Did the Libertarian candidate spoil it in AZ CD9?

[erowe1]

THoughts?

Here are the numbers:
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AZ/42050/112192/Web01/en/summary.html
PARKER, VERNON B. (REP) 103,047
SINEMA, KYRSTEN (DEM) 110,193
GAMMILL, POWELL (LBT) 14,679

Let's suppose the very unlikely hypothesis that if Gammill had not run, then all of his votes would have gone to either the D or the R. Then, it would have needed to be 10,913 of them going to the R, and only 3766 going to the D, in order to say that Gammill cost the R the election. That's a 3-1 preference of the R over the D.

But how many of Gammill's supporters would have sat out if Gammill weren't running. They knew they were voting for someone who wasn't going to win, but they voted for him anyway, presumably out of disgust for the other options. They didn't just look at the three candidates and say, "Eh, I'll hold my nose and vote for the least of three evils." They looked at them and made up their minds that they weren't going to vote for either the R or the D. And most of them still would have done that if Gammill weren't on the ballot.

 

[jllundqu]

Good point. However, traditionally speaking, most Libertarians are fiscally conservative and would vote accordingly.

 

[erowe1]

Good point. However, traditionally speaking, most Libertarians are fiscally conservative and would vote accordingly.

I don't know about that. I didn't support either Romney or Obama, so I just didn't vote for any presidential candidate at all.

People who vote third party usually know full well they're not voting to help someone win. And they know other people will think the candidate of this or that major party is entitled to their votes, and that they'll be blamed for that candidate losing. And they're happy to see that candidate lose.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Sinema is fairly attractive by Congressional standards, and since Parker is a crappy candidate, I'd rather have Sinema in office.

I'm dead serious. I'm not going to waste my time crying over whether some loser Republican doesn't get to have a taxpayer funded retirement from now until forever. While voting for the PATRIOT Act, endless wars, and tons of domestic regulation on top of it.

 

[Acala]

Based on the linked survey, Parker looks like a straight-up neocon. Policing the globe and the bedroom. He talks tough on economics, but doesn't even want to eliminate the Department of Education. Liberty lovers did the right thing in not voting for him.

 

[AJ Antimony]

It's a two way street, to be honest. Yes, it's absolutely true that the Libertarian candidate likely cost Parker the victory. But it's also true that GOP nominated a poor candidate; poor in the sense that a "better" candidate would have been able to unite GOP and libertarian voters. Remember, libertarians have trouble sometimes voting for the Republican candidates. Republicans never have trouble voting for the Republican candidates, no matter who they are. So hopefully next time the GOP will see that nominating strong libertarian-leaning candidates would work in their favor.

But there's a little more to it than that. One poster noted that Libertarians did pretty well across the state in Arizona, especially in the competitive races:
Senate - 4.5%
CD 1 - 6.0%
CD 9 - 6.4%
What these races have in common is that they all were TV ad wars. Lots and lots of negativity. When that happens, the general trend is that some voters get sick of the barrage of ads as well as the negativity and decide to vote 3rd party as a protest vote.

So yes, you can probably say that the Libertarian screwed Republicans in CD9 big time. But at the same time, with a different nominee and with a different ad strategy, the results may have been different--even with a Libertarian on the ballot.

 

[AJ Antimony]

That's assuming those voters would have voted for Parker if the L wasn't on the ballot.

It was close in CD1 too. Paton lost to also-ran Kirkpatrick because his campaign didn't expose her as the corporatist she is, and he's a lobbyist and Iraq war vet (two of the things Americans are most sick of-corporatism and war).

I'm proud of AZ. The LP candidates did better here than in most states. Will the AZ GOP learn their lesson and run more libertarian-leaning candidates? I doubt it.

You're assuming that everyone in Arizona who voted Libertarian was actually libertarian. I don't think that's the case. You bring up all the Ls on the ticket except one, the one at the top of the ticket who was actually an experienced, well-qualified candidate. In Arizona, Johnson got 1.4% of the vote statewide. The Libertarian in the US Senate race got 4.5%. Something doesn't add up.

My theory is that AZ, statewide, is about 2% Libertarian. The congressional races you cited were very competitive and were almost exclusively negative advertising. I think a significant number of NON-libertarians got pissed at the negativity in those races and voted Libertarian as a protest vote. I think that's why the L numbers swelled statewide, especially in the competitive races.

What do you think?

 

[AJ Antimony]

ok, maybe its because most of you only know the GOP party and how it dictates its candidates.
the LP party doesn't dictate its candidates.
often times ,in louisiana, we had LP candidate who were running that were basically hurting our allies. the party bosses of the LP could nothing about it.
we couldn't tell someone they couldn't be libertarian. we couldn't tell someone they couldn't run for an office.

So everyone in this thread who has put out a post blamming the LP for this incident is ignorant.

What are you talking about? In most states, the GOP picks its candidates based on something called a primary election. Anyone can run in a GOP primary. Whoever wants to run for the nomination enters the race, and then GOP voters (and sometimes independents) choose who they want to take on the Democrat. It's really that easy. The party may favor one candidate over the other, but that happens when one candidate can raise money, has a clean background, and knows how to BE a candidate.

I agree with you that the LP isn't necessarily to blame here, but they would likely have a better Representative in CD9 if they never ran a candidate.

 

[jllundqu]

You're assuming that everyone in Arizona who voted Libertarian was actually libertarian. I don't think that's the case. You bring up all the Ls on the ticket except one, the one at the top of the ticket who was actually an experienced, well-qualified candidate. In Arizona, Johnson got 1.4% of the vote statewide. The Libertarian in the US Senate race got 4.5%. Something doesn't add up.

My theory is that AZ, statewide, is about 2% Libertarian. The congressional races you cited were very competitive and were almost exclusively negative advertising. I think a significant number of NON-libertarians got pissed at the negativity in those races and voted Libertarian as a protest vote. I think that's why the L numbers swelled statewide, especially in the competitive races.

What do you think?

I concur with your analysis!

 

[steph3n]

The GOP is a barrel full of rotten apples. They are so moldy and stinky people don't want to touch them. The L party did not impact these races, the GOP lost these races due to their own rotten condition.

 

[AJ Antimony]

Also, keep in mind that the only reason we are talking about this is because the AZ Republicans screwed themselves with redistricting.

Republican governor, super-majority Republican legislature... and the "independent" commission produces a map that creates 3 swing districts.

So yes, we can blame the LP, but Republicans deserve blame too.

And also, keep in mind that this was a minor wave election for the Democrats. Republicans might sweep all 3 of these districts in 2014.

 

[erowe1]

My theory is that AZ, statewide, is about 2% Libertarian. The congressional races you cited were very competitive and were almost exclusively negative advertising. I think a significant number of NON-libertarians got pissed at the negativity in those races and voted Libertarian as a protest vote. I think that's why the L numbers swelled statewide, especially in the competitive races.

What do you think?

We had similar results in Indiana. GJ got about 2% (which is quite high for him). But the LP candidates further down the ballot all did much better than that. And these were races where the R candidate usually had a lot more appeal to libertarians than Romney did. So by that token, one might expect the L in those races to do worse, not better.

But they had a few things going for them that GJ didn't:
1) Despite his credentials, in most of the country, GJ is still unkown.
2) These other candidates were in debates that were viewed by a lot of Indiana voters. Not only did this build up their name recognition, but they often did really impressively.
3) Though they didn't have much funds, the scope of their campaigns were limited to the state or congressional districts. So, whereas GJ didn't do any campaigning here, they all at least did some, including talking to tea party groups, often groups they themselves had some background with already, and a lot of networking on Facebook.

 

[thoughtomator]

A little research shows that Vernon Parker is a neocon war hawk (but I repeat myself), backed by both Bush Sr. and John McCain. Those LP voters would never have cast a ballot for Parker, whether or not an LP candidate was on the ballot.

 

[AJ Antimony]

We had similar results in Indiana. GJ got about 2% (which is quite high for him). But the LP candidates further down the ballot all did much better than that. And these were races where the R candidate usually had a lot more appeal to libertarians than Romney did. So by that token, one might expect the L in those races to do worse, not better.

But they had a few things going for them that GJ didn't:
1) Despite his credentials, in most of the country, GJ is still unkown.
2) These other candidates were in debates that were viewed by a lot of Indiana voters. Not only did this build up their name recognition, but they often did really impressively.
3) Though they didn't have much funds, the scope of their campaigns were limited to the state or congressional districts. So, whereas GJ didn't do any campaigning here, they all at least did some, including talking to tea party groups, often groups they themselves had some background with already, and a lot of networking on Facebook.

I personally think your idea explains some voters for sure. But you're sort of saying that because the local candidates actually go out and campaign, they meet with voters and thus convince them to vote Libertarian.

Now I don't know about you, but I've never met someone who was convinced to vote Libertarian in one race and not in any others. IMO if you completely convince someone to vote Libertarian, they will do so for all races. What do you think?

 

[compromise]

Vernon was an alright candidate. Not a neo-con, but not very libertarian either. Most people who voted L would probably not have supported him.

 

[erowe1]

Now I don't know about you, but I've never met someone who was convinced to vote Libertarian in one race and not in any others. IMO if you completely convince someone to vote Libertarian, they will do so for all races. What do you think?

Yeah, I don't think it's about completely convincing someone to vote libertarian. Politicians get supporters of different levels of commitment for a range of different reasons.

 

[torchbearer]

What are you talking about? In most states, the GOP picks its candidates based on something called a primary election. Anyone can run in a GOP primary. Whoever wants to run for the nomination enters the race, and then GOP voters (and sometimes independents) choose who they want to take on the Democrat. It's really that easy. The party may favor one candidate over the other, but that happens when one candidate can raise money, has a clean background, and knows how to BE a candidate.

I agree with you that the LP isn't necessarily to blame here, but they would likely have a better Representative in CD9 if they never ran a candidate.

I take it you missed the whole GOP convention and stuff...

 

[Kregisen]

The Arizona race I was worried about this in was Flake's. Local attorney Marc Victor (he's helped me with traffic tickets in the past) ran against Flake and almost took my vote, and took the vote of one of my friends (also a supporter of Ron Paul). In the end Flake still won by around 5%, but Victor still took a little from Flake no doubt.

 

[AJ Antimony]

I take it you missed the whole GOP convention and stuff...

We're talking about candidates for office, not delegates. Again, what are you talking about?

 

[torchbearer]

We're talking about candidates for office, not delegates. Again, what are you talking about?

we had an election, ron paul won.
romney got the votes at the convention insead of ron.
The GOP doesn't follow rules to elect their candidates. they just pick them when the votes don't go the way they want.

The LP follows the rules, even when it would benefit them to do otherwise.


One group is criminal, the other is not.

The LP has no control over who gets on the ballot as a libertarian, the GOP has full control.

what are you talking about?