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%2bD 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 > [email protected] > List info and subscriber options: > http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw > Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [email protected] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
