Did the Libertarian candidate spoil it in AZ CD9?

[jllundqu]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/hotlineoncall/2012/11/kyrsten-sinema-winner-in-arizona-s-9th-district-12

Vernon Parker, the firebrand african-american conservative and so-called "tea party" candidate lost his bid for congress to Kyrsten Sinema (D) by 3 percent (45% to 48% respectively). The Libertarian candidate, Powell, managed to get 6% of the vote.

Now people in AZ are REALLY pissed at the Libertarian party, claiming they cost a conservative the election.

I know it's been discussed ad nauseum on these forums, but it is my belief that Parker would have been EXPONENTIALLY better for the country and Arizona than the self described "Prada Socialist" Sinema (Who also stated "stay at home moms were leeches" who should go back to work https://www.nrcc.org/video/leeches-az-09-kyrsten-sinema/).

Did the L Party shoot themselves in the foot? We now have a TERRIBLE massive spending-communist elected in CD 9 as opposed to admittedly not perfect, but palatable Vernon Parker. (I think having more black conservatives is a plus.)

Sinema is also the first openly bi-sexual Congresswoman elected... which I actually think is kinda cool, but she still sucks.

I voted for Powell (L) but am now stuck with Sinema and I am wondering if I made the right choice.

The presidential election was easy for me... I sure as F**K didn't vote for Obama or Romney, but this is close to home and would REALLY prefer not to have Sinema as my rep to congress.

THoughts?

[thoughtomator]

I'd say those Republicans have some nerve thinking they own the votes of those who pulled the L lever. They can pull my vote out of my cold, dead hands.

[Origanalist]

I think this is going to be a rising trend. It may be that unlike the presidential race, this race presented a choice, but people are pissed at the repubs and this is only going to happen more.

Somebody needs to WTFU.

[Lucille]

Now people in AZ are REALLY pissed at the Libertarian party, claiming they cost a conservative the election.


Winner K. Sinema Dem 48.3% 108,056
V. Parker GOP 45.2% 101,089
P. Gammill Lib 6.4% 14,361

That's assuming those voters would have voted for Parker if the L wasn't on the ballot.

It was close in CD1 too. Paton lost to also-ran Kirkpatrick because his campaign didn't expose her as the corporatist she is, and he's a lobbyist and Iraq war vet (two of the things Americans are most sick of-corporatism and war).


Winner A. Kirkpatrick Dem 48.6% 116,147
J. Paton GOP 45.4% 108,640
K. Allen Lib 6.0% 14,274

I'm proud of AZ. The LP candidates did better here (http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/11/09/pro-immigrant-republicans-react-to-az-election-results-az-turning-purple/) than in most states. Will the AZ GOP learn their lesson and run more libertarian-leaning candidates? I doubt it.


It is rare for Libertarian candidates anywhere to receive more than 1% of the vote, but in Arizona many Libertarian candidates received well over 1% in competitive three-way races, while the Libertarian presidential candidate received 1.29% in Arizona versus 0.9% nationally. Here are the Libertarian Party unofficial results in competitive three-way races in Arizona from the Arizona Secretary of State web site:
U.S. Senate 4.38%
Congressional District 1 – 5.88% (Republican Jonathon Paton lost to Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick, 48.49% – 45.54% due to Libertarian vote)
Congressional District 3 – 4.37%
Congressional District 4 – 3.7%
Congressional District 6 – 3.29%
Congressional District 9 – 6.35% (Republican Vernon Parker lost to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema, 47.81% – 45.71% due to Libertarian vote)
Legislative District 8 Senator – 4.9% (Republican Joe Ortiz lost to Democrat Barbara McGuire, 48.68% – 46.32% due to Libertarian vote)

[angelatc]

The above are all good points. The LP certainly puts party ahead of principles, but sometimes the Democrats run LP just to siphon off votes.

[Dorfsmith]

They said the same thing about the Arizona CD-1 race.

http://flagliberty.wordpress.com/2012/11/08/myth-ron-paul-supporters-cost-paton-the-election/

[jllundqu]

I stand by my vote for the LP candidates, but knowing that the GOP will never change and accept LP principles i.e. never run mor Libertarian leaning GOP candidates in the future, it would seem we can expect to split the vote and elect dems more often in the future?

I would venture to say that if the Libertarian candidates were not on the ballot, most would definitely vote Repub. That's just my analysis and opinion, but I would say that we split the conservative vote and gave the dems the house seat.

It means little since voting is basically BS anyway, but is this what we have to look forward to? The GOP is too stupid and stubborn to 'widen the tent' so to speak so the vote will be split in a 3-way race...

[Acala]

If the GOP wants the votes of Americans who care about liberty, then I guess the GOP better start acting like it cares about liberty. It really is that simple. It appears that some Americans are fed up with the politics of the lesser evil. About time too.

[mczerone]

That Damn GOP Candidate got enough people to spoil the L's chances; the difference between the L and the winner was less than what the GOP candidate got. So the GOP cost the LP a congressional seat!

[Origanalist]

That Damn GOP Candidate got enough people to spoil the L's chances; the difference between the L and the winner was less than what the GOP candidate got. So the GOP cost the LP a congressional seat!

They need to go away for the good of the country, after all, there can only be two parties!

[dinosaur]

LP is only a spoiler when they run against someone like Amash. They can spoil all they want when it comes to the lesser of two evil candidates.

[torchbearer]

the LP vote never belonged to "them" and wouldn't have voted for "them" anyway... and especially now that 'they' are being lil' bitches.

[eleganz]

If Parker was a liberty candidate (or even just a purist tea party) then its a very very sad thing, in the future we really need to have proper communication channels between liberty, tea party, LP, to hit different districts for maximum effect for both parties trying to make impact.

Stuff like this is truly unacceptable, IF we're all going for the same goals, why step on each others' toes?

If there was a real and authentic reason for the LP to run a candidate vs Parker that we don't know about then that may be the logical explanation.

[torchbearer]

If Parker was a liberty candidate (or even just a purist tea party) then its a very very sad thing, in the future we really need to have proper communication channels between liberty, tea party, LP, to hit different districts for maximum effect for both parties trying to make impact.

Stuff like this is truly unacceptable, IF we're all going for the same goals, why step on each others' toes?

If there was a real and authentic reason for the LP to run a candidate vs Parker that we don't know about then that may be the logical explanation.


ok, maybe its because most of you only know the GOP party and how it dictates its candidates.
the LP party doesn't dictate its candidates.
often times ,in louisiana, we had LP candidate who were running that were basically hurting our allies. the party bosses of the LP could nothing about it.
we couldn't tell someone they couldn't be libertarian. we couldn't tell someone they couldn't run for an office.

So everyone in this thread who has put out a post blamming the LP for this incident is ignorant.

[HOLLYWOOD]

The above are all good points. The LP certainly puts party ahead of principles, but sometimes the Democrats run LP just to siphon off votes.^^^ This is true Democrats did this in Nevada, attempting to push their own Tea Party Troll. We also witness where the Democrats won't support candidates that don't measure up to their Communist platform.

Once again divided we lose, but the relevance of the LP is, they need to reach out to the #GOP and communicate to adopt our principles and issues, or the party of 10 fat men will shrink to a elite few.

[torchbearer]

^^^ they need to reach out to the #GOP and communicate to adopt our principles and issues, or the party of 10 fat men will shrink to a elite few.

the GOP needs to adopt the LP principle and issues.
that is what we've been doing for the last 5 years.
maybe you forget its the LP that gave Ron's campaign its core organizers.

[Lucille]

If Parker was a liberty candidate (or even just a purist tea party) then its a very very sad thing, in the future we really need to have proper communication channels between liberty, tea party, LP, to hit different districts for maximum effect for both parties trying to make impact.

Phoenix Arizona Election Questionnaire for Congress, VERNON B. PARKER
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/2012questionnaires/results.php?id=parkerv

He didn't respond to C4L's: http://www.campaignforliberty.org/surveys/arizona-federal-survey-results/

Paton did, and agreed to every one, which is one reason why I voted for him over the L. Marc Victor got my vote for US Senate.

[Athan]

We now have a TERRIBLE massive spending-communist elected in CD 9 as opposed to admittedly not perfect
Stop right there. Now I don't care about this "tea party" candidate.

[Lucille]

The progs in CD 9 who voted for the white woman over the black man are just racist.

[jllundqu]

That's funny...

It was nice to see the LP Candidates to get such a strong showing. Doubt the GOP will do anything to extend the olive branch to prevent this from happening again, though. So far it has been nothing but vitriol.

[erowe1]

THoughts?

Here are the numbers:
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AZ/42050/112192/Web01/en/summary.html
PARKER, VERNON B. (REP) 103,047
SINEMA, KYRSTEN (DEM) 110,193
GAMMILL, POWELL (LBT) 14,679

Let's suppose the very unlikely hypothesis that if Gammill had not run, then all of his votes would have gone to either the D or the R. Then, it would have needed to be 10,913 of them going to the R, and only 3766 going to the D, in order to say that Gammill cost the R the election. That's a 3-1 preference of the R over the D.

But how many of Gammill's supporters would have sat out if Gammill weren't running. They knew they were voting for someone who wasn't going to win, but they voted for him anyway, presumably out of disgust for the other options. They didn't just look at the three candidates and say, "Eh, I'll hold my nose and vote for the least of three evils." They looked at them and made up their minds that they weren't going to vote for either the R or the D. And most of them still would have done that if Gammill weren't on the ballot.

[jllundqu]

Good point. However, traditionally speaking, most Libertarians are fiscally conservative and would vote accordingly.

[erowe1]

Good point. However, traditionally speaking, most Libertarians are fiscally conservative and would vote accordingly.

I don't know about that. I didn't support either Romney or Obama, so I just didn't vote for any presidential candidate at all.

People who vote third party usually know full well they're not voting to help someone win. And they know other people will think the candidate of this or that major party is entitled to their votes, and that they'll be blamed for that candidate losing. And they're happy to see that candidate lose.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Sinema is fairly attractive by Congressional standards, and since Parker is a crappy candidate, I'd rather have Sinema in office.

I'm dead serious. I'm not going to waste my time crying over whether some loser Republican doesn't get to have a taxpayer funded retirement from now until forever. While voting for the PATRIOT Act, endless wars, and tons of domestic regulation on top of it.

[Acala]

Based on the linked survey, Parker looks like a straight-up neocon. Policing the globe and the bedroom. He talks tough on economics, but doesn't even want to eliminate the Department of Education. Liberty lovers did the right thing in not voting for him.

[AJ Antimony]

It's a two way street, to be honest. Yes, it's absolutely true that the Libertarian candidate likely cost Parker the victory. But it's also true that GOP nominated a poor candidate; poor in the sense that a "better" candidate would have been able to unite GOP and libertarian voters. Remember, libertarians have trouble sometimes voting for the Republican candidates. Republicans never have trouble voting for the Republican candidates, no matter who they are. So hopefully next time the GOP will see that nominating strong libertarian-leaning candidates would work in their favor.

But there's a little more to it than that. One poster noted that Libertarians did pretty well across the state in Arizona, especially in the competitive races:
Senate - 4.5%
CD 1 - 6.0%
CD 9 - 6.4%
What these races have in common is that they all were TV ad wars. Lots and lots of negativity. When that happens, the general trend is that some voters get sick of the barrage of ads as well as the negativity and decide to vote 3rd party as a protest vote.

So yes, you can probably say that the Libertarian screwed Republicans in CD9 big time. But at the same time, with a different nominee and with a different ad strategy, the results may have been different--even with a Libertarian on the ballot.

[AJ Antimony]

That's assuming those voters would have voted for Parker if the L wasn't on the ballot.

It was close in CD1 too. Paton lost to also-ran Kirkpatrick because his campaign didn't expose her as the corporatist she is, and he's a lobbyist and Iraq war vet (two of the things Americans are most sick of-corporatism and war).

I'm proud of AZ. The LP candidates did better here (http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/11/09/pro-immigrant-republicans-react-to-az-election-results-az-turning-purple/) than in most states. Will the AZ GOP learn their lesson and run more libertarian-leaning candidates? I doubt it.

You're assuming that everyone in Arizona who voted Libertarian was actually libertarian. I don't think that's the case. You bring up all the Ls on the ticket except one, the one at the top of the ticket who was actually an experienced, well-qualified candidate. In Arizona, Johnson got 1.4% of the vote statewide. The Libertarian in the US Senate race got 4.5%. Something doesn't add up.

My theory is that AZ, statewide, is about 2% Libertarian. The congressional races you cited were very competitive and were almost exclusively negative advertising. I think a significant number of NON-libertarians got pissed at the negativity in those races and voted Libertarian as a protest vote. I think that's why the L numbers swelled statewide, especially in the competitive races.

What do you think?

[AJ Antimony]

ok, maybe its because most of you only know the GOP party and how it dictates its candidates.
the LP party doesn't dictate its candidates.
often times ,in louisiana, we had LP candidate who were running that were basically hurting our allies. the party bosses of the LP could nothing about it.
we couldn't tell someone they couldn't be libertarian. we couldn't tell someone they couldn't run for an office.

So everyone in this thread who has put out a post blamming the LP for this incident is ignorant.

What are you talking about? In most states, the GOP picks its candidates based on something called a primary election. Anyone can run in a GOP primary. Whoever wants to run for the nomination enters the race, and then GOP voters (and sometimes independents) choose who they want to take on the Democrat. It's really that easy. The party may favor one candidate over the other, but that happens when one candidate can raise money, has a clean background, and knows how to BE a candidate.

I agree with you that the LP isn't necessarily to blame here, but they would likely have a better Representative in CD9 if they never ran a candidate.

[jllundqu]

You're assuming that everyone in Arizona who voted Libertarian was actually libertarian. I don't think that's the case. You bring up all the Ls on the ticket except one, the one at the top of the ticket who was actually an experienced, well-qualified candidate. In Arizona, Johnson got 1.4% of the vote statewide. The Libertarian in the US Senate race got 4.5%. Something doesn't add up.

My theory is that AZ, statewide, is about 2% Libertarian. The congressional races you cited were very competitive and were almost exclusively negative advertising. I think a significant number of NON-libertarians got pissed at the negativity in those races and voted Libertarian as a protest vote. I think that's why the L numbers swelled statewide, especially in the competitive races.

What do you think?

I concur with your analysis! ;)

[steph3n]

The GOP is a barrel full of rotten apples. They are so moldy and stinky people don't want to touch them. The L party did not impact these races, the GOP lost these races due to their own rotten condition.

[AJ Antimony]

Also, keep in mind that the only reason we are talking about this is because the AZ Republicans screwed themselves with redistricting.

Republican governor, super-majority Republican legislature... and the "independent" commission produces a map that creates 3 swing districts.

So yes, we can blame the LP, but Republicans deserve blame too.

And also, keep in mind that this was a minor wave election for the Democrats. Republicans might sweep all 3 of these districts in 2014.

[erowe1]

My theory is that AZ, statewide, is about 2% Libertarian. The congressional races you cited were very competitive and were almost exclusively negative advertising. I think a significant number of NON-libertarians got pissed at the negativity in those races and voted Libertarian as a protest vote. I think that's why the L numbers swelled statewide, especially in the competitive races.

What do you think?

We had similar results in Indiana. GJ got about 2% (which is quite high for him). But the LP candidates further down the ballot all did much better than that. And these were races where the R candidate usually had a lot more appeal to libertarians than Romney did. So by that token, one might expect the L in those races to do worse, not better.

But they had a few things going for them that GJ didn't:
1) Despite his credentials, in most of the country, GJ is still unkown.
2) These other candidates were in debates that were viewed by a lot of Indiana voters. Not only did this build up their name recognition, but they often did really impressively.
3) Though they didn't have much funds, the scope of their campaigns were limited to the state or congressional districts. So, whereas GJ didn't do any campaigning here, they all at least did some, including talking to tea party groups, often groups they themselves had some background with already, and a lot of networking on Facebook.

[thoughtomator]

A little research shows that Vernon Parker is a neocon war hawk (but I repeat myself), backed by both Bush Sr. and John McCain. Those LP voters would never have cast a ballot for Parker, whether or not an LP candidate was on the ballot.

[AJ Antimony]

We had similar results in Indiana. GJ got about 2% (which is quite high for him). But the LP candidates further down the ballot all did much better than that. And these were races where the R candidate usually had a lot more appeal to libertarians than Romney did. So by that token, one might expect the L in those races to do worse, not better.

But they had a few things going for them that GJ didn't:
1) Despite his credentials, in most of the country, GJ is still unkown.
2) These other candidates were in debates that were viewed by a lot of Indiana voters. Not only did this build up their name recognition, but they often did really impressively.
3) Though they didn't have much funds, the scope of their campaigns were limited to the state or congressional districts. So, whereas GJ didn't do any campaigning here, they all at least did some, including talking to tea party groups, often groups they themselves had some background with already, and a lot of networking on Facebook.

I personally think your idea explains some voters for sure. But you're sort of saying that because the local candidates actually go out and campaign, they meet with voters and thus convince them to vote Libertarian.

Now I don't know about you, but I've never met someone who was convinced to vote Libertarian in one race and not in any others. IMO if you completely convince someone to vote Libertarian, they will do so for all races. What do you think?

[compromise]

Vernon was an alright candidate. Not a neo-con, but not very libertarian either. Most people who voted L would probably not have supported him.

[erowe1]

Now I don't know about you, but I've never met someone who was convinced to vote Libertarian in one race and not in any others. IMO if you completely convince someone to vote Libertarian, they will do so for all races. What do you think?

Yeah, I don't think it's about completely convincing someone to vote libertarian. Politicians get supporters of different levels of commitment for a range of different reasons.

[torchbearer]

What are you talking about? In most states, the GOP picks its candidates based on something called a primary election. Anyone can run in a GOP primary. Whoever wants to run for the nomination enters the race, and then GOP voters (and sometimes independents) choose who they want to take on the Democrat. It's really that easy. The party may favor one candidate over the other, but that happens when one candidate can raise money, has a clean background, and knows how to BE a candidate.

I agree with you that the LP isn't necessarily to blame here, but they would likely have a better Representative in CD9 if they never ran a candidate.


I take it you missed the whole GOP convention and stuff...

[Kregisen]

The Arizona race I was worried about this in was Flake's. Local attorney Marc Victor (he's helped me with traffic tickets in the past) ran against Flake and almost took my vote, and took the vote of one of my friends (also a supporter of Ron Paul). In the end Flake still won by around 5%, but Victor still took a little from Flake no doubt.

[AJ Antimony]

I take it you missed the whole GOP convention and stuff...

We're talking about candidates for office, not delegates. Again, what are you talking about?

[torchbearer]

We're talking about candidates for office, not delegates. Again, what are you talking about?


we had an election, ron paul won.
romney got the votes at the convention insead of ron.
The GOP doesn't follow rules to elect their candidates. they just pick them when the votes don't go the way they want.

The LP follows the rules, even when it would benefit them to do otherwise.


One group is criminal, the other is not.

The LP has no control over who gets on the ballot as a libertarian, the GOP has full control.

what are you talking about?

[kylejack]

A candidate is only entitled to the votes he earned. His jobs plan endorses the military-industrial complex. I will not mourn his loss.

[UWDude]

You're assuming that everyone in Arizona who voted Libertarian was actually libertarian. I don't think that's the case. You bring up all the Ls on the ticket except one, the one at the top of the ticket who was actually an experienced, well-qualified candidate. In Arizona, Johnson got 1.4% of the vote statewide. The Libertarian in the US Senate race got 4.5%. Something doesn't add up.

My theory is that AZ, statewide, is about 2% Libertarian. The congressional races you cited were very competitive and were almost exclusively negative advertising. I think a significant number of NON-libertarians got pissed at the negativity in those races and voted Libertarian as a protest vote. I think that's why the L numbers swelled statewide, especially in the competitive races.

What do you think?

Arizona is very Libertarian. There are three other strong Libertarian states: Washington, New Hampshire, and Georgia. I think most of those votes were true Libertarians.

[AJ Antimony]

Arizona is very Libertarian. There are three other strong Libertarian states: Washington, New Hampshire, and Georgia. I think most of those votes were true Libertarians.

Care to explain why you think that? You really think statewide Libertarians in AZ would give GJ 1.4% of the vote, while giving their Senate candidate 4.5? How would you explain the difference?

[AJ Antimony]

we had an election, ron paul won.
romney got the votes at the convention insead of ron.
The GOP doesn't follow rules to elect their candidates. they just pick them when the votes don't go the way they want.

The LP follows the rules, even when it would benefit them to do otherwise.


One group is criminal, the other is not.

The LP has no control over who gets on the ballot as a libertarian, the GOP has full control.

what are you talking about?

LOL Everyone in this thread is talking about congressional elections/elected office, then you out of nowhere bring up conventions and delegates and whatnot. I see what you're trying to say, but in a way it's apples and oranges.

You're saying when the GOP picks delegates the GOP doesn't like, it replaces them willy nilly. Yes, we know. But this is irrelevant as far as this thread goes. When the GOP holds primary elections for public office, they can't replace the eventual nominee. Ever heard the name Todd Akin before?

[torchbearer]

LOL Everyone in this thread is talking about congressional elections/elected office, then you out of nowhere bring up conventions and delegates and whatnot. I see what you're trying to say, but in a way it's apples and oranges.

You're saying when the GOP picks delegates the GOP doesn't like, it replaces them willy nilly. Yes, we know. But this is irrelevant as far as this thread goes. When the GOP holds primary elections for public office, they can't replace the eventual nominee. Ever heard the name Todd Akin before?


I was talking about the difference between the GOP and LP.

[RonPaul101.com]

I know the immediate feeling is that it was a bad move or costly to help elect the Democrat, but long term this was a very good move and we need a lot more of them. Once the average GOP voter realizes they will never be able to elect any GOP candidates who aren't one of "our" candidates, that is when we've won.

To make an omelet, you've got to break some eggs.

[Smart3]

So we cost an Uncle Tom election. What's the problem?

[klamath]

It won't be the first time you question your vote after the fact. What you decide is the best person for your district is YOUR decision.
I actually regret voting for Gary Johnson as all it did was strengthen the proabortionist libertarians and their belief that their way is the way for the RP movement. I won't make that mistake ever again.

[Smart3]

It won't be the first time you question your vote after the fact. What you decide is the best person for your district is YOUR decision.
I actually regret voting for Gary Johnson as all it did was strengthen the proabortionist libertarians and their belief that their way is the way for the RP movement. I won't make that mistake ever again.
If you oppose abortion, then you shouldn't be voting LP. Period.

[klamath]

If you oppose abortion, then you shouldn't be voting LP. Period.
As I said, I won't make that mistake again unless the condidate respects ALL life.

[UWDude]

Care to explain why you think that? You really think statewide Libertarians in AZ would give GJ 1.4% of the vote, while giving their Senate candidate 4.5? How would you explain the difference?

Gary Johnson was distasteful to many libertarians for his stances on Iran.

Arizona is very Libertarian. (compared to most states) and 1.4% is better than most states. The Ron Paul R3VOLution sign and logo was originally designed by Arizonans.

[puppetmaster]

i would blame the loss of the (L) on the republicans

[erowe1]

Gary Johnson was distasteful to many libertarians for his stances on Iran.

Arizona is very Libertarian. (compared to most states) and 1.4% is better than most states. The Ron Paul R3VOLution sign and logo was originally designed by Arizonans.

1.4% is higher than the average, but not by much.

[AJ Antimony]

Gary Johnson was distasteful to many libertarians for his stances on Iran.

Arizona is very Libertarian. (compared to most states) and 1.4% is better than most states. The Ron Paul R3VOLution sign and logo was originally designed by Arizonans.

Riiiight. So if GJ made a single different statement on Iran, he would have polled 4.5% in AZ instead of 1.4%. Oh, and he would have polled at 5% nationally instead of 1%, just like he said he would.

Time for some actual numbers.

As of June 2010 (http://www.azsos.gov/election/voterreg/2010-06-01.pdf), 24,328 out of 3,093,647 registered voters in Arizona were registered Libertarian. That's a whopping 0.8%!

As of October 2012 (http://www.azsos.gov/election/voterreg/Active_Voter_Count.pdf), 22,086 out of 3,124,712 registered voters in Arizona were registered Libertarian. That's 0.7%!

Maybe Arizona is libertarian, but it's certainly not Libertarian.

[Lucille]

You're assuming that everyone in Arizona who voted Libertarian was actually libertarian. I don't think that's the case. You bring up all the Ls on the ticket except one, the one at the top of the ticket who was actually an experienced, well-qualified candidate. In Arizona, Johnson got 1.4% of the vote statewide. The Libertarian in the US Senate race got 4.5%. Something doesn't add up.

My theory is that AZ, statewide, is about 2% Libertarian. The congressional races you cited were very competitive and were almost exclusively negative advertising. I think a significant number of NON-libertarians got pissed at the negativity in those races and voted Libertarian as a protest vote. I think that's why the L numbers swelled statewide, especially in the competitive races.

What do you think?

That piece I quoted did include GJ in the paragraph, but not in its list.

I really couldn't say. Maybe they were more afraid of Romney or Obama than the down-ticket candidates, so they voted for or against Obamney rather than Johnson.

I only know why I voted the way I did. AFAIC, there weren't enough attack ads. I believe Paton could have taken down Kirkpatrick had he exposed her as the corporatist she is, voting YAY! on Barry's Big Fascist Medical System (which she called "uniquely American") which BigIns and BigPharma wrote, and BigAg's Food "Safety" Bill, which both left and right opposed, and Barry's stimulus which also doled out billions in corporate welfare. His EPA is also shutting down and preventing new coal plants all across the rez.

Paton also agreed on every one of C4L's candidate questions, and he could have also attacked her for being a warmonger, a supporter of a dictatorial executive branch which goes to war without the consent of Congress, and assassinates and indefinitely detains American citizens without due process. But they stuck with the ad criticizing her for the few hundred thou in taxpayer money she doled out to her staff after she lost in '10. Woulda, shoulda, coulda!

[Brian4Liberty]

A little research shows that Vernon Parker is a neocon war hawk (but I repeat myself), backed by both Bush Sr. and John McCain. Those LP voters would never have cast a ballot for Parker, whether or not an LP candidate was on the ballot.

In California, the two Parties have fixed it so that there are only two names on the Ballot in the General Election. In some contests, it's two Democrats in the General (which worked out well by eliminating Pete Stark).

I chose to leave some contests blank, instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils, but most people probably felt obliged to vote for one when there were only two choices.

[Lucille]

In California, the two Parties have fixed it so that there are only two names on the Ballot in the General Election. In some contests, it's two Democrats in the General (which worked out well by eliminating Pete Stark).

I chose to leave some contests blank, instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils, but most people probably felt obliged to vote for one when there were only two choices.

Thank God AZ rejected the awful Top Two Primary! I was so afraid that would pass.

[Brian4Liberty]

Thank God AZ rejected the awful Top Two Primary! I was so afraid that would pass.

Lucky for AZ, they had California to tell them how that worked out! There are certainly better options than the top-two Primary.

[UWDude]

Riiiight.

Jesus Christ. Even on the puniest of issues, some of you people don't know how to stop being dicks.

[Lucille]

Lucky for AZ, they had California to tell them how that worked out! There are certainly better options than the top-two Primary.

Is there any hope that that can be over-turned? I read that 3rd parties are trying in WA, but they're not having much success. The state supreme court refused to hear their latest case.

9 8 Libertarian 'Spoilers' in One Handy Chart! [UPDATED]
http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/16/9-libertarian-spoilers-in-one-handy-char


http://media.reason.com/mc/mwelch/2012_11/KosChart.jpg?h=172&w=450

If we apportion the LP votes in the chart along the lines of that 53%-38%-10% split, then–as best as I can calculate–there are no spoilers in the chart above. Obviously, there are reasons to believe that the 53-38-10 formula is flawed, but (unlike the implied 100-0-0 number people sometimes use to divvy up third-party votes), at least it's based on real polling data.
[...]
UPDATE: Scratch Kerry Bentivolito off that Kos list of losing Republicans. As FoxNews.com explains, "On the same day Bentivolio won a two-year seat in the 113th Congress which starts next year, [Democrat David] Curson simultaneously won a special election to finish [outgoing Rep. Thad] McCotter's term during the lame duck session."

[klamath]

Lucky for AZ, they had California to tell them how that worked out! There are certainly better options than the top-two Primary.
That top two vote getters of all parties in the primary was something the independent and third party voters have been bitching for for years. They got it and I think it is going to be just the opposite of what they hoped. For fear of spliting the vote and allowing the less split party to control the races in november party officials and main party voters will pressure the hell out of preceived weaker candidates to drop out and the main party voters won't give the best principaled candidate a vote, only high name recognition established candidates. I think it has very bad unintended consequences.

[Galileo Galilei]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/hotlineoncall/2012/11/kyrsten-sinema-winner-in-arizona-s-9th-district-12

Vernon Parker, the firebrand african-american conservative and so-called "tea party" candidate lost his bid for congress to Kyrsten Sinema (D) by 3 percent (45% to 48% respectively). The Libertarian candidate, Powell, managed to get 6% of the vote.

Now people in AZ are REALLY pissed at the Libertarian party, claiming they cost a conservative the election.

I know it's been discussed ad nauseum on these forums, but it is my belief that Parker would have been EXPONENTIALLY better for the country and Arizona than the self described "Prada Socialist" Sinema (Who also stated "stay at home moms were leeches" who should go back to work https://www.nrcc.org/video/leeches-az-09-kyrsten-sinema/).

Did the L Party shoot themselves in the foot? We now have a TERRIBLE massive spending-communist elected in CD 9 as opposed to admittedly not perfect, but palatable Vernon Parker. (I think having more black conservatives is a plus.)

Sinema is also the first openly bi-sexual Congresswoman elected... which I actually think is kinda cool, but she still sucks.

I voted for Powell (L) but am now stuck with Sinema and I am wondering if I made the right choice.

The presidential election was easy for me... I sure as F**K didn't vote for Obama or Romney, but this is close to home and would REALLY prefer not to have Sinema as my rep to congress.

THoughts?

no, because Libertarian Party candidates draw many independents to the pro-liberty position, but most end up voting GOP.

[UWDude]

Libertarians are libertarians. They are not Democrats, and they are not Republicans. And they often have single issues that they vote on. But one thing is certain, if someone votes third party, they did so because they wanted to vote third party. It takes a lot of will power to ignore the "lesser of two evils" argument, and vote the way you feel is best. Hell, there are people on these boards who voted D or R because they felt one was "slightly better".


no, because Libertarian Party candidates draw many independents to the pro-liberty position, but most end up voting GOP.

Is there any statistical evidence to support this?
I was vice-chairman of my county Libertarian Party for two years. I think you people have some misconceptions about Libertarians.