[pabianice]

Food for thought.

[tdadams]

Here we go again...

[anniegetyourgun]

Stupidity, pig-headedness, political kamikaziism, silly notions of 'sending a message', etc., etc., etc.....

[EggsAckley]

BIG BUMP

[Only1choice____Freedom]

Go Green Party!!!

[Skibane]

My question is why Libertarians run against good pro-gun candidates?

You already have your answer:

... there are other issues besides guns.

[jlogajan]

Excellent. Message to Republicans -- stop selling out to lilberal leftist big government programs. If Republicans were really for small government, low taxes, low regulation -- then Libertarians wouldn't be able to run against them.

[gore_sux]

Libertarians are Democrats who can't bring themselves to vote for Democrats. Their votes have the same effect nonetheless.

[Drango]

Libertarians are getting to be worse than the French.

[BlackRazor]

Steve Largent also lost the OK governor's race due to a third-party candidate (though not a Libertarian).

Here's a question for all to ponder. Should conservatives be in favor of Instant Runoff Voting, in which voters list their voting preferences in order? If no candidate breaks 50% in the first pass, then the lowest vote-getter is dropped, and their votes are transferred to the voters' second-choices. This continues until one candidate breaks 50%.

Granted, this method probably would have meant Al Gore would have won the 2000 Presidential election. But on the whole, I think Republicans are hurt more by Libertarians than Democrats are by Green Party candidates.

I have yet to make up my mind on this issue, and have yet to see a comprehensive discussion of the pros and cons.

What are people's thoughts on this issue?

[Congressman Billybob]

I don't know the source you used, but the Alabama numbers you show are wrong. On the official count, the Republican won narrowly, and the Democrat has already demanded a statewide recount.

The Alabama story is posted elsewhere on FR, now. Don't feel badly that you got it wrong. CNN has it wrong also on its wrap-up pages, as of this morning.

Congressman Billybob

Click for preview: "to Restore Trust in America" which predicted in August the theme of President Bush' press conference, yesterday.

[blau993]

One potential flaw in your analysis is the implicit assumption that those who vote Libertarian would vote Republican if no Libertarian candidate was running. I am not so sure that is true.

Some would probably vote Republican, but some would probably also vote RAT (remember, Libertarians espouse free pot, free booze, free sex, etc. -- you could make a convincing case that Clinton was a closet Libertarian).

But more to the point, I suspect many of them would not vote at all. Having a Libertarian candidate to vote for gives them a way to vent their frustration with the system, which is probably good. Without that pressure release valve, I think many would simply have nothing to do with the whole process.

[Roscoe]

So basically Libertarians brought 2 anti-gun governors, and possibly kept Daschle's clone in power.

[Moby Grape]

This is what the LP called being "principled"...for them, if voting for the LP canidate ends up electing a democrat, so what! They pound their chests and declare that they voted for principle, and are proud, that unlike we poor unprincipled dolts, they do not compromise. It is like a general in battle who is proud that he was true to the Army manual, but doesn't seen to notice that by doing so he is losing the war.

[mac_truck]

Why are you blaming the Libertarians for your own party's problems? What percentage of the Republican party turned out to vote in these states? Surely if more republicans showed up you would have won.

[Iconoclast2]

Pollster disagrees about Oregon race:

http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/editorial/1036768331270180.xml

[Scuttlebutt]

If the individual states would go back to allowing "None Of The Above" on the ballot, y'all wouldn't have the third party candidates to use as a scapegoat for lack-luster campaigns by the major parties. Most people that select independent candidates on the ballot simply do not want to vote for anyone that does not represent their views or they cannot discern a difference between the two major candidates (Dem or 'Pub) on the issues that are important to them.

(I believe that Nevada is the only state now that provides the voters with the NOTA option on the ballot)

[Dr. Scarpetta]

We Republicans continue to agonize over this problem while Libertarians view this as a prank, similar to junior high.

Always remember that it's not possible to talk to Libertarians because they do NOT CARE when Bill Clinton is president and Hillary is a senator.

They interpret their contribution to electing democrats as punishment for us because we Republicans don't live up to their SUPERIOR STANDARDS.

[Joe Brower]

If the GOP adhered more faithfully to it's declared platform, the Libertarians would have a lot less to justifiably complain about. The wins seen on Tuesday are a direct result of the Republicans finally fielding substantial enough candidates who didn't abandon their bases.

Something for the GOP to consider.

[dead]

Only the 400th or so thread started about the idiotic notion that, if a Libertarian were suddenly removed from a race, all or most of his votes would automatically be transferred to a Republican with whom they don't agree.

Whine, whine, whine.

BTW, I voted straight Republican.

[A2J]

My question is why Libertarians run against good pro-gun candidates?

Another question can be:

If the libertarians claim to be the strict constitutionalists they claim to be, then why do they put candidates who support the constitution (i.e., conservatives) in jeopardy by running a losing campaign against them?

Sounds as if they run on a "sour grapes" platform against other, more electable, conservatives.