[BigEdLB]

Actually "Blame the Libertarians" may be true. Burns lost by 3000 in MT. The Libertarian vote was 10000 and Burns would have easily had a 1700+ marging amongst those voters.

[Sir Gawain]

I know this sounds crazy, but maybe you could blame the loser in the race for not getting enough votes to win. Just a thought.

[discostu]

Shouldn't blame people for voting for the candidate they believed in. If the candidate you wanted to win lost "because of" those numbers then it's the candidate's fault for not being a guy those voters could believe in. This was true in 92 when the conservatives split between Bush and Perot, and 96 with Dole and Perot, and 2000 when the liberal split between Gore and Nader. The correct question isn't "what would have happened if all those people hadn't voted Libertarian?", the question that should be asked is "why couldn't Burns get these people to vote for him?"

[Ace of Spades]

I guess we shouldn't blame Burns. After all Abramoff's money got forced into his hand, right? He can't be blamed for the fact that he's a crook.

/sarc

[BradyLS]

Actually "Blame the Libertarians" may be true. Burns lost by 3000 in MT. The Libertarian vote was 10000 and Burns would have easily had a 1700+ marging amongst those voters.Neal Boortz today saying that if youy want to register a complaint that will be heard by the RNC, vote Libertarian. If you want to teach a lesson that won't, vote Democrat. The point is that the RNC looks at Libertarian numbers to register dissatisfaction in the base. But if dissatisfied voters vote with the Democrats, they won't look for numbers there, the RNC will simply say, "The Dems got out their base." I think we have to own up that numbers of voters that have voted for the Republicans in the past voted for the Democrats this time and that the overriding issues were corruption and runaway spending. Those were the issues that the Dems were wooing conservatives with.

[NittanyLion]

Actually "Blame the Libertarians" may be true. Burns lost by 3000 in MT. The Libertarian vote was 10000 and Burns would have easily had a 1700+ marging amongst those voters.

Here's a wild idea: candidates should earn votes instead of assuming they're entitled to them.

[webheart]

Actually "Blame the Libertarians" may be true.

Maybe it's time to take over the Libertarian party. Or maybe to start a new Conservative party. Anyway, you can't blame the Libertarians, because they don't run the mainstream media, and they didn't have commanding majorities in the House and Senate for the last six years.

[El Gato]

Actually "Blame the Libertarians" may be true. Burns lost by 3000 in MT. The Libertarian vote was 10000 and Burns would have easily had a 1700+ marging amongst those voters.

Balancing that somewhat is that Gail Parker, Independent Green Party (Or Independent Grassroots Party, maybe the Greens made them change it) polled way more votes than the margin in Virginia. Now I don't know exactly what the party is, but it is an environmentalism based party, if not as Watermelon like as the "Greens" (Green on the outside, Red on the inside). She likely took more from the Democrat Webb than Republican Allen.

[Uncle Vlad]

Gee, I didn't know my vote is an entitlement program. I didn't know a party was entitled to my vote no matter how badly they had veered from its principles. Tuesday was a very painful loss, but I hope everyone learned a valuable lesson from it. You can't perform abysmally for an extended time and expect to win elections merely with emotional blackmail. You have to stand for something, and you have to stand up.

By all accounts Burns was a bad candidate and and a bad Senator. If he had done his job and stepped aside when he said he would, the Libertarians would not have been a factor.