A typical libertarian position might be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization of drugs, decreased spending on the military, decreasing the size of the federal government, decreasing regulations, and decreasing spending on entitlements. Obama would probably go along with similar social positions in a national election. However, he would be for increased regulations, increasing the size of government, and increasing entitlements. With that said, do you feel that this strategy would win against Obama in a national election? I do not. I think Obama would garner much of the hispanic vote because he is satisfied with not regulating immigration. And, more importantly, I think there are more people wanting government assistance than there are people who want the government to be fiscally responsible. Succinctly, when it comes to elections, it is my opinion that if there is someone running for giving away free things running against someone who is against giving away free things, the person offering free things will always win. Although, personally I am a libertarian or probably more precisely a fiscal conservative (I believe if people have jobs all social issues are secondary and a positive business climate should be the government's primary focus) I don't believe libertarians have a winning strategy for national elections. What is your opinion?
My point is that there are more people for loose financial policy than there are people for fiscal responsibility. My question is how to take a losing strategy of fiscal responsibility and garner enough votes to win in a national election.
That's a good question. I'd start by limiting the ability of the leeches to vote, so it's probably a good thing I'm not in government.
