Senate Election - INGO style

[photoshooter]

... Libertarians picking up a bigger percentage will only send more democrats to Washington ....

Run the numbers on this for me in the current race of Coats/Ellsworth/Sink-Burris

Coats has consistently been up by at least 15% over Ellsworth every major poll. Some, including one recent one, has him at 20% over Ellsworth.

How many folks would need to vote Libertarian in that race to send Ellsworth to DC and hasten our doom?

 

[Ski]

Run the numbers on this for me in the current race of Coats/Ellsworth/Sink-Burris

Coats has consistently been up by at least 15% over Ellsworth every major poll. Some, including one recent one, has him at 20% over Ellsworth.

How many folks would need to vote Libertarian in that race to send Ellsworth to DC and hasten our doom?

Fine, chalk this one up for Coats. (I hope) What about the 9th district house race? Baron Hill is polling ahead in that one, and the more conservative voters have 3 candidates to split their votes, the republican, libertarian and an independent. The dems win enough of those and they can still control the house. If conservatives don't take control of the republican party, then we're done.

 

[photoshooter]

Fine, chalk this one up for Coats. (I hope) What about the 9th district house race? Baron Hill is polling ahead in that one, and the more conservative voters have 3 candidates to split their votes, the republican, libertarian and an independent. The dems win enough of those and they can still control the house. If conservatives don't take control of the republican party, then we're done.

Personally, my own feeling in the 9th - if I lived there - would be to hold my nose and vote AGAINST Baron Hill. That means that I would have to vote for the Dan Burton Staffer and Federalist Todd Young.

The opportunity there is to remove a Progressive from office. The problem is that Young doesn't have a voting record of his own to run on. So he becomes an unknown. At best, I can say he's Republican. But, until we get a voting record out of him, I cannot judge him well.

The better comparison would be Dist 2 with Jackie Warloski. I've met Jackie on several occasions and believe her to be made of different stuff than the run of the mill GOPers. Corrupting Jackie with the big govt Federalism prevalent in the republican party will be very difficult. Jackie would have my vote in a heart beat!

Now, Why should I vote FOR Dan Coats when he's 18 to 20points ahead in the polls? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[turnandshoot4]

L's got my votes on the national level.

D's got my vote on Porter County level.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So, why are you voting for RSB knowing that if she were to be elected she would support this horrid foreign policy that you and I both disagree with? This is just a question out of curiosity. You post that you're voting for RSB then post several more times arguing against libertarian positions.



Libertarians are perfectly willing to see America weakened to promote their insane ideology. You've touched on one issue that has earned them their nickname as cowardly anarchists. Regulate absolutely nothing even if it makes us greater and more prosperous.



In the INGO poll, yes. INGO, for some reason, is a hotbed for libertarians. In the real world current polls have her with a miniscule percentage. Dan Coats is very likely to win by a landslide. I just hope, likely in vain, that when all the buzz around third party candidates being successful turns of to have been a pipe dream that libertarians rethink the effectiveness of their tactics and the virtue of their positions. Sadly, the lesson may come at the cost of the Republicans not taking as many seats as they would have if we had selected actual, viable Republican candidates in the primaries.

I won't hold my breath. In two years I expect them to start raving about the next set of candidates that have absolutely no chance of winning and, therefore, no chance of making any real difference on the financial, social and political problems facing this country.

So... what I hear you saying is that you don't care about voting for someone who represents what you believe, you just want to vote for the guy you think (or hope) is going to win.

L. Neil Smith has written several books about libertarian principles in government. In at least one that I know of, he called the Party whose views he champions the "Propertarian" Party, whose slogan is "The Party of Principle". I long thought that it was better to politic as a Republican with libertarian principles than as a Libertarian who would win nothing. While you have to win to have your principles mean anything, you sacrifice any ability to say that you're voting for who you believe will do the best job in office.

When I voted today, I did not see a Libertarian on the ballot for whom I did not vote. There were some Republicans for whom I voted as well, when there was no Libertarian on the ballot. Conversely, if I ever see someone who does not hold libertarian beliefs who is running as a Libertarian Party candidate, that person will not receive my vote.

I have the comfort of knowing I voted FOR candidates today, rather than just voting against their opponents. That feels very good indeed.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Personally, my own feeling in the 9th - if I lived there - would be to hold my nose and vote AGAINST Baron Hill. That means that I would have to vote for the Dan Burton Staffer and Federalist Todd Young.

The opportunity there is to remove a Progressive from office. The problem is that Young doesn't have a voting record of his own to run on. So he becomes an unknown. At best, I can say he's Republican. But, until we get a voting record out of him, I cannot judge him well.

The better comparison would be Dist 2 with Jackie Warloski. I've met Jackie on several occasions and believe her to be made of different stuff than the run of the mill GOPers. Corrupting Jackie with the big govt Federalism prevalent in the republican party will be very difficult. Jackie would have my vote in a heart beat!

Now, Why should I vote FOR Dan Coats when he's 18 to 20points ahead in the polls? That makes absolutely no sense.

I talked to my sister up in South Bend last night. She doesn't know whether to vote against the Dem or Walorski. The impression she has is that Walorski is an unpleasant person. Don't know if that's a fact or negative campaign material, but although my sister is over 50 now (and thus leans Republican) I don't know if she was going to pull the lever for Walorski in the 2nd.

 

[AJMD429]

When I voted today, I did not see a Libertarian on the ballot for whom I did not vote. There were some Republicans for whom I voted as well, when there was no Libertarian on the ballot. Conversely, if I ever see someone who does not hold libertarian beliefs who is running as a Libertarian Party candidate, that person will not receive my vote.

I have the comfort of knowing I voted FOR candidates today, rather than just voting against their opponents. That feels very good indeed.

Same here.

I got tired of wasting my vote by voting for Republicans, who should re-name their party "Democrat-lite".

There are a FEW Republicans who honestly want to restore government to its proper Constitutional role, but too many of them keep wanting to 'solve' the very crisis they create with their previous 'solution' - and somehow it always involves more regulation and more taxation.

When the Republican party actually starts eliminating things like the Department of Education, or Medicaid, or repeals the ADA, or enacts the FairTax, I'll start rooting for them with sincerity, vs. tolerating them when there isn't a better (Libertarian) alternative.

HERE is a good site describing where in the political spectrum the Libertarian party is, vs. the others...

GOOD information here >>>----> Positive & Negative Liberties in Three Dimensions

 

[photoshooter]

Folks... please remember that the GOP power brokers haven't changed since the time of Alex Hamilton. What we have now is the same party that Hamilton created. They support, High protectionist Tarriffs, Centralized Banking, High Debt to run the govt and keep a high credit rating, and as much power as they can grab to keep them and their buddies in power.

Look at the Angle race, Murkowski, McCain, etc. Anywhere a TEA backed candidate lost, we're hearing how (thank you Mr. Rove) that we should have let the professionals handle the race, and just stayed home until it was time to vote.

 

[SavageEagle]

Folks... please remember that the GOP power brokers haven't changed since the time of Alex Hamilton. What we have now is the same party that Hamilton created. They support, High protectionist Tarriffs, Centralized Banking, High Debt to run the govt and keep a high credit rating, and as much power as they can grab to keep them and their buddies in power.

Look at the Angle race, Murkowski, McCain, etc. Anywhere a TEA backed candidate lost, we're hearing how (thank you Mr. Rove) that we should have let the professionals handle the race, and just stayed home until it was time to vote.

Facts have no place in the politics section!