Ohio Libertarian candidates appeal to get names on May ballot

[Statistikhengst]

Ohio Libertarian candidates appeal to get names on May ballot | Reuters

(Reuters) - Libertarian Party candidates for Ohio governor and attorney general are challenging rulings by a Republican secretary of state that would keep their names off the ballot in a state primary in May, attorneys said Monday.

Secretary of State Jon Husted on Friday ordered the names of gubernatorial candidate Charlie Earl and attorney general candidate Steven Linnabary pulled from the ballot...

...The candidates possibly could pull votes from Republican incumbents, Governor John Kasich and Attorney General Mike DeWine, in the November election. Kasich has come under fire from some conservatives for his perceived support of Obamacare by expanding Medicaid in the state.

A hearing officer, Brad Smith, determined that petitioners who gathered signatures for Linnabary and Earl did not follow state requirements that they be registered with the Libertarian party or be unaffiliated voters...

..."They are making it so difficult on circulators to collect," said attorney Mark Brown, who represents the party in the federal challenge. "It is bullying. These are valid signatures but they (Republicans) always find a technicality."...

...In January, U.S. District Judge Michael Watson ruled that Husted could not enforce a new Ohio law approved by the state's Republican-majority legislature that expands requirements for ballot approval.

Watson said the state could not enforce the law in 2014 because it "moves the goal posts in the midst of the game."

Is it possible that the Libertarian vote in a close race in Ohio could tip the scales toward a Democratic nominee for that office? Sure, but it's not guaranteed. And historically, it has not made a difference in the final outcome of close elections in Ohio. Here some examples, from Indiana, Virginia and then, Ohio itself.

In 2008, In neighboring Indiana, Obama picked-up the state and moved it into the Democratic column (for only one cycle):

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&fips=18&f=1&off=0&elect=0

Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate in that year, got 1.06%.

I mentioned this in my analysis of Indiana, way back in 2009:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q-JMUJX-In7weGzPjfgGqVaq_vL3sm-03EAbOrv35ik/edit?usp=sharing

The complaint that Barr (L) ruined it for McCain looks feasable on paper: Barr took 1.06% of the PV in IN, the margin between Obama and McCain was +1.03%. So, if every single Barr voter had gone for McCain, then McCain would have won. The only problem with this is that the Birch society is big in certain counties in IN, and were Barr not on the ballot, then most of those voters would have simply stayed home, either because they are died-in-the-wool libertarians or they were disgruntled republicans who wanted to cast a vote in protest over McCain's having been nominated in the first place. Had Barr not been on the ballot in IN, then the statistics would have shifted slightly, Obama's +28,391 vote margin over McCain would have carried more weight without Barr votes also in the mix and therefore Obama would have surely come over the 50% mark. So, it is more likely than not that the absence of a Barr candidacy in IN would not have shifted the state to McCain, but rather, it would have turned a high minority win for Obama into a lean majority win.

Similarly, in the 2013 Virginia Gubernatorial race (McAuliffe / Cuccinelli / Sarvis):

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2013&fips=51&f=1&off=5&elect=0

Sarvis got more votes than the margin between McAuliffe and Cuccinelli. Only, pre-election polling was showing Sarvis with an average of +10 and he ended up with 6.5%, so a good 3.5% already moved back over to Cuccinelli at the last minute. It is more thank likely that, had Sarvis not run, then the core of that 6.5%, those true Libertarians at heart, would probably not even showed up and McAuliffe would probably have gone somewhat over 50%.

So, the argument that the Libertarian vote can ruin the outcome of a close election for the Republicans is a pretty weak one, I think.

Look at Ron Paul's polling during both the 2008 and 2012 primaries: he was getting around 10%, but that did not even translate into raw votes on the order of 10% when it came to crunch-time. Libertarians more often than not tend to stay home if a true Libertarian is not on the ballot.

In OHIO, here are the Libertarian stats for the last 4 presidential cycles:

2012: Gary Johnson (L) 0.89% (Obama +2.97% over Romney)

2008: Bob Barr (L) 0.35% + Ralph Nader (I) 0.74% : total 1.09% (Obama +4.58% over McCain)

2004:Michael Badnarik 0.26% + Michael Peroutka (Charles Baldwin as running mate) 0.21% - both listed as non-partisan, all three are actually Libertarians and/or Constitution party members (Bush +2.11% over Kerry)

2000: Harry Brown (L) 0.29% + Ralph Nader (I) 2.50% = 2.79% (Bush +3.51% over Gore)

I quote those last four presidential cycles, two in which a Democrat won, two in which a Republican won, to show that in not one of those cases, the Libertarian vote was ever a thread to the Republican winning the state. Even the Libertarian vote + the Nader Factor, had the Libertarian vote gone for the Republican and the Nader vote gone for the Democrat, would have changed the outcome. And those were all single-digit races where the winning margin was less than +5.

The last Ohio Senatorial results:

2012: (Brown / Mandel / Rupert): Rupert +4.60% (Brown +6.00% over Mandel). This is interesting because Rupert was listed as "non-partisan" on the ballot, but called himself a [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvkztB-02Y"]Libertarian-Progressive[/ame]. Also interesting is that Josh Mandel who was the Republican candidate, won the office of Treasurer of the State of Ohio in 2010 as a LIBERTARIAN. So, not only was his percentage not enough to dent Brown's winning +6.00%, but likely had ne not run, a number of his supporters would actually have supported Brown.

2010: Eric Deaton (officially, Constitution Party) 1.73% / Michael Pryce (I) 1.31%, but on his issues stances, he is definitely a Libertarian. Michael Price was a Republican challenger to Rob Portman, he lost in the primaries and then ran as an (I). Together: 3.04% (Portman won in 2010 by +17.44% over Lee Fisher)

The last Ohio Gubernatorial results:

2010: (Kasich / Strickland / Matesz). Matesz (L) 2.39% / Dennis Spisak (Green) 1.52% (Kasich +2.00% over Strickland). Without the Libertarian vote, Kasich's margin would likely have been larger and without the Green vote, Strickland would likely have picked up some votes, but still not won. This was one of the closest races in the middle of a 2010 RED mid-term wave across the land. A repeat in single digits is likely again in 2014, for one candidate or the other.

2006: (Strickland vs. Blackwell). Peirce (I) 1.78% + Fitrakis (I) 1.02% = 2.80% (Strickland D +23.89% in a blowout over Blackwell, during the BLUE midterm wave of 2006).

2002: (Taft / Hagen / Eastman) Eastman (I) 3.92% (Taft R +19.45% in the 2002 mid-terms, not a GOP or DEM wave, but better than expected for Bush all across the land)

So, the Libertarians will file a lawsuit and we will see how it goes, but historically, the Libertarians rarely sway elections in Ohio, at the Presidential, Sentorial and Gubernatorial levels. Those are the cold, hard numbers, all part of the historical and congressional record.

Spoiler: Want on this list? Let me know!

@cereal_killer [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION] . [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION] [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION] [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION] [MENTION=3135]jillian[/MENTION] [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION] [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION] [MENTION=39530]AceRothstein[/MENTION] [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION] [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION] [MENTION=45739]Jughead[/MENTION] [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] [MENTION=21665]Dont Taz Me Bro[/MENTION] [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION] [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION]

 

[JWBooth]

As a general rule Dims simply dismiss the Libertarians. GOPers will spend an entire election season denigrating, abusing, and ridiculing them. They follow this up by demanding they vote for GOPer candidate as if required in return for the privilege of existing on this planet. Following the election the claim their empty suit would have defeated the Dimocrap empty suit if the Libertarians had just voted right. This, in spite of logic and evidence to the contrary.

The political duopoly hold on political power continues on unabated. When it looks as if a minor party might threaten to influence elections, legislative barriers will be raised against the threat.

 

[Grandma]

Ohio Libertarian candidates appeal to get names on May ballot | Reuters

(Reuters) - Libertarian Party candidates for Ohio governor and attorney general are challenging rulings by a Republican secretary of state that would keep their names off the ballot in a state primary in May, attorneys said Monday. ...

A hearing officer, Brad Smith, determined that petitioners who gathered signatures for Linnabary and Earl did not follow state requirements that they be registered with the Libertarian party or be unaffiliated voters...

..."They are making it so difficult on circulators to collect," said attorney Mark Brown, who represents the party in the federal challenge. "It is bullying. These are valid signatures but they (Republicans) always find a technicality."...

...In January, U.S. District Judge Michael Watson ruled that Husted could not enforce a new Ohio law approved by the state's Republican-majority legislature that expands requirements for ballot approval.

Watson said the state could not enforce the law in 2014 because it "moves the goal posts in the midst of the game."

Hmm... sounds like the Ohio repubs are getting worried.

Is it possible that the Libertarian vote in a close race in Ohio could tip the scales toward a Democratic nominee for that office? Sure, but it's not guaranteed. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q-JMUJX-In7weGzPjfgGqVaq_vL3sm-03EAbOrv35ik/edit?usp=sharing

So, the argument that the Libertarian vote can ruin the outcome of a close election for the Republicans is a pretty weak one, I think.

Look at Ron Paul's polling during both the 2008 and 2012 primaries: he was getting around 10%, but that did not even translate into raw votes on the order of 10% when it came to crunch-time. Libertarians more often than not tend to stay home if a true Libertarian is not on the ballot. ...

I quote those last four presidential cycles, two in which a Democrat won, two in which a Republican won, to show that in not one of those cases, the Libertarian vote was ever a thread to the Republican winning the state.

The last Ohio Senatorial results:

2012: (Brown / Mandel / Rupert): Rupert +4.60% (Brown +6.00% over Mandel). This is interesting because Rupert was listed as "non-partisan" on the ballot, but called himself a Libertarian-Progressive. Also interesting is that Josh Mandel who was the Republican candidate, won the office of Treasurer of the State of Ohio in 2010 as a LIBERTARIAN. So, not only was his percentage not enough to dent Brown's winning +6.00%, but likely had ne not run, a number of his supporters would actually have supported Brown.

Sherrod Brown is VERY popular in Ohio. It's unlikely he'll get voted out anytime soon.

2010: Eric Deaton (officially, Constitution Party) 1.73% / Michael Pryce (I) 1.31%, but on his issues stances, he is definitely a Libertarian. Michael Price was a Republican challenger to Rob Portman, he lost in the primaries and then ran as an (I). Together: 3.04% (Portman won in 2010 by +17.44% over Lee Fisher)

The last Ohio Gubernatorial results:

2010: (Kasich / Strickland / Matesz). Matesz (L) 2.39% / Dennis Spisak (Green) 1.52% (Kasich +2.00% over Strickland). Without the Libertarian vote, Kasich's margin would likely have been larger and without the Green vote, Strickland would likely have picked up some votes, but still not won. This was one of the closest races in the middle of a 2010 RED mid-term wave across the land. A repeat in single digits is likely again in 2014, for one candidate or the other.

Kasich won on his "jobs jobs jobs" platform. He has failed to deliver, and it appears that he's going to run for President in '16 so it's unlikely he'll be re-elected.

2006: (Strickland vs. Blackwell). Peirce (I) 1.78% + Fitrakis (I) 1.02% = 2.80% (Strickland D +23.89% in a blowout over Blackwell, during the BLUE midterm wave of 2006).

2002: (Taft / Hagen / Eastman) Eastman (I) 3.92% (Taft R +19.45% in the 2002 mid-terms, not a GOP or DEM wave, but better than expected for Bush all across the land)

I think Taft won due to name recognition.

So, the Libertarians will file a lawsuit and we will see how it goes, but historically, the Libertarians rarely sway elections in Ohio, at the Presidential, Sentorial and Gubernatorial levels. Those are the cold, hard numbers, all part of the historical and congressional record.

While I think they're a dangerous fringe group, I believe everyone that can get enough signatures (regardless of the signers' party affiliation) should be able to run.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure any of you care but there is a laboratory for libertarianism that was highlighted on NPR this last week:

Libertarians Move In To Make A Small N.H. Town Even Smaller : NPR

Grafton NH is being over-run by libertarians so much so the town (that doesn't have a stop light already) may see it's bloated and out of control government cut down to size....

For those of you without speakers, a transcript of the program is here on the whack-a-doodle website:
Grafton Liberty Activists Get NPR Coverage - Free Keene

I like how they are trying to raise money on their website; they want to raise $1,000. So far, they've raised $3.14. Someone (or some bodies) have donated less than $5 it means so much to them.

Woosh!

 

[Mertex]

As far as I'm concerned, Libertarians always vote Republican, so their different title means nothing....I'm glad they're causing the Republican party some angst, maybe they will be responsible for tipping the House over to the left...would love to see it.

 

[1751_Texan]

Conservatives claim that passing Comprehesive Immigration reform will give Democrats a vote advantage.

Conservatives claim that voter fraud is so prevalent as to require all votes to get another ID when birth cetificates, SSN cards, and voter registration cards were sufficient.

Now conservatives keeping other's off the ballot?

Is this a pattern?

 

[Statistikhengst]

As a general rule Dims simply dismiss the Libertarians. GOPers will spend an entire election season denigrating, abusing, and ridiculing them. They follow this up by demanding they vote for GOPer candidate as if required in return for the privilege of existing on this planet. Following the election the claim their empty suit would have defeated the Dimocrap empty suit if the Libertarians had just voted right. This, in spite of logic and evidence to the contrary.

The political duopoly hold on political power continues on unabated. When it looks as if a minor party might threaten to influence elections, legislative barriers will be raised against the threat.

Well, [MENTION=20043]JWBooth[/MENTION], buddy, I have no idea what a "Dim" is. But I do know what a Democrat is and I know that we DEMS don't marginalize Libertarians at all. Libertarians are neither left no right, but rather, very mixed and can either be apt to vote left or right in an election, or vote for a str8 ticket Libertarian (if available) or stay home.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hmm... sounds like the Ohio repubs are getting worried.




Sherrod Brown is VERY popular in Ohio. It's unlikely he'll get voted out anytime soon.



Kasich won on his "jobs jobs jobs" platform. He has failed to deliver, and it appears that he's going to run for President in '16 so it's unlikely he'll be re-elected.



I think Taft won due to name recognition.

So, the Libertarians will file a lawsuit and we will see how it goes, but historically, the Libertarians rarely sway elections in Ohio, at the Presidential, Sentorial and Gubernatorial levels. Those are the cold, hard numbers, all part of the historical and congressional record.

While I think they're a dangerous fringe group, I believe everyone that can get enough signatures (regardless of the signers' party affiliation) should be able to run.

I agree with you strongly about Brown and think that the Kasich election will become a marquee election in 2014.

 

[Statistikhengst]

As far as I'm concerned, Libertarians always vote Republican, so their different title means nothing....I'm glad they're causing the Republican party some angst, maybe they will be responsible for tipping the House over to the left...would love to see it.

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, the majority of Libertarians vote on the Right, but not all, and many of them simply stay home for lack of a palatable candidate. They have not forgotten 1964, I would venture to say.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Conservatives claim that passing Comprehesive Immigration reform will give Democrats a vote advantage.

Conservatives claim that voter fraud is so prevalent as to require all votes to get another ID when birth cetificates, SSN cards, and voter registration cards were sufficient.

Now conservatives keeping other's off the ballot?

Is this a pattern?

Well said, and welcome to USMB.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not sure any of you care but there is a laboratory for libertarianism that was highlighted on NPR this last week:

Libertarians Move In To Make A Small N.H. Town Even Smaller : NPR

Grafton NH is being over-run by libertarians so much so the town (that doesn't have a stop light already) may see it's bloated and out of control government cut down to size....

For those of you without speakers, a transcript of the program is here on the whack-a-doodle website:
Grafton Liberty Activists Get NPR Coverage - Free Keene

I like how they are trying to raise money on their website; they want to raise $1,000. So far, they've raised $3.14. Someone (or some bodies) have donated less than $5 it means so much to them.

Woosh!

It's not just Grafton.

Free State Project | Liberty in Our Lifetime

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As far as I'm concerned, Libertarians always vote Republican, so their different title means nothing....I'm glad they're causing the Republican party some angst, maybe they will be responsible for tipping the House over to the left...would love to see it.

Your concern must not extend very far then.

 

[Statistikhengst]

[MENTION=11774]Kevin_Kennedy[/MENTION] - glad you are here!!!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

As far as I'm concerned, Libertarians always vote Republican,

I don't.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[MENTION=11774]Kevin_Kennedy[/MENTION] - glad you are here!!!

Thank you. While I had no intention of voting for any of the Libertarian Party candidates in question, this is a blatant ploy by the Republican Party to protect themselves. Campaign laws are always biased against minor parties because Republicans and Democrats work together to maintain their monopoly.

I should also point out that I have no intention of voting for any Republican candidates either.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ohio Libertarian candidates appeal to get names on May ballot | Reuters

(Reuters) - Libertarian Party candidates for Ohio governor and attorney general are challenging rulings by a Republican secretary of state that would keep their names off the ballot in a state primary in May, attorneys said Monday.

Secretary of State Jon Husted on Friday ordered the names of gubernatorial candidate Charlie Earl and attorney general candidate Steven Linnabary pulled from the ballot...

...The candidates possibly could pull votes from Republican incumbents, Governor John Kasich and Attorney General Mike DeWine, in the November election. Kasich has come under fire from some conservatives for his perceived support of Obamacare by expanding Medicaid in the state.

A hearing officer, Brad Smith, determined that petitioners who gathered signatures for Linnabary and Earl did not follow state requirements that they be registered with the Libertarian party or be unaffiliated voters...

..."They are making it so difficult on circulators to collect," said attorney Mark Brown, who represents the party in the federal challenge. "It is bullying. These are valid signatures but they (Republicans) always find a technicality."...

...In January, U.S. District Judge Michael Watson ruled that Husted could not enforce a new Ohio law approved by the state's Republican-majority legislature that expands requirements for ballot approval.

Watson said the state could not enforce the law in 2014 because it "moves the goal posts in the midst of the game."

Is it possible that the Libertarian vote in a close race in Ohio could tip the scales toward a Democratic nominee for that office? Sure, but it's not guaranteed. And historically, it has not made a difference in the final outcome of close elections in Ohio. Here some examples, from Indiana, Virginia and then, Ohio itself.

In 2008, In neighboring Indiana, Obama picked-up the state and moved it into the Democratic column (for only one cycle):

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&fips=18&f=1&off=0&elect=0

Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate in that year, got 1.06%.

I mentioned this in my analysis of Indiana, way back in 2009:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q-JMUJX-In7weGzPjfgGqVaq_vL3sm-03EAbOrv35ik/edit?usp=sharing

The complaint that Barr (L) ruined it for McCain looks feasable on paper: Barr took 1.06% of the PV in IN, the margin between Obama and McCain was +1.03%. So, if every single Barr voter had gone for McCain, then McCain would have won. The only problem with this is that the Birch society is big in certain counties in IN, and were Barr not on the ballot, then most of those voters would have simply stayed home, either because they are died-in-the-wool libertarians or they were disgruntled republicans who wanted to cast a vote in protest over McCain's having been nominated in the first place. Had Barr not been on the ballot in IN, then the statistics would have shifted slightly, Obama's +28,391 vote margin over McCain would have carried more weight without Barr votes also in the mix and therefore Obama would have surely come over the 50% mark. So, it is more likely than not that the absence of a Barr candidacy in IN would not have shifted the state to McCain, but rather, it would have turned a high minority win for Obama into a lean majority win.

Similarly, in the 2013 Virginia Gubernatorial race (McAuliffe / Cuccinelli / Sarvis):

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2013&fips=51&f=1&off=5&elect=0

Sarvis got more votes than the margin between McAuliffe and Cuccinelli. Only, pre-election polling was showing Sarvis with an average of +10 and he ended up with 6.5%, so a good 3.5% already moved back over to Cuccinelli at the last minute. It is more thank likely that, had Sarvis not run, then the core of that 6.5%, those true Libertarians at heart, would probably not even showed up and McAuliffe would probably have gone somewhat over 50%.

So, the argument that the Libertarian vote can ruin the outcome of a close election for the Republicans is a pretty weak one, I think.

Look at Ron Paul's polling during both the 2008 and 2012 primaries: he was getting around 10%, but that did not even translate into raw votes on the order of 10% when it came to crunch-time. Libertarians more often than not tend to stay home if a true Libertarian is not on the ballot.

In OHIO, here are the Libertarian stats for the last 4 presidential cycles:

2012: Gary Johnson (L) 0.89% (Obama +2.97% over Romney)

2008: Bob Barr (L) 0.35% + Ralph Nader (I) 0.74% : total 1.09% (Obama +4.58% over McCain)

2004:Michael Badnarik 0.26% + Michael Peroutka (Charles Baldwin as running mate) 0.21% - both listed as non-partisan, all three are actually Libertarians and/or Constitution party members (Bush +2.11% over Kerry)

2000: Harry Brown (L) 0.29% + Ralph Nader (I) 2.50% = 2.79% (Bush +3.51% over Gore)

I quote those last four presidential cycles, two in which a Democrat won, two in which a Republican won, to show that in not one of those cases, the Libertarian vote was ever a thread to the Republican winning the state. Even the Libertarian vote + the Nader Factor, had the Libertarian vote gone for the Republican and the Nader vote gone for the Democrat, would have changed the outcome. And those were all single-digit races where the winning margin was less than +5.

The last Ohio Senatorial results:

2012: (Brown / Mandel / Rupert): Rupert +4.60% (Brown +6.00% over Mandel). This is interesting because Rupert was listed as "non-partisan" on the ballot, but called himself a [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvkztB-02Y"]Libertarian-Progressive[/ame]. Also interesting is that Josh Mandel who was the Republican candidate, won the office of Treasurer of the State of Ohio in 2010 as a LIBERTARIAN. So, not only was his percentage not enough to dent Brown's winning +6.00%, but likely had ne not run, a number of his supporters would actually have supported Brown.

2010: Eric Deaton (officially, Constitution Party) 1.73% / Michael Pryce (I) 1.31%, but on his issues stances, he is definitely a Libertarian. Michael Price was a Republican challenger to Rob Portman, he lost in the primaries and then ran as an (I). Together: 3.04% (Portman won in 2010 by +17.44% over Lee Fisher)

The last Ohio Gubernatorial results:

2010: (Kasich / Strickland / Matesz). Matesz (L) 2.39% / Dennis Spisak (Green) 1.52% (Kasich +2.00% over Strickland). Without the Libertarian vote, Kasich's margin would likely have been larger and without the Green vote, Strickland would likely have picked up some votes, but still not won. This was one of the closest races in the middle of a 2010 RED mid-term wave across the land. A repeat in single digits is likely again in 2014, for one candidate or the other.

2006: (Strickland vs. Blackwell). Peirce (I) 1.78% + Fitrakis (I) 1.02% = 2.80% (Strickland D +23.89% in a blowout over Blackwell, during the BLUE midterm wave of 2006).

2002: (Taft / Hagen / Eastman) Eastman (I) 3.92% (Taft R +19.45% in the 2002 mid-terms, not a GOP or DEM wave, but better than expected for Bush all across the land)

So, the Libertarians will file a lawsuit and we will see how it goes, but historically, the Libertarians rarely sway elections in Ohio, at the Presidential, Sentorial and Gubernatorial levels. Those are the cold, hard numbers, all part of the historical and congressional record.

Spoiler: Want on this list? Let me know!

@cereal_killer [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION] . [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION] [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION] [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION] [MENTION=3135]jillian[/MENTION] [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION] [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION] [MENTION=39530]AceRothstein[/MENTION] [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION] [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION] [MENTION=45739]Jughead[/MENTION] [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] [MENTION=21665]Dont Taz Me Bro[/MENTION] [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION] [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION]

Yes, but often in politics, perception is reality.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

As far as I'm concerned, Libertarians always vote Republican,

I don't.

Nope. Never would either. Nor do any of the libertarians I associate with. The last one I have any knowledge of that voted republican was Reagan. That was because of his rhetoric. Then his actions showed him as a hypocrite to the rhetoric. And that was the last one i know about in my circle.

Anyway, what else is new here?
Both parties love to smear, misrepresent and make shit up about libertarians. So much so that every few months you'll see a new smear piece by some statist slug doing it. Republicans blame us for their failure, and "liberals" all think we're republicans.

Libertarians must be silenced, co-opted or character assassinated to perpetuate the myth that there are only two ways of doing business int he US, and both of them involve doing the same thing as the other.

Who cares at this point? Trying to save this republic is a fools errand. The jig is up, this corporatist government is going to fail by its design. The sooner the better, really.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Why do they need to be on the PRIMARY ballot? If there is no one running against them as libertarians then they would automatically be on the ballot in November for the general election.