I'll say it. Drew Miller (Libertarian), thank you for siphoning 1378 votes from Rick Saccone.

[TheBlackAdder]

.


Narry a peep is mentioned that a third party spoiler helped carry Conor Lamb over the finish line.


Conor Lamb Democrat 113,720 49.8%
Rick Saccone Republican 113,079 49.6
Drew Miller Libertarian 1,378 0.6


While I stayed up until 2AM to watch the results on MSNBC, rooting at Steve Karnacki's analysis, which was spot on... what I notice on perhaps all of the threads this morning here is the exclusion of the third party candidate's impact on this race.


Perhaps it has to do with the Russian-esque Jill Stein, whose vote siphoning from the Clinton-Kaine campaign was overshaddowed by Ron Johnson's siphoning from Trump-Pence. There were spoilers who drew votes from both major parties, yet folks ignore the effects of Johnson's draw, which was more than Steins, just like they seem to be ignoring the effects of Miller's draw. While I utterly despise Stein, and do not want to re-litigate 2016, the lack of third party candidates in 2016 or yesterday would have hurt Dems more. Now, that thing with a Green Party Republican, running against John Testor is something that warrants concern. Just like Republicans try to sabotage Democrats with Green Party types, perhaps we need to promote Libertarian third party candidates in kind.

.

[Ezior]

1. "they wouldn't have voted for Saccone anyway!"

That's what "many people say" about Jill Stein. I have my doubts.

In any case, thanks, Drew Miller!

[ProfessorGAC]

2. Even More Doubtful They Would Have Voted For Lamb

They may be protest voters but they view dems with more trepidation because dems actually believe in government and regulations.

[Hortensis]

3. Flawed assumption, surely? This isn't a normal

election for conservatives, so why assume the pattern would hold for libertarians.

Trumpism poses real problems for libertarians. Sure, most are drawn to Republican economics over Democrat, but psychologists say they (real libertarians, not faddists) are the most intellectually oriented, unemotional personality group, more than liberals even.

For all their serious faults for society (and they're whoppers!), libertarians aren't in arenas chanting "lock her up" or motivated to admiration by white nationalism. I'm also pretty sure most have no trouble recognizing the fondness of most trumpsters for our big social programs.

Even without Trump, some of those libertarians would have voted Democrat and against the more-than-whiff of fascism rising on the right. With Trump, I think it's a bad mistake to assume even half would have voted Republican this time.

[TheBlackAdder]

4. 10 years ago, I would say that's true.

In this binary environment, the numerous Libertarians I know would fly home to the GOP roost. One or two might just not vote, but most look at Trump as an evil, a short-term evil needed to promote their radical causes, similar to the splitting that Evangelicals go through to justify Trump's support.

[Hortensis]

5. Yes, but this election broke the binary pattern.

Didn't smash it, certainly, but thousands of more thoughtful cons broke out of it.

Agree also true libertarians are radical and, as a group, have been eagerly harnessing trumpism to further their goals of demolishing most controls on society. But who knows how many of the 18th's aren't merely the kind of economic conservatives who are currently styling themselves "libertarian?"

That last reminds me of the pair of conservatives the Libertarian Party ran for president/VP in 2016. A lot of real libertarians were very upset, but they were overwhelmed in their own party by deluded conservative poseurs. Poor things.

This inspired me to wonder if Drew Gray Miller was the real thing. Didn't find out looking briefly, but did find this. Poor guy. He's right, of course. Right wing rabble won't care that he drew a paltry 0.6% of the vote that might have gone 20% Republican, and they certainly won't bother wondering who he drew it from.

Link to tweet

[FSogol]

8. I concur. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Did I Say That?

No i did not. IMO, they would more likely have stayed home. Either way, it's not a vote for Lamb.

And i don't buy your second paragraph. I would need to discuss this directly with a psychologist with a published, peer reviewed study on that.

I am not one who considers L's a direct threat, but their position is clear, and the big L has been infiltrated by people running for that party's nomination who, at their convention in fall of '16 were railing against abortion. At the big L level, they can no longer be trusted, so the little L types who still follow the party would not fall into the category described in the 2nd paragraph. They are emotionally married to the idea of libertariansim.

Therein, lies our disagreement, and therein lies my belief that your assumptions are as flawed as you think of mine.

[Hortensis]

7. Sorry if I misunderstood, but I took you to mean

they would continue to behave as they had in previous elections. I was just discussing a very interesting topic with you and had no intention of triggering this.

No need to discuss with a psychologist, tho. Go look up a published, peer-reviewed study. Unfortunately, you might just have to pick something up from several years ago. Most researchers and institutes have learned to hide from potentially huge political backlash by not publishing in lay journals and language, cloaking their findings in dense text and technical language. Last time I sat down with one of these papers, I probably spent the better part of an hour just trying to understand one of the factors on a graph. We also know the threats to universities have also resulted in suppression of research, though I can't begin to guess effect on this subject since, again, many professional journals are paid access only.

Nevertheless, researchers had identified personality traits distinct to libertarians a few years ago, and it was even suggested that libertarian may be a distinct personality type separate from liberal and conservative. More research presumably to come at that time though.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. No Worries

I may have overreacted. I generally don't post without giving at least some modicum of thought. So, the flawed assumption thing stuck in my throat.

I get what your saying, but i still don't see most of the "L" voters going dem rather than sitting it out, if there is no other choice. It's easier for EVERYBODY to stay home than go vote. That is, i'm sure you agree, a problem with our voting system. It's easier to do nothing.

[Hortensis]

10. And since I was fixated on their actual vote,

I sort of forgot to consider the huge option they would also have of not voting. One never to be left out of consideration.

I do agree with that last, of course, and it is why I reluctantly (there's a little "libertarian" in me) support mandatory voting. Conscientious objectors could formally opt out.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. I Really Like That Idea

Some logistics would have to be worked out though, no? Like making sure that NOBODY has to stand in line for hours. Everybody votes by mail? Something like that.

Maybe on-line? Certainly hacking is a concern, though. If the IRS can allow people to file taxes with an assigned PIN, and you have to get the PIN during the voting process, and it lasts only 60 minutes, might be tough to hack too. I'm not an IT guy, so i don't know how hard or easy hacking would be on something like that.

I think i'd vote for mail, and give people 10 days. Another thing we need to get rid of is the obsessive need to get results fast rather than accurately.