Why does the Libertarian party fixate on Presidential politics?

[RaphaelDLG]

If the Libertarians (or the Greens, for that matter) want to win in the long-term, they should do some combination of running against Republicans in Safe R districts and endorsing candidates within Republican primaries.  They'd be wise to start out on the state/congressional level.

[Goldwater]

The Green Party should endorse people in Republican primaries?

[RaphaelDLG]

The Green Party should endorse people in Republican primaries?

Right, bad grammar, the Greens in Democratic primaries and/or safe D districts.

Similar to what the working families party has done so far, logically but mostly unsuccessfully.

[Beet]

Because if a libertarian were elected to say, school board or county commission, what would they do? Just vote to shut down everything at every meeting?

[RaphaelDLG]

Because if a libertarian were elected to say, school board or county commission, what would they do? Just vote to shut down everything at every meeting?

I think the Darryl Perry brand of libertarians would fail miserably, because most people aren't that lacking in common sense.  But something equivalent to the right-wing liberals in Europe could definitely enjoy small pockets of success in America.

[Slander and/or Libel]

It doesn't. Look at the last congressional elections, the libertarians ran a nominee in almost every state, and in many races they got into the debates. Many L nominees got 2-5%, its just that nobody talked about them.

How much should we be talking about fringe candidates who failed miserably?

[ElectionsGuy]

It doesn't. Look at the last congressional elections, the libertarians ran a nominee in almost every state, and in many races they got into the debates. Many L nominees got 2-5%, its just that nobody talked about them.

How much should we be talking about fringe candidates who failed miserably?

I don't know, but my words still stand. The libertarian presidential ticket is getting high marks in media coverage this cycle which makes people think they were irrelevant before. Well, they kind of were and still are, but much less relevant anyway. And 'failed miserably' is a bit unfair, these are candidates who barely have any infrastructure and money and many do better than Gary Johnson (1%) at a statewide or district level anyway.

[Slander and/or Libel]

It doesn't. Look at the last congressional elections, the libertarians ran a nominee in almost every state, and in many races they got into the debates. Many L nominees got 2-5%, its just that nobody talked about them.

How much should we be talking about fringe candidates who failed miserably?

I don't know, but my words still stand. The libertarian presidential ticket is getting high marks in media coverage this cycle which makes people think they were irrelevant before. Well, they kind of were and still are, but much less relevant anyway. And 'failed miserably' is a bit unfair, these are candidates who barely have any infrastructure and money and many do better than Gary Johnson (1%) at a statewide or district level anyway.

Sure, but should we act as though 2-5% is a level of support that demands that they be taken seriously and discussed soberly? If their ideas are good, then sure, we should talk about that. I just don't really understand why low-to-mid single digits qualifies as a significant achievement.

[ElectionsGuy]

It doesn't. Look at the last congressional elections, the libertarians ran a nominee in almost every state, and in many races they got into the debates. Many L nominees got 2-5%, its just that nobody talked about them.

How much should we be talking about fringe candidates who failed miserably?

I don't know, but my words still stand. The libertarian presidential ticket is getting high marks in media coverage this cycle which makes people think they were irrelevant before. Well, they kind of were and still are, but much less relevant anyway. And 'failed miserably' is a bit unfair, these are candidates who barely have any infrastructure and money and many do better than Gary Johnson (1%) at a statewide or district level anyway.

Sure, but should we act as though 2-5% is a level of support that demands that they be taken seriously and discussed soberly? If their ideas are good, then sure, we should talk about that. I just don't really understand why low-to-mid single digits qualifies as a significant achievement.

Doesn't every idea deserve to be discussed in a healthy democracy? Libertarian ideas and socialist ideas deserve recognition even if they're not popular. However they should be treated with less prominence as they won't have much of an impact on public policy if nobody elects them.

Its only a significant achievement when before they regularly ran worse than 1%. The libertarian party has been a party of nobodies for a long time and they've really stepped up their game (comparatively, again) in the last decade.

[Slander and/or Libel]

It doesn't. Look at the last congressional elections, the libertarians ran a nominee in almost every state, and in many races they got into the debates. Many L nominees got 2-5%, its just that nobody talked about them.

How much should we be talking about fringe candidates who failed miserably?

I don't know, but my words still stand. The libertarian presidential ticket is getting high marks in media coverage this cycle which makes people think they were irrelevant before. Well, they kind of were and still are, but much less relevant anyway. And 'failed miserably' is a bit unfair, these are candidates who barely have any infrastructure and money and many do better than Gary Johnson (1%) at a statewide or district level anyway.

Sure, but should we act as though 2-5% is a level of support that demands that they be taken seriously and discussed soberly? If their ideas are good, then sure, we should talk about that. I just don't really understand why low-to-mid single digits qualifies as a significant achievement.

Doesn't every idea deserve to be discussed in a healthy democracy? Libertarian ideas and socialist ideas deserve recognition even if they're not popular. However they should be treated with less prominence as they won't have much of an impact on public policy if nobody elects them.

Its only a significant achievement when before they regularly ran worse than 1%. The libertarian party has been a party of nobodies for a long time and they've really stepped up their game (comparatively, again) in the last decade.

I don't know that relative performance should really be the measure here. If the Greens always pulled 0.1%, and then one time they pulled 0.5%, would that mean we should all start seriously discussing them?

[Kingpoleon]

I want to post this here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_election_in_Alaska,_2014

A person without a Wikipedia page or major name recognition almost got a twenty term incumbent below 50%. That's an incumbent Republican in Alaska in a major wave year for Republicans.

[IceSpear]

I want to post this here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_election_in_Alaska,_2014

A person without a Wikipedia page or major name recognition almost got a twenty term incumbent below 50%. That's an incumbent Republican in Alaska in a major wave year for Republicans.

Protest votes for a libertarian are often high when a Republican candidate implodes (see Indiana and Missouri in 2012)