FobTies said:
The left convinces dem voters that voting L ensures the evil right will gain power. The right convinces GOP voters that voting L ensures the evil left will gain power. Both sides fall in line every time there is any 3rd option. Maybe one day a solid L candidate will break past that, but unlikey considering how ignorant the electorate is.
The problem the Ls have is that voting for their candidates in a national election or even statewide elections requires a giant leap of faith to believe they can win. You have to take a candidate who typically has not won any other major election victory and who has little name recognition outside of the libertarian world and believe that voting for them has a realistic chance of resulting in them actually being elected. The price of being wrong on that leap of faith is getting a democrat elected instead in a race that should be easily won by a R. Most R voters, even those with strong libertarian tendencies, are unwilling to take that chance on a leap of faith. The stakes are simply too high these days with the hard leftward tilt to the democratic alternative.
To produce viable candidates who can inspire that leap of faith, the libertarians should be working really hard to get serious candidates with real world ideas and policy positions elected at the local level. Build recognition of them as serious people with real world solutions to problems and let them build a track record of good governance. THEN you can start running them at the state level and have some hope for success. When you win some statewide races and build a track record of successfully running a state on libertarian principles, THEN you can hope to have that same success running in a federal election. Until you can do that, it is a bridge too far to ask people to take that leap of faith on unproven and largely unknown candidates who too often make their name as bomb throwers whose biggest platform policy is legalizing all drugs.
The problem with running somebody like Rand or Massie as a republican and then trying to vote and legislate on very strict libertarian grounds is that they ran for office as a republican. They put themselves on team R and asked for people's votes on that basis. So when they have a disagreement with team R, people expect them to work out that disagreement within the team and find a way to advocate for their L positions when the opportunities arise to do so WITHOUT HURTING TEAM R IN THE PROCESS. Instead, all too often, Massie throws a big fit and goes to cozy up with his democrat buddies to accomplish things that are objectively not always aligned with team R...the team under whose banner he voluntarily ran for office.
In trying to run for office as an R and then legislate as an L, he is trying to serve two masters. And when his L leanings (and emotional tantrums) lead him to side with the Ds against team R, it is reasonable for people who voted for him as a member of team R to feel like he is acting like a McCain in order to please a different audience.
