What I’ve seen is a bunch of people who decided to hold third party candidates to litmus tests that on average are much, much higher than they would hold a major party candidate to. (As from single issue pro-lifers, who generally would use their litmus test with any candidate, though.) Most people aren’t that libertarian, either. Add that to the typical fading of any third party candidate, and I think that the LP did as well as could be expected.

I don’t think the LP had a better candidate running for President.

But classical liberalism doesn’t preclude any and all social-safety net programs. Yes, Libertarianism in the form of doctrinaire Miniarchism isn’t popular. But the small-l variety that means, roughly, ‘more personal freedom plus more economic freedom’ has a lot more support.

“Classical liberalism lost power over a couple of centuries. Why did it lose?”

The rise of Fabian socialists in the UK and early Progressives in the US. took their voters and forced long-term political realignments. Neither personal and economic freedoms become broadly unpopular, but they ended up split between left and right, leaving liberals in a very difficult position.

“Does it have a realistic plan to get it back?”

No — nobody really knows how to force (or predict) major political realignments, and that’s what’s needed.

“I think the weirdness of libertarianism reflects the weirdness of the philosophy. ”

What exactly is weird? A belief in personal freedoms? A belief in economic freedoms? Or is a desire for both somehow an inherently strange combination?

Classical liberalism lost power over a couple of centuries. Why did it lose? Does libertarianism know the answer? Does it have a realistic plan to get it back? For someone who likes many aspects of classic liberalism the complete silence on this issue shows the bankruptcy of libertarianism.

I think the weirdness of libertarianism reflects the weirdness of the philosophy. Dressing up in tri-corn hats and going to Ron Paul rallies is just a manifestation of now knowing what century your in.

The Dems are becoming the top elites with “moral superiority” about “helping the poor”, with crony capitalism that keeps the poor locked in gov’t dependency, poor education, poor prospects, and a never-ending narrative that these Dem gov’t failures are really due to the Reps.

The low-tax, free-trade, family-values Reps are being invaded by Dem rejects, and even being taken over. The top GOPe (establishment) seems quite comfy to be an ineffective opposition claiming powerlessness against Dem crony capitalists and the demonization of Christians, America, and white males.

While 70% of black kids do NOT live with both mothers & fathers, there is an opportunity for Reps to gain black votes from the parents of those 30% kids who do live with their parents. Thru better jobs for the working class.

The racist whites won’t take over the Reps, altho the Dem media will try to present it as if they are.

The Lib Party remains mostly white mail nerds, like I was!, doing their intellectual stimulation with Ayn Rand/ Robert Heinlein (like me!)/ and Robert Nozick. Some smart girls, often cute (often horny! tho looking for not-too-weird alpha males), and even an occasional minority. But they’re like the “anti-organization org”.

I’m really sad that they’re mostly correct on economics & freedom, but the public wants more “free” gov’t benefits.

And, in fact, there’s an economic law that is arguably NOT true: “There’s no free lunch”.
But everybody HAS enjoyed a lunch or a hundred that they didn’t pay for — the lunch WAS free (meaning, somebody else paid for it).
As long as voters vote for such “free” stuff, there will be more popular politicians promising to give away free stuff today, to be paid for later, probably by somebody else.

The best future is for the Libs to propose specific legislation, like pot legalization or tax credits for school choice, that can be stolen/ copied by one of the other parties.
(Similar for the Greens, whom I call watermelons.)