What would happen if the GOP goes Libertarian?

[IllinoisFreedomFighter]

It depends on what brand or sort of "Libertarian" we are talking about.

I believe there is great success for the Republican Party in promoting the virtue of individual responsibility and less government intervention in the private and public lives of the individual.

However, there is nothing but failure ahead for any Party that falls off the cliff into the realm of hostility to the basic functions of a modern government.   Many people who call themselves "Libertarian" (or conservative) have simply found an ideological dwelling place for their pursuit of selfishness and indecency towards their fellow man.

I'll gladly take a social conservative with a heart for people and God's creation over an ultra-ideological libertarian self-ist who has no concept of being "their brother's keeper".

I agree with this.  In fact the GOP used to be a lot more socially libertarian (and, to contrast, Democrats used to be a bit more statist).   

The problem is that they got hijacked by two different groups - religious extremists and kleptocrats.   Though the GOP has long been pro-business, the kleptos took it to the extreme eliminating safeguards which helped less ethical types garner large short term profits over long term economic health.   The religious extremists were mostly for the votes with a few token gestures here and there, but they scare the kleptos because Jesus tended to talk about helping the poor and all that a lot.  (not that some of the more extreme folks couldn't be convinced to ignore that, but the pigeons are coming home to roost now).  So you have a schism now between two groups at odds with each other trying to work together.

Their other problem is that the Democrats took over the ground they abandoned.   (Especially the third way types).  They moved from center-left to center right economicly, as the GOP was moving to an odd combo of hardcore lassez faire and corporate cronyism (although the Dems are not exactly guiltless either), and socially jumped radically from the idea of individual freedom to religious-based nanny statism, while the Democrats backed off on that front and moderated their views on governmental control of individual choices.

So now the main Democratic office holders tend to run from slightly liberal to moderately conservative on both economic and social views (-1 to +4 economic, 1 to 5 social) while the net republican mainstream has moved into the upper right corner (+4 to +9 economic, +5 to +10 authoritarian) though there is a schism within the party on that, as the kleptos don't tend to be concerned about social issues - beyond their value in manipulating the religious right, and the religious right has to contend with all that social justice stuff in the new testament which risks pulling down their economic score.

There is no way the current economic plans of the Democratic administration occupy that part of the spectrum.  Every one of their plans revolves around more government control!

[rebeltarian]

1) As the white evangelical base declines and is replaced by a broader, browner generation of Chrstians, the Christian vote becomes a 50-50 toss up.  Some Christians vote Republican for civil liberties, pro-life and a non-interventionist/peaceful foreign policy, while others vote Democrat for social justice, care for the poor, environmental conservation and a UN-alliance/moralist foreign policy.

2) Turned on by the GOP's sudden embrace of intellectualism, affluent fiscal conservative/social liberal voters in the Northeast and the West go back into the Republican camp by the score.  New Hampshire and Colorado become rock-solid Republican states.  Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, Washington and Oregon begin to trend Republican.  California comes back onto the horizon and Illinois becomes the Republicans must-win state.

3) Thirsty for continued social welfare, Lunch-bucket Union workers, Catholics and Seniors go back in the tank with the Democrats.  Michigan and Pennsylvania become rock-solid Democratic and Ohio becomes the Democrat's must-win state.  

4) F.O.B. Hispanics follow their populist instincts and go even more heavily for the Democrats, but they are offset by 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics moving out into the burbs and countryside who want smaller government and are inspired by the new, re-vamped, inclusive Republican message.

5) The South Becomes divided.  The deep south sticks with the Republicans for guns and abortion while the border states lean Democrat for economic reasons.

6) On account of an influx of fresh Hispanic immigrants and a re-vamped, family-values, pro-American Democratic message, Arizona and Texas move to center-left and New Mexico becomes a Democrat stronghold.

[5280]

That maps looks all wacked up, but it would be interesting.

[Scam of God]

The deep south sticks with the Republicans for guns and abortion

Any serious libertarian Party must be pro-choice. The right of self-ownership is not negotiable.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The deep south sticks with the Republicans for guns and abortion

Any serious libertarian Party must be pro-choice. The right of self-ownership is not negotiable.

Are you serious? There are many pro-life libertarians and it isn't very hard to justify. Abortion=murder. Murder isn't acceptable to libertarians. Therefore, abortion isn't acceptable to libertarians. THose who don't see abortion as murder obviously won't care. But libertarians can go either way on the issue and still be libertarians.

[Scam of God]

The deep south sticks with the Republicans for guns and abortion

Any serious libertarian Party must be pro-choice. The right of self-ownership is not negotiable.

Are you serious? There are many pro-life libertarians and it isn't very hard to justify. Abortion=murder. Murder isn't acceptable to libertarians. Therefore, abortion isn't acceptable to libertarians. THose who don't see abortion as murder obviously won't care. But libertarians can go either way on the issue and still be libertarians.

No, they can't. And the ones that do aren't libertarians.

A fetus is a parasite, which cannot survive independently from the mother and provides nothing in turn for the mother. It is the biological version of a welfare queen. It therefore is not human life. Banning abortion hence violates the right of self-ownership of the mother.

"Pro-life libertarians" are not libertarians, just as Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is a paleoconservative. Anyone who pretends to be both is self-delusive. Fin.

[fezzyfestoon]

No, they can't. And the ones that do aren't libertarians.

Haha!  And this, my friends, is why the Libertarian Party garners an impressive 0.40% in elections.

[RScannix]

I love it when people unilaterally make unqualified, arbitrary judgments over what a libertarian must be. I'd like to know why so many seem them think they're a walking dictionary on the subject.

[Zarn]

The deep south sticks with the Republicans for guns and abortion

Any serious libertarian Party must be pro-choice. The right of self-ownership is not negotiable.

Are you serious? There are many pro-life libertarians and it isn't very hard to justify. Abortion=murder. Murder isn't acceptable to libertarians. Therefore, abortion isn't acceptable to libertarians. THose who don't see abortion as murder obviously won't care. But libertarians can go either way on the issue and still be libertarians.

No, they can't. And the ones that do aren't libertarians.

A fetus is a parasite, which cannot survive independently from the mother and provides nothing in turn for the mother. It is the biological version of a welfare queen. It therefore is not human life. Banning abortion hence violates the right of self-ownership of the mother.

"Pro-life libertarians" are not libertarians, just as Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is a paleoconservative. Anyone who pretends to be both is self-delusive. Fin.

Your attacks on the fetus is anti-individual.

[Vepres]

The deep south sticks with the Republicans for guns and abortion

Any serious libertarian Party must be pro-choice. The right of self-ownership is not negotiable.

Are you serious? There are many pro-life libertarians and it isn't very hard to justify. Abortion=murder. Murder isn't acceptable to libertarians. Therefore, abortion isn't acceptable to libertarians. THose who don't see abortion as murder obviously won't care. But libertarians can go either way on the issue and still be libertarians.

No, they can't. And the ones that do aren't libertarians.

A fetus is a parasite, which cannot survive independently from the mother and provides nothing in turn for the mother. It is the biological version of a welfare queen. It therefore is not human life. Banning abortion hence violates the right of self-ownership of the mother.

"Pro-life libertarians" are not libertarians, just as Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is a paleoconservative. Anyone who pretends to be both is self-delusive. Fin.

This, my friends, is why the LP remains a fringe party.

[5280]

Killing the fetus is attacking someone's liberty.  You have the choice to have the kid, you have the choice to adopt or not have a kid (without abortion).

You never know, if you kill the fetus, it could of been a smart adult in the future or a down syndrome baby.  Either adopt or don't have the kid in the first place.  That's individual liberty.

[Хahar 🤔]

And this, my friends, is why the Libertarian Party garners an impressive 0.40% in elections.

This, my friends, is why the LP remains a fringe party.

The game's up, Vepres.

[retromike22]

1) As the white evangelical base declines and is replaced by a broader, browner generation of Chrstians, the Christian vote becomes a 50-50 toss up.  Some Christians vote Republican for civil liberties, pro-life and a non-interventionist/peaceful foreign policy, while others vote Democrat for social justice, care for the poor, environmental conservation and a UN-alliance/moralist foreign policy.

2) Turned on by the GOP's sudden embrace of intellectualism, affluent fiscal conservative/social liberal voters in the Northeast and the West go back into the Republican camp by the score.  New Hampshire and Colorado become rock-solid Republican states.  Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, Washington and Oregon begin to trend Republican.  California comes back onto the horizon and Illinois becomes the Republicans must-win state.

3) Thirsty for continued social welfare, Lunch-bucket Union workers, Catholics and Seniors go back in the tank with the Democrats.  Michigan and Pennsylvania become rock-solid Democratic and Ohio becomes the Democrat's must-win state.  

4) F.O.B. Hispanics follow their populist instincts and go even more heavily for the Democrats, but they are offset by 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics moving out into the burbs and countryside who want smaller government and are inspired by the new, re-vamped, inclusive Republican message.

5) The South Becomes divided.  The deep south sticks with the Republicans for guns and abortion while the border states lean Democrat for economic reasons.

6) On account of an influx of fresh Hispanic immigrants and a re-vamped, family-values, pro-American Democratic message, Arizona and Texas move to center-left and New Mexico becomes a Democrat stronghold.

That looks interestingly similar to the Clinton-Obama Primary map.

[Gustaf]

The deep south sticks with the Republicans for guns and abortion

Any serious libertarian Party must be pro-choice. The right of self-ownership is not negotiable.

Are you serious? There are many pro-life libertarians and it isn't very hard to justify. Abortion=murder. Murder isn't acceptable to libertarians. Therefore, abortion isn't acceptable to libertarians. THose who don't see abortion as murder obviously won't care. But libertarians can go either way on the issue and still be libertarians.

No, they can't. And the ones that do aren't libertarians.

A fetus is a parasite, which cannot survive independently from the mother and provides nothing in turn for the mother. It is the biological version of a welfare queen. It therefore is not human life. Banning abortion hence violates the right of self-ownership of the mother.

"Pro-life libertarians" are not libertarians, just as Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is a paleoconservative. Anyone who pretends to be both is self-delusive. Fin.

Are you saying welfare queens are not human now?

[Vepres]

And this, my friends, is why the Libertarian Party garners an impressive 0.40% in elections.

This, my friends, is why the LP remains a fringe party.

The game's up, Vepres.

I'll never talk!

[rebeltarian]

1) As the white evangelical base declines and is replaced by a broader, browner generation of Chrstians, the Christian vote becomes a 50-50 toss up.  Some Christians vote Republican for civil liberties, pro-life and a non-interventionist/peaceful foreign policy, while others vote Democrat for social justice, care for the poor, environmental conservation and a UN-alliance/moralist foreign policy.

2) Turned on by the GOP's sudden embrace of intellectualism, affluent fiscal conservative/social liberal voters in the Northeast and the West go back into the Republican camp by the score.  New Hampshire and Colorado become rock-solid Republican states.  Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maine, Washington and Oregon begin to trend Republican.  California comes back onto the horizon and Illinois becomes the Republicans must-win state.

3) Thirsty for continued social welfare, Lunch-bucket Union workers, Catholics and Seniors go back in the tank with the Democrats.  Michigan and Pennsylvania become rock-solid Democratic and Ohio becomes the Democrat's must-win state.  

4) F.O.B. Hispanics follow their populist instincts and go even more heavily for the Democrats, but they are offset by 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics moving out into the burbs and countryside who want smaller government and are inspired by the new, re-vamped, inclusive Republican message.

5) The South Becomes divided.  The deep south sticks with the Republicans for guns and abortion while the border states lean Democrat for economic reasons.

6) On account of an influx of fresh Hispanic immigrants and a re-vamped, family-values, pro-American Democratic message, Arizona and Texas move to center-left and New Mexico becomes a Democrat stronghold.

That looks interestingly similar to the Clinton-Obama Primary map.

I just noticed that myself.  A libertarian-Republican could pull away the starbucks voters who supported Obama and lose the social cons who supported Huckabee/Clinton/Palin.  A close election could look like this: R 301 D 237.....

[aaaa2222]

There's no way a Libertarian would take NY and AR before NV, MT, OR and WA. You must be kidding, right? Plus, with the influx of populist/ liberal Hispanic immigrants to the south west, the GOP would be increasingly crushed there. It's only social conservatism that buys them the white southern vote, keeping them afloat there now.

[War on Want]

2016:

Mark Kirk/Huntsman vs. Joe Sestak/Mike Capuano

2020:

Joe Sestak/Mike Capuano vs. Ryan Frazier/Kay Bailey Hutchinson

2024:

Ryan Frazier/Justin Reynolds(pm of +6,+2 from New Hampshire, Representative) vs. Populist Bro/Leftist Guy

This could happen but for this scenario to work I made some odd things happen. In an oil crisis Sestak pledges to use synthetic oil to relieve the crisis. Kirk opposes this in an odd twist and this is when the GOP starts attracting more young moderates along with Kirk's moderate image. Frazier becomes an environmentalist(for a Republican) and barely wins the nomination on the strength of the youth. He doesn't do well among blacks but barely wins due to the stagnant nature of the tech industry with so many subsidies going to the Rust Belt.
Yeah this is really unrealistic.

[Derek]

http://[img]https://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=2008&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_p=1&type=calc&AL=2;9;6&AK=2;3;6&AZ=2;10;5&AR=2;6;5&CA=2;55;5&CO=2;9;6&CT=1;7;6&DE=1;3;6&DC=1;3;9&FL=2;27;5&GA=1;15;5&HI=1;4;7&ID=2;4;7&IL=1;21;6&IN=1;11;5&IA=1;7;5&KS=2;6;5&KY=2;8;5&LA=2;9;5&MD=1;10;6&MA=1;12;6&MI=1;17;5&MN=1;10;5&MS=2;6;5&MO=2;11;5&MT=2;3;5&NV=2;5;5&NH=2;4;7&NJ=1;15;5&NM=1;5;5&NY=1;31;6&NC=1;15;5&ND=2;3;6&OH=1;20;5&OK=2;7;6&OR=2;7;5&PA=1;21;5&RI=1;4;6&SC=2;8;5&SD=2;3;7&TN=2;11;5&TX=2;34;6&UT=2;5;7&VT=2;3;5&VA=2;13;5&WA=2;11;5&WV=2;5;5&WI=1;10;5&WY=2;3;7&ME=1;2;5&ME1=1;1;6&ME2=1;1;5&NE=2;2;5&NE1=2;

The Bible Belt would go Republican still because of how the democrats would still be, but it would be slightly closer. GA and NC are just close enough that they would barely go to the Democrats and the same goes for IA. However, social libertarian states like VT, WA, OR, and CA would vote Republican as would the economic libertarians in NH, CO, SD, TX, and VA. States that would go further left would be PA, NJ, MA, NY, IL, MI, MN, WI, IN, and OH. The big government states would go to the dems and the small government states would go to the GOP.

[Derek]

http://

I didn't paste the whole map so here you go.