LP.org: Introducing Sid Daoud

Posted at LP.org:

Dear Libertarian,

Allow me a few minutes to tell you about one of our best shots at winning a state house seat this year:

Sid Daoud is running for Montana State House, District 8.

  • This is a two-way race between Sid and a Republican.
  • There is no incumbent.
  • The win number is 2,267!
  • Sid is a 12-year Army veteran.
  • He and his wife of 28 years have 3 children.
  • Sid had good name recognition in his community before this campaign even began.
  • Sid is a very active member of his community.
  • Montanans for Limited Government picked him as the candidate to support, and not his Republican opponent.
  • The Montana Shooting Sports Association (much more influential than the NRA in Montana and the source for most of the 2nd Amendment supporting legislation) endorsed him over his Republican opponent.

One of the national party’s two field teams is helping Sid’s campaign right now.

To date, our field teams, Sid, and the rest of his campaign team, have knocked on 3,216 doors! They finished their first round through the district and are now knocking on doors a second time.

Sid says,

“The help of the field teams has been priceless. They tirelessly bring a successful method, expertise and enthusiasm that is remarkable and I am seeing the leap in positive results for my campaign. Additionally, they are all just great people, the kind that you seek as long-lasting friends! Thanks to all who have given to the national party to make this possible!”

At this point, it is a sprint to the finish line…Election Day!

Would you please help us help candidates like Sid in these critical final days?

As always, thank you for your support!

Alex Merced
Vice Chair, Libertarian National Committee

5 thoughts on “LP.org: Introducing Sid Daoud

  1. ele

    Regarding the MSSA endorsement . What if a Republican was running? “A note about Libertarian Party (LP) candidates for U.S. Senate and U.S. House. A pair of stellar candidates have filed for these federal offices under the LP banner. They returned great MSSA Candidate Questionnaires. They are savvy, dedicated, and understand RKBA issues. However and unfortunately, they are not going to get elected. Also unfortunately, LP candidates almost always affect such races as spoilers (unintentionally), and just siphon off enough votes to insure that the anti-liberty, anti-RKBA candidate gets elected. That has happened far too many times in Montana. Although it is unpleasant to do so, MSSA makes the STRONG recommendation that voters concerned about the RKBA vote for the candidates MSSA has endorsed in BOLD above. These MSSA-endorsed candidates are proven advocates for the RKBA and are very likely to win their respective seats if gun owners support them.
    This attitude sucks!!!!!! I’m sick of it and who ever these “groups” are should be criticized for their “great, stellar, …but” opinion or 1/2 ass endorsement!

  2. Jim

    The two Republicans for federal office were given the same ‘A’ grade as the Libertarians. So they went with the Republicans because they were more likely to get elected.

    But it says about their state legislative endorsements: “what was said above about LP candidates for federal office does not apply to the two LP candidates endorsed below.”

    One of the endorsed Libertarians only had a Democratic opponent with an ‘F’ rating. Sid Daoud’s Republican opponent has a ‘C’ rating.

    Sid Daoud was straight up given their endorsement over the Republican.

    The one Libertarian they endorsed for for state legislature in 2016 had both a Republican and Democratic opponent.

    This doesn’t seem to be the group to criticize for failing to endorse ‘A’ rated Libertarians over lesser rated Rs and Ds.

  3. Shane

    In 2006 and LP candidate handed a senate seat over to Jon Tester. Old Montana political types are still upset over that.

    The Democrats gained enough seats that year to take the Majority. LP candidates are arguably responsible for two of those races and a party member running as a Green spoiled a third race.

    The move gridlocked Bush in his lame duck years — gridlock is generally good for liberty.

    The reality is we do spoil races. Not only do we spoil but we have the sole ability to pick the winner in most races within four points. That’s powerful and we need to start wielding it.

    A good response to the MSSA would be to call them up and ask them who they want to see lose in two years. If they show more respect to LP candidates then we’ll help out with an aligned interest in 2020. If not — we run a right Libertarian against their favorite guy and make him look like Dianne Fienstien on 2A.

  4. paulie Post author

    A lot of the “spoiler” arguments only work if we assume that LP candidates pull wholly or overwhelmingly from Rapublicans, but what empiricial data I’ve seen, from different states in different years, tends to show that we pull roughly equally from both wings of the DnR bird of prey and empower a lot of people who would stay home rather than vote for either of them.

    I agree that gridlock is a relatively good thing, better than one half of the DnR duopoly having sole control.

    I also agree that we can use the perception that we can swing races to our advantage.

  5. Jim

    You guys are barking up the wrong tree here. The MSSA endorsements are almost always based on their candidate questionnaire or voting records. They have repeatedly endorsed higher rated Libertarians over lower rated Republicans, including this year with Sid Daoud. Often they use R/D status as a tiebreaker, although a few times when both candidates have an A rating they have either withheld endorsing either candidate or endorsed them both.

    And they have endorsed Libertarians for federal office in the past. In 2002 the Republican for US House had a C rating and the Libertarian an A, they went with the Libertarian. They also co-endorsed both the Republican and the Libertarian for US Senate that year because they both had A ratings.

    Since 1992, the only time the MSSA has endorsed an Republican with a lower rating than a Libertarian was for Governor in 2004. I just don’t see the point of getting all upset about one election 14 years ago when there are far worse organizations to criticize for refusing to endorse ideologically compatible libertarians.

Leave a Reply

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