Lucas Overby
On March 11th, a special congressional election was held for the 13th district previously occupied by C.W. “Bill” Young for 43 years prior to his death in October 2013. The race was closely watched nationally, with between the three candidates, Republican David Jolly, Democrat Alex Sink and Lucas Overby televised on CSPAN-3. (Libertarian Party of Florida treasurer Danielle Alexandre claimed that this was the first time in history that a nationally televised congressional debate had included a Libertarian).
Many political commentators said prior to the election that the race was going to be a referendum on Obamacare of sorts and indicated that it could be a good prognosticator of what to expect in November 2014. Several Republicans, including syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved (who has coined the term “Losertarian Party” for the LP and called it a “quasi-religious death cult”) expressed concerns that Overby, a 27 year old commercial truck driver, could cost the Republicans a victory in such a tight race. This concern may have been behind Senator Rand Paul’s decision to do a robocall on behalf of Jolly.
In a March 7th-9th opinion poll, Overby stood at 6% and had polled as high as 12% in February. He raised over $31,000, which included a loan from the national LP to secure ballot access when he fell just shy on the number of required signatures. In the aftermath of his CSPAN debate, 30% of viewers declared him the winner, compared with 37% for Jolly and 33% for Sink. Overby’s campaign volunteers were very active, making calls and going door to door on behalf of the candidate.
Today, Overby issued a post election statement on his Facebook page:
First if all, I want to again thank the thousands of people who honored me with their vote yesterday. To all of you I say this: I swear to stand by all of the efforts we started, all of the ideas we shared, and all of the coalitions we formed. I did not run for office to advance a political career, I got involved for you guys and we fought this fight for you guys. All said and done I regret nothing of this race or the work put into it.
To the hundreds of people who came to me to say this was their first time voting or their first time in years being involved, I say this: Don’t stop here. Please, continue to feel free to contact me at any time with questions and ideas, but nothing will change if you go back to the sidelines. The nation needs you in the fight and it needs you to help pull the 60% of voters we missed back in. This is not a set back, this is another step.
To my team and all of our volunteers all I can say is this: Thank you. From the very bottom of my heart and soul thank you. You carried us to places no one thought possible and while we came up short, your hard work and dedication has inspired your neighbors and show so many who are disillusioned a bright ray of hope, you guys are my heros. It has been nothing but an honor and my deepest pleasure to get the opportunity to work with such an amazing group of people. We will move forward, we will continue to fight for those who have no voice, who feel left out.
My few parting thought on this election are these: First and foremost, I firmly believe that teams win elections and candidates lose them. It is our job as candidates to draw the vote, I didn’t do it and Ms. Sink didn’t do it, Mr. Jolly did. I take full responsibility for the short comings of my results and refuse to blame outside factors. As a third party candidate, I knew full well what the challenges would be, I knew coverage would be hard earned, I knew we would be outspent, but I also knew, and still firmly believe, that the key is reaching those left behind and I simply fell short on that.
Congratulations to Congressman Elect Jolly, I wish you all the best and I hope that you can steadfastly represent your new constituents.
For those asking what my next move is, the honest answer is, I don’t know. Nothing is off the table at this point, but again I didn’t come here to build a political career, I came here because helping people and getting people engaged is my passion. I have a lot to think about and consider, but I promise to remain open and honest with all of you throughout that process.
Again, thank you all so much for all of your support, your honest and open debate, and your passion for our community, our nation, and our world.
This is simply the closing of a chapter, the story is far from over.Lucas Overby
Lucas Overby For Congress
The results (from Wikipedia)
| Florida’s 13th Congressional District special election, 2014 [56] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | |
| Republican | David Jolly | 89,095 | 48.52% | |
| Democratic | Alex Sink | 85,639 | 46.64% | |
| Libertarian | Lucas Overby | 8,893 | 4.84% | |
| Totals | 183,927 | 100% | ||
| Republican hold | ||||
^ That settles it then.
But, Andy, I said it is an absolute fact. You can’t argue an absolute fact.
Don’t forget to add a provision that everyone gets a pony.
I still don’t know why people get so upset about Overby talking about winning. That’s pretty much what all candidates do. The entire point of running for office is to get elected, this is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Realistically, 4.8% is not a bad result. It’s something to build on.
Paulie said: “Plus the whole raising the ballot access barriers thing I mentioned earlier.”
This could be addressed by adding a provision to the initiative that would prevent increasing the ballot access barriers.
“Matt Cholko March 14, 2014 at 8:14 pm
I think Paulie is right that it would reduce the number of alternative party candidates on ballots, as a paper candidacy would become impossible. We can debate whether or not it would be a net positive, but it is an absolute fact that it would result in fewer candidates.”
I disagree. If every candidate who made the ballot was granted a spot in the debates more candidates who want to debate would run for office. I bet that it would improve the quality of the candidates as well, as there are a lot of people who have the potential to be good candidates but who do not run because they do not think that there is any chance that they’d get into the debates.
You debate or you da bait? You decide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl_Y2_HvJZs
I think Paulie is right that it would reduce the number of alternative party candidates on ballots, as a paper candidacy would become impossible. We can debate whether or not it would be a net positive, but it is an absolute fact that it would result in fewer candidates.
Like I said … good luck.
Another problem is that it might intimidate a lot of alt party candidates that are just willing to put their name on the ballot to help their party out into not running. Plus the whole raising the ballot access barriers thing I mentioned earlier.
“paulie March 13, 2014 at 9:46 pm
‘Debates between candidates should be mandatory, and all of the candidates who are on the ballot should be invited. These people are candidates for public office, and their actions in public office effect everyone. Any candidate who refuses to participate in debates against all of the other candidates should be removed from the ballot, and any write in votes for them should not be counted. If one refuses to debate, then they are intellectual cowards, and this alone makes them unfit to hold office.’
Good luck getting a law like that passed.”
I would put this on the ballot as an initiative in the states that have a citizens initiative process via petition if I had the money to do it. I think that if it made the ballot in some state that there is a good chance that it would pass.
FL-13 has been in Republican hands since 1983, when its former Democratic rep was redistricted into the 17th. Since then it has been represented by Republicans Connie Mack, Porter Goss, Dan Miller, Katherine Harris, Vern Buchanan, Bill Young and now David Jolly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_13th_congressional_district
Jose is most likely correct that the Republicans will make gains in November. The 6th year of a president’s stay in office is usually a strong year for the “other” establishment party (never mind that they are really one party behind the scenes, a punch and judy show for the masses by the massas).
Jose, I believe this is just a Republican hold. No gain for those clowns in this case.
Great showing by the Republican candidate. It looks like Republicans are going to have a great November. The Democrats will loose control of the Senate. Thank you Obama!
Good luck getting a law like that passed.
Paulie said: “There’s also nothing that can be done about who nominally private debate sponsors invite. And how would you force the Democrats and Republicans to both participate in the inclusive debates? They could simply refuse.”
I don’t buy into this line of thinking. Debates between candidates should be mandatory, and all of the candidates who are on the ballot should be invited. These people are candidates for public office, and their actions in public office effect everyone. Any candidate who refuses to participate in debates against all of the other candidates should be removed from the ballot, and any write in votes for them should not be counted. If one refuses to debate, then they are intellectual cowards, and this alone makes them unfit to hold office.
Some may make the argument that there are too many candidates, therefore a debate between them would not be manageable. I think that this is bogus. I’ve seen Democrat and Republican primary debates that included 7 or 8 or more candidates, and they were not unmanageable. If a situation ever came where there really was an unmanageable number of candidates, they could have a series of debates where everyone gets to participate at least once. These are all really nothing more than excuses so Democrats and Republicans who are intellectual cowards can weasel out of debating minor party and independent candidates.
Kevin, interesting question…I’d like to know, too.
How did he do in mail ballots versus Election Day?
This is true. However my point was that both the ballot access thresholds and debate thresholds vary widely. There is no set national threshold like 5% or 10% or any other set number.
The only problem with that is that it could cause the easy ballot access states (and really all states) to make ballot access harder.
There’s also nothing that can be done about who nominally private debate sponsors invite. And how would you force the Democrats and Republicans to both participate in the inclusive debates? They could simply refuse.
Can you really tell news stations and newspapers that they are not allowed to cover a joint appearance by the Democrats and Republicans unless others are invited?
There are things you can do such as point out the tax funding that Democrats and Republicans, certain venues and certain news outlets receive. But that doesn’t always work in court either.
“David March 13, 2014 at 6:14 pm
For some ballot access stuff 5 % is the number. Getting into debates these days may require 10% in the polls.’
“paulie March 13, 2014 at 7:03 pm
Ballot access numbers vary widely by state, as do debate thresholds.”
The primary excuse given for not allowing minor party and independent candidates into debates is that these candidates have not shown that they have enough support to be considered serious candidates, so therefore they should not be included in the debates.
I’ve long thought that if a candidate can make it through the ballot access hurdles, which are very difficult in some states, that this should show that they do have support and are serious candidates, and therefore ought to be included in the debates.
Ballot access numbers vary widely by state, as do debate thresholds.
For some ballot access stuff 5 % is the number. Getting into debates these days may require 10% in the polls.
I don’t know if 5% is some magic number, but better results mean we get more of our agenda on the plate, even when we don’t get elected. It may be that few members joined as a direct result of the canvassing, but the in-person contact could pay dividends in the future in many ways. I think more LP campaigns should do this.
I was so glad to be able to vote for Lucas Overby. Since I started voting in 1971 this was the first election for US House of Representatives where there was a Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot. Lucas ran a great campaign and he had a fine group of volunteers contacting voters for him. I congratulate and thank him and them for a fine campaign. When a candidate or party polls over 5% then they become a player in the public mind and in the media’s attention. The more races where we achieve over 5% the more momentum we will build and more people will start to seriously consider us.
It’s starting to become significant enough to force the bigger parties to start making some changes, just like the socialist, progressive and prohibitionist movements did a century ago.
4.8% for a Libertarian Party candidate in a 3 way race is nice, but we as a party and movement are going to have to do a lot more than getting 4.8% here and 6.5% there and 10% here and 20% there and 1% here and .5% there if we are ever going to get anywhere.
This is why I think that it is important for Libertarians to promote outside-of-electoral politics things that people can do to help move the country in the direction of more individual freedom. I’m talking about things like (in no particular order):
1) Jury nullification of victimless crimes.
2) The use of alternative currencies (gold, silver, Bitcoins, Litecoins, etc…).
3) Encourage people to stock up on guns and ammo.
4) Promote home schooling.
5) Teach people how to defend themselves in court against government attacks.
Or
Anything else people can think of that undermines the state.
Agreed.
Someone posted that he spent $45,000. I think 4.8% is a testament to the hard work to all of the campaigning that the volunteers did.
What concerns me though is that even on election day (mid day), Lucas Overby claimed he was going to win by 3 points (according to his own campaign team I’m assuming). Really?
Additionally, I heard that the campaign was only able to get a few LP members.
News Release
March 12, 2014
Florida campaign shows continued growth of Libertarian votes
Lucas Overby for Congress in FloridaLibertarian Lucas Overby won 4.8 percent of the vote in a very tight three-way race for Florida’s 13th congressional district held on March 11, demonstrating continued strong and rising vote totals for Libertarians.
This is an especially high vote total for a Libertarian in a special election, where voter turnout is lower. The boost is attributable in part to an outstanding get-out-the-vote effort on the part of Florida Libertarians.
Libertarians in federal races have typically garnered votes in the low single digits in three-way races against both a Democrat and Republican. Since 2012, however, a number of Libertarian candidates have scored far better, including:
Dan Cox for U.S. Senate in Montana won 6.6 percent
Robert Sarvis for Governor in Virginia won 6.5 percent
Powell Gammill for U.S. House in Arizona won 6.4 percent
Ron Williams for U.S. House in Mississippi won 6.4 percent
Thomas Jefferson for U.S. House in Kansas won 6.2 percent
Jonathan Dine for U.S. Senate in Missouri won 6.1 percent
Thomas Jefferson for U.S. House in Kansas won 5.9 percent
Andrew Horning for U.S. Senate in Indiana won 5.8 percent
Rex Bell for U.S. House in Indiana won 5.8 percent
Kevin Craig for U.S. House in Missouri won 5.2 percent
James Stanczak for U.S. House in Texas won 5.2 percent
Chris Kella for U.S. House in Ohio won 5.2 percent
David Kaiser for U.S. House in Montana won 5.2 percent
Gov. Gary Johnson broke the million-vote barrier for a Libertarian for president in 2012, winning a record 1,275,951 votes.
State Libertarian races also fared well in 2012, including:
Jeremy Walters for state House in South Carolina won 47 percent
Tim Menger for state House in Colorado won 41 percent
Mike Fellows for clerk of the Supreme Court won 43 percent
Republican David Jolly edged out Democrat Alex Sink for the congressional open seat in Florida, winning by under 2 percent and raising speculation as to whether Overby’s presence in the race determined the winner.
Republicans had assumed that the Libertarian would take more votes from their candidate, prompting a Karl Rove PAC to fund robocalls to 20,000 voters urging a vote for Jolly.
However, polling of past Libertarian campaigns coupled with the fact that Overby ran his campaign on a mix of issues that are often associated with both the “left” and the “right” renders any conclusion about his impact uncertain. His campaign promises included tax cuts, spending cuts, a non-interventionist foreign policy, drug legalization, and marriage equality.
Sink, Jolly, and their supporters spent more than $12 million during the campaign, one of the most expensive races for House ever. They saturated the airwaves with attack ads on each other and barraged voters with direct mail and phone calls, which may have boosted the Libertarian vote.
William McConnell, a lifelong Republican, told the Miami Herald that he voted for Overby in response to television ad blitzes that were “packed with lies on both sides.”
An independent voter, Frank Akers, told the Tribune that the onslaught of mail and phone calls — sometimes six or seven in one night — drove him to vote for Overby.
Whether or not Overby’s campaign determined the winner, it is likely that he pulled substantial votes from people who don’t normally vote.
“The Overby campaign is another sign that non-voters, who lean more Libertarian than the general voting population, are giving up their resignation and re-engaging in politics,” said Carla Howell, political director for the Libertarian National Committee. “This bodes well for 2014 Libertarian candidates and the future of the Libertarian Party.”
Visit LP.org to share this release
If the Libertarian Party had candidates on the November ballot in all US House districts, and they averaged 4.8% of the vote in the last election, then the November 2012 total Libertarian vote nationwide for that office would have been 5,871,817 votes. In an election in which the national Democratic vote for US House was about 1,600,000 greater than the national Republican vote, a Libertarian showing of 5,871,817 would shake the nation to the core and cause a big boost in congress for libertarian causes.
This is a GOOD result, in terms of percentage of the vote. Does anyone know how much money he spent?
Ed Thomson ran a good race for governor of Wisconsin back then on the LP ticket and could only get about 12%. Libertarians do have support, but I think voters get more worried about Democrats taxing us to death so they vote for Republicans, who tax us to death. I can remember one election where both two party candidates were liberals and endorsed by the teacher’s unions, yet conservatives still cast their vote for the liberal Republican instead of a good Libertarian candidate.
That’s very good in a close race. In addition to lots of media attention, his campaign supporters did a lot more in person and phone outreach than a typical LP campaign. That’s what LP campaigns should be doing at this stage. Huge numbers don’t just fall out of the sky.
It’s too bad he didn’t perform better. Getting more than the margin of victory is pretty common, it seems to me the bar should be set higher.
On the bright side, Overby did get a lot of media attention:
http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/national-news-tracks-impact-of-libertarian-lucas-overby-on-florida-special-election