Quote Originally Posted by Zundfolge View Post
I would argue that Cuccinelli did. There's no reason that a Ron Paul loving Libertarian would have had any problem voting for him.

The problem is that I believe that the Libertarians (capital L ... as in party members) have become Political Hipsters that are more interested in eschewing the mainstream and voting for politicians you've never heard of than actually fighting to see their ideals implemented in law. Too many of them wouldn't vote for David Nolan if he had an (R) after his name (yes, I know he's dead ... but you get my point).

I have long held that the single greatest impediment to the implementation of libertarian ideals is the Libertarian Party.

In a way I think the LP is in the same morass that the GOP is in ... the party structures are out of touch with the base (and to a certain extent, reality). As long as it can be done in such a way as to not split the right of center vote, I think its time to dump both the LP and the GOP ... but we might as well make the mascot of this new party a unicorn since it's just as likely.

Accusations of political hipsterism aside, there appear to be plenty of reasons for a straight up libertarian, or even a Republican-leaning libertarian to vote against him. Hell, in this very thread people have pointed out that Cucinelli opposes birth control on the belief that it's a form of abortion.

Not only is that idiotic, it's demonstrably, factually wrong, and a deeply erroneous strategy.

Hell, let's assume that not even a single libertarian would have changed their vote for him, but think of all of the Republican women, men, and general independents who he would have driven off even (and I give him the benefit of the doubt here) if he had held beliefs half as crazy as have been attached to him.

I mean, that's some Todd Akin level stupidity right there, and as long as a Republican has even a whiff of that about them, they're going to fail to win a majority of the votes.