from.

In case #1 & #2 you say that my vote will simply disappear by not voting for Browne. I doubt Browne will pull a full 1% of the popular vote, do you really think that that will send an effective message to end this "insane war on guns"? Less than 1%? Do you think that 40% will disappear more than your mighty 1%? I think not.

In scenario #3, I don't have any friends that would vote for Algore. Do you? If you do, are they really your friends? :)

#4, I agree with.

Harry Browne may be a great guy and stand for most of the right things(his military stance is one I don't like either), but he doesn't stand a chance. You could write-in your own name and be just as likely to be president in January. At least by voting for yourself you can truly say that your candidate shares your beliefs to the letter.

Like it or not, this election is needs to be won by the guy who will do the least harm. That's Bush. I'm sure you all are aware that the next president will be naming 3, possibly 4 Supreme Court Justices. Would you rather have Algore doing that or Bush? There are only 2 choices, not 3 or 4, just 2. So who's it gonna be? Answer truthfully now. It's gotta be Bush and you know it.

Now I'm not gonna sit here and say that a vote for Harry Browne is a wasted vote, I really don't belive that. The only wasted vote is the vote not cast. I do think you have to place your vote where it will do the most good. This time around it's with Bush, and again you know it.

Zipping up the asbestos suit now. :)

------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
I, for one, am going to wait until election day and watch the polls. If Bush is going to comfortably carry Colorado, then I'm voting for Browne. If it is close, then I'll vote for Bush.

As to "friends" who will vote for Gore, many are not evil enemies - they are just deaf, blind and ignorant. Some are die-hard straight party line old union or activist green Democrats who would rather vote for a skunk than a Republican even though they realize the Democrat is only slightly less skunky. Libertarians offer them a way out of that box, especially if we can pair our "Republican" vote with their Democrat vote and BOTH of us vote Libertarian.

Other reasons to vote Libertarian in as many national, state and local races as possible...
1) Ballot placement or even credible treatment by the press (such as when the Rocky Mountain News recently omitted all 3rd parties from their election guide).
2) Recognition on at least a local level that our party can nominate candidates for the ballot just like the Republicans and Democrats do. Currently we have to petition to get on the ballot rather than have the easier route of a party caucus or convention.
3) Eventual federal campaign funds
4) Recognition by fence sitters that they CAN register as Libertarian, vote Libertarian and even come out of the closet and run for office as Libertarian AND WIN (just as I have).
 
I'm noticed that people who believe their state is firmly for or against Gore are voting libertarian to "send a message" and it won't matter anyhow. With respect, this is exceedingly short-sighted. I knew staunch republicans who voted for Perot in '92 to "send a message." After all, no way the man who won the Persian Gulf War would lose to a draft-dodging, womanizing, drug user. Right?

It would be a shame if YOUR vote was the one that ended up deciding which way your state went. Remember, one vote HAS decided whether a state would enter the union, who would be present, etc.
 
Friends, let me offer a word of caution re: voting based upon the polls ... and, this is simply conjecture on my part.

I don't trust polls ... some are obviously better than others, and I'm not an expert on them. They often conflict with each other, their methodology is sometimes flawed, etc.

And, if many people believed the wrong polls, it could influence election results, just as early ballot counts used to, due to the closing of polls back east before those out west.

Finally, 'Weird Al' is simply not worth the risk.

Harry Browne is a very fine man. I've heard him speak, met him, and donated money to him in the last campaign. I don't like my current position in pushing Bush, but I believe it is the intellectually correct decision. There is indeed a great deal at stake in this election.

Regards from AZ
 
You both have a point that we could get surprised by having a supposedly sure Bush state go Gore because too many of us voted for a 3rd party. It's happened before. But there is also the argument in the original discussion thread (cited in the first post above) that if Gore is elected, it could bring all this to a head much sooner - though it may be a hell we should not be looking forward to.

Gore deserves to be in the hot seat when this economy comes down around the Democrats heads. It could destroy the Democrat party. OTOH, they could pull an FDR and come out stronger.

I dunno.

[This message has been edited by Solitar (edited October 28, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Solitar:
Other reasons to vote Libertarian in as many national, state and local races as possible...

3) Eventual federal campaign funds[/quote]

To the best of my knowledge, the Libertarian and Constitution party do not accept federal campaign funds. The Libertarian party has refused them in the past. This holds true in my home state elections as well.



------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF
USMC '87-'91

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our local "No compromise" chapter of the GOA. http://www.oregonfirearms.org
 
According to http://www.lp.org/lpn/9601-Browne-matching-no.html

The threshold where it pays off is 5% of Presidential vote. Harry Browne and the Libertarian Party has not gotten there yet. The issue of refusal could be decided then. After all, we would be fools to not take the money when our competition is taking it.

The other category is the matching funds which, as the above link explains, may not be worth the hassle and strings attached. Thus that is why the Libertarians have refused those funds so far.

Bottom line...
We have to cross the 5% threshold.

Yes, I know that a strong conservative 3rd party takes votes from the Republicans. But what have the Republicans done for us? At a state (Colorado) and national level they've been allies to boiling us slowly. The Democrats would boil us quicker. :(

I'm voting against my turncoat, chicken-livered Republican state senator. I'm voting for his Libertarian opponent. I'm likely to vote a straight Libertarian ticket - and Republican for those races that have no Libertarian running. Why? Cuz I'm fed up with being screwed by the Demopublicans! :mad:

[This message has been edited by Solitar (edited October 28, 2000).]
 
Friends,
I have a couple of things here. I live in Pennsylvania, running for U.S. Congress as a Libertarian. This is a very heavy guns rights state, yet Gore and Bush continue to run a tight race. I really like Harry Browne, and will vote for him if Bush pulls ahead here. Yet I also fear this swing state needs to go to Bush, rather than Gore. We have a sigificant amount of electoral votes, and therefore can be critical.

For my second point, regarding the recent post about campaign funds. Harry has stated clearly that our position about a Constitutional government, and no improper use of funds, would make him and us hypocrites if he accepted federal funds for his campaign. I must support that.
In my own race, the incumbent Dem has spent 2.2 Mil, the Rep 1.4 mil, and I less than a grand.
I am quickly approaching 10% in the polls. A different perspective to campaign spending. Hard work pays off, and sincerity pays off the best.

Ken Cavanaugh
Libertarian Candidate 13th U.S. Congressional District - Pennsylvania http://kencavanaugh.home.mindspring.com
 
Thirty or so years ago I remember it was political suicide in Pennsylvania to get on the wrong side of the hunters and sportsmen. I'm afraid that has changed, but perhaps the hunters & shooters can be brought back around since fate is knocking at their door.

Your concern that PA could go Gore and thus even you, as a Libertarian Congressional candidate, possibly voting for Bush tells a profound reality. We can't afford risking Gore.

But in those states where it may be a sure bet one way or another, voting for Browne would help the party that would help us shooters the most.

In a brief review of the last three Presidential election numbers,
1988 had 91 million voters (41.8 Dem, 48.9 Rep.) - (90.7 total)
1992 had 104 million voters (43.7 Dem, 38.1 Rep, 19.2 Ind) - (101 total)
1996 had 95 million voters (47.4 Dem, 39.2 Rep, 8.1 Ind) - (94.7 total)

Note:
1) The Dem totals likely reflect population increase and immigrant voters though in 1996 they may also have picked up two million ex-independents.
2) 1992's hope for a viable 3rd party brought out 10 million new voters. BUT in 1996 their disillusionment turned them back into non-voters.

I'll grant that in 1992 Perot threw the election to Clinton.
But in 1996, Clinton likely would have won without Perot's help which was a sorry state of affairs given what we knew of him by then.
(a state by state figuring of electoral votes would be more accurate but for now I'm using the national totals)

MY POINT IN THIS...

Libertarian candidates CAN tap a large pool of non-voters without throwing the election to the Democrats. There are about 10 million 1992 voters who dropped out in 1996. If Libertarians could reach half of them, that would be our 5% threshold. If Libertarians could tap half of the non-voters, they'd win the Presidency. There are about 200 million potential voters, half of which are not voting. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile2-1.txt

Okay, so I'm being idealistic in my dreams.

P.S.
We know of many gunowners who are planning to vote for Gore - the idiots!
Half of the reputed 80 million gunowners would take the Presidency from the Demopublicans, especially since many would be converts from Democrat and Republican.



[This message has been edited by Solitar (edited October 29, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top