A new Rasmussen survey of public opinion in Massachusetts ahead of the January 19th special election for US Senate fails to include any mention of independent libertarian candidate Joe Kennedy, who qualified for ballot access late last year. Instead the organization prompts likely voters to choose between Democrat Martha Coakley, Republican Scott Brown and “some other candidate.”
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Coakley ahead of Brown 50% to 41%. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.
How is it that nobody here managed to correct ‘Joanne’ about Glenn Beck? Not only is Beck NOT a member of the LP, Beck is NOT a g-damn libertarian.
Seriously.
Joanne’s mindset is the problem with the political system in this country. People continue to be influenced by the media and continue to believe that there is no hope for any other party than democratic/republican. I urge my fellow citizens to vote with your heart next time around. If all voted for the party’s whose ideals closely match our own, there’s no doubt in my mind that a Libertarian would be our next president.
Joanne – if you think the Republicans are generally the closest to the libertarians then I suggest you need to get informed about what a libertarian is (or what Republicans really do).
This is interesting. I actually wrote a post about this topic at RedState.com a few days ago – and was quickly banned from the site. You can view the original post (and attacks) here: “Joe Kennedy siphons votes from Coakley, NOT Brown” http://www.redstate.com/profg/2010/01/03/joe-kennedy/
You can also read RedState’s Erick Erickson’s reply, and my in-depth rebuttal, on my Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=236313904473
there’s no pretending involved. Most voters don’t know that there are more than two parties available. That’s because the media and polls don’t include them. As a third party activist I often get a blank look on many people’s faces when I mention a candidate outside the two-party system. The funny thing is that both the Democrats and Republicans have been steadily losing registered voters. The fastest growing group is classified as “Decline to State” which reached approx. 20% of the registered base in CA in 2009.
Good point, Mr. Linnabary!
But, this is not a typical election. The electorate is pretty p.o.’d, and I’d say Kennedy has a good chance of winning this race. That said, with so much at stake for our country, I would like to see the republicans, at some point, come together and back the Libertarian candidate. I would also give the republicans some much needed respect and credibility.
PEACE
BTW I’m not a Nader guy but he makes some good points here…
These are also good
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-triumph.html
J0anne–
How many more chances do you want Republicans to have to ruin this country? Seriously.
This concern above all else that someone might give poor people “something they don’t deserve” — oh, by the way, how can we help the tycoons on Wall Street ’cause they’re really struggling — needs to stop.
Rasmussen is deserving of our contempt and scorn.
They are mere shills for the tyrannical status quo, and should never be taken seriously.
This isn’t surprising. Rasmussen Reports has a history of ignoring third parties, even in two-way races where they’re the only other choice. I think it’s something in the air in their office that causes brain damage.
Did you follow the links, Joanne?
Give them a look and tell me what you think.
They are really worth a read.
As far as the question as to why some libertarians ally with the Republicans, it is somewhat complicated, but after you get through with the other links @ 13 you should read
http://mises.org/story/2099
Rather lengthy, but well worth it.
But, Darcy, if Martha Coakley wins, who suffers at the ballot box exactly? Who suffers if the Democrats in the senate keep a 60 vote majority?
From what I understand, Coakley is the one who has insisted that Joe be included at the debates. Now, if this was a typical election, it’s a smart move on her part to have him there (and he certainly should be there as far as I’m concerned).
But, this is not a typical election. The electorate is pretty p.o.’d, and I’d say Brown has a good chance of winning this race. That said, with so much at stake for our country, I would like to see the Libertarians, at some point, come together and back the Republican candidate. I would also give the Libertarians some much needed respect and credibility.
And to Libervention Price Club:
Riddle me this Batman, then why do Libertarians run in primaries against Republicans? Why do Libertarians run as “libertarian Republicans”? How about Ron Paul? Which party does he belong to now? Or his son, Rand? Which party does he belong to? Why is Martha Coakley demanding that Joe participate in the debates? Out of her superior sense of fair play and honor?
While I have no doubt there are recovering Democrats in the Libertarian party (Glenn Beck), the proof, as they say, is pretty much in the pudding.
Also, your answer to my question was pretty snotty, unlike the adult responses generously given by other posters. Admire yourself much?
There’s a socialist onslaught? Sign me up!
Seriously, Joanne, the last time I looked Wall Street and the same privileged interests were still calling the shots in D.C., like they have in virtually every previous administration, Democratic and Republican alike.
In fact, Wall Street is partying like never before, thanks to a bailout-inspired 67% surge in the Dow since the depth of this financial crisis in the autumn of ’08 when George W. Bush — you know, the bumbling blunderer whose amaurosis-plagued administration didn’t see this crisis coming until literally forty-eight hours before it happened — was still occupying the White House.
While the investor class, pampered and protected from pain by both major parties, enjoys this unprecedented “jobless prosperity,” millions of ordinary working and middle-class Americans — those whose children and grandchildren will be paying for the federal bailout and Ben Bernanke’s multi-trillion dollar Federal Reserve generosity — have lost their jobs or have seen their hours, wages and benefits cut drastically.
The GOP certainly isn’t without culpability in this economic crisis, one in which a dozen states are now facing fiscal calamity. Not to be too doom-and-gloom about it, but things are probably going to get a lot worse before they get better. You might want to look up the definition of Kondratiev Winter.
In short, Joanne, both parties created this mammoth mess and both parties should pay the ultimate price at the ballot box…
Joanne,
Your query suffers from the false presumption that most Republican politicians are closer to libertarian ideals than most Democratic politicians are.
See:
http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/812
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/12/bill-redpath-don%e2%80%99t-waste-your-vote-vote-democratic/ (and comments)
http://marketliberal.org/LP/Docs/2006%20LeftvsRight.pdf
In regards to this particular race see
http://www.rightcondition.com/2009/12/examining-candidates-for-ma-senate-2010.html
In fact, after reviewing that evidence, Tom Knapp was forced to conclude that Martga Brown and Scott Coakley…er, excuse me, Martha Coakley and Scott Brown…are actually the same person!
See
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2010/01/another-massachusets-mystery-solved.html
Joanne, you are a socialist too, as are all Democrats, Republicans and libertarians. Everyone currently involved in politics besides myself, is a socialist because you support some sort of reform that has happened in the past 500 years. The only true conservative, anti-socialist government, is feudalist monarchy, such as that practiced in midieval Catholic Europe.
Joanne, in this race Scott Brown hardly represents libertarianism. He is in favor of the Massachusetts health care system, pro- Afghanistan war, and some other tidbits. He is a more big-govt Republican.
Both Republicans and Democrats have really REALLY low approval ratings nationwide. The problem is breaking the mindset that these parties are the only ones allowed to win. Without us stepping up and voting for third party candidates, we will never be able to throw a wrench in the cycle.
As someone who has been very interested in the Libertarian party, I still cannot reconcile the fact that voting for Libertarian or Independent candidates inevitably gets the Democrat elected.
This has happened time and again, and I’m very afraid that Libertarians and Independents will not join together to support the candidate (usually a Republican) who more closely represents L/I ideals.
Especially with the socialist onslaught being inflicted by the Democrats in congress, at what point will Libertarians support the Republican candidate in 2010 and beyond?
Please view my statements and question as honest – I am not here to criticize, I genuinely want to know your thoughts on this.
Sometimes you have to create your own news, even if it takes a little tongue-in-cheek humor.
During the 1968 Republican primary in Wisconsin, perennial presidential candidate Harold E. Stassen released the results of an internal poll showing that he was favored by 57% of those surveyed. The former Minnesota governor, who had only garnered 429 votes in the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary a few weeks earlier, was a decided underdog against GOP frontrunner Richard Nixon in the state’s April 2 primary.
When pressed by skeptical reporters, Stassen, who was running for President for the fifth time and desperate for media attention, admitted that the poll had been conducted at one of his own campaign rallies. In other words, 43 percent of his own supporters weren’t even sure they were going to vote for him. The normally-jaded Wisconsin press corps found the story so funny that it was carried in most of the state’s newspapers the following day.
Humor can go a long way…
@4
There haven’t been ‘many polls’ of the general election. In fact, Rasmussen is more or less it. Bob Underwood got 3.1% in 2008 against Kerry and Ogonowski.
I read a really funny blog post from last year about whether it made sense to include Ralph Nader or Bob Barr in polls, from a person who conducts polls. They were asking it like for some reason the poll shouldn’t just reflect the general election ballot. I guess they like the power trip of deciding who we’re allowed to vote for…
A wag I know says that the LP could achieve far better vote totals by simply having every candidate change his name to Mickey or Minnie Mouse.
This is a classic Catch 22 situation. In a typical poll, the LP candidate’s name would not even be known because there would have been little or no free or paid publicity. Because Rasmussen isn’t fooled by a candidate named Joe Kennedy, he isn’t going to help perpetrate a fraud on the public just so we can brag that, say, 10% of Mass. voters want a Libertarian .Perhaps the LP should pay for its own independent poll and publicize results if we think exclusion from polls drives away substantial numbers of voters.
Ben, I’ve looked into that question before with Rasmussen polls and have found in the past that respondents are actually prompted with the choices “Democrat X”, “Republican Y” and “some other candidate.” This seems to be the case here too judging from the “survey questions and toplines” page.
I think Joe Kennedy will do between 2-3%. I believe that the name Kennedy will trick, or confuse, some people. But I don’t believe he has raised enough money to really gain that last 2 week push.
Unlike Daggett, Kennedy has not been included on many of the polls, but the MA media is much cheaper than NY/PA. I would say that Kennedy should run again and then that would be a competitive race… or at least much closer.
It doesn’t say that voters were given a choice of “some other candidate”. It sounds more like voters responded that way unprompted.
It’s kind of dumb to have a poll that doesn’t reproduce the ballot, especially when the name you’re omitting is “joe kennedy”.
And yet I am inclined to maintain that media organizations have a responsibility to do something other than simply reproduce the prejudices of certain demographics.
Funny enough, most voters pretend that libertarians don’t exist either.