In Missouri's U.S. Senate race, at least, especially here in the 7th Congressional District of southwest Missouri. First, the statewide numbers:
Talent WON in 2002 with 49.8 percent of the vote, to Jean Carnahan's 48.7 percent.
Talent LOST in 2006 with 47.4 percent of the vote, to McCaskill's 49.4 percent.
The Dem gains .7 percent; Talent loses 2.4 percent.
A glaring difference: The Libertarian candidate went from 1 percent in 2002 to 2.3 percent in 2006.
Libertarian gains were more pronounced in Missouri's 7th District:
•In Lawrence County, McCaskill pulled 35.2 percent -- exactly as much as Carnahan in 2002. But Talent's share dwindled from 62.2 percent to 59.7 percent. The Libertarian candidate received 1.9 percent in 2002 and 3.9 percent in 2006.
•In Polk County (home to Southwest Baptist University), Talent defeated Carnahan in 2002, 62.4-35.5 percent. This year, Talent was held to under 60 percent -- 58.7-36.5, with the Libertarian share growing from 1.4 to 3.8 percent.
•In Taney County, Talent went from a 64.3-33.9 split in 2002 to a 60.6-34.8 victory in 2006. The Libertarian vote grew to 3.4 percent, from 1.3 percent in 2002.
•In Christian County, Talent lost more than 3 percent of his support (63.6 in 2002, 60.5 in 2006). The Democratic share grew only slightly, from 34.6 to 35.3 percent. But the Libertarian vote more than doubled, from 1.2 to 3.1 percent.
•In Barry County, Talent was held under 60 percent (59.2, from a high of 63.3 percent in 2002). Dems inched up from 34.8 to 35.5 percent. Libertarians increased their share from 1.4 to 3.9 percent.
In all five counties, Democrats didn't grow their share by more than a point. That's not to say the Democrats didn't do their fair share of damage to Talent in the 7th District. The senator suffered a significant setback in Greene County, where he won 59 percent of the vote in his 2002 race against Carnahan.
Talent's vote share was 49,164 to Carnahan's 33,144.
This year, about 17,500 more people voted in Greene County than in 2002. Talent gained about 4,000 votes. McCaskill piled 10,000 more votes on top of Carnahan's mark.
Percentages: 58.6-39.5 in 2002; 53.6-42.6 in 2006. Claire breaks 40 percent in the county.
How much of the increase is due to the appeal of the Libertarian party as opposed to disgust with the amount of negative advertising in this year's Senate race?
Oooooooh! Those Libertarians are really zooming up the charts with their "share." Why, at this rate, they might crack double digits by 2030.
Nothing better to do with your calculator today?
Anon 423: You miss the point. Libertarians (or any other third party) don't need double digits to influence elections.
Your point about the Libertarians' (or other third-party gadfly) interference with truly viable candidacies is not at all missed by yours truly. However, it's just as easy for one of them to be a spoiler with one percent of the vote as it is with a "whopping" three percent.
My point is that what you excitedly cite as a "glaring difference" between the 2002 and 2006 results is, in fact, a yawner of no great consequence.
Anon 444: Tell that to Jim Talent.
And that, folks, is citizen journalism. Thanks for giving me an "I didn't know that moment" Ron, however "little" the consequence.
I called it a week ago.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Evangelical right to vote Libertarian?
Look for disillusioned Evangelical right Christian's to be voting for Libertarian's this election.
They can't quite make the leap to Democrats, but they are discouraged with the Republicans.
They have such civic duty that they can not stay home from the polls. So, not Republicans, not Democrats, but Libertarians or other third parties.
Posted by Busplunge at 7:45 PM
What I can't get past is these commenters who imply that you have nothing better to do with your time which results in your not entertaining them enough. They evidently have nothing better to do than leave a complaint on your blog about not entertaining them enough.
Or could it be they're jealous because you can do math? What sorry lives they must lead.
I smell a "third-party candidates just steal votes" poster... go peddle that crap on FreeRepublic or DU.
I am a Republican, yet voted for three Libertarians yesterday.
What happened with Harpool?
All of this hot lather might mean something if one could realistically expect all 2.3 percent of the Libertarian voters would have gone for Talent if they could not have voted for the Libertarian candidate.
Does anybody honestly think that would have happened?
Someone over at Unclaimed Territory had this to say about the Libertarian Party that I thought was an interesting perspective.
Libertarians are like the drawer full of socks without a match that everyone has. Some are black, some are white and some are other colors. Some are long, some are short. All of them have holes in them and need darning.
I called it a week ago.
"Look for disillusioned Evangelical right Christian's to be voting for Libertarian's this election."
Do you have more conclusive evidence, than a hunch that Evangelicals rallied to Liberatarians? Would it not make more sense for budget-concious Republicans to show their disdain for over-the-top Republican spending by rallying to the Libertarians? I'm not being snarky, these are honest questions. I have been working on a post in regards to where Evangelicals will throw their support from here on; to Libertarians or the Constitutional Party, which seems to mirror their values much better. Hopefully, it will make an interesting read.
The Republican's have become their own worst enemy by disregarding what got them in power. Until they understand that they are doomed. I imagine there's been a big "come to Jesus" meeting going on for the past couple of days.
"Come to Jesus" meeting? But I thought God was a Republican?
Post a Comment