GOP Is Losing Its Libertarian Voters

HUMAN EVENTS ^ | Dec 08, 2006 | David Boaz and David Kirby

[neverdem]

Libertarian Party candidates may have cost Senators Jim Talent (R.-Mo.) and Conrad Burns (R.-Mont.) their seats, tipping the Senate to Democratic control.

In Montana, the Libertarian candidate got more than 10,000 votes, or 3%, while Democrat Jon Tester edged Burns by fewer than 3,000 votes. In Missouri, Claire McCaskill defeated Talent by 41,000 votes, a bit less than the 47,000 Libertarian votes.

This isn’t the first time Republicans have had to worry about losing votes to Libertarian Party candidates. Senators Harry Reid (Nev.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), and Tim Johnson (S.D.) all won races in which Libertarian candidates got more votes than their winning margin.

But a narrow focus on the Libertarian Party significantly underestimates the role libertarian voters played in 2006. Most voters who hold libertarian views don’t vote for the Libertarian Party. Libertarian voters likely cost Republicans the House and the Senate—also dealing blows to Republican candidates in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

In our study, “The Libertarian Vote,” we analyzed 16 years of polling data and found that libertarians constituted 13% of the electorate in 2004. Because libertarians are better educated and more likely to vote, they were 15% of actual voters.

Libertarians are broadly defined as people who favor less government in both economic and personal issues. They might be summed up as “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” voters.

In the past, our research shows, most libertarians voted Republican—72% for George W. Bush in 2000, for instance, with only 20 percent for Al Gore, and 70% for Republican congressional candidates in 2002. But in 2004, presumably turned off by war, wiretapping, and welfare-state spending sprees, they shifted sharply toward the Democrats. John F. Kerry got 38% of the libertarian vote. That was a dramatic swing that Republican strategists should have noticed. But somehow the libertarian vote has remained hidden in plain sight.

This year we commissioned a nationwide post-election survey of 1013 voters from Zogby International. We again found that 15 percent of the voters held libertarian views. We also found a further swing of libertarians away from Republican candidates. In 2006, libertarians voted 59% to 36% for Republican congressional candidates—a 24-point swing from the 2002 mid-term election. To put this in perspective, front-page stories since the election have reported the dramatic 7-point shift of white conservative evangelicals away from the Republicans. The libertarian vote is about the same size as the religious right vote measured in exit polls, and it is subject to swings more than three times as large.

Based on the turnout in 2004, Bush’s margin over Kerry dropped by 4.8 million votes among libertarians. Had he held his libertarian supporters, he would have won a smashing reelection rather than squeaking by in Ohio.

President Bush and the congressional Republicans left no libertarian button unpushed in the past six years: soaring spending, expansion of entitlements, federalization of education, cracking down on state medical marijuana initiatives, Sarbanes-Oxley, gay marriage bans, stem cell research restrictions, wiretapping, incarcerating U.S. citizens without a lawyer, unprecedented executive powers, and of course an unnecessary and apparently futile war. The striking thing may be that after all that, Democrats still looked worse to a majority of libertarians.

Because libertarians tend to be younger and better educated than the average voter, they’re not going away. They’re an appealing target for Democrats, but they are essential to future Republican successes. Republicans can win the South without libertarians. But this was the year that New Hampshire and the Mountain West turned purple if not blue, and libertarians played a big role there. New Hampshire may be the most libertarian state in the country; this year both the state’s Republican congressmen lost.

Meanwhile, in the Goldwateresque, “leave us alone” Mountain West, Republicans not only lost the Montana Senate seat; they also lost the governorship of Colorado, two House seats in Arizona, and one in Colorado. They had close calls in the Arizona Senate race and House races in Idaho, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Dick Cheney’s Wyoming. In libertarian Nevada, the Republican candidate for governor won less than a majority against a Democrat who promised to keep the government out of guns, abortion, and gay marriage. Arizona also became the first state to vote down a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Presidential candidates might note that even in Iowa libertarians helped vote out a Republican congressman who championed the Internet gambling ban.

If Republicans can’t win New Hampshire and the Mountain West, they can’t win a national majority. And they can’t win those states without libertarian votes. They’re going to need to stop scaring libertarian, centrist, and independent voters with their social-conservative obsessions and become once again the party of fiscal responsibility. In a Newsweek poll just before the election, 47% of respondents said they trusted the Democrats more on “federal spending and the deficit,” compared to just 31% who trusted the Republicans. That’s not Ronald Reagan’s Republican Party.

One more bit from our post-election Zogby poll: We asked voters if they considered themselves “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” A whopping 59% said they did. When we added to the question “also known as libertarian,” 44% still claimed that description. That’s too many voters for any party to ignore.

Rep. Barbara Cubin (R.-Wyo.) told her Libertarian challenger after a debate, “If you weren’t sitting in that [wheel]chair, I’d slap you.” It took 10 days to certify her re-election, perhaps because that Libertarian took more than 7,000 votes. A better strategy for her and other Republicans would be to try to woo libertarians back.

[neverdem]

Have you actually helped a conservative cause?

I volunteered in 2004 in PA for the pubbies. I believe Tamzee might be able to verify that. I volunteered for McCain in the 2000 primary because I thought McCain was more electable than GWB. I now have no enthusiasm for McCain, Giuliani or Romney. I'm a life member of what was appreciated as the most effective lobby in D.C. It's not the AARP.

[CurlyDave]

These Libertarian swine deserve a lot of blame. If we'd had three more Senate seats in the last Congress, things could have been quite different. They blame us for problems that they in part create.

As Libertarian for well over 30 years, I have been abandoned by the GOP, not the other way around.

When the GOP wanted the Patriot Act, and the donkeys said it would infringe on our civil liberties, I sad the danger to our Republic was great enough that I should support it. Fast forward to today, and how many terrorists have been charged, vs. how many drug dealers? The last time I looked it was being used against every two-bit drug dealer and very few terrorists. You won't get my support on that one again.

I don't see the GOP controlling redistribution, I see them increasing it.

While the donkeys are more corrupt than the GOP, I don't see the GOP taking a stand.

What happened with Willian Jefferson? How is it possible that a GOP administration had videotape of him taking bribes, had recovered the marked money from his freezer, and still didn't have the stones to indict him before he could be re-elected? The only conclusion I can reach is that he has a lot of dirt on the GOP and out of self-preservation they are letting him off.

I used to vote GOP because I felt that my vote could count, I had a chance to elect a friend & ally. Well, my friends and allies have betrayed me. Will I vote for a donkey? Absolutely not, but I am going to vote for a real Libertarian, not a false friend.

[nathanbedford]

I would like to take issue with your criticism of those of us who post on free Republic and who do not wear out our shoe leather working the streets for conservatism, from a very safe place here in Germany where I can personally plead the excuse of distance.

I believe Free Republic is the most important conservative web site and should hardly be denigrated as a "chat" board. The physical landscape of free Republic was brilliantly conceived to force the posters to deal with real issues because they're confronted with real articles. Although vanity posts are allowed, they are infrequent and sometimes quite on point, and, in any case, the physical layout works toward the refinement of thought and opinion on any subject posted. I mean to say, that the author of an article or the author of a post will soon be braced if he crosses the barriers into misstatement, ill logic, or impropriety and they will all be there in context for everyone to see.

I also believe that free Republic carries great influence and that that influence is growing. It is clear that media personalities like Rush Limbaugh who have access to millions of listeners use Free Republic as a source and thus amplify our influence exponentially. I am quite sure that staff members of all parties and candidates on both sides of the aisle are assigned to monitor this web site. We know for sure that we are monitored by members of the mainstream media.

So we are influencing opinion and that is a very important contribution to conservatism.

Finally, I believe individual posters over time to have an influence on our thinking. I reflect on the opposition I used to generate to my posts criticizing the Bush administration on immigration in which I was called a bigot and so forth but which now have become the conventional wisdom on Free Republic. I've also seen a similar transition with regard to views about the war in Iraq.

Yes, we all owe a duty to fight the ground war but that does not mean that we should disparage the air war.

[DesScorp]

And now the Libertarians are going to get what they voted for...liberal Democrats in charge. They shat where they eat, now it's time to chow down. Enjoy the higher taxes and social engineering, Libertarians.

[fish hawk]

Don't let the door hit them in the ass on the way to the Democrats. They suck, from Pat Buchanan on down.

[Irish Eyes]

I will repeat it once again in bold for you.

They’re going to need to stop scaring libertarian, centrist, and independent voters with their social-conservative obsessions and become once again the party of fiscal responsibility.

All one has to do is read a couple of the latest threads here to understand what they are talking about. I am amazed how very close minded some on this site have become.

[Lurker]

I think there's a lot of truth in this article. But do the "social conservatives" even care. We shall see...

Oh they care alright. Every 2 years they care a real, real lot.

Then immediately after every 2nd November they quit caring and go right back to spending other peoples money, increasing the size and power of Government, and mocking the small 'l' libertarians for bitching about the ever increasing number of social programs, rules, regulations....

Just wait till about September of '08 and check back in here.

Those 'moderate Republicans' will once again care a whole lot about the libertarians.

L

[California Patriot]

A very inapt comparison. To have a mate is a choice. There are always multiple options, even if they're not actual at the moment. There's no such situation politics and government. The choice is between a mildly statist party and a very statist party. Ludicrously, the Libertarians seemingly would rather let the very statist party (at heart, a socialist party) win rather than soil themselves with a vote for the much less statist party. Spare me your cheap shots at the Republicans. The Libertarians are fools.

[California Patriot]

Well then, Dave, consider yourself "abandoned."

Ask me if I care.

[neverdem]

Did you even bother to read my post? Prime example of the failure of Free Republic.

Yes, I just went over the thread's comments from you. IMHO, you sound like a Bushbot. Vote for any RINO because they don't have a D. I do that most of the time on the Conservative line, except when the clown is on all of the party lines. Then they find undervotes. I may change my registration to R in NY to vote in the 08 primaries.

[Lurker]

And I attacked them because they cost us Senate seats, not for their beliefs.

They cost you seats. That's pretty rich.

I suppose actually governing like small government conservatives was completely out of the question....

L

[CheyennePress]

I think the issue is less with scaring liberatrian with soical issues and more with being completely fiscally irresponsible.

For starters, liberal social policies are all too wound up in fiscal policy. They feel bad about something, so they want to throw money at it. They want to fund this project or that, and generally start new programs to address new social ills.

Not exactly libertarian.

But as Republicans have ditched economic responsibility, so they've given liberatarians very little room to roam.

I'm biased, as I'm a social and fiscal conservative, but that's my take.

[no dems]

Libertarian voters likely cost Republicans the House and the Senate

No, the corrupt, inept, GOP lawmakers cost the GOP the House and the Senate.

If the Dems do a half-way decent job in the next two years of cutting spending, cleaning up corruption, putting a halt to the "run-away" pork barrel projects and put a crimp in the style of the lobbyists; the GOP might not see a return to power for a long, long time.

[goldstategop]

Maybe. Liberals of course are statists by definition. If the Democrats really do get serious, they could be around for a long time. But that's asking them to hold in check their true nature.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Lurker]

The choice is between a mildly statist party and a very statist party.

The lesser of two evils is still evil my friend.

Spare me your cheap shots at the Republicans.

One can hardly call a greater rate of government spending growth than any President since LBJ a 'cheap shot'.

The Libertarians are fools.

I suppose actually acting on conservative principles is too much to ask.

Bridge to nowhere?-No Problem.

Ballooning the Medicaid budget beyond LBJs wildest dreams?-No problem.

Passing a Highway Bill so bloated with pork it embarrassed Robert Byrd?-No problem.

No Child (s Parents Money) Left Behind?-No problem.

Federalizing Airport Security workers?-No problem.

Supporting amnesty for 12 million lawbreakers?-No problem.

So tell me again CP. Where exactly are these 'conservative principles' you all keep yammering about? I'd love to know because they sure as hell weren't in your Legislative agenda.

L

[BigTom85]

The only people that want an intrusive government are socialists and social conservatives.

Well said.

[hinckley buzzard]

libertarians tend to be younger and better educated than the average voter

Proof once again, if any more is needed, that book learning is no substitute for maturity of judgment.

[Sunsong]

Hey there,

Thanks for putting me straight on that :-)

Oh they care alright. Every 2 years they care a real, real lot.

I shall try to remember that!

[BigTom85]

Enjoy the higher taxes and social engineering

Besides the tax cuts for certain brackets and a few pro gun bills signed, there is little conservative about this administration. There is more bureaucracy, more people on the federal payroll, and more alphabet soup government agencies. Most Democrats and Republicans don't care about the average joe working guy.. they just care about themselves and their 'political careers'. The people of Texas in the Galveston area have the right idea when they vote for a guy like Ron Paul.

[neverdem]

If the Dems do a half-way decent job in the next two years of cutting spending, cleaning up corruption, putting a halt to the "run-away" pork barrel projects and put a crimp in the style of the lobbyists; the GOP might not see a return to power for a long, long time.

Democrats Aren't Ready to Give Up Pork

Maybe they can't resist.