Several blogs that cover politics and election law have linked to this New York Times story about Joseph Kennedy, the Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate in the January 19, 2010 special election in Massachusetts.
In my memory, the New York Times has never before devoted so much space to any Libertarian candidate for either house of Congress, in the entire history of the Libertarian Party. Libertarian Party candidates for U.S. Senate have held the balance of power in U.S. Senate elections in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2006, and 2008, but one would never know this from reading the New York Times, which generally never mentions Libertarian Party candidates for office other than President.
These prior Libertarian U.S. Senate candidates were: in 1998, Michael Cloud in Nevada; in 2000, Jeff Jared in Washington; in 2002, Kurt Evans in South Dakota; in 2006, Stan Jones in Montana; and in 2008, Charles Aldrich in Minnesota (the 2008 instance also featured an even larger effect by an Independence Party nominee).
If Skyler had listened to me instead of patronizing me & hired me as special consultant as requested… & Gravel won LP nomination…& got Ruwart vp…& ran a PLAS campaign…what would YOU have done?
You can be against me if you want. But at the cost of SOMEBODY third party/independent actually winning?
You seem more interested in badmouthing me than looking at real numbers.
“IMHO, Kennedy made a mistake in the Times article by referring to some voters being uninformed and voting for him.”
There might be a few of those, but realistically not very many. Those people will not be voting this time.
““Tea Baggers” not being aware of Brown’s repulsive record ”
Better known as BrownBaggers. See UrbanDictionary.com if you have a strong stomach.
A simplistic analysis of TR vote. He got about half the republican vote which caused Taft to lose. He got about mid single digits from the dem, as did Debs the socialist. But that still left 42% for PLURALITY. But overwhelming victory in Electoral College. PLURALITY is KEY. Lib bloc +Green bloc COULD get plurality 40%. Why can’t you see this?
Tom, real numbers you want? Not just Cato research/ What about 6% for the Green in the CA special election? Heavily republican district outregisteringb dems by 10%. The Green presidential ticket couldn’t dream of getting 6%. Neither could the Lib. Barr polled much more than the ouitcome also. Libs & Green usually presidential @1% if that. Also Nader. The actual result is always much lower than the poll. Yet 6%. Where did those real votes come from? Could it come from a potential bloc of up to 27%? Yes! & Taylor Bryant in GA 9%. Could it be a potential bloc of 13%? Yes! If nothing else Ron Paul proved Cato numbers. 13% is a significant BLOC but not enough to win a single republican primary. % TR. 27% Progressive arty. A “new” party. Actually the progressive BLOC was there the whole time & still is.
IMHO, Kennedy made a mistake in the Times article by referring to some voters being uninformed and voting for him.
The only uninformed voters are so called “Tea Baggers” not being aware of Brown’s repulsive record or democrats being unaware of Coakley’s ugly involvement with the McMartin Pre-School scandal.
And neither article attempted to clear up these issues.
PEACE
Read the two articles.
Compare and contrast.
Then think about why a Republican-connected outfit like FOX covers it one way and a Democrat-connected outfit like NYT covers it another.
These aren’t cub reporters and editors. They know exactly what they are doing.
Thanks for missing the point completely. Compare the tone of the Fox and NYT stories. The people who are actually likely to get off their butts and vote in a special election…etc.
You didn’t make that point, nor any point in your previous post. You only said to compare the articles.
It’s natural to “miss” a point that was never made. Was I supposed to read your mind?
Somehow I doubt that most Mass voters are reading the NY Times. They own the Boston Globe nowadays.
Thanks for missing the point completely.
Compare the tone of the Fox and NYT stories.
The people who are actually likely to get off their butts and vote in a special election, in New England, with only one race and no ballot questions for the voters, in the winter, aren’t going to do so based on name confusion. NY Times editors know this.
The progressive votes leaning towards Joe are based on issues, not name confusion.
The war, marijuana, gay marriage, overzealous law enforcement (especially against victimless crimes)…there are numerous reasons for progressive voters to support Joe over Martha Coakley.
In fact, the NY times acknowledges this, whereas Fox doesn’t.
Actually, the NY Times piece was very balanced.
That in no way contradicts my theory.
Some people fear that voters are confusing Kennedy with the Democratic family.
So long as the NYT’s article makes clear that (1) Kennedy is unrelated to the family, and (2) that Kennedy is libertarian, rather than progressive, then the NYT has succeeded in making Kennedy less likely to take votes from the Dems, and more likely to take votes from the GOP.
That was the goal. A “balanced” article achieves that goal as easily as an “unbalanced” article.
Compare and contrast
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/politics/15massachusetts.html
vs
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/15/insurgent-candidates-help-race-kennedys-seat/
How do *you* explain the difference in tone?
Actually, the NY Times piece was very balanced. Compare it with the Fox News story and consider why the two sides are giving it the spin they are.
If you went with conventional wisdom, you would expect the opposite.
“the New York Times has never before devoted so much space to any Libertarian candidate for either house of Congress, in the entire history of the Libertarian Party.
I’m guessing the NYT fears that many Dems will mistakenly vote for Kennedy. So the NYT is giving Dems a heads up warning, while simultaneously enticing right-wingers to abandon Brown.
This is not a sign of the LP’s growth as a party, or its efforts, or Kennedy’s efforts.
Bob,
Of course I know that all the hoopla on IPR isn’t going to make much difference in the outcome. That’s not IPR’s purpose.
As far as calling for a “try” of PLAS, sure. I hereby call for a try of PLAS the instant you get your head out of your ass and outline a version of it that’s relevant to the real world.
correction-6% for the Green in CA.
Tom, you are one of the worst offenders. You should know that all this hoopla on IPR isn’t going to make much difference in the outcome. The lib is gonna lose. Low to mid single digits. The recent result of 9% for the Green in the special election in CA merely doubles the lib. That is because there is about twice as many voters in the Green bloc @27% as the libertarian bloc, @13%. Why don’t you call for a TRY of PLAS? The PLAS Experiment. You are just contributing to the chaos.
“in 2006, Stan Jones in Montana”
… and Frank Gilmour in Missouri.
What a colossal waste of an opportunity for a PLAS try and possible victory. All this publicity will not make any significant difference in the libertarian’s polling. Might even drive it down due to intensified pressure on voters to choose one of the 2 evils rather than throw the vote away on a sure loser. What a colossal waste.