[Ceebass]

Piss poor analysis.

Crudely stated, but essentially correct.

Apparently they asked voters a series of questions and those whose answers were "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" were deemed Libertarians. Those who were actually members of the Libertarian party were probably a small subset of that total

This looks to me like an effort by Boaz et al to make the Libertarian party more influential at the polls than it actually is.

[JeffAtlanta]

Apparently they asked voters a series of questions and those whose answers were "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" were deemed Libertarians.

"Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" voters certainly are small "L" libertatians. The article was primarily dealing with libertarians not members of the Libertarian Party.

[ndt]

"Those who were actually members of the Libertarian party were probably a small subset of that total... Boaz et al to make the Libertarian party more influential at the polls than it actually is."

I think you missed the point. Most libertarians are not Libertarians and it is the small "l" type that swung left in this election (or sat it out as in my case), most of the big "L"'s were voting for the Libertarian candidate anyway.

You cant lose what you never had, but you can lose what you didn't know had and took for granted.