[Dems_R_Losers]

I'm no fan of libertarians, but the truth is that the vast majority of voters voting for libertarian candidates would probably not vote at all if there were not a libertarian on the ballot. This would not help Republicans. In South Dakota, the libertarian candidate quit and endorsed Thune, but it was too late to get his name off the ballot. The votes for him were "none of the above" votes, or votes of genuine libertarians who are not Republicans and don't want to be. I don't believe a single one of them would have voted for Thune under any circumstances.

And as for third parties in general, I would say Jesse Ventura was pretty successful in Minnesota.

[My2Cents]

Your points are well-taken. But I would say that Jesse Ventura's success in Minnesota was due more to the fact he was Jesse Ventura than to the fact he was the Reform Party candidate. John Doe, running as a Reform candidate, would have gotten nowhere.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

but the truth is that the vast majority of voters voting for libertarian candidates would probably not vote at all if there were not a libertarian on the ballot.

Exactly. The state GOP here in WI is treating Ed Thompson with the same cold shoulder.

Had Thompson decided not to run those people would have stayed home and Bingo Doyle would have won anyway. There were a lot of people absolutely fed up with the Madison corruption going on in both parties, and a lot of conservatives simply stayed home because McCallum was a RINO.

[monday]

"but the truth is that the vast majority of voters voting for libertarian candidates would probably not vote at all if there were not a libertarian on the ballot. "

This is true, but the majority of Libertarians vote Republican. There are several times the number of members in the Libertarian party compared to the number of votes that are cast Libertarian in any given election.

That could change though. People like Medved, and Democrat apeasing Republicans, have increasingly turned me off to the Republican party.