Montana came dangerously close to electing a Libertarian to statewide office

[RI]

The race for the position of Clerk of the Supreme Court saw a Democratic/Libertarian match-up with no Republican running. The Democrat won, but only by a margin of 56.83%-43.17% over Libertarian Mike Fellows.

Map:

[Marokai Backbeat]

Phew!

[Indy Texas]

You say "dangerously close" like it's a bad thing. I rather like the Gary Johnson wing of the LP. Unlike the GOP, they're actually consistent about being fiscally conservative (as opposed to being fine with the government spending unlimited money on wars and elderly white people) and don't try to fight culture wars. And unlike the Ron Paul Libertarians, they generally dispense with the crackpot theories about the New World Order and all that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's a pretty fascinating map, anyways. Comparing it to recent close Statewide races:

2012 Gov


2012 Sen


2008 Pres


2006 Sen

[Bacon King]

I don't see the problem here; I think I would've even preferred if he won. The Clerk of the MT Supreme Court is basically just a glorified secretary, so it's not like a horrible officeholder could do any real damage here anyway. It'd also be pretty cool in general for a third-party to have an elected statewide officeholder. Also, this victory would only make the state's Libertarian Party more ambitious, which would only help Democratic candidates since the Republicans would be losing much more votes to them.

[Holmes]

Clerk of the Supreme Court is a statewide office? And is elected?

[Keystone Phil]

First Clerk of the Supreme Court. Then the world!

[freefair]

A win would have been beautiful. I love the pragmatic wing of the libertarians. Does this show they could be a secular, progressive alternative to the GOP for free marketeers?
In all races where the Republicans don't bother to run, the Libs should divert all available resources into winning.

[Frodo]

The Free State Project should consider pulling up camp and moving to Montana instead. 

[bgwah]

Awesome.

[Bacon King]

The Free State Project should consider pulling up camp and moving to Montana instead. 

IIRC only like a thousand people ever actually moved to New Hampshire for this (although like a dozen of them got elected to the superhuge NH House in 2010).

[RI]

You say "dangerously close" like it's a bad thing.

Yes, I was trolling libertarians a bit with the title as I often enjoy doing. However, despite the fact that I can't stand libertarianism, seeing them win a some number of small races might be nice if they aren't of particular consequence. I wouldn't mind seeing a multiparty system arise in the US as long as the Libertarians weren't ultimately the only third party to rise up.

[cwt]

IIRC only like a thousand people ever actually moved to New Hampshire for this (although like a dozen of them got elected to the superhuge NH House in 2010).

The idea isn't to have everyone move right away. It's to pledge to move once a certain amount of people (enough to form a majority of voters in NH) make the pledge.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This shows how woefully out of touch with its own problems the GOP is.  The Democrats know what our problems are, but we don't.  The Dems created a fake conservative organization attacking Rehberg as not conservative enough, and they helped to split the Republican vote.  The Dems have done this with phony "Tea Party"-type candidates a lot, including in the special election in New York in 2011 that Kathy Hochul won (it wasn't just Medicare) and attempted to do it in my home state of Michigan (but got legal action against them.)  I assure you that if it weren't for all the shenanigans from Dems, Rehberg would have won.

[Donerail]

Montana = Freedom State.

[Brittain33]

Doesn't this just show how many people refuse to vote for a Dem in a Republican leaning state when the Rs don't contest the race? It's hard to see this as a vote for the LP.

[freefair]

Possibly, but even so, where candidates run "unopposed", the Libs should at least put a name on the ballot and tell their candidate to do some planning in case they win.

[Badger]

Excuse the bump, but do we know anything about this candidate and which "wing" of the Libertarian Party (or movement) Fellows represents (i.e. is he a nutter)?

While winning a statewide race like that may garner nice publicity for the LP (or any 3rd party), it's only going to matter when 3rd party candidates win decidedly "partisan" offices. e.g. state legislature at the least (and not just because there happens not to be a major party candidate running for a 3rd party fills the vacuum for a single race). When one looks at the USLP's website for a list of their elected officeholders, most are non-partisan (school board, etc.) or at most local offices where party registration or partisan issues matter minimally.

Statewide or not, Clerk of the Supreme Court arguably falls in this latter category, and in this case also involved simply filling the void where no Republican ran.

That said, anyone familiar with MT politics know why no Republican ran? I'm sure some local county clerk or other qualified GOP apparatchik would've liked the opportunity to possibly move up to such an office, and the fact a Libertarian won a such a respectable share of the vote indicates this was a realistically winnable race for the right GOP candidate (assuming the Democrat wasn't considered a lock to win early this year but subsequent to the filing deadline had scandals/gaffes that made this suddenly competitive, but I'm over-hypothesizing at this point....).

[Svensson]

However, despite the fact that I can't stand libertarianism,

YEAH, TAKE THAT LIBERTY. WHO NEEDS YOU ANYWAY. GLORIFIED SERVITUDE IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE.

[Antonio the Sixth]

However, despite the fact that I can't stand libertarianism,

YEAH, TAKE THAT LIBERTY. WHO NEEDS YOU ANYWAY. GLORIFIED SERVITUDE IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE.

This kind of posts is precisely what makes Liberarians often so insufferable.



(note that I don't think this actually applies to you, you're an fine guy AFAIK)

[Svensson]

However, despite the fact that I can't stand libertarianism,

YEAH, TAKE THAT LIBERTY. WHO NEEDS YOU ANYWAY. GLORIFIED SERVITUDE IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE.

This kind of posts is precisely what makes Liberarians often so insufferable.

Troll and get trolling in response. *shrug*

[RI]

However, despite the fact that I can't stand libertarianism,

YEAH, TAKE THAT LIBERTY. WHO NEEDS YOU ANYWAY. GLORIFIED SERVITUDE IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE.

Libertarianism doesn't profess liberty, to the extent that such even exists, or combat tyrants. It merely reallocates and creates "tyranny" in other forms despite its words to the contrary. The ideology's false messiah complex only belies its ironic ineptitudes, and it's quite unappealing to say the least.

[nolesfan2011]

There was a good public service commission candidate here in GA named David Staples who I really wish would have won (L vs. corrupt R race). A lot of libertarians are fine.. I would much rather argue with them other economic and spending stuff while having them agree on civil liberties, a lot of fp and social issues..

I don't see the problem here; I think I would've even preferred if he won. The Clerk of the MT Supreme Court is basically just a glorified secretary, so it's not like a horrible officeholder could do any real damage here anyway. It'd also be pretty cool in general for a third-party to have an elected statewide officeholder. Also, this victory would only make the state's Libertarian Party more ambitious, which would only help Democratic candidates since the Republicans would be losing much more votes to them.

[MaxQue]

However, despite the fact that I can't stand libertarianism,

YEAH, TAKE THAT LIBERTY. WHO NEEDS YOU ANYWAY. GLORIFIED SERVITUDE IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE.

There is no liberty under libertarianism.

The difference is than, instead of being ruled by a democratic government, you are ruled by unelected corporations whose main interest is profits.

I think I know by which want I want to be ruled.

[Svensson]

However, despite the fact that I can't stand libertarianism,

YEAH, TAKE THAT LIBERTY. WHO NEEDS YOU ANYWAY. GLORIFIED SERVITUDE IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE.

There is no liberty under libertarianism.

The difference is than, instead of being ruled by a democratic government, you are ruled by unelected corporations whose main interest is profits.

I think I know by which want I want to be ruled.

I'm not disagreeing, but you can hardly call what we have in this country nowadays "democratic" or "government".