Skip to main content

Libertarians in nationwide polling: looking beyond the Presidential race

The most amazing thing about political polling is that it is now also principally a tool of the Demopublicans and the Mainstream Media, which means it has a defined interest in keeping the two-party narrative alive everywhere except the Presidential race.

That's presumably why, even though there are numerous Gubernatorial, Senatorial, Congressional, and State races across the country where the Other category is garnering as high as 6-9% (I counted nearly sixty such races in a brief run through the DC Political Report), there are only six that actually have named Libertarian candidates attached, even though Libertarians are running in dozens of those races.

(The same can be said, on a slightly lesser scale, about the Greens.)

These races are:

Indiana House District 9: Eric Schansberg--4%

Montana Senate: Stan Jones--3%

North Carolina Governor: Michael Munger--8%

North Carolina Senate: Chris Cole--1%

North Carolina State Senate District 36: Thomas Hill--7%

Utah Governor: Dell Schanz--1%

Note that three of the six races--50%--are from North Carolina, a fact attributable to the existence there of Public Policy Polling, which actually places third-party candidates in its questions.

This is an interesting form of self-fulfilling prophecy: if you don't include the names of any other candidates in the poll questions besides the Demopublican contenders, then you insure that those third-party candidates get absolutely no traction whatsoever.

There is tremendous reason to think, for example, that Libertarian Senate candidate Allen Buckley in Georgia is polling somewhere around 4-6% right now (he has received 69-75,000 votes in his last two elections), but with the polls unanimously excluding him, he can't use this showing for credibility purposes.

Question: what needs to happen to get the major polling interests to actually use the names of the ballot-qualified candidates in their surveys?

Comments

Brian Shields said…
Hasn't Munger's poll numbers doubled since the initial polling? I seem to remember him at 4%
Anonymous said…
First option is a chicken / egg problem - have candidates that consistently get significant results - i.e. in the double digit %ages, not just margin of difference values. An LP candidate needs to be predictably getting enough numbers to make the two party number meaningless without allowing for the LP candidate. Challenge is to figure out how to do it.

Second option is to PAY for more of the polling outfits to include our candidates - pollsters don't work for free, they get paid for every question - they will start asking about LP candidates when someone PAYS them to do so - either the MSM, or the candidate's campaign. Since we can't rely on the MSM, our candidates need to come up with the money themselves.

ART

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...