Politico: Libertarians could spoil Senate races

Libertarian Senate candidates across the country are doing well enough to warrant a three page article by politico. The claim is that they are spoiling otherwise safe Republican seats and giving them to Democrats. The article goes over many of the different Libertarian candidates for office.

in Montana, Democratic Sen. Jon Tester even said during his last one-on-one debate with GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg that it was “too bad” that Libertarian candidate Dan Cox wasn’t allowed to participate. On Sunday night, the 36-year-old Cox joined in a debate with the two main candidates, using the forum to attack both men for “nibbling around the edges” and failing to uphold their constitutional oaths of office.

“Rehberg didn’t vote for [the economic stimulus bill], but he did vote to raise the debt ceiling,” Cox said at the debate. “What you’re basically saying is, ‘I’m enabling this spending that I didn’t vote for.’ So either way, it’s two sides of the same coin. One guy is voting for it, the other guy is voting to allow it.”

The effect of these longshot, third-party contenders could be most pronounced in Montana and Arizona, which both have strong Libertarian streaks. And they could very well hurt Republicans more than Democrats.

—–

In Montana, the Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling showed Tester with a 2-percentage point lead over Rehberg in a poll last week, with Cox pulling 8 percent of the vote. That same poll found 8 percent of Republicans supported Cox, compared to 15 percent of independents and 1 percent of Democrats.

—–

There’s reason to believe that the Libertarian candidates could draw support from the left, too. Some of their views — such as legalizing marijuana — often appeal to younger, college-age voters.

Read the whole article at Politico: Libertarians could be spoilers in key Senate races
The Libertarian candidates discussed were Jonathan Dine of Missouri, Dan Cox of Montana, and Marc Victor of Arizona.

 

6 thoughts on “Politico: Libertarians could spoil Senate races

  1. Jill Pyeatt

    Some of these articles calling Johnson “spoiler”
    have a vague accusatory tone in them, as if Libertarians should feel bad about it. I, for one, certainly don’t, and it’s just proof that Johnson is starting to get somewhere as far as people noticing him and what he has to say.

  2. Briscoe Ruiz

    I dont think a person should be shamed into voting for a candidate who is not the best candidate. That is morally reprehensible.

    If anything, blame should be placed on the Republicans (or whoever) for not incorporating Libertarian (or whatever) ideology into their platform!

    Voting third party makes a bigger difference than voting first party, because ‘spoiling’ an election can change the entire tone of politics by giving the ‘spoiler’ and his/her ideas political legitimacy.

  3. Matt Cholko

    I don’t give a damn who wins any of these races, but I sure do hope the idiots in the MSM think we effected the outcome. The more the LP is in the news, the better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *