POL: Did the Libertarians Give the Senate to the Dems?

[JPhillips]

I saw these numbers at DKos. I haven't heard any discussion ala Green party in 2004. In both of these Senate races the margin of victory was lower than the LIB vote total. Will the Libertarians see the same sort of anger from the Republicans that the Greens see from the Democrats?

Missouri Senate

McCaskill (D) 1,047,049 50
Talent (R) 1,001,238 47
Gilmour (L) 47,504 2

Montana Senate

Tester (D) 198,302 49
Burns (R) 195,455 48
Jones (L) 10,324 3

[flere-imsaho]

If and only if those who voted for the (L) candidate would have voted Republican. In neither of those races am I sure that would have been the case, given the viewpoints of the Republican candidates in question.

[ISiddiqui]

Exactly... one can make an argument that most of those may have voted Democrat instead (because of civil liberties concerns with the current administration). It's hard for one party to yell at Libertarians for 'costing them an election' because, really, they have beefs with both sides and you aren't really sure if they lean more fiscal or social libertarian.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Will the Libertarians see the same sort of anger from the Republicans that the Greens see from the Democrats?

I seriously doubt it.

I don't personally know IRL a single Republican who considers the Libs anything as much of anything more than anarchists in disguise anyway (yes, that's an intentional oversimplification, used merely to quickly illustrate a point).

Even given the relatively limited number that I know personally, that should be enough to prevent any serious amount of organized anger towards them, simply because there's enough in the party who already don't have much/any use for them to suddenly get angry with them over this.

[panerd]

Silly. I voted for Frank Gilmour (Liberterian) for senate. And there was no way in hell I was voting Talent, and about the same for McCaskill. The whole blue/red shit gets old after a while. Perot didn't steal votes from Bush, Nadar didn't steal votes from Gore, they just weren't solid enough canidates to get enough votes to beat the other person. Nobody talks about the third party stealing votes from Reagan in 1984 or Clinton in 1996 do they?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nobody talks about the third party stealing votes from Reagan in 1984 or Clinton in 1996 do they?

Because those votes weren't enough to make a difference in the eventual outcome.

If you assign all of Perot's votes to Dole in 1996, the swing would have been 44 electoral votes, still leaving Clinton with a comfortable 335. And that's if you give every Perot vote to Dole while leaving all other minor candidates as voted. If you tried to parse those down, the amount of change could well have been even less.

If you assign all of the "Other" votes to Mondale in 1984, there would have been no change, as less than 1% of all votes cast went to anyone other than the two main candidates and no state except Minnesota even had 1/8th as many "other" votes as the Reagan margin of victory in that state. Depending upon how those had fallen, it's possible (although unlikely) that Reagan could have swept all 50 states ... but worrying about that would just be downright greedy ;)

edit to add: http://uselectionatlas.org/ is a really nifty little website.

[flere-imsaho]

I do think there's a valid argument to be made that Nader in part cost Gore the election in 2000. If significant numbers of those who voted for Nader in that election voted for Gore instead, Florida would have gone for Gore, and the election wouldn't have been close enough for the recount mess.

However, that's only a tactical consideration. The strategic problem in that election is that Gore campaigned as well as a dead fish.


Edit: To illustrate, in Florida (25 electoral votes), Bush beat Gore by around 500 votes. In Florida, about 97,000 people voted for Nader. If 1% of those people vote for Gore instead, Gore wins the election easily.

[Passacaglia]

If and only if those who voted for the (L) candidate would have voted Republican. In neither of those races am I sure that would have been the case, given the viewpoints of the Republican candidates in question.

As someone who has only voted Libertarian and Democrat, I agree.

[Young Drachma]

Same for me. I generally vote Libertarian in most races, except in close ones where I figure that the candidate I loathe more might win. Especially in Wyoming, where elections can literally come down to just a few votes.

But in the absence of a Libertarian or no candidate I prefer or can hold my nose to vote for..I'll opt against any of them.

So, it's not always about "well, they have to vote for somebody." Because not everyone does/will.

[JPhillips]

I think it's hard to argue that Missouri would have gone to Talent as the margin would have required almost every LIB vote to switch. In Montana though I really think the LIB candidate could have cost Burns. The margin was less than 3000.

What's really fascinating to me is how the Republicans are losing the LIB voter. There was a time not to long ago when many Republicans were thrilled to co-opt the term libertarian. Now the party seems to be running away from Libertarians.

[lungs]

What's really fascinating to me is how the Republicans are losing the LIB voter. There was a time not to long ago when many Republicans were thrilled to co-opt the term libertarian. Now the party seems to be running away from Libertarians.

As a lib, the Republicans certainly did plenty to drive me away quickly. Or was it my damn liberal public education?

[Cringer]

As someone who has only voted Libertarian and Democrat, I agree.


ditto. Although I think I may have voted for a Green once too...

[JPhillips]

There's a nice article on the changing voting patterns of self identified LIBs here.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n1/cpr29n1-1.pdf

The big point is that LIBs favored REP congressional candidates by 47 points over DEMS in 2002, but by only 23 points in 2006.

[Huckleberry]

The big point is that LIBs favored REP congressional candidates by 47 points over DEMS in 2002, but by only 23 points in 2006.

That shouldn't be surprising at all given what happened during those four years.

[Dutch]

That shouldn't be surprising at all given what happened during those four years.

What happened during those four years?

[panerd]

What happened during those four years?


I will answer for myself and not the population in general. Massive influx of religion into politics. Granted Democrats do it also (hence I don't vote for them either) and some Liberterians run on it. But Terri Shievo etc got way out of hand.

[ISiddiqui]

I think it was meant to be a silly question ;). At least I hope so. Libertarians don't take too kindly to civil liberties being threatened. Just about every libertarian is dead set against the PATRIOT Act, for instance. And it seems the administration is much more into trading liberty for security than the Dems.

And the whole Iraq mess. People who are against all foriegn wars aren't going to be too happy with an administration that pushes one.

[Dutch]

I think it was meant to be a silly question ;). At least I hope so. Libertarians don't take too kindly to civil liberties being threatened. Just about every libertarian is dead set against the PATRIOT Act, for instance. And it seems the administration is much more into trading liberty for security than the Dems.

And the whole Iraq mess. People who are against all foriegn wars aren't going to be too happy with an administration that pushes one.

What are your thoughts on Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi voting in favor of the Patriot Act?

[flere-imsaho]

What happened during those four years?

I'm going to guess that Libertarians grew tired of the Republican Executive and Republican Legislature trampling civil liberties and spending money like a drunken schoolgirl.

What are your thoughts on Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi voting in favor of the Patriot Act?

What the heck does that have to do with Libertarians not voting Republican?

[Dutch]

I'm going to guess that Libertarians grew tired of the Republican Executive and Republican Legislature trampling civil liberties and spending money like a drunken schoolgirl.

I bet you are trembling in fright right now for daring to openly oppose this adminsitration on a public message board. What if they have your IP address? You're screwed! :)

What the heck does that have to do with Libertarians not voting Republican?

What does the Patriot Act have to do with Libertarians not voting Republican? Issidiqui says it did, why are you blaming me for that? Ask him.

[ISiddiqui]

Who initially promoted the PATRIOT Act and continues to support it? Many Dems have completely moved away from their earlier vote and admitted they made a mistake.

[Dutch]

Who initially promoted the PATRIOT Act and continues to support it? Many Dems have completely moved away from their earlier vote and admitted they made a mistake.

Hmmm, they voted for things before they voted against them before haven't they? Will this be the modus operandi after '08 as well? I'm sure it won't be, because how many items did the Democrats vote on during the President Bill Clinton years that they admitted they did wrong and back-tracked on? How many do you suspect they will they vote on and backtrack on during the Hillary Clinton years? Face it, you are confusing "moved away from their earlier vote and admitted a mistake" with typical partisan bullshit politics. I'm not saying that isn't to be expected. Just simply stating that's what it is. I'm sure you would love to tell me that Democrats don't take part in partisan politics. In theory, I'm sure nobody would.

[Warhammer]

Who initially promoted the PATRIOT Act and continues to support it? Many Dems have completely moved away from their earlier vote and admitted they made a mistake.

The problem is though, that the Dems did all of this out of political expediency. Much of what happened between 9-11 and 2003 the Dems did out of fear of being branded for what they are. Then, as Bush's support weakened, they changed their stance.

My problem with the Dems is that they are very irresponsible in many ways regarding the current war in Iraq. The same thing happened during the Civil War and Vietnam as well. The stakes may have been higher in the Civil War, but I still don't like defeatest politics.

[larrymcg421]

Hmmm, they voted for things before they voted against them before haven't they? Will this be the modus operandi after '08 as well? I'm sure it won't be, because how many items did the Democrats vote on during the President Bill Clinton years that they admitted they did wrong and back-tracked on? How many do you suspect they will they vote on and backtrack on during the Hillary Clinton years? Face it, you are confusing "moved away from their earlier vote and admitted a mistake" with typical partisan bullshit politics. I'm not saying that isn't to be expected. Just simply stating that's what it is. I'm sure you would love to tell me that Democrats don't take part in partisan politics. In theory, I'm sure nobody would.

You're trying to get into an argument over who is right and wrong in this scenario. That has nothing to do with the comments you are responding to. Libertarians will blame the Republicans for the Patriot Act because they proposed it, they kept fighting to renew it, they fought against any attempts to weaken it. If you want to argue that the Democrats are cowards who refuse to stand up for what they believe in until it's politically expediant, then I would agree, but that has nothing to do with how the Patriot Act affected Libertarian voting patterns in the last election.

[JPhillips]

Warhammer: You can say the same things about the Republicans in WW1 and preceding WW2 and Somalia and Bosnia.

And you can't seriously be saying that McClellan's position in 1864 is a serious reason to vote against today's Democrats.

[ISiddiqui]

You're trying to get into an argument over who is right and wrong in this scenario. That has nothing to do with the comments you are responding to. Libertarians will blame the Republicans for the Patriot Act because they proposed it, they kept fighting to renew it, they fought against any attempts to weaken it. If you want to argue that the Democrats are cowards who refuse to stand up for what they believe in until it's politically expediant, then I would agree, but that has nothing to do with how the Patriot Act affected Libertarian voting patterns in the last election.

Bingo. As a number of Dems say that they don't support major provisions of the act, they look better than the other side (who, mostly, wholeheartedly support the entire act) to those people who hate the act.

You have one side stridently saying we need to keep it. The other side backing away from it... who cares WHY they are backing away. The fact that they are backing is good enough for someone who doesn't like the act.

Dutch is simply trying to read in too much that simply isn't there.

[flere-imsaho]

I bet you are trembling in fright right now for daring to openly oppose this adminsitration on a public message board. What if they have your IP address? You're screwed! :)

Hooray for hyperbole! Let me try: I'll bet you're all worn out from a hard day of crushing brown people beneath your jackboots in a Republican-sanctioned publicity exercise. Hey, this is fun! :)

What does the Patriot Act have to do with Libertarians not voting Republican? Issidiqui says it did, why are you blaming me for that? Ask him.

You don't find it possible that Libertarians, who are greatly defined by the value they place on personal and civil liberties, might take issue with a party that controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches of government passing legislation that encroaches upon these rights?

My problem with the Dems is that they are very irresponsible in many ways regarding the current war in Iraq. The same thing happened during the Civil War and Vietnam as well. The stakes may have been higher in the Civil War, but I still don't like defeatest politics.

Defeatest politics? Oh please. It was FDR and Truman who won us WWII. It was JFK and Johnson who thought we could win in Vietnam. It was Nixon who pulled us out of Vietnam. Heck, for "defeatest politics" look up the Republican responses to Somalia and Bosnia during Clinton's term.

Your contention that only Democrats practice what you term "defeatest politics" is no more than a partisan smear.

[Warhammer]

Defeatest politics? Oh please. It was FDR and Truman who won us WWII. It was JFK and Johnson who thought we could win in Vietnam. It was Nixon who pulled us out of Vietnam. Heck, for "defeatest politics" look up the Republican responses to Somalia and Bosnia during Clinton's term.

Your contention that only Democrats practice what you term "defeatest politics" is no more than a partisan smear.

Uh, notice what that I didn't mention WWII because the country was clearly united on the war.

I mentioned the Civil War and Vietnam because those were actual wars. Many historians attribute the taking of Atlanta as pivotal to Lincoln defeating McClellan. The consequences of a McClellan win? A negotiated peace with the south.

You're right that Nixon got us out of Vietnam, but where was the pressure to do so coming from? The left.

What was our goal in Somalia? What was our goal in Bosnia? To keep the peace. Look at how things were being run in Somalia, Clinton basically got a pass for much of the same stuff that has gone on in Iraq.

The difference in those issues anyway is that the Republicans did not vote one way, and then when the chips were down vote another. They were against both missions from the get go, that is a different matter altogether.

My $.02, we've been fighting a political war in Iraq. If we really want to get the job done, and minimize forces, we need to get a total force superiority in the area and that means a lot more troops. Put them in place, shoot first, ask questions later, and get the job done. This namby pamby crap we've been doing isn't going to gain us any respect in the area.

[flere-imsaho]

You're right that Nixon got us out of Vietnam, but where was the pressure to do so coming from? The left.

Ah, so it was the left wing of American politics that forced Richard Nixon to pull us out of Vietnam. Got it. Never realized the left wing was so powerful.

[Warhammer]

Warhammer: You can say the same things about the Republicans in WW1 and preceding WW2 and Somalia and Bosnia.

And you can't seriously be saying that McClellan's position in 1864 is a serious reason to vote against today's Democrats.

WWI we should have never entered, it would have prevented WWII. Also, Wilson himself never wanted to enter the war, he was pressured into it.

The Republicans position prior to WWII was isolationism, which is far different from what they did after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Heck, Roosevelt's opponent in '44 Wilkie stated that he was not going to challenge Roosevelt's conduct of the war because that was counter productive, and I agree with him.

Somalia and Bosnia were different in that the Repubs never wanted in to begin with. In Iraq, the Dems with a few dissenters decided to go into Iraq and have now decided that they don't want to do so, and that their previous vote was a mistake.

My whole point about the Civil War is that it seems like the Dems are always the ones that think things are getting to hairy, and let's just be friends and bail when the going gets tough.

The interesting parallel between the Civil War and now is that we have fought both wars incorrectly. During the Civil War we needed to bleed the south. Sherman was right, we needed to make "Georgia howl" to break the will of those fighting and to cut off supplies to the armies. Grant kept hanging onto Lee once he had him to take advantage of the North's advantages. It wasn't until 4 years in that we hit upon the right strategy and pursued it. The heck of it is, the politicians and the civilians didn't like what Grant did, but it needed to be done.

In Iraq, we are not taking advantage of our situation. We have more troops to send in, we have the resources to seal the border, but we haven't done so. We need to do it, and gird ourselves for the long haul. If we're not willing to do so, I agree we need to get out, but things will be a whole heck of a lot worse if we do so.

[Warhammer]

Ah, so it was the left wing of American politics that forced Richard Nixon to pull us out of Vietnam. Got it. Never realized the left wing was so powerful.

Once you realize that Nixon was a political animal and did much of what he did to hold on to power, it makes a lot of sense. If you are running against an Anti-War candidate like McGovern and say that you are going to pull out, you kind of take the wind out of their sails.

[flere-imsaho]

My whole point about the Civil War is that it seems like the Dems are always the ones that think things are getting to hairy, and let's just be friends and bail when the going gets tough.

Your "whole point" is easily disproved. Did Democrats do this during World War II? Didn't you earlier cite Democratic support for Bosnia? Fact is, when Clinton was President, Republicans wanted to cut and run from any military engagement.

I don't remember JFK & Johnson bailing when the going got tough. In fact, it was Nixon, in 1968, who ran on a platform of "Peace with Honor."

Again, all you're doing is trying to perpetuate a partisan smear. Reality is considerably less black-and-white than you'd like it to be.

[Fighter of Foo]

To answer the original question, the republicans cost themselves the election by being retarded. Many examples in this thread alone.

[flere-imsaho]

Once you realize that Nixon was a political animal and did much of what he did to hold on to power, it makes a lot of sense. If you are running against an Anti-War candidate like McGovern and say that you are going to pull out, you kind of take the wind out of their sails.

I think you'll find that in 1968 Nixon was running against Hubert Humphrey, not McGovern.

[Warhammer]

Your "whole point" is easily disproved. Did Democrats do this during World War II? Didn't you earlier cite Democratic support for Bosnia? Fact is, when Clinton was President, Republicans wanted to cut and run from any military engagement.

I don't remember JFK & Johnson bailing when the going got tough. In fact, it was Nixon, in 1968, who ran on a platform of "Peace with Honor."

Again, all you're doing is trying to perpetuate a partisan smear. Reality is considerably less black-and-white than you'd like it to be.

Actually, I agree with Kennedy's and Johnson's foreign policy. I disagree with Johnson's social programs, but during that era there was a big disconnect with Washington dems and those around the country. Nixon ran on "Peace with Honor" but if memory serves he didn't really do much until '72 when he was running against McGovern.

In your haste to bash my view, you're missing a nuance in my point. In Somalia and Bosnia, the Republicans didn't want to go in to begin with. In the Civil War and Iraq (and yes I realize that things are different between the dems then and now), the Dems both wanted to get in the war when it was expedient, but once things got hot, they wanted to bail. That is different than what the Republicans did in Bosnia and Somalia.

I'll give you that Republicans were isolationist in the '30s, but they rallied behind Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor. In WWI, not only they but also Wilson was against entry into the war. You had a wave of hysteria that pushed the country into the war then.

[Warhammer]

To answer the original question, the republicans cost themselves the election by being retarded. Many examples in this thread alone.

Hell, I'll take that one step further, Bush has really screwed the pooch with his conduct of the war in Iraq.

[flere-imsaho]

OK, so your point is that Republicans don't change their stances on wars, except when they do, but this is only the result of careful reflection, whilst Democrats rush into wars whenever they can, and later regret it, except for when they don't, but this is only when they're in line with a superior Republican viewpoint. Gotcha.

You know, you could have saved us a lot of time if you just came out and said "My opinion is that Democrats are fickle little children and Republicans are insightful adults."

[Dutch]

You don't find it possible that Libertarians, who are greatly defined by the value they place on personal and civil liberties, might take issue with a party that controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches of government passing legislation that encroaches upon these rights?

I would hope they would at least equally find issue with a party that continuously makes voting mistakes.

[flere-imsaho]

I would hope they would at least equally find issue with a party that continuously makes voting mistakes.

By blaming Republicans, they're doing that as well. Two birds with one stone and all that.

[Warhammer]

OK, so your point is that Republicans don't change their stances on wars, except when they do, but this is only the result of careful reflection, whilst Democrats rush into wars whenever they can, and later regret it, except for when they don't, but this is only when they're in line with a superior Republican viewpoint. Gotcha.

You know, you could have saved us a lot of time if you just came out and said "My opinion is that Democrats are fickle little children and Republicans are insightful adults."

Uh no. Point out to me when the Republicans changed their mind. Somalia and Bosnia they did not change their mind, they didn't want to go from the beginning. Although the Democrats are little children does make a lot of sense, I think I'll have to explore that more.

[bronconick]

As something of a Libertarian, I wanted the Dems to take control of Congress to create gridlock. Since neither party even pretends to want smaller government, the best I can now hope for is gridlock and having them snipe at each other instead of passing new insipid laws.

[Buccaneer]

As something of a Libertarian, I wanted the Dems to take control of Congress to create gridlock. Since neither party even pretends to want smaller government, the best I can now hope for is gridlock and having them snipe at each other instead of passing new insipid laws.

Only if the Senate delays or shoots down most of the crap that the House is passing. Hearing "House version has to reconcile with the Senate version" is a good thing to hear, but not by much.

As far as the rest of the discussion, I ain't in the mood.

[Glengoyne]

Your "whole point" is easily disproved. Did Democrats do this during World War II? Didn't you earlier cite Democratic support for Bosnia? Fact is, when Clinton was President, Republicans wanted to cut and run from any military engagement.

I don't remember JFK & Johnson bailing when the going got tough. In fact, it was Nixon, in 1968, who ran on a platform of "Peace with Honor."

Again, all you're doing is trying to perpetuate a partisan smear. Reality is considerably less black-and-white than you'd like it to be.

This is true. Rarely do I agree so readilly with Flere. I was arguing with Republicans about Kosovo, and arguing with Democrats about Iraq. I guess my handle should be 'Warmonger', as I'm all about foreign entanglements.

[Fighter of Foo]

As something of a Libertarian, I wanted the Dems to take control of Congress to create gridlock. Since neither party even pretends to want smaller government, the best I can now hope for is gridlock and having them snipe at each other instead of passing new insipid laws.

This is how I decide how to vote every year. Unfortunately, I live in a one party state, so it usually doesn't do much good :(