Skip to comments.South Dakota Senate Libertarian Candidate to Support Thune
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)
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."
Take back your party, Curt!
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.
Ummm, Barr was defeated in the primary. There were no libertarians running against Barr in the REPUBLICAN primary.
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.
Which would have been enough to elect 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.
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:
That is where the difference of opinion is....
Thanks for clarification on the electoral system, btw, but I already had learned about it somewhere ;^)
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.
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.
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.