Skip to main content

We really do live in a one-party state--and it is not going to be Republicans who change that

As we approach the last two weeks in the election season, it is important to take note of the various party offerings.  There are 183 ballot-qualified candidates in Delaware, including the Presidential tickets.  Here's the breakdown:
92 of them are Democrats (50%)
57 of them are Republicans (31%)
23 of them are Libertarians (13%)
5 of them are Greens (3%)
5 of them are IPODs (3%)
1 of them is Unaffiliated
We can learn several things from this.

First, we are already a one-party state when the total of all the non-Democrat candidates in four other parties is required equal their offerings.

Second, the Republicans continue to decline, accounting for fewer than one-third of the candidates running this year.  They are not even running sufficient candidates to retake the General Assembly if they win everything.  Nor are they managing to raise money for their candidates--c'mon, $60K to run for governor and you are a major party candidate?

Third, the Libertarians have established themselves as THE third party in Delaware.  In at least half a dozen cases, the races are between Libertarians and either Dems/GOPers with no other candidate.  Once you account for Jill Stein and her running mate, the Green Party ticket consists of only candidates for US Senate, US House, and Governor. They aren't running a single candidate for other state offices.  The IPOD currently (to be bluntly honest) consists of Alex Pires' self-funded vanity campaign (or is it a movie?) and four paper candidates.

Fourth, despite the growth of the Libertarian Party in terms of candidates and public attention, the LPD will NOT become a significant force in Delaware politics until we win SOMETHING.  So between 2014 and 2016 it is incumbent on Libertarians to identify, train, and financially support candidates in districts where we can be competitive.


Comments

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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...