UPDATED w/ Numbers: How much does Sig Suck at being DEGOP chair?

Filed in National by on July 11, 2012

For the 64 offices being contested, the Democrats fielded 108 candidates. The Republicans have scrounged together a sad sack collection of …. (wait for it)… twenty-eight.

………………………………………………………………..

I’m a numbers guy. I’d like to see the data. To me, these numbers paint a picture of abject failure.

Siglar sucks as DEGOP party chair. Candidates are staying away from the party in droves, and that doesn’t suggest that voters will have a different take on the situation.

Do you want an anecdotal point to go along with the quantitative evidence? Check this out. (http://www.delawaregrapevine.com/6-12vicmead.asp) Sig’s DEGOP is in such dire straights that it has recognized Mike Protact as a legitimate candidate for elective office.

Case closed.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (86)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Will M says:

    As a counter point, the LPD has 23 nominations so far, up from 10 in 2010. The DEGOP is trying to poach our candidates to run against James Johnson and Pete Schwartzkopf, but we’re not about to help them fill up their ballot slots for free. We’re also not giving them Libertarian money for the filing fee. While they’re fighting us in the 32nd? That would be stupid.

  2. Mongo says:

    Will M, the libertarians in Delaware are just Republicans under a different name.

    Why else would one of the top libertarians is registered to run as a Republican? Why else would one of the libertarian candidates from the last election cycle is now an officer in the state GOP organization.

  3. Steve Newton says:

    So, Mongo, how many GOPers have endorsed marriage equality? –waiting–

    Maybe the reason that you overlook for party-switching is that the system you folks among the Rs and Ds have concocted is so replete with built-in institutional advantages that Will would rather burrow into the rotting GOPer structure in Delaware, undermine it from within, and find a way to acquire some of those “major” party prerogatives and advantages.

    In other words: since you guys rigged the game to keep other players out, quit whining when the rest of us use the rules you made against you.

  4. cassandra_m says:

    Which is sort of the thing, right? That libertarians are just temporarily embarrassed GOPers, waiting for the right opportunity to be GOP made men. Because sooner or later, the GOP will discover that the libertarian path is the one they’ve been missing.

    :roll:

  5. jason330 says:

    Well put. Based on e comments above Newton and Will have pretty much conceded. If the main opposition party in Delaware calls itself “libertarian” instead of Republican it will a cosmetic change

  6. Steve Newton says:

    No, I think you miss my point–seriously. I’ve long wanted the Libertarian Party to replace the GOP as the “other” major party in Delaware. I’m not “temporarily embarrassed” about anything. I’ve been pursuing that end since at least 2008 when I started blogging.

    See the problem is that there is an entrenched system that only allows the existence of two “major” parties in this state. The Democrats have achieved well-organized, one-party rule; they are not going anywhere. The shell of the GOP is rotten, but it retains the legal prerogatives of a “major” party, which the Libertarian Party would never be granted by the General Assembly.

    So Will openly (and disdainfully, I might add, since the GOP hates him he hates them back) rides into and through that shell seeking to use it for his own political ends. He makes no bones about the fact that he intends to act as a libertarian if elected.

    I don’t want the GOP’s path with a Libertarian orientation, I want a Libertarian Party.

  7. jason330 says:

    You misunderstood me. I welcome the cosmetic change. Hating the two party system is like hating our four season system. Have fun with that. I’ll continue to ignore that immature part of your philosophy.

  8. jason330 says:

    This is immature and silly because it ignores that fact that we don’t have a parliament.

    “See the problem is that there is an entrenched system that only allows the existence of two “major” parties in this state.”

    Under our state and national system majorities matter. It doesn’t matter if the libertarians won three seats, because they’ll have to caucus with one of the major parties.

    I’m frankly surprised that I have to explain this to you.

  9. thenewphil says:

    Who is the Libertarian Party running against Schwartzkopf?

    I know one of the potential candidates the Repubs have been after for a couple years has completely dropped out of politics out of disgust.

  10. Steve Newton says:

    Margaret Melson is running against Schwartzkopf.

    http://margaretmelson.blogspot.com/

  11. jason330 says:

    Typical teabag republican, she is running on the repeal of ACA. What a joke.

  12. Will M says:

    She’s running on a lot more than that. I’m not a temporarily embarrassed Republican either. If you check my voter registration history, I’ve been registered Democrat longer than I’ve ever been registered Republican. It’s more likely I’m an embarrassed Democrat.

    As for my party registration, generally, don’t hate the player, hate the game. I was digging through some of my papers and found 9 different voter registration cards from the last two years thanks to various party and address changes (all within the 32nd RD). You guys just aren’t having enough fun with this if you really think you can pigeon hole me based on the R after my name in a state database.

  13. jason330 says:

    Libertarians are crybabies. This is a two party representative democracy, but They’ve shown up at baseball game with a hockey stick and pout that nobody wants to play hockey. Get a grip.

    If your party, the GOP, sucks because it has been overrun with douche-bags, then change it. If your party, the Democratic Party sucks because it isn’t racist enough for you, go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

    Either way, this crybaby shit is nauseating.

  14. Will M says:

    Who defined it as a two party representative democracy? Pretty sure the dude who shows up on a baseball field with a hockey stick could kick everyone else’s ass.

    My party, the Libertarian Party, is just super, though a little disorganized. I’m working on the surplus of douchebags and racists in the Democratic and Republican party simultaneously. Not much to be done about the douchebags on this site though, ‘cept let them reveal themselves.

    Somewhat related note: You should still put Bernie August and Scott Gesty on your list of US House candidates.

  15. jason330 says:

    Utopianist quitter who has opted out of the system in a way that he can still pretend to be taking part, you are a crybaby. The world isnt just so, so you go ahead and stomp your little impotent feet and shake your tiny fist at the clouds.

  16. Will M says:

    I’m 27, I’m just starting, not quitting.

  17. jason330 says:

    Have fun on election night fantasy boy. If history is any guide, it will be a very early evening for you.

  18. SussexWatcher says:

    I’m fairly certain state law does not grant either Rs or Ds favored status. It simply refers to the two major parties – no mention of names. If the Ls got more numbers, they could be the other party. No grand conspiracy to keep them out.

  19. Will M says:

    Jason, I’m not going to presume you’re actually familiar with the history of the LPD, but at this phase in our game, we win by showing up. >20 nominations in all three counties, some in two way races where the Rs have failed to find a candidate, some crashing primaries, is very good progress. We still have a long road ahead, sure, but I’d venture to say I have a good 30-40 years left in this business before I start losing my edge. That’s just me. There’s enough new people walking into the LPD this year that if even 2 of them take on a quarter of my activity level, with half the success, the exponential growth of the LP in this state makes “history” a poor indicator of future results.

    SW, there’s a lot of inertia written into the election laws. Seeing as the Ds and Rs were running the show when they were written, the inertia primarily benefits them. The state funding of primaries and the private collection of the filing fees to run them are one good example. Incumbency carries a lot of advantages that don’t accrue exclusively to the candidates.

  20. jason330 says:

    Whatever gains in membership you enjoy will evaporate the minute temporarily embarrassed Republicans decide to return home. Third parties are a waste of time. But hey, enjoy fantasy land. You are only young once.

  21. Liberal Elite says:

    @j “Third parties are a waste of time.”

    That’s only because the two parties we have have conspired to make it so. It is not that way in MANY other countries where the concept of representative democracy is far more healthy than it is here in the US.

  22. jason330 says:

    Conspiring. yeah. That’s it. there is a guy trying to get everyone to change to a base ten calendar. It makes more sense that the 12 month bullshit we have now, but he isn’t getting any traction because all the Gregorian calendar people are conspiring to keep the Superior base ten calendar down.

    Get a clue. What the other countries have are parliaments.

  23. Liberal Elite says:

    You should get a clue. There are numerous laws and regulations that serve no purpose but to make it difficult for 3rd parties. Why is that???

  24. Jason330 says:

    The Connecticut compromise of 1789. That’s the only law that matters.

  25. Geezer says:

    LE: Because we have a winner-take-all election system, there is only room for two parties. Parliamentary governments give representation to parties that cross a certain threshold, usually from 5 to 15% of the popular vote. That’s why the Green Party, for example, stays alive in countries where it seldom if ever tops 10% in elections.

    That doesn’t mean your point about the two parties being favored in, for example, the Delaware Constitution is invalid. It’s even more valid, IMO, because what happens if one of those parties falls apart? We could be looking at that in about two more presidential election cycles, as old white people die off and nobody else joins the GOP.

  26. Geezer says:

    Jason: So THAT’s why I can’t get any traction for my 6-day-weeks calendar, with 61 weeks of six days each, allowing us to eliminate Mondays and adopt a four-day work week.

  27. Will M says:

    I’d introduce that bill. Screw Monday. AND the conspiracy to keep it.

  28. Liberal Elite says:

    @G “Because we have a winner-take-all election system, there is only room for two parties.”

    Then why all the rules and regulations to prop up the existing two parties? Nearly every state has them,

    It’s funny. The one thing that the two parties can agree on is that no new parties should be able to gain any real traction. That’s the system they’ve gamed.

  29. Our system produced many third parties. They can become viable and either replace like the GOP did to the Whigs or like the populists did to the Democrats morph the failing major party. That is why the two parties conspired to game the system.

    In places like New Hampshire and Minnesota, independent and third party influence is a lot stronger.

    You wouldn’t have the libertarians messing with our party if we didn’t change the rules to keep them from having fusion tickets. Wouldn’t it be handy right now to be able to endorse the libertarian candidate in the 14th?

    On this one, I have to agree with Will and Steve–even Liberal Elite. The system is corrupted by overregulation. The result is fewer choices for voters and a monopoly of power.

  30. As usual, Jason is wrong.

  31. As for Mr. Sigler, he has a lot of work to ahead to dig out of years of neglect. He hasn’t been through one election yet, it is way too early to judge him a success or failure. Local candidates are not recruited by the state party. Statewide is and we have a newbie but credible ticket of business people who if elected would be a great asset to this state.

    The dismal recruitment at the legislative level shows there is a major problem below the state party. Go ahead and crow. You will win this year, but I bet you lose seats especially in the senate. Richardson will be set up for next time if he loses and pretty much a lock. If Dems lose their supermajority for the first time since MRH was a Republican senator, it will spur recruitment in 2014 because people will step forward.

    The GOP is in a rebuilding process. Right now it looks pretty ugly. That doesn’t bother me. If this were 14 or 16 it would.

  32. phillip says:

    You really think the Rep. party should endorse that crackpot in the 14th?

  33. chlorophil says:

    David, you really believe it would be a good thing for your party to endorse that crackpot Melson in the 14th?

    You’d be better off lining up behind Schwartzkopf or just remaining silent to save face.

  34. anon says:

    The Republican Party shot itself in the foot in 2010, losing a US Senate seat that was in the bag and down ticket races that it should have won. They got into bed drunk with the Tea Party in 2009 and woke up in 2010 with the ugly chick who won’t leave. Republicans are still fleeing the party and the divide between registered Ds and Rs keeps growing so to stop the exodus the GOP moved even farther to the right by replacing Rakestraw with Ellen Barrosse, and they wonder why they keep losing voters.

  35. anon says:

    Jason is correct about Margaret Melson, she is a “typical teabag Republican,” she even lists her religion as “Wiccan” on Facebook.

    https://www.facebook.com/margaret.melson?ref=ts

  36. John Young says:

    I am just glad the National Popular Vote bill failed. Again.

  37. Will M says:

    I think the election this year will indicate whether the DEGOP is rebuilding or dying. I think dying is a stronger possibility, and the way they’ve handled the relationship with the LPD over the last two years, flirting with our candidates is them trying to die. They’ve kicked and beaten us for too long for our candidates to do ANYTHING to bail them out. We’re more likely to turn on them. They deserve it.

    I’ve had to convince Margaret to even entertain the possibility of running as a Republican by pointing out that they MIGHT actually have something to offer as far as money and support, but even I’m not inclined to accept that possibility on faith. I think the Republican brand in the 14th RD is an albatross. In a lot of other districts too. We’re better off building something new to supplant them than handing over our candidates to support them.

    Prohibiting nominations of candidates from other parties with HB11 is only part of the problem. They’ve also jacked up ballot access requirements, raised the stakes of campaign finance reporting, moved blackout periods, and otherwise messed with Title 15 in ways that we had no input into and in ways that often serve the explicit purpose of disadvantaging us. It’s kind of fun, really, so don’t take this as whining. It kind of sucks, but mostly I’m just telling you what you don’t seem to know. I quite enjoy the cat and mouse of me running a strategy, them writing laws to keep me from doing it again, rinse, repeat.

  38. jason330 says:

    As far as promises of money from the GOP go, you have to remember the immortal words of Jan Ting, “When someone tells you that you’d make a great candidate, say, ‘Show me the money’.”

  39. Will M says:

    That’s exactly why our candidates haven’t agreed yet. I don’t buy promises from Republicans.

  40. Margaret Melson says:

    Perhaps anon and Jason can explain to me how I am a “typical teabag Republican” or what that even means? And, what on earth does my religion have to do with any of it? Aren’t most Republicans (if we are going to stereotype people, label them, and name call…which seems the only thing you ARE actually doing) usually some variety of Christian? Unless you know me…which you obviously do NOT…don’t make assumptions or attempt labels. They do not apply. You are attacking someone you know nothing about, behind my back….like a typical coward. Thanks to Will for letting me know. When you decide you want to discuss ideas on policy, scope of government, and possible solutions to the mess this country is currently in, you can let me know. I suspect you will simply ignore this attempt to return to the issues at hand and continue your sniping and name-calling.

  41. Will M says:

    That’s about all Jason is good for in my experience. Sniping and name calling. It’s good fun though, because he’s not even that adept at it.

  42. jason330 says:

    I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. If it walks like a teabag and quacks like a teabag… Sorry if hearing that hurts your feelings.

  43. Steve Newton says:

    she is a “typical teabag Republican,” she even lists her religion as “Wiccan” on Facebook.

    Yep, lots of famous Tea Party Wiccans, aren’t there? Idiot.

    @jason I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.

    Your optometrist called. You are two lifetimes overdue for your appointment.

  44. Geezer says:

    I, for one, believe we need more Wiccans in government. I trust them more than I do Christians. And besides, what’s the worst they can do — make a tree fall on you?

  45. jason330 says:

    I don’t label people based on religion. I’m open minded. I label based on their professed whacked out political doctrine. That’s how I know Newton is a Republican in spite of his claims to the contrary.

  46. Margaret Melson says:

    Really, Jason? If hearing that hurts my feelings? I’m trying to stifle my tears. I still have no idea what being a typical tea-bagger even means. If that is someone who thinks government spending needs to stop, a balanced budget needs to be in place, what you do in your own house is your own business, over-regulation is killing business and growth opportunities in this state and this country…colour me tea.

  47. Margaret Melson says:

    As much fun as this is….I have an actual job, which I must get back to doing. Don’t hurt yourselves when you fall on your assumptions.

  48. liberalgeek says:

    If that is someone who thinks government spending needs to stop

    OK, stopping spending by the government… Winning!

    over-regulation is killing business and growth opportunities in this state and this country

    Yep. You are a tea-partier. Although, to be a full-fledged member you have to show proof that you didn’t stand up for any of these “values” prior to Obama’s election.

  49. liberalgeek says:

    And it should be pointed out that the answer to the original question of this post is:

    Sig sucks so much that even a post about how much he sucks becomes a post about 3rd parties.

    That’s pretty bad.

  50. puck says:

    It appears Delaware Republican extremism is hampering chairmanship recruiting as well as candidate recruiting.

  51. liberalgeek says:

    That’s the Free-Market impact of extremism. Once they successfully externalize the cost of extremism, they’ll be better prepared for the marketplace of ideas. Hopefully, they’ll behave like a polluting power plant, and dump the tea party in a river somewhere.

  52. Dave says:

    @Margaret,

    I have a hard time with slogans because it’s like hamburger with no meat or a cowboy with no cattle. You said “over-regulation is killing business and growth opportunities in this state and this country” could you give a specific example of over-regulation that you believe is killing business and growth opportunities? I am sure I can climb on board your train but I’m sort of a cause and effect kinda guy and I really do need a specific regulation or two. Please provide link to some specific examples. Thanks.

  53. Will M says:

    LG, I pointed that out on my facebook link to this thread. I’m quite proud of our hijack here.

  54. cassandra_m says:

    Another hint of tea (or maybe GOP wannabe):
    You are attacking someone you know nothing about, behind my back….like a typical coward.

    Getting your victim on! Even though this is a perfectly public blog (meaning that there isn’t talking behind anyone’s back, by definition), we still get this lame attempt at claiming some victimhood.

    I give it a 2 for Technical Ability and a 1 for Style.

  55. Will M says:

    Oh, yeah, liberals never do that.

    You’re right about the public blog, but you are making a lot of assumptions about a person you could make the effort to talk to first, and it isn’t like she’s a regular around here who’s likely to know you’re talking about her unless someone informs her.

    It’s somewhat amusing that you all insist on calling us Republicans and teabaggers though. Freeze the target and label it, right? That will be a harder and harder circle to square as these campaigns go on. For example:
    http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2012/06/delaware-libertarian-candidates-stand.html

  56. cassandra_m says:

    It’s somewhat amusing that you all insist on calling us Republicans and teabaggers though.

    And I imagine it has never occurred to you to find out why we think that way. Yet here you are insisting that we’re doing you wrong or some BS. It won’t be hard to square the circle. You’ve been at this for awhile and the free flow of your guys to the GOP and vice versa doesn’t help you.

    There is something of a free market here. One where you can’t just show up claiming that you are somehow new and different in an audience full of people who have been paying attention.

  57. tom says:

    In case you have forgotten, the Delaware politician most notorious for conveniently switching parties to get elected is State Senator Margaret Rose Henry.

    Does that make all Democrats into closet Republicans or Teabaggers?

  58. cassandra_m says:

    Hey and Mike Brown switched from Democrat to Republican to get elected.

    So what?

  59. chlorophil says:

    Margaret Melson has the typical 9/12 delaware patriot problem. She’s too focused on national issues to ever make a difference on local issues.

    all of these types try to run for local office on national issues. repeal healthcare? really? from your spot as a brand new STATE representative in the minority? SADGTFO.

  60. Margaret Melson says:

    We all have to start somewhere….and you are right, it is absurd to think a brand new representative in Delaware can repeal healthcare. However, keeping HB 392 from ever becoming a reality here in Delaware, that is a more reasonable goal. Trying to put bills to a vote instead of them being tabled or hidden in a drawer, that is a reasonable goal. Making the process open to the public…you know…the people who put the politicians in office…instead of hidden behind closed doors in secret meetings….this is a reasonable goal. I don’t have all of the answers. I’ll be the first person to tell you that. What I do have is the willingness to say…I don’t know…let’s find out.
    I want to know why we give tax breaks to companies that incorporate in Delaware, but don’t actually do business here, while we tax the companies that actually operate here and provide jobs.
    I want to know why (for example) the Vlasic (Pinnacle Foods) plant in Millsboro chose to close the plant here, rather than the Michigan plant. What were the deciding factors?
    How can we prevent being forced to subsidize companies that haven’t produced anything?
    These are just a few of the things that I am thinking about. I realize I am political newbie and I am in basically hostile territory here. I’d like to believe that behind all of the posturing and rhetoric, are some truly thoughtful people who do actually care about what is happening here.

  61. Will M says:

    Unfortunately, most of them don’t actually comment, so good luck. :D

    cassandra, you are very willing to accept the state’s labels when you register to vote with a political party. we’re not. we know who we are. if you’re REALLY paying attention then you’d know who we are. we’re more than happy to use laws we had no part in writing and have no trace of support for against the people who wrote them without our consent. it’s all in the game. play or get played.

  62. cassandra m says:

    cassandra, you are very willing to accept the state’s labels when you register to vote with a political party. we’re not.

    Anyone see what is wrong with this? Because unless I am very mistaken, Libertarian or Unaffiliated is ALSO a state label that you are willing to accept when you register to vote. But hey, don’t let me get in the way of your delusional specialness. Because from where I sit, you aren’t even in the game in any serious way.

  63. anon says:

    Margaret HB392 was a non starter, your opponent, Pete Schwartzkopf made that clear about 45 seconds after the bill was given a number. Vlasic moved from Millsboro to Michigan instead of vice versa because Michigan is their corporate headquarters and it’s easier and cheaper to move one, small facility than the entire corporation. It’s called a “caucus” and not a “secret meeting” and you will be sitting in caucus discussing the viability of pieces of legislation, too, unless you want to be totally useless to your constituents. And a very large chunk of Delaware’s income comes from companies that incorporate here because of our tax laws, if you change those laws, you will cost the state millions and millions of dollars a year in income, and everyone’s taxes will go up and that includes small businesses and people who are already struggling.

    Sweet Jesus, stop “thinking” you’re clearly not equipped for it.

  64. Will M says:

    Wow. Downside of being the only person in the 14th RD willing to stand up to Pete Schwartzkopf. cassandra, we’ll see.

  65. marge says:

    So lay it out there, Will.

    How many elections will Libertarian candidates win in Delaware this November?

  66. socialistic ben says:

    Will, your gripe is that you didnt get to write or elect the people that wrote the laws you have to live by?

    welcome to the real world, son.

  67. SussexAnon says:

    Is it true that there are 250 voters registered as Libertarian in Sussex County?

    Its not ballot access (aka, the “man” keeping them down) thats the problem for Libertarians, its actually winning elections. And, with very very few exceptions, Libertarians are always left wanting at the ballot box.

    Libertarians are on the ballot and invited to debates. The voters aren’t buyin what you are sellin.

    Hitching your wagon to Republicans doesn’t help either.

  68. tom says:

    Why are the Republicans taken seriously as a political party in Delaware? They have all but abdicated power by failing to run for a majority of the State House seats, and by not running credible candidates for any State Senate seats that they don’t already hold.

    Unless Jeff Cragg magically beats Markell somehow, after this election the Republican party will have zero impact on Delaware politics for at least the next 2 years. They won’t even have enough members in the General Assembly to break a 2/3rds vote in either house. But for some reason you folks seem to think they’re a major party and somehow more relevant than the Greens, IPOD, or Libertarians.

    Libertarians may not have the numbers, but the only reason the Republicans still do is inertia on the part of the voters.

  69. cassandra_m says:

    Also from the Delaware Grapevine post Jason linked to above:

    “This is going to be a good year. The Democrats don’t see us coming,” Sigler said.

    I don’t know which is funnier — that Sigler predicted the R’s almost invisible slate or that he thought that was a measure of success.

  70. Delaware Dem says:

    One does not usually see just 28 microscopic ants coming. All we do is step on them.

  71. Will M says:

    Ben, you have to actually read the whole conversation. Cassandra thinks because the assholes she voted for passed a law, I have to give two shits about what party the Department of Elections thinks I’m in. I didn’t vote for them, there’s no reason I can’t tell the Department of Elections a different party every other day, they’re the ones that really care for ballot access purposes, the rest is politics. I’ll fight the politics. I don’t even much care if I win.

    Also, we don’t get invited to most of the debates. Certainly not most of the ones the Ds actually show up to. We’re bored of messing with Republicans. There’s no sport in it. We’re not hitching our wagon to the Rs, either. Based on the candidates they want from us and our reluctance to hand them over, I’d say they’re trying to hitch their wagon to us.

    Marge, probably none. That doesn’t mean we won’t have an impact. In electoral politics, just showing up can impact the direction of the race.

  72. cassandra_m says:

    Cassandra thinks because the assholes she voted for passed a law, I have to give two shits about what party the Department of Elections thinks I’m in.

    See what I mean about nurturing their specialness? Even Will thinks that his specialness will prevent us from remembering that he is the one claiming the label of Libertarian Party, running under the label of the Libertarian Party and defending the Libertarian Party (we are to different than the GOP!).

    This is why no one supports you guys — the narcissistic overlay to the GOP lean just confuses people.

  73. Will M says:

    What? Where have I tried to hide that I was a Libertarian, ever? Are you really so dense as to deny that there are huge differences between the LP and the GOP? Even if you believe that the GOP’s economic policies actually live up to ours, we’re miles away on social and foreign policy issues. Your back must be tired from all the water you’re carrying, and it’s spilling.

  74. jason330 says:

    Reading comprehension. You need some.

  75. cassandra_m says:

    The “density” is yours — you can’t sneer at people for their political labels while wearing yours like the wristband that gets you into the VIP section of the club.

    And your differences with the GOP are why so many of you vote for and are so hell bent on being part of that crowd.

  76. Will M says:

    Who’s sneering at people for their labels? I’m sneering at labels in general.

  77. liberalgeek says:

    “I’m sneering at labels. By the way did I mention I’m a proud Libertarian?”

  78. Will M says:

    Where’d I do that? Only things I’ve been doing on this thread are:

    Informing you what the actual organization, “Libertarian Party of Delaware” has done with respect to nominating candidates.

    Criticizing the uselessness of the actual organization, “Republican Party of Delaware”.

    I’ll sneer at the DEGOP, but that’s not sneering at people for a label unless you choose to interpret it that way.

  79. socialistic ben says:

    Libertarians are the punk rockers of politics. They think their ideas are so original and new and innovative, but it is the most immature thorw-away theories of the left and the right combined. It’s like teenagers who “dont need their parents, man!”

  80. pandora says:

    Libertarians are so adorable. Here’s some light reading for you.

  81. SussexAnon says:

    Will, you can think “the man is keeping you down” by limiting ballot acess and acess to debates, but you are on the ballot and Libertarians were invited to debates down here in Sussex.

    And in those elections where Libertarian candidates debated at Rehoboth Beach Convention Center, American Legion, etc. Your candidates still performed poorly on election day.

    Libertarian foreign policy doesn’t matter when running for state rep, insurance commissioner, etc. Which leaves you with social issues and fiscal issues. Which ones are/were Libertarians most vocal about? Hint: it isn’t gay marriage, or personal privacy. Palling around with the tax fetish party (GOP) drowns out any halfway serious support you might give to social issues.

    And the answer is yes, the Libertarian Party has 250+/- registered in Sussex.

  82. jason330 says:

    Immature to be sure. All of Will’s troll-y off topic comments can be summarized as, “I’m awesome. Everyone else sucks.”

  83. Dave says:

    “Who’s sneering at people for their labels? I’m sneering at labels in general.”

    Will, I think it’s good to sneer at labels but one has to recognize that even no label is a label. I am proudly unaffiliated but I do recognize it is also a label for which there is disdain (especially on the right who accuse me of having no principles and feel that “if you aren’t for me you must be against me.”)

    Even so, shifting the discussion to problems and solutions is one way to get away from the labels, but it is very difficult to do because one has to put aside their pet narrative and let data, facts, and analysis lead them to solutions. You probably tend to dismiss anything that conflicts with your overall philosophy of Libertarianism regardless of whether the data and analysis would lead you to a different conclusion. Essentially you are held hostage by your own identity. You are not alone. That is the fate of many folks (especially on the right) who have to resort to mental gymnastics to reshape data to align with their world view.

  84. socialistic ben says:

    people who care about “labels” enough to bellyache about them are missing the point. how about everyone just says “I am” and we move on.

  85. Will M says:

    Dave, that’s why I jump from party to party. I also think that I try to remain open to a decent argument backed up by facts, I’ve just never in my life seen one from Jason. I do certainly have a healthy doubt of anyone saying the solution is more centralized control. Especially when they’re the ones in centralized control.

    I will also concede that hanging around Tea Partiers and crashing Republican primaries tends to smother our social message and that the foreign policy message is irrelevant below our US House nominee. I would like to hang around more people on the left, but I’ve found it difficult to find open meetings. Occupy was an exception but they weren’t even really acknowledged by the insiders of the Democratic Party.

    I don’t think that ballot and debate access are the only reasons we perform poorly, but they do play a role, particularly when the laws can be arbitrarily changed by our opponents. We need better contacts with the media. More outreach to local organizations, even more candidates, more experience and corporate knowledge about elections, laws, and special interests in the state, but we’re working on it. It would be nice if the debate organizers across the state ALL invited alternative party candidates (not just Libertarians) and if the General Assembly didn’t mess with the rules every time we did something halfway effective to hobble us. I’m not hating, it’s all in the game, I’m just surprised that so many people are ok with it when they claim to want more choices.

  86. Dave says:

    Will,

    Look at the paradigms in your last post:

    less “centralized control”
    “we perform poorly”

    Why not be an individual who believes that centralization is a consequence of necessity to accomplish an objective with optimum effectiveness and efficiency, such as national defense (assumiing you do believe in centralization as a solution to national defense correct). So why do you take such a binary view when it obviously cannot be your position?

    Your own identity gets in the way of solutions that are based on concrete objectives that are within the Constitution for the government to promote the general welfare and provide for a common defense.

    Your identity politics forces you to dismiss viable solutions to problems because it doesn’t emanate from the entity you identify with. I could care less whether the Affordable Care Act came from Democrats or Republicans as long as it came from someone who gave it thorough and careful consideration. And if the answer was centralization because thats the optimum solution, who cares?

    Libertarians want liberty, so they joined together and voila, lost the very thing they seek. The desire to belong is a powerful force for humans, but don’t lose yourself fulfilling that need.