By Sean Sullivan
While Libertarian Party candidates in competitive races have been known to give Republicans heartburn, Sarvis shouldn’t cause Republican Ed Gillespie much anxiety, at least at this point. Any fears the the 2013 gubernatorial contender could spoil Gillespie’s chances are fears about something that simply isn’t likely to happen.
Two reasons: The race doesn’t look very close right now, and Sarvis wasn’t a spoiler in his last run.
For starters, look at how the governor’s race turned out.
While some Republicans groused that Sarvis’s presence on the ballot hurt Ken Cuccinelli II (R) in what ended up being a close race, the reality is it didn’t. Sarvis won 6.5 percent of the vote, which, yes, was more than now-Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s margin over Cuccinelli. But exit poll data show that without Sarvis in the picture, McAuliffe still would have won the race, by nearly the same margin. Most Sarvis voters would have stayed home if he was not on the ballot. This chart tells the story:
Read the full article here.
“In a practical sense, it seems to make more sense to focus on left-libertarian issues right now. The public is almost overwhelmingly with us on some of these issues, more so everyday. Further, there is actual policy progress being made on some issues on the left side of the L spectrum.”
Precisely, which is why it upsets me when LP candidates de-emphasize these issues, ESPECIALLY gay marriage. Huge turnoff to younger voters.
In a practical sense, it seems to make more sense to focus on left-libertarian issues right now. The public is almost overwhelmingly with us on some of these issues, more so everyday. Further, there is actual policy progress being made on some issues on the left side of the L spectrum.
Yep. That one was BS too. Exit polls showed 38% of Perot voters had Bush as their second choice, 38% had Clinton and the rest would not have voted for either one of them no matter what.
Just like the myth that still exists to this day that Ross Perot cost George H.W. Bush the election in ’92.
1) No, he didn’t, there’s NO evidence that he did, and
2) Even if he did, who cares!? The Bushes were both disasters!
The whole idea of the LP as spoilers for Republicans is a false premise. There have been many polls of how the LP affects electoral balance, and we usually vote just as many or more votes away from Democrats as from Reoublicans. Poll after poll in many different elections and lots of different states shows this same result.
There are the older Libertarians who tend to lean to the right, and the younger Libertarians who lean to the left. We’re mostly in agreement in our beliefs, it’s more a matter of what we put the most emphasis on. I care about economic liberty & believe strongly in free market capitalism, but libertarianism to me is about getting government out of our private lives, and promoting peace.
Extra credit for use of NSGOP 🙂
Gary Johnson emphasized left/libertarian issues a lot, too. As does LP facebook, and LP website seems pretty well balanced.
I agree with you. However, in the 6 years that I’ve been involved in the LP, I have definitely seen more emphasis placed on economic issues, where we are more closely aligned with the NSGOP [talking points].
That does seem to be changing though, at least here in VA. And, I like it.
It’s pretty good. However:
“Generally speaking, Libertarian Party candidates hold positions more closely aligned with Republicans than Democrats. And so, the thinking goes, they compete for more voters with the GOP.”<--False premise, we are not more closely aligned with GOP than with Democrats; equidistant from both.
The Post should be commended for writing this fair and reasonable article……even with that part about Sarvis being an afterthought.