Thought on the Walorski/Donnelly run.

[TiminMishawaka]

So Jackie lost by 2500 votes.

And the Libertarian took 9500 votes.

Is it me or is it time Libertarians stop f--king up Republican elections and giving power to the people that are diametrically opposed to what they believe in rather than the people are are probably a lot more aligned with them?

I'm sorry but I'm just over the whole "I'm a libertarian" nonconformist cool kid on the block thing anymore.

 

[hornadylnl]

Maybe it's time for the repubs to stop ******* up the country. Maybe us non conformists will vote repub again. I voted only liberatarian this year.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Found out some more information that Indiana Democrats were paying for and mailing out a lot of the fliers for the Libertarian candidate. Thanks again Libertarians. You were played like a fiddle.

 

[hornadylnl]

Who's being played here? Repubs continue to promise the conservative utopia and govern like dems once in power. Someone once said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Keep voting for bad behavior and see if they ever change.

 

[Hawkeye]

You know, both parties made me sick in this particular election. For some reason, understandable only by cable executives, Warsaw is considered "South Bend market", so even though I live and work in the 3rd Cong Dist, I was subjected to the endless dreck of lies by both candidates and both parties in the 2nd. Had I lived in the 2nd I might have voted Libertarian just because I could not stand the BS both the campaigns were slinging.

3rd Parties often have the effect cited by the OP. It is one of the risks that you run. Before I vote for a 3rd Party, I look at the polls to see how close the majors are to each other. Then I decide if I can vote my conscience or if I have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

[01deuce]

its about what the dems are trying to do now. And I can't understand how so many people voted for Donnelly when he has proved to support the extreme left agenda. I thought this district knew better. Guess not!

 

[Phil502]

its about what the dems are trying to do now. And I can't understand how so many people voted for Donnelly when he has proved to support the extreme left agenda. I thought this district knew better. Guess not!

Yes I agree, I was very disappointed to see the Dems keep that seat. Now we have the worst candidate in there. I hope I don't cut my throat shaving this morning, I'm using a machette, because I really don't like my electric razor or my double bladed razor either. That will show them.

 

[dom1104]

<---- Republican Election F__Ker-Upper.

And F__king proud of it, sir.

 

[jdhaines]

One more Lib(eratarian) vote here. I'm sick of voting R because it's slightly better than the D. I'm not going to do it anymore. If they give us a good R then I'll vote for them. If they don't (Coats) I'm voting against them every time. If things have to get worse before the Republican party straightens out, then so be it.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Quite honestly, Mark Vogel was a joke. Did you see the debate? He was stuttering and stumbling over his words. I think we are all dumber just listening to him. And I lean more toward the Libertarian party than anything.

I can understand those who want to make a point by voting for a 3rd party, but do they realize that by thumbing their noses and taking an "I'll show you" attitude, they elected someone who is diametrically opposed to their beliefs? If It was going to be a landslide, then yes, vote to make a statement. But not in an election this close.

I really think the Libertarians shot themselves in the foot on this one.

 

[jesse485]

I live in this district. Mostly "L" on my ballot, but Walorski got my vote for this seat. That's more than I can say for slimeball Coats. I'm no fan of Donnelly, but at least he isn't a raging idiot like most on his side. Look at the good side, Nancy gets to sit her keister down now.

 

[Hoosierdood]

I'm no fan of Donnelly, but at least he isn't a raging idiot like most on his side. Look at the good side, Nancy gets to sit her keister down now.

 

[melensdad]

Look at the good side, Nancy gets to sit her keister down now.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg&NR=1"]YouTube - Ding Dong The Witch is Dead[/ame]

 

[Bill of Rights]

So Jackie lost by 2500 votes.

And the Libertarian took 9500 votes.

Is it me or is it time Libertarians stop f--king up Republican elections and giving power to the people that are diametrically opposed to what they believe in rather than the people are are probably a lot more aligned with them?

I'm sorry but I'm just over the whole "I'm a libertarian" nonconformist cool kid on the block thing anymore.

She lost not because of Libertarian voters but because many voters simply go in and mark the major parties. I have never in my life clicked the "straight ticket" option and entered it as my vote. On my ballot, everyone who had an L after their name got my vote. When there wasn't an L, some Republicans got my vote as the best option. Some Republicans in races opposed only by Democrats did not get my vote when I couldn't justify voting for either.

Jackie Walorski would have gotten my vote. It's not about being a nonconformist and it's not about being the "cool kid on the block". It's about voting your conscience and your principles instead of doing like most people do and just voting for who they think is going to win. If more people voted their conscience and principles, the Libertarians would be winning.

Don't blame a political party for the failings of individuals- ask yourself why you didn't go out personally and try to get more of the folks who voted for Donnelly to see that Jackie Walorski was the better option.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[photoshooter]

Let's take a look at what a Warloski win would have meant:

1. Putting H3llfire Jackie in the house. Bonus! I'd love to see here there just for the heartburn she'd give to Pelosi!

2. Would her race have given the GOP a Veto-Proof majority in the House? Nope? They're not close enough to get there.

3. Would the GOP have taken the US Senate with her race? Nope. Coats won without her coat tails.

All Jackie winning would have done in the National Picture - was to give the GOP one more vote in an already big majority in the house.

The GOP cannot do a darn thing right now at the national level except stop the Progressive agenda. They currently have enough votes to do that in the House, with or without JW being there.
Yes, having Jackie in the house would have been a good thing. I've lived in Andre Carson's district, and I know the feeling of desperation one has living in a district represented by the other side.

However, the Libertarian in that race did not out preform those in the rest of the state. Jackie took on a sitting congressman in Pat Bauer's back yard. You had to break through the liberal blockade known as St. Joe County.

I know it feels nice to blame the other party. Perhaps we can get our Sect State and Legislature to approve some common sense districts across the state that are not slanted to keep a single party's candidate in office. Then, the voters will really have a choice.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Let's take a look at what a Warloski win would have meant:

1. Putting H3llfire Jackie in the house. Bonus! I'd love to see here there just for the heartburn she'd give to Pelosi!

2. Would her race have given the GOP a Veto-Proof majority in the House? Nope? They're not close enough to get there.

3. Would the GOP have taken the US Senate with her race? Nope. Coats won without her coat tails.

All Jackie winning would have done in the National Picture - was to give the GOP one more vote in an already big majority in the house.

The GOP cannot do a darn thing right now at the national level except stop the Progressive agenda. They currently have enough votes to do that in the House, with or without JW being there.
Yes, having Jackie in the house would have been a good thing. I've lived in Andre Carson's district, and I know the feeling of desperation one has living in a district represented by the other side.

However, the Libertarian in that race did not out preform those in the rest of the state. Jackie took on a sitting congressman in Pat Bauer's back yard. You had to break through the liberal blockade known as St. Joe County.

I know it feels nice to blame the other party. Perhaps we can get our Sect State and Legislature to approve some common sense districts across the state that are not slanted to keep a single party's candidate in office. Then, the voters will really have a choice.

I'd like to see a lot of pressure to rationalize the voting districts; making it unlawful for the legislature to gerrymander any district in the state. Of course, that's like advocating term limits...

 

[Fletch]

Of course, that's like advocating term limits...

Term limits passed in a landslide here in Oklahoma last night.

As for the OP... the "stolen votes" argument only works with 100% participation. If 100% of the voters did not show up to the polls (and generally it's less than 50%, especially in a non-presidential year), don't ask why a 3rd party "stole your votes". Ask why your candidate didn't energize the rest of his voters to come to the polls.

 

[dom1104]

She lost not because of Libertarian voters but because many voters simply go in and mark the major parties. I have never in my life clicked the "straight ticket" option and entered it as my vote. On my ballot, everyone who had an L after their name got my vote. When there wasn't an L, some Republicans got my vote as the best option. Some Republicans in races opposed only by Democrats did not get my vote when I couldn't justify voting for either.

Jackie Walorski would have gotten my vote. It's not about being a nonconformist and it's not about being the "cool kid on the block". It's about voting your conscience and your principles instead of doing like most people do and just voting for who they think is going to win. If more people voted their conscience and principles, the Libertarians would be winning.

Don't blame a political party for the failings of individuals- ask yourself why you didn't go out personally and try to get more of the folks who voted for Donnelly to see that Jackie Walorski was the better option.

Blessings,
Bill

+1

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Quite honestly, Mark Vogel was a joke. Did you see the debate? He was stuttering and stumbling over his words. I think we are all dumber just listening to him. And I lean more toward the Libertarian party than anything.

I can understand those who want to make a point by voting for a 3rd party, but do they realize that by thumbing their noses and taking an "I'll show you" attitude, they elected someone who is diametrically opposed to their beliefs? If It was going to be a landslide, then yes, vote to make a statement. But not in an election this close.

I really think the Libertarians shot themselves in the foot on this one.

I concur. Document to me how Jackie Walorski isn't libertarian in the real solutions she offered, aside from the fact that she didn't take the (L) behind her name. The Libertarians scream on and on about how people are voting for someone just because they have an (R) behind their name....and have become the people who'll put a liberal in power just because they blow their vote on someone with an (L) behind their name.

 

[photoshooter]

Also, take a look at the 2008 Dist 2 race. Mark Vogel (L) was also the candidate in the 2008 race. Same candidate, same district.

The very same libertarian candidate took over 7,000 votes in 2008. He increased by 1,970 votes this time over what he got in 2008.

Donnelly won by 2,542 votes. The GOP needs to factor in 3rd party voting history into their campaign strategy.

Yes, the race was very close. But the increase in the L votes was not enough to have cost the race.