"Lowell C. Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote an election analysis analysis (or addendum) on LIBNW which I quote in full below for cross-posting to LPNY_discuss. Meanwhile I'll top post a correction to what I'd posted earlier about factors in the 2004 Bronx Democratic primary for civil court judge which was won by Conservative enrollee John Wilson, a historic victory. Seems the remark about voters thinking Wilson was black (And Whiten white?) was just some sour grapes by a Dem operative. The real racial factor was that the regulars wanted to keep black turnout low to help a Hispanic candidate in an assembly race; they succeeded by not publicizing the primary, and in the process inadvertently and unexpectedly torpedoed Whiten.
>Sorry, but this is a long one....A response to Chuck Muth. > >This is a classic case of (as Bill Anderson might say) "single-numberitis". >He looks at the number of votes that Dino Rossi "could have had" if it >wasn't for Ruth Bennett. What he misses is the potentially larger number of >votes that Rossi "could have lost" if he'd played to the LP vote. The real >question is, if he'd moved "left" and alienated more people to the LP, could >Rossi have more than made up the difference with "moderates" or >"conservative Democrats?" Since Chuck Muth totally ignores this question, >he doesn't "have" to answer it. And if you want to keep living in a fantasy >world, you can ignore it too. But if you are reading this, I assume it is >because you want a realistic picture of what really happened, which means >that you "have" to deal with it. You might still disagree with my analysis, >but when you do so, you will at least do so by addressing the issue. > >Look at the statewide races. (See: >"http://vote.wa.gov/general/statewide_results.aspx?o=Pb%2f1UmP3PoX%2fDHq%2 bD >UhS8w%3d%3d" and watch the wrap.) > >Only one Republican got more votes than Rossi, Rob McKenna, the new AG. He >got 53,954 more votes than Rossi. (From the original count. The manual >recount shrinks that by over a thousand--except that the new ballots don't >get added to McKenna's total.) "Aha!" you say, that's fewer than Ruth >Bennett's total of 63,346. Yes, but J. Bradley Gibson the LP candidate for >AG got 56,792. So Ruth Bennett only got 6,554 more votes than Gibson, but >Rossi lost 53,954 of McKenna's votes. That means that Christine Gregoire >got 47,400 of McKenna's votes that did not go to Bennett. (Assuming all of >Bush's votes went to Bennett as well.) On top of that, Gregoire got >another 115,769 votes that were not cast in the AG race and I'm assuming >that all he votes for Deborah Senn (the Democrat, 1,163,964) and Paul >Richmond (Green, 44,020) went to Gregoire. Which block of votes do you think >Rossi misses most (at least of those available to him)? The 6,554 that >Bennett got (which I'm generously assuming were cast for McKenna on the AG >ticket), or the 47,400 votes that Gregoire got shared with McKenna? The >other 115,769 votes could be voters sitting on their hands against a flawed >candidate Senn, or they could also be votes that Rossi could have mined had >he run a more "centrist" campaign. Any of those blocks would have kept >Rossi over the top (well, at least they would have made King County work >harder at digging up votes) but he's got to be looking real hard at how he >can peel off a few votes from the larger block long before he looks at >Bennett's votes. > >It should also be noted that McKenna isn't particularly conservative--not >bad, but not great either. He was on the King County Council (Seattle is in >King County)--'nuff said. > >Now, look at the other races. Sec. of State Sam Reed was an incumbent, >relatively popular, endorsed by the County Auditors of ALL Washington >Counties. His opponent had no experience. Reed got 1,993 fewer votes than >Rossi and his LP opponent, Jacqueline Passey, got 82,097 votes--that's >18,751 more than Ruth Bennett. But he won because 145,096 voters who voted >for Governor didn't bother to vote this line--apparently hurting his Dem >opponent. > >Doug Sutherland was re-elected as Commissioner of Public Lands with >1,309,441 votes. That's 61,973 fewer votes than Rossi. Meanwhile his LP >opponent topped out the LP showing against competitive Republican candidates >with 88,171 votes. > >The remaining races were won by Democrats (usually incumbents, usually >against anyone the R's could find to throw up against them). And, get this, >in the remaining races, the Dems got MORE votes than Gregoire did in races >that all had at least 100,000 FEWER total votes cast!!! (OK, so maybe the >54% to 41% loss at Insurance Commissioner was "competitive"--but it also had >246,271 fewer total votes!!! Almost a quarter of a million voters who voted >for Governor didn't bother with this line!) > >Rossi probably got 20,000 voters who voted for the Dem. Insurance >Commissioner to vote for him, 200,000 voters who voted for the Dem. State >Treasurer, almost 300,000 voters who voted for the Dem. State Auditor, and >around 70,000 voters who voted for the Dem. Lt. Governor! ANYTHING Rossi >might have done to get some of those hypothetical 6,554 Bennett votes would >probably have cost him ten times the number of votes he got from these other >blocks of votes. > >All in all, it appears that the LP hurts Republicans not so much by pulling >some small-L libertarians away as by stretching the range of voters to which >a Republican candidate has to appeal. A Republican candidate has to find a >way to keep libertarians in his camp while at the same time appealing to >"moderates" who could just as easily go over to his Democrat opponent. >Right now, it appears that the best approach for a Republican is to go after >those voters "in the middle" and not worry too much about the LP. > >Lowell C. Savage >It's the freedom, stupid! >Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of shadow >> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 8:31 AM >> To: libNW >> Subject: Muth's Truths - January 23, 2005 (fwd) >> >> *** Forwarded message, originally written by >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] on >> 23-Jan-05 *** >> >> >> CHAIRMAN VANCE AND THE LIBERTARIAN FACTOR >> by Chuck Muth >> January 23, 2005 >> >> A couple weeks ago in this column, I took Washington state GOP Chairman >> Chris >> Vance to the political woodshed for foolishly taunting and agitating the >> Libertarian Party bull in his backyard. The underlying issue was >> November's >> gubernatorial election where the Republican candidate lost by a mere 129 >> votes (out of about 3 million cast)...while the Libertarian Party (LP) >> candidate chalked up over 60,000 votes. >> >> Vance has since responded to that column, and I'll get to that in a >> minute. >> But first let me put to rest an argument which has been made by some folks >> who maintain the LP candidate in that race pulled more votes from the >> Democrat than the Republican. These folks are saying that more Democrats >> voted for the LP nominee because she was an "out" lesbian than Republicans >> who voted for the LP nominee because the LP is historically known for its >> limited-government bona fides. >> >> I don't buy that argument for a minute. >> >> But let's say these folks are correct. Let's say that 99 percent of the >> LP >> candidate's votes came from actual Libertarians and disaffected Democrats. >> That would mean that 1 percent of the 63,465 votes received by the >> Libertarian candidate came from Republican voters who weren't happy, for >> one >> reason or another, with the Republican Party or its gubernatorial >> candidate. >> That would be 634 votes. >> >> Again, the Republican lost by only 129 votes. >> >> And bet your bottom dollar there were a LOT more than 634 unhappy GOP >> campers >> who threw their "protest" vote to the LP candidate. No matter how you >> slice >> it, the GOP's failure to "reach out" sufficiently to citizens who support >> limited government public policies cost them that election...despite the >> voter fraud which apparently occurred in liberal King County. >> >> That being said, let's get to the Chairman Vance's rebuttal to my initial >> column... >> >> "Republicans must stop thinking of the LP as a wing of our party," Vance >> writes to a GOP grassroots organization which had posted my column on >> their >> website. "Like the Democrats, they are a party that competes with us for >> votes." He adds, "My objective has not been to convince Libertarians to >> vote >> Republican." >> >> And that's Vance's problem. There are a LOT of "small l" libertarians in >> his >> GOP...whether he wants to admit it or not...and Chairman Vance wants to >> take >> the votes of such limited-government Republicans for granted rather than >> compete for them. Kinda like the way Democrats take the black vote for >> granted. >> >> The big difference though, which the Chairman apparently fails to >> recognize, >> is that while there is no "black" party competing with the Democrats for >> black votes, there IS a limited-government party competing for Republican >> votes. Vance doesn't need to convince members of the Libertarian Party to >> pull the GOP lever; he needs to convince his own libertarian-leaning >> Republicans who are fed up with a party which has too often been all hat >> and >> no cattle when it comes to limited government. >> >> "Our objective must be to make it clear to conservatives that the LP is >> not a >> conservative party," Vance continues. >> >> I guess that all depends on your definition of "conservative." >> >> In fact, Ronald Reagan himself saw "conservative" and "libertarian" as >> pretty >> much two sides of the same limited government coin. "If you analyze it I >> believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," the >> Gipper told Reason magazine in a 1970's interview. "The basis of >> conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less >> centralized >> authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general >> description >> also of what libertarianism is." >> >> Does anyone of sound mind and body question Mr. Reagan's conservative >> credentials? >> >> "I have consistently emphasized their support of gay marriage, abortion, >> legalized drugs and prostitution; and their opposition to the war on >> terror," >> the Chairman writes. But his portrayal here is a distorted exaggeration >> of >> what diverse voters, in both parties, believe politically. And don't >> point >> simply to the party platforms. You can't swing a dead cat at a GOP >> convention without hitting a Republican who takes issue with some part of >> the >> Republican platform, including President Bush. Nevertheless, let's look >> specifically at the issues Vance chooses to "emphasize": >> >> * Not all Libertarians support gay marriage; however, more than a handful >> of >> Vance's Republicans certainly object to a constitutional amendment banning >> it. >> >> * There are significant numbers of pro-life Libertarians, just as there >> are >> significant numbers of pro-choice Republicans in Vance's tent. >> >> * On the drug issue, there are large numbers of Vance's Republicans who >> support the legal use of medical marijuana, as well as a growing number >> who >> view the GOP's "war on drugs" to be a complete and utter failure, not to >> mention a serious threat to individual and constitutional liberties. >> >> * And when it comes to the war on terror and Iraq, there is a large >> segment >> of the Libertarian Party which vigorously supports both, just as there is >> a >> large segment of Vance's GOP which opposes them. >> >> To try to portray ALL Libertarians based on the characteristics of some of >> the dominant activist members is akin to describing ALL of Vance's >> Republicans as Bible-thumping, gay-bashing Victorians. >> >> "One of my 2004 objectives was to file a Republican for every statewide >> office to make it more difficult for the LP to get the 5% of the vote they >> needed to remain a `major party,' and we succeeded," Vance proudly boasted >> in >> his rebuttal. "As a result, for the next four years, LP candidates will >> have >> to collect signatures and hold nominating conventions in order to get on >> the >> ballot, rather than simply file as Republicans and Democrats do." >> >> Wow. There's something to be proud of, huh? Rather than compete on the >> field >> with his opponents, Chairman Vance prefers to lock the gate in an effort >> to >> keep those opponents from even taking the field. >> >> I'm sure Chairman Vance and others consider this to be smart, hardball >> politics, and I guess they have a point. But to me it smacks as...well, >> cowardly. You can smell the fear. The chairman's stated objective is to >> prevent competition, not beat it. And while he may have won a short-term >> victory by locking the gate and forcing the LP to climb the fence to get >> on >> the field next season, Vance is setting himself and the GOP up for long- >> term >> problems for years to come. >> >> "The job of WSRP Chairman is to get Republicans elected, not help the LP >> compete with us," Vance concludes. >> >> Well, in that case, the Chairman was, as former Senate Minority Leader Tom >> Daschle would put it, a "miserable failure." His ill-considered approach >> to >> the LP cost his party, at the very least, the Washington governor's >> office. >> So much for getting Republicans elected. >> >> In addition, Vance has given LP'ers grist for the political mill for years >> to >> come. If you've ever played serious team sports, you know that coaches >> routinely post news stories in the locker room which highlight derogatory >> quotes by opponents in order to "fire up" their own players. "Coach" >> Vance >> has handed a library of such motivational quotes to his Libertarian Party >> opponents. Not very smart. >> >> For their part, I don't think the Libertarians did themselves any favors >> in >> the credibility department by nominating for this race a "novelty" >> gubernatorial candidate who was generally far out of step with them >> philosophically on most core issues. It wasn't as embarrassing as >> nominating >> Howard Stern to be their gubernatorial candidate in New York some years >> ago, >> but it did nothing to promote the image of a serious party of principle. >> >> Nevertheless, the LP is still in the political minor leagues these days. >> It >> can be forgiven for such electoral "rookie" mistakes. Chairman Vance, on >> the >> other hand, should know better. I'm sure he's a nice guy and committed >> partisan leader with lots of political ambition...but had he been manager >> of >> the Yankees, Steinbrenner would have canned him by now. >> >> # # # >> >> Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and may be reached at >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Libnw mailing list >> Libnw@immosys.com >> List info and subscriber options: >> http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw >> Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
