TheAgitator.com
Poll Results
Tuesday, June 10th, 2008The results of today’s completely unscientific poll are pretty interesting.
Not only does Obama wallop McCain by more than 2.5-1, McCain finishes well below Bob Barr, “Not Voting,” and “Undecided/Other.”
Either the readership of this site has moved decidedly leftward, or the Republicans have completely pissed away the support of libertarians.
Probably a little of both. And the latter probably inspired quite a bit of the former.
Me thinks this poll wasn’t worth the pixels to display it with.
Why don’t you keep these results handy and compare them with the numbers come November. There will not be a 2.5-1 difference between Obama and McCain.
No, this poll isn’t encompassing the entire political spectrum, just those who read theagitator.com, which would be mostly libertarian-leaners.
Can’t quite wrap my head around libertarians voting in Jimmy Carter 2.0 and giving full control to the Democrats. To change the metaphor, it seems like decapitating yourself to spite your nose.
it’s simple, james d. the very small theoretical hope-based and not entirely rational benefits of mccain over obama are greatly outweighed by the prospects for improving the GOP by having those bastards realize just how badly they need the small government vote.
voting for the lesser of two evils is a valid strategy but it has its limits. when the two evils are so closely matched, it’s better to make them compete for your vote the next time. hence barr.
as for obama, he’d probably be better on the drug war, the militarization of police, internet gambling, technology, privacy, tolerance for gays, and a few other issues. for libertarians, that can outweigh the war, the bible, terri schiavo, the farm bill, the bridge to nowhere, campaign finance reform, and the rest of the worthless GOP agenda.
Keep in mind that not everyone who reads this site is a libertarian. Republicans never had the support of libertarians, who can be found in the 31% not voting/other/undecided category and in the incredibly optimistic (or more likely, very naive) portion of Barr’s 25%.
Keep in mind that it’s Congress that creates and passes laws (if the system works the way it was designed). People need to understand this, educate others, and pressure their legislators to do their job correctly. The President is nothing more than a veto and Commander in Chief of military when consent is given by a vote of Congress. This idea that a President is SOOO important is adding fuel to the dictator fire.
If McCain were actually an alternative to Obama in a good way, more people might actually prefer him.
In all the republican primaries since McCain has sewn up the nomination, there was a steady 30% of republicans voting against him.
I’d vote for increase in leftward leaning. The drug war coverage on this blog is really well done and seems more likely to resonate with more left-leaning libertarians (at least with this left-leaning libertarian). And on other topics less likely to attract the left-leaners it’s at least thoughtful libertarian and not crazy libertarian.
I remember when I first began to consider myself a libertarian, as well as a “Libertarian”, people, upon hearing that libertarians stood for small government, would think of libertarians as sort of “uber-Republicans”. This would have been back in the late 80s/early 90s, when some of the big issues were health care (HillaryCare–how things have changed!), gun control, high taxes, and the spectre of Waco and Ruby Ridge (for those who were a bit more informed). And I would point out that while Republicans and conservatives seemed to be advocates of small government at the time, were the front-burner issues to change, the Democrats and liberals might look more like the champions of small government.
Now, with the surveillance state, civil liberties, the Iraq War and the Drug War, the Democrats look friendlier to small government than the Republicans. Of course, I doubt I’ll ever be convinced that either of the major parties cares about freedom beyond its utility as a talking point to win the next election.
To me the Democrats always seemed better from a social libertarian policy. Pro-Choice, Pro-Free Speech, Pro-Gay etc, while the Republicans always seemed better from an economic libertarian policy Lower Taxes, Small Government etc.
This blog has always had more of a focus on government intrusion on your personal life as opposed to goverment overspending. So I would assume its readers care more about this social liberties than the average citizen. So it doesn’t surprise me that Obama would rank better than McCain.
The Republicans have made it abundantly over their last few administrations that “small govt” is merely a talking point during the election season. They have no intent of actually delivering it. Given that, why not vote for the side that will at least be better on the social issues? If we are getting big government spending either way, I’d rather the spending be on something other than war.
Our best hope will come from Obama in the White House and a Republican majority in Congress. Despite the Republican’s lackluster performance, they are still going to have a drag effect on any policy Obama tries to put forward.
Conditions will be different in November. For example, now a lot of people would vote against McCain because they don’t want the U.S. to go to war with Iran. But, by the time of the election that won’t be as big a factor because we’ll already be at war with Iran.
For me, I’ve always leaned left. If for no other reason then that I have found Republican politicians to be far less trustworthy (Then again, how many politicians of NAY stripe are trustworthy. ;)) Still, if I had to live in a Republican world where taxes were low, at least for the wealthy (yeah right, they’d need money for their wars from somewhere! Where do you think they’ll get them!), but we had perpetual war and a war on anything Republicans find immoral, as opposed to higher taxes in a socialist hell (but at least with more respect for staying the hell out of my bedroom and for most civil rights, except for that 2nd amendment thing), I think I’d rather live with the left.
Thus I would vote Obama over authoritarian McCain any day of the week. As I mentioned in the poll comments, though, I don’t expect the race to be even close here in Louisiana so I don’t have to worry about voting against McCain and can, instead, just vote Libertarian, which is what i would prefer to do anyway.
I remember some pundit saying during the 2004 election that if Bush wins a second term, the Republican party will ultimately fracture and collapse. I wouldn’t have thought it would be due to McCain turning into a clone of W.
We can’t afford to have another Bush, immediate or long-term.
Republicans represent the very worst aspects of being a human being. After you understand that, there really isn’t a choice.
The third party steals votes from the Repubs…this time. Seems only fair after 2000. No one should worry.What we are going to get in 2008 is pretty much, more of the same …only nicer. What a slippery slope this “democracy” stuff can be.
Wow, I guess there’s nothing more to say to that Radley … your site is really full of liberals. I love how everyone is able to talk themselves into their position while ignoring that socialism brings far worse policy than anything we’ve seen so far. I also find it funny how many of you cherry pick the good things about liberal policy and the bad things about republican policy … it’s hardly a full and fair list.
I’m hardly someone trying to talk people into McCain, I was merely pointing out the fact that Democrats have (and will maintain) huge majorities in the House and Senate and that adding a Democrat President to that mix means that ‘anything goes’.
Bear in mind that, with online polls, people voting tend to fit in one of two categories. Some just vote and then forget about it. But others, the true believers, feel the need to tell all of their friends to hammer the poll so that people know “the truth”. I see the same thing come up a lot on a couple of the gun rights forums I frequent.
“Hey, XXXX news station website has a gun poll up. Make sure you all hit it.”
I agree with James D. It seems to indicate a definite leftward shift. Emotions are the likely reason: people want to punish the Republicans and so they’re voting Democrat, not caring that the objective result will be worse. That’s a perfectly human response, but it has nothing to do with any objective weighing of policy. I’m just not stupid enough to believe the excuses.
And I haven’t donated to McCain either, even though they keep calling me.
I think I voted Barr in this little poll. It was either that or undecided. I feel like the only vote of integrity (for me) is to essentially vote in a way that expresses “none of the above” (Voted Ron Paul in the primaries)
Civil liberties and less war are more important to me than other aspects of small government, although I really wish there was a good candidate that could do both. Most of my favorite politicians (in terms of issues) are republican, but they are few and far between. Most of my most hated ones are republican as well. I tend to vote democrat as the lesser of two evils for close elections. Otherwise I think I prefer third parties.
Gotta go with Obama this time though, since it’s too close to count. Even if my state is obviously blue though.
I have to admit your seeming preference for Obama is mystifying to me Radley…he is a politician, therefore a douche bag.
Of course, the same would be true if you were to express admiration for McCain as well.
Both McCain and Obama are for big government. If I have to accept big government, I’m going to pick the Democrat because frankly, Democrats are better at big government than Republicans are. Republicans are terrible at big government. Someone give me a call when they start seriously thinking about small government again.
James, I think Republicans offer just as much “socialism” as Democrats. Whether it’s farm subsidies, drug benefits, federal control of education, or more conservative brands of socialism like the War on Drugs, the War on Terror with its contempt for civil liberties, the war in Iraq, anti-gay bigotry, etc.
Both parties want to control you. The Republicans have just had the opportunity over the last 8 years to be bigger dicks about it. So, if you hate socialism, it makes sense to not vote for Obama, but it makes no sense whatsoever to vote for McCain.
Anyone who supports Bush 2.0, Extra-Cranky Edition, is misusing the word “libertarian”. Using scare-words like “socialism” to claim some kind of distinction between Team Red and Team Blue is silly enough that people have already covered it above. Some folks need to compare Clinton the Only’s (hurrah!) and Bush II’s discretionary domestic budgets before shilling for the Reds again.
Opposing McCain and the policies of torture, war, and surveillance that most of Team Red and half of Team Blue support is vital, and this libertarian opts for Obama at the moment.
However, some more purist libertarians won’t be able to bring themselves to vote for even Obama. While I’m not fond of Barr, he seems to be a more-or-less respectable choice. I don’t think Barr will impress anyone with his performance, as he’ll just be 80s Paul or 90s Browne redux – a small-government guy trying to appeal to Team Red who will pull fairly few votes from what’s ultimate a big-government party. He might sabotage McCain in a few states, which would not be a bad thing.
all the self-proclaimed “left-leaning libertarians” here are either delusional or …. or …. or i don’t know what. i get that you folks don’t like republican attitudes towards dope; or abortion; or porn or whatever. fine. good for you.
but have you never noticed how the republicans – while being against those things you presumably like – merely agitate against their bugbears, while the democrats, the “left”, codifies their issues into law. the “left” makes it ILLEGAL to do the things they don’t like. can you refuse to pay into social security? or medicaid? even if you promise never to try & access those ponzi schemes? nope. they’re *mandatory*. ( a word not to be found in the constitution.) can you say the lord’s prayer in a classroom? can you raise your kids to believe in an odd, non-state approved, religious sect? can you say ‘i’d rather hire only churchgoing people in the business i own’?
as for drugs, the “left” talks a good game about how they’re not so bad. can any of you name a law written and passed by democrats that decriminalizes drugs? ANY drugs? don’t whine about mean ol’ bush and the mean ol’ republicans! the democrats controlled congress for 50 years! many times with a veto-proof majority! yet despite that, they did *nothing* about drugs that was distinguishable from the gop, did they? why? why is that? and why is only the gop seen as being the anti-drug party? why does the left get undeserved credit for this? if you’re familiar with the peter mcwilliams story, (and you should be), kindly note that his maryjane troubles that *subsequently killed him* occurred entirely in the reign of slick willie, noted leftist. clinton could have ended mcwilliams’ persecution by the state with the stroke of a pen. yet HE DIDN’T. why? hmmmm?
as far as the war goes, well..
1) after 9-11, the president had to respond in some large way. he chose iraq. the left offered no realistic alternatives. they merely bitched and moaned incessantly.
2) as regards domestic surveillance, let it be noted that the sainted left *created* the NSA, and has never seriously tried to rein them in.
3) the left tells us that bush’s domestic surveillance is “bad”. however, the left has created multiple surveillance apparatuses themselves, have they not? the “deadbeat father registry” is just another domestic surveillance tool. the social security number that the left solemnly swore “would never be used for identification purposes” has become exactly that. just yesterday, the left passed a law creating a “national fingerprint database”. they snuck it into a housing bill. sainted freedom-loving lefty obama (pbuh) co-sponsored it.
and on and on and on. the left has made it crystal clear over the years that they’re vicious enemies of liberty. examples of this abound, and can easily be found by anyone who’s willing to look. don’t get me wrong, here: republicans suck. they’re lowlife statists fighting a guerrilla war against our freedoms, albeit slightly less blatantly than democrats. the rule of thumb is, “a democrat will rob you of your money & freedoms *right now*, whereas a republican will do it later on.” but the left WILL rob you faster and more brutally than the right – and try to kill you, if you resist. this is not a secret, gang. it’s, like, *OB*vious, dudes.
so! are you lefty “libertarians” lying to US? or just to yourselves?
Good God, e. brown, what on earth makes you think Clinton was a “leftist?” Clinton, like most politicians, doesn’t believe in anything except that which is more likely to keep him in power.
but the left WILL rob you faster and more brutally than the right – and try to kill you, if you resist. this is not a secret, gang. it’s, like, *OB*vious, dudes.
That’s pretty shrill. Panicky, even. Not to mention divorced from reality.
Anyone who thinks politicians on the right are somehow less malevolent than politicians on the left (or vice versa) is an ideologue with either an ignorance of or disdain for history.
e. brown represents the kind of libertarian purist that has kept Left-libertarians like me from affiliating with the U.S Libertarian Party. If Right-libertarians like e. could simply accept that their are left-leaning and right-leaning strains of libertarianism (there is ample historical evidence of this, and the two strains tried to form alliances during the 60′s) and stop pushing away anyone who is not a Randian cultist or a fire-breathing “anarcho-capitalist,” libertarianism might really take off in the U.S.. Left-liberals who are not totally sold on social democracy have probably learned a thing or two from the abuses of King George the W. They could be valuable allies or new libertarians, if they are not instantly pushed out the door by the likes of e. brown.
sorry, chaps. embrace of the concept of ‘state power is a good thing’ means you’re not libertarians. you want the “liberty” to smoke dope or have abortions or whatever, but you still love the idea of the heavily-armed, all-powerful leviathan enforcing its will on others.
interesting that reading this offends you so.
e.brown: your obsession with dope smoking and abortion strongly suggests your priorities are more in line with the political Right than the Left. I began to embrace libertarianism after being a democratic socialist, so I just have different priorities than you. That doesn’t mean I believe that “state power is a good thing.” That’s far to simplistic. State power should certainly be curtailed. I believe society should become more libertarian, but from the bottom up. In other words, let’s take multinational corporations off of welfare, then worry about single mothers later. You would probably disagree. I simply believe that an all or nothing approach will lead us to a new form of feudalism.
What makes you think we’re offended? Personally, I’m amused. You call those you disagree with your philosophies “liars,” you say we “love the idea of the heavily-armed, all-powerful leviathan enforcing its will on others,” and then you imagine that we’re offended.
You have a fascinating method of arguing your points:
Step 1: insult everybody who disagrees with you; Step 2: warn everyone in a shrill, paranoid voice that they will be robbed and murdered by those they support; Step 3: tell them all that they love totalitarianism.
It’s just shocking that nobody is taking you seriously!
ok, dave. your shrill determination to pillory me on my two off-the-cuff examples of lefty libertarianism is duly noted. zing. ya got me.
so let’s put it into larger, more non-specific terms. maybe that will allow you to get over thinking i’m a mouthbreathing mormon fundamentalist whose bound to get the country into polygamy and women back into barefoot servitude. i’m sure you’ll still be able to feel smugly superior to my backwards reactionary ass, so that shouldn’t be a problem.
can we agree that libertarianism is a philosophy that celebrates and promulgates the freedom of the individual? that, using the US constitution as a guide, libertarianism believes that the power of the state should be kept on as short a leash as possible? that the state has little or NO business in the private lives of US citizens?
if so, then we begin to grade the political parties in re how well they try to adhere to those standards. we’ll look at the republicans first: they fail miserably. they’re in love with government scope and power, and it has increased nonstop on their watch.
now, the democrats: same thing. only more. the lefty libertarians here speak of “end the drug war”; “end corporate welfare”; and the like. why? what, historically, has the left-wing democrat party (if you get to call the GOP right-wing, i certainly get to call the dems left-wing), done to make any of these pipe dreams come about?
essentially, nothing. in fact, i can make a case that most of the tools and outrages of the modern totalitarian state were *invented* by left-wingers.
*the income tax and the IRS came into being on wilson’s (D) watch.
* using WW1 as a pretext, wilson(D) jailed dissidents, suspended habeus corpus for many thousands of americans; introduced draconian and never-before-seen state powers; aaaaand did his best to nationalize the economy
gee. doesn’t *sound* very libertarian, does it…
*fdr, using the depression as a pretext, built upon wilson’s framework: he actually DID nationalize the banks, among others. he created huge and permanent government bureaucracies, which had no effect whatsoever on the depression, but had lots of pwer over the proles. (and before you squeal, “it was a depression! he had to!” kindly note that it’s a given nowadays that fdr’s blundering actually worsened and lengthened it. the longest “panic” in US history before the 1930-1941 panic was about 4 years. and the unemployment rate in 1939, after 6 long years of fdr’s “help”, was still over 15%. the man was a fool._
*a fascist, authoritarian fool. who threw **tens of thousands** of US citizens into prison camps, without trial, in ww2.
* a brutal, bloodthirsty war criminal fool. who authorized the killings of ***hundreds of thousands*** of innocent women, children and pets in the firebombings of hamburg, dresden, and tokyo.
*the democrat truman dropped atomic weapons on civilians.
*the house unamerican activities committee was created by a democrat-dominated congress on fdr’s watch.
* the CIA and NSA were created by the democrat truman.
*narcotics laws came into existence in the time of the democrat wilson. no democrat president, even those with enormous, veto-proof congressional majorities, have ever rescinded them, or even tried.
*the democrat johnson created the ‘great society’, which has arguably caused the destruction of the american black family.
i can do this all day.
so yeah, republicans suck. BUT THE LEFT-WING DEMOCRAT PARTY SUCKS WORSE; HARDER; MORE. so! using history and common sense as a guide, is the democrat obama MORE or LESS likely to slow down the growth of the state? is he MORE or LESS likely to fight for the freedom and liberty of the individual?
what does his record say?
quite the destruction of the strawman there, les. couldn’t help but notice that nowhere in your smarmy little post, though, did you include coherent idea of why you think a left-wing government is more likely to protect freedom.
saaaaay, didja see where the democrats have created a national fingerprint registry? hiding it in a housing bill? obama co-sponsored it, doncha know.
care to comment, freedom lover?
e. brown, you’re flying so fast on the reflexive momentum of your ideology and constant condescension that you never noticed that nowhere on this thread or any other have I ever suggested that a left-wing government is more likely to protect freedom.
You are silly.
can’t do it, can ya, les. silly boy.
e.brown: You think that I was trying to make myself feel superior??? You are the one that was smugly dismissive. You blew off the idea that a left-of-center person (who might be roughly defined as a person that tends to be more sympathetic towards organized labor than organized capital) might be a part of the larger libertarian movement. Again, I think this can be refuted by historical evidence (read about Tom Paine, Henry George, George Orwell, Emma Goldman, et. al.). And I would not defend the actions of Progressives such as Wilson, FDR, Kennedy or Johnson. These were statist Left-liberals who believed in the imperial presidency. I certainly do not. Actually, I’m not crazy about the Dems. I’m annoyed at the importance of parties in the American political system. If I were to heartily endorse any ideas proposed by the Democrats, it would probably be those espoused by the Democratic Freedom Caucus. So please e., don’t conflate my views with people that reigned before I was even born.
I did miss that news about the fingerprint database, and guess what? I don’t care for that and if Obama is behind that then that’s a strike against him. Though since I’m not like you’re strawman Obama supporter I can acknowledge that he has flaws and still think he’s better than McCain. Though since you say he “hid” it in a housing bill that he co-sponsored I have to wonder how closely connected Obama is to that aspect, since you do know submitted bills get amended. I genuinely would like to know if that was in the original bill, I haven’t had a chance to read up on it yet.
“As for you’re challenge before that:
can we agree that libertarianism is a philosophy that celebrates and promulgates the freedom of the individual? ”
No problem from me with that statement.
“that, using the US constitution as a guide, libertarianism believes that the power of the state should be kept on as short a leash as possible? ”
Only caveat that this seems to imply the US is the model for all libertarianism, though you may not have intended that. It’s probably one of the better models that I’m aware of, and we’re talking about the US anyway so no big objection there from me.
“that the state has little or NO business in the private lives of US citizens?”
This is where we start to disagree, since I’d leave out the “NO business” part. I think the more absolute anarchist libertarian position tends to overemphasize monetary costs and benefits at the expense of more intangible ones. I also think if it were put into practice in a large scale it would tend to diminish freedom of those who don’t already have power, so I think there is a role in a limited government for some system to ensure a basic minimum of freedom.
Yeah I know this isn’t a standard libertarian position, but that’s why I consider myself more of a libertarian-minded liberal than a left-leaning libertarian, much les a straight libertarian.
And your pushing all the old democrats that did bad things, doesn’t hold much weight in my mind. I’m young enough that the 2000 election was the first thing that I was really very politically aware of, so for me presidential power pretty much means GWB. That doesn’t mean I’m not bothered by earlier transgressions, especially the ones that still are in place and I appreciate when people point out things I hadn’t heard. But that is what’s shaped my political views. So mainly I’ve seen Republicans taking on all this power and claiming to be the party of small government, with the Democrats mostly just rolling over and letting it happen. But the people that have pushed back have been more from the left. I have no doubt there’s just as many hypocrites on the left as on the right and I’ll be willing to turn on those once they decide having all this power isn’t so bad now that the president is pushing policies they like. But remember not all of us that are more to the left are like that.
ok, dave, since you’re a non-superior, logical, freedom-loving kinda guy, a question:
since you (now) know about the awful, terrifying track record of america’s left-wing party, how can you be left-leaning? HOW can you honestly believe that the left-wing party will promulgate and expand freedom for us *when their history shows they specialize in the exact opposite thing*?
say, why CAN’T we opt out of paying into social security/medicare? why IS it mandatory?
many apologies to those stuck reading my excessive verbosity. sometimes the ol’ passions run away with me. as the sage balko recently put it, “it’s time people took liberty seriously”.
words mean things. and history and common-sense *clearly* show us that “left-leaning” means the exact opposite of “freedom loving.” “fascistic” and “hugely destructive” and “grossly incompetent”, yes. “proponent of liberty”, no.
e, you’re confused. You proudly noticed that I never explained how a left-wing government is more likely to protect freedom. I then explained that the reason was that I’ve never suggested such a thing. You then seemed to think you had a “gotcha” moment.
Man 1: If you think pigs can fly, explain how they do it, then.
Man 2: I never said pigs could fly.
Man 1: I knew you couldn’t explain it!
This exchange doesn’t reflect well on Man 1.
les, les, les.
that’s a *lovely* argument/joke there. too bad it has no basis in reality. might wanna check your meds to see if they’ve passed the ol’ expiration date.
re-read, bubba. i started my long-winded mega-posting (can’t sleep. going through lortab withdrawal. long story.) awhile back. largely in response to comments referencing “left-leaning libertarian”, and notions that a leftwing state is somehow receptive to individual freedom. see comments #9, 10, 11, and 15 to get an idea of this.
i said my piece, rebutted those comments, mentioned no names. made no specific ad hominem personal attacks, with the exception of noting that such ideas were “delusional”.
YOU jumped in to fray at comment #29, les. you (foolishly) disagreed with me, as is your right. of course, you couldn’t leave it at that. you had to snidely accuse me of “panic”. “shrillness”. etc etc. wosrt of all, you seemed to think i had “an ignorance of history” (!)
so, in response to your snide, smarmy, self-important *attack upon me by name* (see comment 29! and again in post 33!)(you seemed to think you had a ‘gotcha’ moment.), i answered. blew your asinine slobbering fulmination out of the water in post #34.
ok, fine. you’d been schooled – not that you’d understand a word of it – and the internet could get back to normal. life went on.
you seem a mite put out that i eviscerated you with impersonal, non-specific facts, m’boy. that’s an oddly ….. *feminine*…. reaction, isn’t it? i don’t know what a psychiatrist would make of that. it certainly doesn’t reflect well on you, though.
i hope this helps your crushing feelings of inadequacy. (“dear diary – he *noticed* me at last!”)
Oookay, e. This is really my fault as I shouldn’t have responded to an obvious troll in the first place. I won’t make that mistake again. Good luck with that whole “social skills” thing. Adios Amoeba.
no, lessy, what you *shouldn’t* have done is jump into the fray with a personal attack. you can hide behind mom’s skirts and try to be all snarky and cool with the tired old ‘social skills’ barb all you want, o puffed-up popinjay.
but that won’t change the fact that
1) you attacked me personally, resulting in….
2) me going all hannibal lecter on your pusillanimous arse, thus…..
3) resulting in making you my bitch.
i rather suspect *that’s* why “you won’t make that mistake again”, old sport. you’ve learned a valuable lesson.
“troll”? me? why, because *you* say so? you, the master of namecalling and nonspecific nonsensical mottos? how am i a “troll”, aside from that’s how you’re justifying your contemptible rudeness? i make and defend my statements; doing my best to stick to issues and use logic and history to buttress my arguments; refusing to stoop to childish personal, ad hominem attacks unless attacked first.
a pity you can’t say the same.
Stick up a comparison poll – ask people who they (would have) voted for in, say, 2000. That should give you a better baseline on what the site’s readership looks like in conventional political terms.