A few more tidbits…

Libertarian state house candidate Hardy Machia is in a respectable fourth place with 18% of the vote in his race, with at least one precinct left to report in.

The LP’s website reports a few local wins including a seat on the Hardeeville City Council in South Carolina and a few Soil and Water Supervisors.

Oh yeah, and I won my race with 54% of the vote. Thanks everyone!

54 Responses to “A few more tidbits…”

  1. Freelancer Says:

    Congratulations, Austin!

  2. Mike N. Says:

    For LP election results see:

    http://www.lp.org/

  3. George Whitfield Says:

    Congratulations! Austin. Do a good job.

  4. Michelle Says:

    Hey Babe! I am glad that you won your race. I have to mention that you have not looked at TX. http://207.200.23.22/06novgen.htm?x=0&y=21372&id=579 As Collin County (TX) chairman, I have to brag just a little about our numbers. We were not only double digits, but some races were high 20’s-30’s. (Mind you, I am not talking about dog catcher.) Our election night party was held at a moderately fashionable eatery, and it was well attended.
    Even with our fabulous results, I am terribly sad tonight. I made two bets on tonight’s results. I bet that Kinky would fail miserably, and I was right. Unfortunately, I bet my husband that we would win a real race this year. I lost. (unless something changes in the night) The cost? I am stepping down as county chair. He hates the time I spend on what he calls a “lost cause.” I was so sure of this year- I made the bet. I am a woman of my word, so Collin County will need a new chair tomorrow. I just couldn’t step down without giving huge props to all of our TX candidates. And I could not leave without saying that I was too sure of our value. Our numbers show that I am not wrong about the libertarian party- I only have bad timing.

  5. RCAIP Says:

    Congraduations Austin.

    I hope to follow in your footsteps when I run for local office someday.

  6. David A Spitzley Says:

    Nice work, Austin. I just wish I could convince my fellow Greens in Michigan to quit beating their heads against the wall on congressional races and run for local offices they can reasonably contest.

  7. Sean Scallon Says:

    Congrats Austin! From the Soil and Water Commission to the governor’s mansion!

  8. rj Says:

    Looks like it wasn’t a good night for 3rd parties as far as getting people elected.

    Congratulations to Mr. Jore in Montana.

    Haven’t seen anywhere how many of the Vermont Progressives got re-elected in their state legislature. Any word on that?

    Congratulations to candidates that ran well and/or gained status for their party. Tammy Lee for the IP in Minnesota almost beat the Republican (21.0% vs. 21.3%). Whitney for the Illinois Green Party. Pat LaMarche for the Maine Green Party. A half dozen or so independent candidates ran well.

    Nothing to frown about for John Eder, 48.4%. I hope he runs again in two years and wins. Good job to Matthew Reading by taking 2nd in a three-way with 41.8%. To lose by 4 votes, wow.

    Michael Badnarik, this is why this site told you to run for Railroad Commissioner. 3.7% from half a million dollars. Were there any Libertarians in Texas that spent like $300 and outperformed you? Dear God, you should be ashamed.

    That Libertarian in Indiana, 35-33-31 and you had a great chance at victory? So why did it look like 44-44-12? Did you pay someone to only call LP members?

    As far as the third party vote goes, was this still their highest vote total in top-of-the-ticket races in midterms since 1914?

    What’s an overall consensus to be drawn from this? It seems to me like everyone went down save some scattered statewide races.

  9. Kyle B Says:

    The Vermont Progressives won 6 seats in the state legislature according to what I read on another site. they lost one seat but picked up another one. So they didn’t gain any seats like some people were predicting

  10. Nigel Watt Says:

    David Spitzley: I’m trying to convince Libertarians to do the same.

  11. Nigel Watt Says:

    Oh, and some random Libertarian running for Congress in a highly Democratic Houston-area district did, in fact, do better than Badnarik – 4.3%.

  12. Prester John Says:

    Austin,

    Today Soil and Water Grp 5, tomorrow the WORLD!!

    Good job setting the example for those of us who are thinking about running for office.

  13. rj Says:

    Ran up some numbers for the highest Libertarians in U.S. House races in Texas:

    Badnarik – District 10 – 4.31% (Rep – 55%, Dem – 40%)
    Warren – District 18 – 4.26% (Rep – 77%, Dem – 19%)
    Cunningham – District 25 – 4.34% (Rep – 69%, Dem – 27%, Ind – 2%)
    Powell – District 27 – 4.32% (Rep – 57%, Dem – 39%)

  14. Eric Dondero Says:

    Congratulations Austin. As a former Soil & Water Board member myself (Tallahasse, 1994-96), I can attest you can make a difference as an elected Libertarian.

    Happy to hear Rick Jore won in MT. Unfortunately, the news nationwide for 3rd party candidates is rather grim. Dissapointed about the “Vermont 5” Libertarians. I was really hoping we’d win at least one of them

    No word yet on whether Don Gorman won his State Rep. race in NH.

    Overall, not a good year for the Libertarian Party in comparison to previous election cycles.

    Only wins on www.lp.org being reported are for Soil & Water Board. They’re reporting Sarah Chambers here in Alaska, but she won the election 4 weeks ago. And my understanding is the Hardeeville City Council seat is just a reelection, not a new seat.

  15. Eric Dondero Says:

    Here in Alaska, 3rd party candidates did not do well.

    My friend Libertarian Scott Kohlaas only got 2.6% for State House. We were hoping for 7 to 8%.

    Billy Toien for Alaska Governor got .26% on the Libertarian ticket, but he did beat Independent Dave Massie.

    Afterwards at the downtown Egan Center, Billy went up and heartily congratulated newly elected libertarian Republican Governor Sarah Palin.
    Sarah was quite gracious to Billie, and thanked him for the support of Libertarians.

  16. Chuck Says:

    If you take out 2 percent of the vote that he would have gotten for doing nothing, Badnarik spent something like $130 dollar per vote to gain additional votes. $68 dollars per vote on the entire way. It’s upsetting, but again we never saw anything for that money besides a ton of money to campaign staff and a rented office with a lot of funiture.

  17. Mike N. Says:

    rj, you missed a couple:

    US Rep 16, Strickland, Gordon – 21.33%
    US Rep 20, Idrogo, Michael – 12.65%

  18. Mike N. Says:

    Oh and Smither in the special election: 18.90%

  19. Mike N. Says:

    RJ - You also missed Smither in the general: 6.08%

    And who is this Cunningham person you claim ran in the 25th district? There was no such Libertarian in that race.

  20. rj Says:

    Mike N.

    I did not count races where one of the main parties is missing, cause the Libertarian candidate cannot call those his own votes but more the votes of the missing party’s voters. If a Democrat is not on the ballot, the Democratic voters did not vote for the Libertarian cause he was the Libertarian, but rather cause he was the only non-Republican. In Smither’s race, the Republican was missing from the ballot.

    A bit semantic I know, but to act like Michael Idrogo did three times as good a result as any of the four Libertarians I listed is not correct.

    Cunningham is listed on the lp.org site, as well as cnn.com election results as a Libertarian.

  21. Austin Cassidy Says:

    http://www.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=465

  22. rj Says:

    Blast from the past:

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/09/21/the-badnarik-campaign/#comments

  23. Mike N. Says:

    rj – that is nonsense. That is like saying if it is a two-way race between a Dem and a Repub, then you can’t count their votes because they might have went to the Libertarian – or any other 3rd party for that matter.

  24. Mike N. Says:

    Ahh, I was looking at the general election results…. Cunningham was in a special election.

  25. Chuck Says:

    Mike – I’m pretty sure he’s using those numbers to compare to badnarik, It’s unfair to compare libertarians(at least at this point) in a two-way race with only one party to libertarians in a 3 party race.

    You are not going to get any resonable type of stats or stratagy if you compare the two, and then asked what went wrong in the 3-party race.

  26. Mike N. Says:

    Chuck,

    Aww, those poor 3-way racers… I feel so bad for them…. where do I send the tissue?

  27. Mike N. Says:

    And by the way, Smither was in 5-way race in the Special. He received 18.90% of the vote. So your sob story doesn’t fly.

  28. rj Says:

    Allright Mike, it’s just a difference of opinion then.

  29. Chuck Says:

    I can’t belive i’m arguing this

    Mike don’t be moronic; All RJ is saying is that for purposes of proving badnarik’s campaign as a failure, it is most fair to just look at 3-party races, as it is the closest control group.

    Almost all evidence that we have right now shows that if you are the other party option in a 2 party race, you are going to get a boost(yes there is alwayls stastical anomalies, i’m sure you can find them).

    It’d be really really stupid to go look at a 2-party race and say that is EXCATLY like the 3 party race and thus can be compared as being excatly the same.

    Obviously all the 2-party races just had better libertarian folks running then.

  30. Mike N. Says:

    Chuck,

    Nice try, but you are the only one making this a two-way vs three-way race argument.

  31. Mike N. Says:

    I couldn’t care less how many people are on the ballot. All that matters are the results. If you ran in a 3-way race and got bad results, then maybe you should have done some research and ran in a 2-way race.

    And Smither’s race dis-proves your argument.

  32. Chuck Says:

    heh ,I don’t have a clue what you are disagreeing with. I’ll go ahead and make the same argument I presume RJ to be making because it is common sense.

  33. Derek Says:

    I think the Republicans screwed the Libertarians in TX 22. Lampson won the general election and if Smithers had been alone, that race would’ve been tight! I’m glad Smithers got almost 19% in the special election but we were all expecting a better showing I guess. That candidate for the US Senate in IN got over 13% which isn’t bad but could’ve been better. Hey, maybe we should’ve given him a hand. In 2008, I hope to see the Libertarians or Greens or Reform in Congress. It’s a tough mission I know but if 5% of us voters voted 3rd party, it’s a good start. However, I dream of seeing a coalition of 3rd parties going after the duopoly. A Green/Socialist/ Socialist Worker alliance and a Libertarian/Reform/Constitution alliance. Maybe you can field let’s say someone from the Green party in a state but representing the alliance. If any of you get into Congress, I’ll scream of joy that the duopoly will fall. Let’s all form a Rainbow Coalition style alliance that represents the unrepresented and unite in all races (Pres, House, Senate, Gov, etc). I want to thank all the 3rd parties for showing a winning spirit because I know we’ll all see what we’ve done: helped our democracy.

  34. Chuck Says:

    oh woops you replied to me. Okay but we are trying to compare like-races to show that his money was wastefull, when compared to like races. throwing in 3-party races are not valid comparisons to try and figure out what he would have gotten if he had done nothing.

    Also smither’s party is still a two-party race, all stats show that there is a small percentange of people that will alwayls vote against a R or D.

    I’m not trying to defend Badnarik, and Badnarik should have looked at all this info before he got into a race, I’m simply saying that to show he wasted money, because by doing nothing/no money you get this much money in a 3-party race.

    a 2-party race it not the same situation and is not goign to tell you what he would have gotten if he ran without money in a 3-party race.

    Just the results don’t matter, it’s how you got there, so you know what to do in the future.

  35. Mike N. Says:

    I think the Republicans screwed the Libertarians in TX 22.

    Perhaps the notion of a real Libertarian elected to office scared the hell out of them. I mean come on, they had to of known their write-in couldn’t win.

  36. Chuck Says:

    Whee,, sorry about my 3rd grade quotions in my previous post, it’s just the fact that I’m having to talk about this is making my brain revert.

  37. Mike N. Says:

    Just the results don’t matter, it’s how you got there, so you know what to do in the future.

    Agreed. But only an idiot would fail to analyze these inputs before making a serious attempt at winning. They go hand-in-hand… if you were to ignore the results, you can very well study how they got there.

  38. Mike N. Says:

    *can’t

  39. Mike N. Says:

    As for me (who doesn’t give a shit about 3-way vs 2-way comparisons) only the results matter. If you received 2% of the vote, I don’t care if it was a 2-way or a 10-way race…. you only received 2% period. No amount of crying about how many people were in other races is going to change that.

  40. Chuck Says:

    Okay, I just hope for future races, you don’t look for inspriation from a libertarian who got 13% in a 2-party race instead of one that got 10% in a 3-party race.

    Like I hope you don’t think steve osborne’s(nothing against him, a good guy) is better then Ed Thompson and is more capable at winnable.

  41. Mike N. Says:

    Okay, I just hope for future races, you don’t run Ed Thompson in an un-winnable race.

  42. Chuck Says:

    Because putting people that can’t win any race as our presidential candiate rocks.

  43. Mike N. Says:

    LOL Exactly.

  44. undercover_anarchist Says:

    I’m so glad that someone with the class, decorum, and intelligence of Mike N. is a blogger at Hammer of Truth.

    Hmmm….

    How long until he is “fired” from that position? What’s the over/under?

    His immaturity and stupidity almost make his friend Allen Hacker look intelligent by comparison.

  45. Austin Cassidy Says:

    On the 2 vs 3-way race measurement, of course there’s a difference.

    The Texas LP issued a press release comparing this year’s results with those from the past. They broke it down, for measurement purposes, into 2-way and 3-way races.

    http://www.tx.lp.org/release-20061108.shtml

    Heck, Badnarik received someting like 16% of the vote as a paper candidate for state house back in 2000 or 2002… and then 2% or 3% in a 3-way race for the same seat.

  46. Austin Cassidy Says:

    As to the Republicans “screwing” Bob Smither in Texas, I kind of feel like I have to point out that the GOP doesn’ts owe the LP anything. Heck, Libertarians attempted to swing Wisconsin against Bush in 2004…

    And to say that someone who got a few percent was screwed by someone who pulled in 40% just doesn’t make any sense either. That’s like Ralph Nader saying: “Damnit, Al Gore… if you had just dropped out and endorsed me, I could have won this thing! See what you did?”

    Now if the write-in had gotten fewer votes than Smither you might have some ground to argue that it was stupid for them to run her. But Smither was no where even remotely close. Not even in the meaningless special election where he was the only non-Republican on the ballot.

  47. Carl Milsted Says:

    Remember, Mike N. is part of the Libertarian Retard Caucus. This is why he cannot differentiate between two and three way races.

    That Badnarik was in a three-way is the reason why many opted to support Smither instead. Smither’s race was somewhere between a two and three way contest. While there were only two candidates on the ballot, the write-in campaigns from the Republican side were strong.

    I did a study on the difference between two and three way races that was published in the May 2001 edition of Liberty. For lower state house races in the 12 states studied, Libertarians did about 4 times better when in two-way vs. three way races. (I did not count other minor parties when determining what constitutes a two, vs three way.)

    In a two way race, the Lesser of Two Evils dilemma goes away. You get around 10 percent for free just for being on the ballot due to protest votes.

    Trying to dis a campaign for faring worse in a three-way contest than one in a two way contest is truly retarded.

    (Now, it would have been reasonable to question making such a major national effort for a three-way congressional race in the first place.)

  48. Tom Bryant Says:

    While it is clear that Mike Nelson is making himself look pretty bad in this thread, please keep in mind that he is very young and it is likely he hasn’t taken a statistics course yet. Analyzing results of an election can be complicated due to the many varibles involved in every campaign. I appreciate his enthusiasm for looking at the results and respect his desire to use his time to contribute what he feels are useful points to the discussion. I would though, urge him to be a little more humble and take in the other points being discussed to futher his knowledge of the subject at hand.

    Mike’s blogging at HoT may not be as good as some of the others, but we all have to start somewhere. Let’s not shoot him down while he’s still getting his wings. Constructive criticism is best,and even though he outwardly appears to reject that (common for his age), internally he is digesting all that information.

  49. Carl Says:

    ‘Twas a trifle petty of me, but Mr. Nelson has been referring to the “Libertarian Retard Caucus” repeatedly at HoT in the comments area. I realize my stature in Libertarian circles would be higher if I rose above such potshots, but frankly, I am not sure I care any more.

    Technically, I am not a member of the national LP, anyway, as I do advocate the initiation of force under some circumstances—as do 99+% of the American people. And this is a significant reason why the LP is going nowhere expensively. It is too exclusive to be a real political party.

    If you don’t have enough members in the district, including members with decent contact lists, you end up with embarrassing rallies with few attendees.

  50. Tom Bryant Says:

    I can understand your feelings about the juvenile name calling of “Libertarian Retard Caucus.”

    This is another lesson that he will learn in time. Disagreements with allies come up all the time, and his manner of expressing those disagreements will burn bridges down the road. It will take a while for him to realize the benefit of disagreeing in a more mature way, much like it may take a young worker a while to learn the benefit of giving notice before quitting a job.

    Mike’s heart is in the right direction. It just takes experience to learn some of the finer points.

  51. NewFederalist Says:

    I don’t know either Tom Bryant or Mike Nelson but from what Bryant seems to think of Nelson he must be the adolescent Jesus or something! Let this guy fight his own battles and figured it out for himself!

  52. NewFederalist Says:

    I don’t know either Tom Bryant or Mike Nelson but from what Bryant seems to think of Nelson he must be the adolescent Jesus or something! Let this guy fight his own battles and figure it out for himself!

  53. Mike N. Says:

    ‘Twas a trifle petty of me, but Mr. Nelson has been referring to the “Libertarian Retard Caucus” repeatedly at HoT in the comments area. I realize my stature in Libertarian circles would be higher if I rose above such potshots, but frankly, I am not sure I care any more.

    Finally figuring out why your “caucus” is referred to as the Retard Caucus are ya?

  54. Mike N. Says:

    (Now, it would have been reasonable to question making such a major national effort for a three-way congressional race in the first place.

    BINGO!! See, even the retard caucus can be rational at times.

Leave a Reply