Posted on 11/03/2010 10:41:10 AM PDT by WebFocus
Off the top of my (very groggy) head, I cannot think of too many cases where a Democrat lost a winnable race because of too many left-of-center votes drifting to a liberal third party, other than Ralph Nader’s role in the 2000 presidential election.
Last night, a withdrawn third-party bid ended up costing Republicans at least one key victory. I’m starting to think the New York 23rd district is cursed. Doug Hoffman, Conservative-party candidate, inspiring figure of 2009′s special election, made a remarkably mature decision to drop his Conservative bid this year and back the Republican, Matt Doheny. Last night, 6 percent of the district voted for Hoffman, even though he had withdrawn. Democrat Bill Owens is ahead by 2.4 percent.
In Oregon, Republican Chris Dudley is hanging on in the governor’s race; his 1.1 percent lead is less than the share of the vote that went to the Constitution-party candidate (1.4 percent) and the Libertarian-party candidate (1.3 percent).
Harry Reid will win reelection with 50.2 percent of the vote, but Sharron Angle only won 44.6 percent.
Tim Cahill cost Charlie Baker his shot at the Massachusetts governorship.
In Indiana, one of the cycle’s promising Republicans, Jackie Walorski, has fallen short by 1.4 percent while the Libertarian candidate took 5 percent.
Massachusetts Republicans are bummed this morning. In the 10th district, Democrat Bill Keating is going to win with a mere 46.9 percent of the vote.
In Rhode Island’s 1st district, a lot of Democrats worried about their man David Ciciline; he won 50.6 percent of the vote but is six points ahead of John Loughlin.
In Colorado’s governor’s race, we saw a strange reversal: the surprising 11 percent who backed Republican Dan Maes probably cost conservative independent Tom Tancredo a victory, or at least a chance to take Democrat John Hickenlooper down to the wire.
Late in this cycle, we saw desperate Democrats doing everything they could to promote little-known third-party options. Sometimes it didn’t work (Alan Grayson, Tom Perriello). But clearly the Democrats will go back to this option, time and again, until right-of-center voters realize that if you want to throw out an entrenched liberal Democrat incumbent, there is only one real option. Every vote has to be earned, but sometimes you have to be willing to take someone less than ideal if you want to throw a bum out.
Hey retard, guess what? Most all of the Republicans who lost last night by less than the margin set by third party candidates (Libertarians, Constitution, etc.) were conservatives. Yet, idiots like you voted against these conservatives because you're too ill-informed to stop acting on emotion, and start actually evaluating the dynamics of the candidates and their races.
Thanks a lot, morons.
Yes, GOP lick-spittles are quick to blame poor ol' Ross for their loss in 1992 dismissing entirely that the responsiblity for the loss of the White House in 1992 rests entirely with the incumbant. GHW Bush came into the campaign with an 82-percent approval rating following the sucessful Gulf War campaign. What happened?
The race was Bush's to lose and he lost it.
And, in 1996 when faced with running against, a young, vibrant, and politically-savvy Bill Clinton, whom did the Republicans select as their candidate? Trusty, crusty Bob Dole.
Why did the GOP select Bob Dole as their candidate? Why didn't Bob Dole crush Bill Clinton?
Or, are you saying that Ross Perot stole votes from Bob Dole, too?
Because of these two egomaniacs, RAT Bruce Braley will be returning to DC.
Wow! Strong words, indeed.
Source, please?
We must ALWAYS do everything within out power to stop a Democrat!!!
You may have a winning strategy there. I heard that Soros, etc. were actually funding "conservative" "third party" candidates and why not? It's not stupid.
Too bad we have conservative voters falling for it.
You don’t get it.
I have quit the team.
“Message to the republicans: IF YOU WANT MY VOTE YOU MUST RUN A CONSERVATIVE. I WILL NEVER, NO NEVER VOT FOR A RINO AGAIN.”
Message to “Libertarians” and “Constitutionalists” - quit letting RINOS be the most active “Conservatives” in the GOP, from your local district up.
Instead, JOIN the GOP and become the most active GOPers, from the local district up. Instead of defeating nominal Conservatives from the GOP, by siphoning off their votes, you will help put more “Libertarians” and “Constitutionalists” INTO the GOP. Instead of being on the outside, YOUR person will be on the inside (a party with some possibility of shaping government policy) where YOUR person would have some chance to influence things.
“Libertarians” and “Constitutionalists” need to recognize that what they think is impossible - building their own influential base in the GOP, is NOT impossible because it is exactly what “social conservatives” began to do in the Goldwater era and built on in the Reagan era.
Are Conservatives who do not necessarily consider themselves “Libertarian” or “Constitutionalists” going to be in disagreement with a “Libertarian” or a “Constitutionalist”, or their positions. I am sure that will happen, on occasion. I am also sure that it will not happen most of the time, but would happen most of the time with the Dims.
An ally is not someone who is in pure agreement with you every time; just a lot more frequently than your real enemies. Libertarians and Constitutionalists could do a whole lot better - more influential in REAL terms (in other words: “in office”) working from the ground up to build their own “caucus” within the GOP than they have been doing outside of it.
However, I very much believe there is only one way to advance a conservative agenda and that is to move our party to the right in the primaries but everyone votes straight Republican in the general.
We must stop Democrats at every opportunity. We can never surrender territory to them waiting for perfect soldiers.
Well, I guess they weren’t outstanding enough. It is what it is, so if we learn from history, then you’ll have nothing to worry about.
This MY PEOPLE philosophy sounds like more divisive speech. Find a candidate that will unite conservatives, not a democrat-lite.
Go here, click on "House" and start clicking on the races where the Dem won, or where it's too close to call. In many cases, the third party idiot cost the GOPer just enough votes to hand it to the Dem.
You can start with AZ-7, where Raul Grijalva beat solid conservative Republican Ruth McClung by less than the margin the Libertardian got. Then, go to AZ-8, where Jesse Kelly lost by less than the Libertardian got as well. Another solid conservative down the drain, because of idiot third partyists.
Then, on your voyage of discovery, you might stop by IA-1, NY-23, IN-2, and VA-11. Then, swing by the Colorado Senate race, where Ken Buck, another solid Tea-Party Republican, has pretty much lost - within the margin of the Libertardian's support.
In each case, a solidly conservative Republican lost, and a liberal Democrat won, because of third partyists. Note - we are NOT talking about RINOs, so don't even bother trying to make that argument with these races, since it is wholly irrelevant. You people helped to defeat CONSERVATIVES.
I hope you're proud of yourselves for rendering such fine aid and comfort to the socialists.
Like Democrats, huh? We’ll see how far the RATS get you.
And you joined the Socialists. Congratulations.
Since you are a great grandmother, I am not going to argue with your experience in this area. :)
Teddy Roosevelt was the Karl Rove of his day, deciding that the Howard Taft wing of his party wasn’t progressive enough, and so sabotaging it only to elect a socialist. That socialist, Wilson, gave us the income tax, direct election of Senators and prohibition. I would add voting by women to that list, but I would hear no end of it if I did.
Sure - a RINO is any Republican who votes Republican instead of voting for a "conservative" third party!
That is the first I have ever read that Taft would have lost to Wilson. Is there data that supports that? Even if so, it is probably very questionable, because you have to examine how the race would have gone had the GOP united behind its President, with Teddy and his wing backing him. The dynamics change when another Republican is out there sniping at your nominee (see K.Rove vs. Christine O’Donnell for a recent example).
This was completely planned by the Democrats in MA. A life-long Democrat, Cahill, all of a sudden becomes 'independent'? Sure...
ALWAYS VOTE STRAIGHT REPUBLICAN in a general election. Look at primary elections as the opportunity to turn your party the direction you want it to go but after that, always, always stop the Democrats!!!!
When the GOP doesn’t put forth a candidate people think deserves their vote it is NOT the fault of the voters. Clinton won in ‘92 and ‘96 because Bush and Dole were lousy candidates who couldn’t inspire voters when going up against a known philander whose state was at the bottom of the heap in every quality of living category, not because of Perot.
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.