So how is it that the Republicans managed to win back the Senate, but lose so many governorships? The Libertarians had an awful lot to do with it, siphoning off more votes than the margin of victory in four states won by Democrats, according to lefty weirdo Stirling Newberry:
In Alabama, the difference between Siegelman, Democrat, and Riley, GOP, is 3000 votes. The Libertarian picked up 23,242.
In Wisconson, Doyle, the Democrat, took 45% of the vote, the Republican incumbent took 41% – and the Libertarian took 10%.
Anti-tax candidate Richardson, running as an independent, cost Steve Largent the Governorship in Oklahoma – taking 146,000 votes – when the two major parties were separated by just under 7,000.
In Oregon, we have Ted Kulongoski, Dem 473,424 (48%) Kevin Mannix, GOP 466,778 (47%) Tom Cox, Lib 45,117 (5%)
And two near misses:
In Arizona, Hess, the Libertarian ran 4th with 16,518 votes – while th difference between the two main parties stands at: 17,600.
In Wyoming, the Democrat holds a lead of 5,800 votes. The Libertarian took 3,699.
…which just goes to reinforce the fact that the Libertarian Party is the most destructive force in American politics.
The most destructive force in American politics is the long-standing duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans. The result of their stanglehold of centrist politics is to deprive the electorate of any real choice except the status quo of one dollar, one vote.
Let a thousand political parties bloom and grow. In order to rule, they will have to form coalitions. Even better, they will have to differentiate themselves on important issues (to give the rest of us out here on the lunatic fringe of society a real voice).
Before we can have multiple parties, we need run-off elections. Under the present system, minority parties need to affiliate with a major party and run in the primary, not the general like they do now.
small(l) libertarians like myself think that the libertarian cause is better served by pushing the democratic and republican parties towards the libertarian agendas that come naturally to them.
I was led to believe that Steve Largent self-destructed. Even though the Lib vote is higher than the difference between Largent and his Dem opponent, I don’t think it’s fair to blame that one on the LP. Largent should have spouted obscenities during an election campaign.
JC Watts in 2006!
I’m with you, Suman – the best way for libertarians to advance an agenda is through the Republican Liberty Caucus, that party’s libertarian wing. They can affect the platform, and put up candidates for the primary who stand a realistic chance of winning the general by running under the Reep flag.
The Oklahoma lib ran on a platform to abolish the income tax, and got something like 175,000 votes, while the margin of victory was on the order of 3,000. Looks like the anti-tax guy elected the Democrat to me.
The Republicans would be in control of the U.S. Senate right now, and would have been in control for the past year, if it had not been for this Libertarian factor. In Washington state in 2000, and in Nevada in 1998 (I think), the Republican Senate candidates lost by very small margins, smaller than the total votes of the Libertarian Party candidates.
Earlier this year, when President Bush gave his state of the union address, that was not a bright moment for conservatives and libertarians. Since last spring, many conservative and libertarian groups have been criticizing the Bush Administration for moving away from conservative principles. The Republicans need to move back to the right, or they will keep losing elections.
Update your results for Arizona. The final spread was less than 12,000 votes and the Libertarian drew over 20,000. Moreover, the Independent was strongly libertarian leaning and he drew 85,000 votes.
Official Arizona Election Results