GOP Is Losing Its Libertarian Voters
Libertarian Party candidates may have cost Senators Jim Talent (R.-Mo.) and Conrad Burns (R.-Mont.) their seats, tipping the Senate to Democratic control.
In Montana, the Libertarian candidate got more than 10,000 votes, or 3%, while Democrat Jon Tester edged Burns by fewer than 3,000 votes. In Missouri, Claire McCaskill defeated Talent by 41,000 votes, a bit less than the 47,000 Libertarian votes.
This isn’t the first time Republicans have had to worry about losing votes to Libertarian Party candidates. Senators Harry Reid (Nev.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), and Tim Johnson (S.D.) all won races in which Libertarian candidates got more votes than their winning margin.
But a narrow focus on the Libertarian Party significantly underestimates the role libertarian voters played in 2006. Most voters who hold libertarian views don’t vote for the Libertarian Party. Libertarian voters likely cost Republicans the House and the Senate—also dealing blows to Republican candidates in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
In our study, “The Libertarian Vote,” we analyzed 16 years of polling data and found that libertarians constituted 13% of the electorate in 2004. Because libertarians are better educated and more likely to vote, they were 15% of actual voters.
Libertarians are broadly defined as people who favor less government in both economic and personal issues. They might be summed up as “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” voters.
David Boaz and David Kirby
This is not surprising. The Bush faction is doing a bang-up job of killing off the remnants of the Reagan Revolution, the only attractive part of the GOP for libertarians. I know this is polling data, so take it with a grain of salt (especially since it's Zogby).
As usual, demographers like to paint with broad brushes. I can't agree completely with the last sentence quoted above. It would depend on whether you are discussing Libertarians or libertarians. The Libertarian Party is populated with a wide variety of political ideologies, which is one of the reasons it has a hard time averaging out of single digits during any election cycle. The biggest faction in the LP now seems to find the legalization of some controlled substances, mostly marijuana, to be its number one issue. With the specter of George and Nancy expanding the nanny state and Hillary coming in later to finish the job, legalized pot just doesn't seem to speak as urgently to most libertarian-leaning voters as the importance of fighting back against complete Marxist totalitarianism. We libertarians may or may not approve of certain social and private behaviors, ranging from smoking pot to homosexuality, but we don't find our approval or disapproval worthy of the application of government force. To broadly classify us as "socially liberal" is a disservice.
In Montana, the Libertarian candidate got more than 10,000 votes, or 3%, while Democrat Jon Tester edged Burns by fewer than 3,000 votes. In Missouri, Claire McCaskill defeated Talent by 41,000 votes, a bit less than the 47,000 Libertarian votes.
This isn’t the first time Republicans have had to worry about losing votes to Libertarian Party candidates. Senators Harry Reid (Nev.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), and Tim Johnson (S.D.) all won races in which Libertarian candidates got more votes than their winning margin.
But a narrow focus on the Libertarian Party significantly underestimates the role libertarian voters played in 2006. Most voters who hold libertarian views don’t vote for the Libertarian Party. Libertarian voters likely cost Republicans the House and the Senate—also dealing blows to Republican candidates in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
In our study, “The Libertarian Vote,” we analyzed 16 years of polling data and found that libertarians constituted 13% of the electorate in 2004. Because libertarians are better educated and more likely to vote, they were 15% of actual voters.
Libertarians are broadly defined as people who favor less government in both economic and personal issues. They might be summed up as “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” voters.
David Boaz and David Kirby
This is not surprising. The Bush faction is doing a bang-up job of killing off the remnants of the Reagan Revolution, the only attractive part of the GOP for libertarians. I know this is polling data, so take it with a grain of salt (especially since it's Zogby).
As usual, demographers like to paint with broad brushes. I can't agree completely with the last sentence quoted above. It would depend on whether you are discussing Libertarians or libertarians. The Libertarian Party is populated with a wide variety of political ideologies, which is one of the reasons it has a hard time averaging out of single digits during any election cycle. The biggest faction in the LP now seems to find the legalization of some controlled substances, mostly marijuana, to be its number one issue. With the specter of George and Nancy expanding the nanny state and Hillary coming in later to finish the job, legalized pot just doesn't seem to speak as urgently to most libertarian-leaning voters as the importance of fighting back against complete Marxist totalitarianism. We libertarians may or may not approve of certain social and private behaviors, ranging from smoking pot to homosexuality, but we don't find our approval or disapproval worthy of the application of government force. To broadly classify us as "socially liberal" is a disservice.
posted by Anonymous | 11:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home