Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Why would the GOP promote another political party? By definition, they're competing entities, doubly so because Republican and Libertarians voters tend to have more overlapping positions that Libertarians and Democrats. This, in conjunction with the "first over the line" system, means that any support the GOP threw to the LP would have essentially been an effort in cutting off their nose to spite their base face.
Because the libertarian candidate is more closely aligned to the GOP than Donald Trump is. Rand Paul was a libertarian running as a GOP candidate, so it's not a foreign concept. If your main concern was to "stop Trump", that would have been the most effective solution. This is only confusing if you're trying to have it both ways. That is, stop Trump and win the election on the standard GOP platform.
I'm not sure what you're saying they should have done. For the actions of "the GOP" (assuming you mean the RNC here?) to have any effect, it has to occur within the confines of the GOP primary process. So to support a candidate at all, that candidate would have to actually run as a Republican in the GOP primary. I suppose any of a list of Libertarian candidates, having taken a look at Trump, could have done so (but waaaaay too late, a fact you still haven't grasped in terms of how primaries work), but there already were a dozen or so candidates in the GOP primary that were "more closely aligned with the GOP than Trump". How would adding another have helped?
If you're talking about actually supporting the candidate for another party in that other party's primary, that's not the job of the RNC. What you're saying is the equivalent of arguing that the solution to the Yankee's having a hard time selling tickets cause their team lineup sucks is for the Yankee's management to promote the Met's lineup. Hey. They're closer than any other team, right? Um... Not going to happen. Now, the
fans can choose to do this, just as the
voters could choose to flip over to another party, but that's not the same thing. No one on the Yankee's staff will tell fans to do this, just as no one in "the GOP" will do this.
Quote:
You're not taking in consideration that Trump only became viable because there were 14 other main stream candidates (Excluding Carson and Fiorina) essentially fighting for the same spot while ignoring Trump. If they had worked together (either in the GOP or LIB), they would have had a much higher chance of stopping Trump. In that scenario, I would bet a paycheck that the chosen candidate would have at least 30%.
I'm not sure what you're advocating for here. In this context, who is "they", and what constitutes "working together". Be specific.
Quote:
Again, this is what the DEM party did and it worked. They cared more about winning the election as a party as opposed to individual aspirations.
Yes. But that's because the Democrats, and the politicians who run on that platform (at least at the national level) are more of a "play ball" kind of mindset than the Republicans. They're more willing to toe the line for the good of the party, while Republicans care more about the principles they believe in. You're free to argue which is better. I'd argue that one produces better policy within the party, while the other produces better election outcomes for the party. We don't live in a perfect world.