AHB: A more influential Libertarian Party

When the hell did Bush Snr, or GHB pick up the 'W'? And perhaps more importantly, WHY?

His name is 'George Herbert Walker Bush.' He's frequently referred to as George HW Bush or HW.

Random lunatic or confluence of circumstances. It happens, see Hinckley.
 
Or just have him go down politically during the Iran Contra hearings. Have evidence become public that he lied about not knowing and that ends his political career

I guess. I might be letting my own beliefs get in the way but I tend to like the thought that such evidence didn't exist.
 
I guess. I might be letting my own beliefs get in the way but I tend to like the thought that such evidence didn't exist.

makes sense I've always felt that he was too smart not to know. I mean he was a ex head of the CIA and always been rumors of him being a CIA agent himself.
 
His name is 'George Herbert Walker Bush.' He's frequently referred to as George HW Bush or HW.

I know what is name, y point is that the W snuck in recently, back in the day it was GB Snr or GHB, but in recent year the W has been thrown into the mix. Why do we need the W? GHB or GB Snr is plenty good enough to separate him from GWB, he doesn't need his own W. Maybe he has W envy.
 
I know what is name, y point is that the W snuck in recently, back in the day it was GB Snr or GHB, but in recent year the W has been thrown into the mix. Why do we need the W? GHB or GB Snr is plenty good enough to separate him from GWB, he doesn't need his own W. Maybe he has W envy.

I kinda feel it came about when GPB started getting talked about and called P.
 
makes sense I've always felt that he was too smart not to know. I mean he was a ex head of the CIA and always been rumors of him being a CIA agent himself.

I question whether his involvement was necessary. The government is huge and he had been out of the CIA for more than half a decade by the time that thing broke. It was heavily classified and didn't involve that many people in the grand scheme of things (it wasn't like the "secret wars" in Laos and Cambodia). I'm not that well-versed in Iran-Contra beyond the basics but unless there's something very suspicious that came out which I've never heard of I tend to think it was at least very possible that he didn't know.

I know what is name, y point is that the W snuck in recently, back in the day it was GB Snr or GHB, but in recent year the W has been thrown into the mix. Why do we need the W? GHB or GB Snr is plenty good enough to separate him from GWB, he doesn't need his own W. Maybe he has W envy.

I've always seen it and used it, including going back to at least five years ago. Makes it more distinct for me, but if you like it that way, go for it.
 
it may be ASB but over 4 million people voted Libertarian in 2016. If a massive free state project took hold they could control a state or a few states if they moved. I think NH was won with about 350K votes, Maine around 360K and Vermont 180K. If large numbers moved to 4 or 5 states they could put people in the senate and control 10-15 electoral college votes.

A big name to take top of the ticket would help as well. I think if Johnson didn't come across as a stoned flake he could have done much better than OTL. Yes by moderating/being pragmatic they would lose the die hards who want to abolish the entire government but a socially liberal/fiscally moderate to conservative party could do well.
 
From the 2000s onwards, there's two ways the Libertarian Party could go in terms of becoming more influential: the Ron Paul way or the Gary Johnson way. Both of these involve alienating the die-hard base while gaining to new ones. The Ron Paul way is to appeal to the right: focus on significantly shrinking the government, take an anti-immigration stance, and have a states' rights approach to social policies. This will turn off a lot of cultural liberals in the Libertarian Party, but attract a large number of Tea Party conservatives. The Gary Johnson way is the appeal to the center (i.e. socially liberal, fiscally conservative) while still having a small-government, libertine approach to issues. This would definitely turn off hard-core libertarians, but attract a lot of moderates turned off by both major parties.

The best way for the Ron Paul way to work is if the Republicans are perceived as going to far too the center, allowing the Libertarians to attack them from the right. I could see them possibly merging with the Constitution Party in this scenario, since Paul is basically a paleoconservative. In this case, the Libertarians would have a solid, but very limited base and would be seen as a fringe party that just takes votes from Republicans.

The Gary Johnson way would work best if Republicans moved to the right while Democrats moved to the left (imagine Ted Cruz vs Bernie Sanders in 2016). Johnson and Weld-style moderate Republicans join the Libertarian Party and try to appeal to the center. This would be difficult to pull off, since libertarianism is an inherently radical ideology, but it's not impossible. In this case, the Libertarians wouldn't have much of a solid base, since their support would mainly come from moderate swing voters, but if the two parties became unpopular enough, they might be able to make some gains.
 
Top