| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Libertarian party provides Dem margin of victory in Senate |
| 2006-11-08 |
| In two of the seats where control looks likely to switch, Missouri and Montana, the Libertarian party pulled more votes than the Democratic margin of victory. Considerably more, in Montana. If the Libertarian party hadn't been on the ballot, and the three percent of voters who pulled the "Libertarian" lever had broken only moderately Republican, Mr Burns would now be in office. Interesting about the Libertarian vote and the Margin of Victory in those key states. Similar things in VA as well with third party candidates? |
| Posted by:OldSpook |
| #19 I don't know, I lean libertarian and I thought spending a quarter of a billion dollars building a bridge to nowhere was a great idea - NOT! |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-11-08 22:23 |
| #18 I think everyone votes for the independent once in their life, and then learns the disadvantage of betting the house on a sure loser. Probably one of those things you just have to accept as part of the voting process. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-11-08 22:20 |
| #17 #2 & #5 have it. I'm pretty much a libertarian (though I disagree w/them on the border & abortion on demand). Me and the wife both voted Repub at the national level. The Repub loss falls squarely on the Repub party, period. Burns loss has prolly more to do w/the party's screw ups at large than the libertarian voters. Blaming libertarians for voting their conscience by casting ballots for libertarian candidates is like blaming any other indy voters for the Repub loss because they voted for indy candidates. Might as well blame the socialists and the constitutionalists as well. You guys are smarter/better than that. Only Dems whine after a loss. We regroup, reorganize, and re-load. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-11-08 21:30 |
| #16 wxjames: I thought the same thing. I got a Voter Guide here in Georgia with how the candidates would vote on different issues (mostly abortion, eminent domain, etc.). I was amazed at how many (supposed) Libertarian candidates not only agreed with abortion (no shock there), but wanted Federal Funding for them too! Methinks that a lot of these candidates just have nothing better to do with their time and don't want to work at Wal-Mart, lol! Not saying that Repubs deserved those votes either, but those of us who are conservative on "moral" issues (like euthanasia, cloning, abortion, etc.) don't agree at all with the Libertarians. Heck, even though I'm a moral Christian, I'd even give their ideas on legalizing certain drugs a swing based upon the decrease in Fed Funds spent on "the war on drugs" if it would decrease my taxes. But some things (like abortion and cloning) I won't agree to at all. Just my $.02. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-11-08 21:11 |
| #15 I dunno, UE9488. What are the chances that, say Rhode Island's legislature would vote in the state's interest rather than the DemocRat party line? |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-11-08 21:01 |
| #14 The electoral college system is safe forever, for better or worse. The number of states needed to block the required Constitutional amendment is far smaller than the number of lower populations states it makes disproportionately influential in the Presidential process. Their self interest will keep it in place. |
| Posted by: Uneth Ebberese9488 2006-11-08 20:13 |
| #13 These people voted for Libertarian candidates. My question is are these candidates actually of a caliper needed to take a senate seat, or is it just some warm bag of potatoes used to save a place on the ballot ? There is more than one way to waste a vote. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-08 19:06 |
| #12 I don't worry about the electoral college. If the Dem controlled states want to split their electoral college votes, all they accomplish is to negate nearly all their influence in selecting the Prez and VP. The state elections in 2008 and 2010 will set electoral district boundaries and will determine for 10 years whether elections tend toward Dems or Repubs. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-11-08 18:38 |
| #11 One of the worst things I can see happening along with the Dem win of control of the House and possibly the Senate is a change in the electoral college system. There's already a challenge/suggestion by several (many?) states to alter the system in such a way that it would profoundly effect future elections IMO. That is a real and present danger to our country at this time. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-11-08 18:25 |
| #10 "Low taxes, Spending discipline, and the belief in small government were the things that kept the Libertarians voting Republican and the Republicans tossed two of the three away." BINGO! You hit the nail on the head. Well and succinctly put. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-11-08 17:36 |
| #9 Some Libertarians are big on pro-drug and other domestic issues that they feel closer to the Dems about. Some are very much against border control and any kind of foreign policy which also puts them closer to the Dems. Low taxes, Spending discipline, and the belief in small government were the things that kept the Libertarians voting Republican and the Republicans tossed two of the three away. This is not a surprise. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-08 17:28 |
| #8 In all these races: About fifty times more eligible voters than voted libertarian voted for the republican. And about a hundred times more didn't vote for anyone at all. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-11-08 16:30 |
| #7 Hmm, when I was a registered Libertarian I always voted for the Republican congressional and Senatorial picks. So that margin may not be an indication of anything. Just saying don't believe everything you read. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-11-08 16:29 |
| #6 WTG Libertarians! You made a statement, I just hope the rest of us don't end up paying for that statement. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-11-08 16:07 |
| #5 Don't do that. It reminds me of when the Democrats were blaming the Nader voters for Gore's defeat in 2000. As if Gore was owed their vote or something. |
| Posted by: Thoth 2006-11-08 16:06 |
| #4 I wonder if any of the independent candidates will switch. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-11-08 14:43 |
| #3 I'm sure we can change our platform to make the libertarians happy... more euthanasia, more abortion... we'll get a couple percentage points more from the libertarians, and about thirty percentage points less from the people who actually believe in right and wrong. I remember when I did take libertarianism semi-seriously, if they weren't there, I probably wouldn't have voted at all. I think there's a lot of logical fallacy there. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-11-08 14:38 |
| #2 I don't think it bothers them -- they wanted to send a message that they, in particular, weren't happy with what the Republicans had become. Given that so many of us had held our noses while pulling the 'R' lever, I'm not surprised. Question is whether the Republican leadership gets the message, but electoral defeats tend to do that in the Republican party. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-11-08 14:20 |
| #1 Congrats Liberetarians, you just ensured control of the Senate would go to even bigger statists and your liberties will be curtailed by the people you helped put in office, especially Tester. Hope you're happy Bill Quick when Gun Ban Shumer rams thru gun control laws. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-11-08 14:11 |