Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

South Dakota Senate Libertarian Candidate to Support Thune
KELO AM | self

Posted on 10/17/2002 7:40:00 PM PDT by DadOfFive

Just heard on local radio that the libertarian candidate in the SD, senate race, Curt Evans, is dropping out and throwing his support behind John Thune(R). Say's "Thune is the better candidate". Maybe 2-3% bump.(my guess)


TOPICS: South Dakota; Campaign News; U.S. Senate
KEYWORDS: curtevans; johnthune; kurtevans; libertarian; timjohnson
Thanks Curt!
1 posted on 10/17/2002 7:40:00 PM PDT by DadOfFive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DadOfFour
Bip! Every little bit helps in this tight election!
2 posted on 10/17/2002 7:43:02 PM PDT by Tennessean4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DadOfFour
Here's the article:
http://www.argusleader.com

Evans says he's quitting U.S. Senate race

Associated Press

published: 10/17/2002

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) - Kurt Evans issued a statement Thursday evening saying he was suspending his U.S. Senate campaign and giving his support to Republican John Thune.

Evans had qualified for the Nov. 5 ballot as a Libertarian candidate. He could not be reached for comment.

Thune, the state's lone representative in the U.S. House, is trying to unseat Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson.

"I've come to believe Congressman Thune is the best candidate in the race," Evans said in his statement.

"Apparent cases of voter fraud in South Dakota serve as a vivid reminder that our entire political system depends upon truth and honesty. In recent days it has become increasingly clear to me that Congressman Thune shares my commitment to being a man of integrity and character."

3 posted on 10/17/2002 7:47:06 PM PDT by DadOfFive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DadOfFour
That's fantastic news. I gotta say, the more I learn about Libertarians, the more respect I have for them. They know when to make a statement... and when to do what's best for the country. No doubt a GOP-controlled Senate will do more for Libertarians than DEMS ever would. Thanks, Curt!
4 posted on 10/17/2002 8:36:58 PM PDT by Gunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DadOfFour
Kurt Evans was on the ballot for the at-large House seat in 1996 and received 2.1% of the vote.
5 posted on 10/17/2002 9:03:34 PM PDT by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DadOfFour
Now if we can just get it to snow up there on the 5th, we'll have it made.
6 posted on 10/17/2002 9:31:56 PM PDT by Deport Billary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
The KELO-TV poll had the "other" column at 5%. This may very well tilt the election.
7 posted on 10/17/2002 9:34:09 PM PDT by Deport Billary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DadOfFour
Atta boy!!
8 posted on 10/17/2002 10:34:35 PM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deport Billary
I will say that as cold as it has been teh past weeks...with international teleconnections pointing to at least it continuing through early Nov....our luck may come in nicely. Perhaps it will get cold enough to snow up there and nullify fraud.

I recall the libertarian getting 3% or so, so that could be a big enough factor to give Thune the win. It could just be enough.
9 posted on 10/17/2002 10:42:43 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DadOfFour
Wow. This IS news. Typically the Libertarian is a single-issue "legalize drugs" type who DOESN'T CARE whether or not the Republican supports 90% of his agenda. The LP simply wants to peel away 0.4% of the vote and then gloat when a socialist 'rat defeats a "drug warrior" in congress. (notice their excitement over defeating one of congress' biggest 2nd amendment supporters, Bob Barr)

Take back your party, Curt!

10 posted on 10/17/2002 11:55:22 PM PDT by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunder
That's fantastic news. I gotta say, the more I learn about Libertarians, the more respect I have for them.

Perhaps he was really just a stalking horse. This guy might be on to something. In future elections the GOP should have loyal republicans pretend to be libertarians. They get the nomination and then drop out a few weeks before the election. This will make the black helicopter wing of the libertarian party even more paranoid then they already are.

11 posted on 10/18/2002 12:39:19 AM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
notice their excitement over defeating one of congress' biggest 2nd amendment supporters, Bob Barr

Ummm, Barr was defeated in the primary. There were no libertarians running against Barr in the REPUBLICAN primary.

12 posted on 10/18/2002 12:41:15 AM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DadOfFour
Now this shows character. Soon-to-be Gov. Rounds should reward him in kind for this selfless action.
13 posted on 10/18/2002 3:58:10 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
unfortunately his name stays on the ballot, so the dropping out is marginally useful. he was never in the debates or really a topic of discussion. i wonder how many will still cass a vote for him as a protest?
14 posted on 10/18/2002 6:14:33 AM PDT by GoldenBear2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GoldenBear2000
many will still cass a vote for him as a protest?

There is usually 2 or 3 percent of the voters who voted because of a local race or issue on the ballot. A school tax or zoning or some such thing is why they registered and voted. They often don't even now know who is running for the other offices and pick a name at random.

Such voters will make up as much as 2 percent each for the two major party candidates but may be more than 50 percent of a splinter party candidate's votes.

There are almost no races where a libertarian party candidate or for that matter a green party candidate swings an election.If Nader had not run in 2000 studies show that only a tiny fraction of Nader's 2.8 million votes would have gone to Gore. And if Buchanan and the Libertarian parties had not not been on the ballot their votes would not have gone to Bush.

Splinter parties are splinters. They don't win or lose races. The swing voters in the center determine all races. That is who and what the contest is all about. Swing votere always elect or defeate candidates. Gore felt he could get some Nader votes and moved left after the Democratic convention. Nader got those votes not Gore. If Gore had moved right to pick up some RINO's he would have won. Bush never made a move for the splinter right. It allowed him to win.

The race in every close state will be won by the guy who most appeals to the center.

I think the Libertarian candidate thinks Thune is going to win. He is positioning him and his party to say ... "You owe me." It is the only reason a knowledgeable pro would drop out. He knows it will not put but a tiny handful of votes in Thune's final count.

15 posted on 10/19/2002 9:20:53 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
If Nader had not run in 2000 studies show that only a tiny fraction of Nader's 2.8 million votes would have gone to Gore

Which would have been enough to elect Gore.

16 posted on 10/19/2002 9:49:14 AM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
If Nader had not run in 2000 studies show that only a tiny fraction of Nader's 2.8 million votes would have gone to Gore

Which would have been enough to elect Gore.

All that would have happened is that Gore would have carried states he already carried by a very slightly bigger margin. That increase in margin would have been less than one - one hundreth of a point. Counting errors have more effect on outcomes than the far right or far left.

I doubt if there were 50 Greenies in Florida who thought there was a pennies worth of difference between GORE and BUSH. Fifty more votes could not have elected Gore.

And the small handful of Greenie votes for Gore would have gotten in California if he were the only choice would not have given Gore any more Electoral votes from California. Gore won the Greenie states with out the greeies... You may a want to make a note to yourself that in presidential elections each state is "winner take all." Gore won all the states where Greenie have a presence.

The far left looks at Bush and Gore and concludes there is not a dimes worth of difference between them.

The far Right looks at Gore and Bush and concludes there is not a dimes worth of difference between them.

The far left will only vote for the far left. The far right will only vote for the far right.

The fringes are never ever worth what they cost. Gore lost because he tried to win some Greenies insteand of some RINOs.


17 posted on 10/19/2002 1:50:06 PM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
>> notice their excitement over defeating one of congress' biggest 2nd amendment supporters, Bob Barr <<


Ummm, Barr was defeated in the primary. There were no libertarians running against Barr in the REPUBLICAN primary. <<

Ummm...I didn't say Barr was defeated BY a Libertarian. I said the Libertarians (in general) WORKERD to have him defeated and were HAPPY to see him lose. Read their OWN statements if you don't believe me:

Barr loses Georgia Primary-- Libertarian Party claims partial responsibility.

Libertarians Target GOP Drug Warrior Barr

Medical marijuana ads play role in defeat of U.S. Rep. Bob Barr

18 posted on 10/19/2002 1:56:37 PM PDT by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
I doubt if there were 50 Greenies in Florida who thought there was a pennies worth of difference between GORE and BUSH. Fifty more votes could not have elected Gore.

That is where the difference of opinion is....

Thanks for clarification on the electoral system, btw, but I already had learned about it somewhere ;^)

19 posted on 10/19/2002 4:46:50 PM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
The swing voters in the center determine all races. That is who and what the contest is all about. Swing votere always elect or defeate candidates.

yes, that is pretty 'standard' political theory and your consistent opinion with which I do not greatly disagree.

I would appreciate it if you would address two related matters.

The center changes over time. Does a leader affect the center, helping to move it, or does the center change for unrelated reasons and the politician merely follow?

What about turnout? The candidates try to motivate "their people" to come out to vote. Sometimes results are surprising, contrary to the expected poll-predicted results and the reason is said by some to be turnout. Does the candidate affect turnout? If so, how? by force of personality? By the fervor of his or his supporters stance on certain issues? By organization? Does it matter?

I am honestly interested in your thoughts. Thanks.

20 posted on 10/19/2002 4:56:36 PM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
If Nader had not run in 2000 studies show that only a tiny fraction of Nader's 2.8 million votes would have gone to Gore

Nadar himself said that about 40% of his votes absent him would have voted for Gore, about 25% for Bush, and the balance would not have voted. Those numbers are consistent with my precinct by precinct analysis that I did in connection with CD redistricting when examining what happened with down ballot races vis a vis the Nader vote. Heck, my GOP mother voted for Nader, and GOP down ballot.

21 posted on 10/19/2002 8:08:58 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Torie; Common Tator
Let's see.....Nader received 97,488 votes according to this article http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/772471/posts

So.....if Gore got 40%, that's about 38996
25%for Bush is about 23371

The difference of 15624 is far more than enough for Gore to win Florida and be President.

Even if Gore won only 1% more of Nader's votes than Bush, certainaly a reasonable expectation, he gains 975 votes which again wins Florida and the Presidency.

Am I in error here?
22 posted on 10/20/2002 6:04:31 AM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Even if Gore won only 1% more of Nader's votes than Bush, certainaly a reasonable expectation, he gains 975 votes which again wins Florida and the Presidency.

Mostly correct. The Democratic machine in Florida stole 239,000 votes. Except for the screwup in one county, they would have stolen 245,000 votes, winning Florida and the Presidency.

For freedom,
Locke

23 posted on 10/20/2002 6:49:09 PM PDT by markfiveFF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson