Posted on 11/08/2006 2:27:12 PM PST by quidnunc
New York – Glum Republicans might turn their attention to the Libertarian Party to vent their anger. Libertarians are a generally Republican-leaning constituency, but over the last few years, their discontent has grown plain. It isn't just the war, which some libertarians supported, but the corruption and insider dealing, and particularly the massive expansion of spending. Mr Bush's much-vaunted prescription drug benefit for seniors, they fume, has opened up another gaping hole in America's fiscal situation, while the only issue that really seemed to energise congress was passing special laws to keep a brain-damaged woman on life support.
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.
Does this mean that the libertarians are becoming a force in national elections, much as Ralph Nader managed to cost Al Gore a victory in 2000? Hope springs eternal among third-party afficionadoes, but the nature of the American electoral system, which directly elects representatives in a first-past-the-post system, makes it nearly impossible for third parties to gain traction. The last time it happened was in the 1850's, when the Whig party dissolved over internal disputes about slavery, opening the way for the emerging Republican party to put Abraham Lincoln in office. And acting as a spoiler is dubiously effective at achieving one's goals. In theory, it could pull the Repubicans towards the Libertarians, but in practice, it may just elect Democrats, pushing the nation's economic policy leftwards.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
Thanks for the ping. I really have to run, but I will say that this goes back to what I was saying about people being dumb. And while you're never going to cure dumbness, it is worth taking a look at some of the complaints about expanded government in order to get back in winning form for '08. I have no doubt that with Pence in a leadership role, this will happen. I'll pick this up tommorrow.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
If ANY candidate needs Losertarian or Greenhorn Party support to win, they deserve to lose.
Al Gore lost Florida because of Ralph Nader and a bunch of confused Palm Beach County Jewish voters who punched Pat Buchanan's name.
But if Al Gore had carried his own home state, he would have won anyway. So the Greenies and Clueless Jews shouldn't be blamed for the Robot's rejection by the Volunteer State.
Talent and Burns were the incumbents. If the Losertarian candidates had not been on the ballot, who knows what those dope-smokers would have done.
Republicans should not be going on a witchhunt for Losertarians, the MSM, talk show hosts, Ouija Boards or Voodoo Dolls as blame targets for this disaster.
Just look in the mirror. A Party with no real platform, no ideas, and led by a sorry bunch of old tired farts like Kennedy and Sheets and Searchlight and Mikulski just kicked our butts.
It's like blaming Ears for the 1992 disaster. Fact is that an incumbent President who had a 90% approval ratings after waxing Saddam in six weeks couldn't reach 40% on Election Day. GHWB wiped out that Harvard Twit in 1988 by pledging no new taxes and he folded two years later. That's on him (although I still think those that voted for Perot blew it).
GWB accepted the blame. He may have lost and he may be attacked for two years by bitter Republicans and Conservatives, but he did man up. The only Clinton who would ever "man up" wears a crusty pantsuit.
Careful, the Bushbots won’t tolerate dissent.
Nope. There were a couple thousand write-in votes but that was well below the margin that Webb currently holds. It almost broke the other way...the Green candidate pulled over 26,000 votes. Since you can reasonably assume that most of those would've been Webb votes had she not been on the ballot, if the Green hadn't run, Webb would have taken Virginia by a full percentage point or more instead of the .31% (7400 votes) he's currently leading by, and this race would be over.
Libertarians had an impact in Missouri and Montana, but not in Virginia.
}:-)4
Without these political terrorists we would be looking at 52-48 tonight.
The real analysis is that the initiatives are gaining ground and a few more years will see these votes flipped.
Will someone tell me why conservatives would vote for a libertarian since they are for open borders?
Why do people think Libertarians would ever vote Republican? They are anti-war, anti-defence and pro-drug. They are not wayward Republican voters. They are not Republican voters at all.
I should have been more clear - my whole post was sarcasm. I hear people constantly bashing libertarians with these fallacious arguments, and it gets on my nerves.
He cost us the GOP candidate.
Webb called female Naval cadets sluts and dykes. Yet this wasn't mentioned at all in Allen ads. We even sent 10 scripts pro bono to those losers and they ignored them. He just vaguely touched upon "disrespect" for women. then Webb hit back with a solid ad from supportive women and Allen pathetic attempt was forgotten. NO BALLS. That's how I summarize the GOP this year,
I remember having a discussion with some libertarian when Dubya was running those ads equating drug use with helping terrorists and getting flamed royally because I supported them. Now, I was in about 90 percent agreement with his views but he was ticked because I thought we should do what we can to minimize recreational drug use.
There are just some groups that there is no point in trying to deal with. I guess the thing to do is to always make sure there is a Green candidate on the ballot to balance them out.
God bless, Ralph Nader.
Great example of retardation by the 3% there.
Now they get the fire breathing Democrat communists that will get them nothing.
That's the irony of yesterday...the protest voters aren't immune to the results of their protest. I hope they enjoy the new tax rates.
A Soros Candidate ....
No because they were never able to get the required number of signatures to get them on the ballot. Now they have, and now you see it's not such a blowout based on the results.
Good piece. But I don't think it's going to appease the Bushbots.
It's all our fault, you see. The libertarians had the audacity to stop towing the line and actually vote their conscience. To vote on principles. Kinda like this guy said Americans should;
- "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." - John Quincy Adams -
Obviously this guy was an idiot. So was Jefferson and that gang of nutballs that drafted that weird and far out piece of rubbish, the US constitution. What the hell were they thinking? Principles? Pah! You'll never get elected on those! Pandering is the way forward. Lesser of two evils and all that. That's how a real democracy runs. What can I say. We libertarians are clearly misguided and unrealistic. We're not smart enough to understand the nuances of politics quite like those savvy Democrats, and morally upstanding Republicans.
We should all be lined up and shot; a fitting sacrifice to appease the god of Big Government.
libertarians continue to be irrelevent.
If libertarians were relevant their pot initiatives would have all passed.
Or would that be too much to ask?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.