More Data Supporting Idea that New Hampshire Free Stater Independent Aaron Day Was Vital to Ousting Republican Kelly Ayotte from the Senate
Aaron Day, a former chair of New Hampshire's Free State Project, believes that his independent Senate run this year cost Republican Kelly Ayotte her seat. As I reported earlier this month, there seemed to be some reason to wonder whether that was true or not.
For example, Day's vote total plus that of Libertarian Senate candidate Brian Chabot very nearly matched Gary Johnson's total votes for president in that state, around 30,000. That seemed to add weight to the guess that without Day, those Senate votes might have gone to Libertarian Chabot and not to Republican Ayotte.

This week Jason Sorens, the political scientist who thought up and founded the Free State Project, did some sophisticated number crunching that he thinks supports Day's contention that it was to his credit/blame that Ayotte lost.
Sorens starts by saying the presumption that third party Senate votes should have equaled third party presidential ones this year is just wrong; the presidential major party choices were far more unpopular than these Senate candidates.
Sorens then examines town-by-town results so see "how the number of Libertarian and Republican presidential votes by town correlated with Day's support."
He found that "the coefficient estimate on percentage of the vote for Trump-Pence in a town is 0.05 and is highly statistically significant, as you can see by the tiny confidence interval on the estimate. This estimate means that for every 20 additional Trump-Pence voters in a town, one additional voter cast a vote for Day in the Senate race." The link between Johnson-Weld votes and Day votes was "not statistically significant" in Sorens' figuring.
He concludes that since "Day's vote share was a little more than one-twentieth of the Trump-Pence ticket's in New Hampshire….we can be reasonably confident that almost all of Day's electoral support came from Republicans, not Libertarians."
He does the same calculations for Libertarian Chabot, and finds "for every four additional Johnson-Weld voters in a town, Chabot got an additional one vote [and] For every 80 additional Trump-Pence votes in a town, Chabot got about one vote….over half of Chabot's support came from Libertarians, not Republicans."
Given that Ayotte lost by 1,000 votes, Sorens concludes that it is very likely that, had Day not been in the race, she "would have won her race by about 15,000 votes, similar to Republican Chris Sununu's margin of victory in the governor's race."
He admits there is no way to test whether minus Day that his 16,000 or so voters might not have voted for someone other than Ayotte, but "at minimum these results strongly suggest that Kelly Ayotte disaffected a decisive share of Republican voters who went for Trump and Sununu but not for her."
Whether Republicans angry that Ayotte wasn't good enough on Obamacare, spending, appointments and other issues should be happier with her losing and Democrat Maggie Hassan in the Senate is another question, and one that will likely be thrown at any future challenger to any GOP candidate hitting the Republican from the small-government right. But to imply one should never do that is to imply that anyone who wants smaller government just has to take whatever the Republican Party offers and pretend to like it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But to imply one should never do that is to imply that anyone who wants smaller government just has to take whatever the Republican Party offers and pretend to like it.
If all you can do is play spoiler with a few tenths of a percent? Yeah, that's exactly what you have to do.
If the GOP embraced LP positions, they'd lose far more votes than they gain. They'd be better off adopting some more Dem positions. That's the fruit of playing hard to get when you ain't worth getting.
That's what she said?
You don't have to smell good, just not as bad as the other guy.
Rand Paul was doing that good smell, until he endorsed McConnell and some other establishment Republican positions. How is that working out for him?
Got reelected and probably getting much better committee assignments.
Yea, that's where he would have been going 18 mos. ago, he was just looking for another committee. Yea.
You think that if he'd withheld endorsement of McConnell, he would have beaten Trump in the primaries?
Of course.
Easy Peasy
QED
He admits there is no way to test whether minus Day that his 16,000 or so voters might not have voted for someone other than Ayotte,
Or voted at all.
I thought we were blaming election losses on the Russians and fake news?
The DNC tried to credit the low-information TEAM LIBERTARIAN voters for Ayotte's defeat but she was actually thrown out of office by yokeltarians voting for fellow-yokeltarian Day.
This whole election was a YOKELTARIAN MOMENT
That is between the lines in invisible toner. This dude is the Russian plant.
Russophobia is still racism, sir.
But Russians really are the craziest white people on Earth. Just look at their driving videos on YouTube! TRUTH!
You know who else blamed Russians and people that rhyme with news....
Huey Lewis?
Tucker McElroy?
More eligible voters chose not to vote at all than voted for Clitrump. Yet silly articles like these still get written.
That is an awful big clit.
And so, showing their electoral muscle, libertarians helped elect someone even less interested in liberty.
Ummm... yay?
Purging Ayotte while retaining Republican control control of the Senate is better than having one more squishy establishment TEAM R vote.
Ayotte losing means the GOP have a smaller margin to work with in 2018 and 2020, and makes it easier for the remaining RINOs to hold the party hostage by threatening to join the Dems.
Or tells the Republican party to nominate somebody more pro liberty next time
No, it tells them that libertarians are impossible to please and they're better off going more toward the center.
We know this how? Did Ayotte's people ever approach the New Hampshire LP and suggest some accomodation in exchange for, say, not running a candidate against her?
The kinds of accommodation the LP wants would get them in trouble with a much larger contingent in the GOP, so there would be no point.
It's like Gillespie and Welch saying the GOP lost in 2012 because they didn't win over the libertarian vote by favoring open borders and gay marriage. Such ridiculous hubris from the half-percenters.
You want respect and accommodation from the GOP? Fine. Turn out the votes that the social conservatives do, and you'll get it.
The 'libertarian' in that race (according to the previous article about this) supported a single payer healthcare system.
Good grief. Makes Gary Johnson look like Hans Hoppe
RINO EXTINCTION is worth it.
Their horns make a great aphrodisiac!
(Ha ha, that was just a joke, Preet)
But this is funny.
OT: Woman allows her two-year old to ride in the front seat while piss-drunk guy drives:
WTF?
I guess Twisted Tea is the new firewater.
And people say there are no libertarian women.
OT: Tragedy strikes a...strange family already beset with hardship:
Hmm, I wonder what the Jerry springer show pays?
Denver f these were Jerry Springer people they probably would not have so much local support.
Local support like that speaks well of them.
Sounds to me like some people doing the best they can under horrific circumstances.
Let me make a shorter version of this article: Out with a giant piece of shit, and in with an even bigger piece of shit.
I would believe in the Free State Project if they hadn't so bungled it from the get-go.
Almost immediately after they started they got nothing but the most extremist sickos to come into the state. The first media they managed to get control over they managed to allow to get staffed by a couple of guys who sound like a bunch of pedophiles who want to legalize child prostitution
All they do is act like assholes and scream in everyone's face in small towns
not to mention the guy who invented it still hasn't moved. pffff
Yeah, i kinda supported the idea, then they chose a frozen north east state, and I said "pass".
Frozen NE state with Masshole Democrats pouring in across the southern border at 10 times the rate of the porcupines.
I thought the point of FSP was to turn a state libertarian; NH is on the verge of becoming a solid blue state now.
You must blame redistricting on elephants controlling the governorship, executive council, and the full legislature pursuant to that lelection last month.
Boy that was mangled and in reverse sequence. *shrug* /generic Nyquil
You're still welcome to stop by for a beer, though.
Should have chosen Alaska or Wyoming. The people there would be far less angry, are surrounded by states that are unlikely to send D)ickhole migrations in to counter us, and have small enough populations that we could easily win.
Colder states, sure, but not worthless by any stretch. The militias in WY would probably get along with us better than the duopoly overlords in any case, and Alaska has an even more pronounced "leave me alone" streak (which is undoubtedly the draw).
Except for the lack of jobs in WY.
To some extent the FSP was screwed from the getgo, because anyplace that has jobs for new residents is going to be attractive to leftists too, and there are a fuckton more of them.
Meh. Even if WY were chosen, there would be a massive contingent of whiners complaining about FedGov's overwhelming prowess/performance as an employer there. WY and AK also don't have one of the world's largest deliberative bodies or an Executive Council elected by district. My feeling is that it may have been a wash with NH, WY, MT, and on and on. NH is likely to get constitutional carry in one of the next sessions since the insta-veto for that took over one of the Federal Senate seats.
NH is also more likely now to decriminalize cannabis. The new Republican Governor indicated that he was supportive of decriminalization.
I hated Hassan and still do in her new role as Senator, but if that was the only way to get rid of her as Governor, and get rid of Ayotte then so be it. I'd rather Hassan be in Washington than Concord.
They are a collection of gadflies and losers.
I literally just looked at their forum again and this time there's some guy who wants to fuck animals posting, whining against anti-animal-fucking laws
And that differs from Hit 'n Run comments, on some days, exactly how?
Our memes are danker.
And less women participate.
We have ENB, and Kristen and...er..can we get female Tulpas a 3/5 compromise?
Is there a commenter here who whines about those laws? A commenter, not Reason staff and guest scribes.
Plopper pops in now and again to complain about his conviction for babyfucking.
Why should fucking animals be illegal so long as the animals are the fucker's property?
Well, that answers that.
I mean I don't whine about it. It's pretty close to the bottom of libertarian priorities but I fail to see how a libertarian would think it is ok to throw someone in jail for putting their dick in their property.
I mean its legal in 9 states. Apparently it only became illegal in NH this year so it sounds like it is actually a relevant topic on a free state forum.
The new law in NH punishes with up to 12 months in jail for first offence and a felony with 3-10 years in prison for second offense (thats a 3 years minimum in fucking prison). Is it insane for us to oppose this nonsense even though its gross and terribly unpopular?
We routinely criticize the private discrimination portion of the Civil Rights Act here even though its an incredibly minority position.
Because animals aren't ordinary property.
Should it be legal to set cats on fire?
Before you accuse me of conflating animals with people, we already recognize children as having a legal status intermediate between property and rights-holding person. If you can accept that, you can accept animals as having another intermediate status as well.Before you accuse me of conflating animals with people, we already recognize children as having a legal status intermediate between property and rights-holding person. If you can accept that, you can accept animals as having another intermediate status as well.
"If you can accept that, you can accept animals as having another intermediate status as well."
No, I can't. I eat meat.
Hence the intermediate status. And yes I think setting cats on fire is wrong because I hate freedom.
You can think something is wrong and also think it shouldn't be illegal at the same time.
You can but that wasn't his point unless it's assumed eating meat is wrong.
we already recognize children as having a legal status intermediate between property and rights-holding person.
Next you'll tell me orphans have rights. This ain't Gawker.
Yes. There may be some level of intelligence at which animals deserve extra protection beyond regular property but surely cats are not at level considering its perfectly fine to slaughter and eat pigs which are smarter than cats.
Ultimately the question is not whether it is distasteful but whether its something that requires sending the State after them with guns and possibly death (the ultimate consequence of any state action).
You mean to get a good char without overcooking the rest?
Also animal fucking is ultimately different than animal cruelty. Even if you accept (as you seem to) that animals have some kind of agency that gives them rights, then you have to get into the question of whether the animal is consenting to the sex. When you go down that rabbit hole you'll quickly find yourself sounding like the affirmative consent only progressive crazy fucks.
BAA MEANS NO
"When you go down that rabbit hole..."
+1 innuendo.
There is a certain range of candidates who can win a state wide election. A libertarian candidate does not call into that range. If one did, there wouldn't be a problem. So what is the free state party accomplishing here? If the state wanted a SenTor further right than Aoyette, someone would have run against her in the primary. What did they accomplish? They divided the opposition and ensured the election of a Senator further left than they needed to be. And in six years, either the democrat wins because the GOP moves too far right to placate the Free Staters or because the Republican doesn't move right and the free starters divide the opposition again.
They are accomplishing is sending a Democrat to the Senate.
Why should libertarians care about the electoral success of the GOP while they remain a predominantly big government party?
They don't have to care. But that doesn't change what they are doing. They are perfectly free to help put a democrat in the Senate. Just understand that is the only thing they are accomplishing.
Well by your logic they are also accomplishing getting Republicans out of the Senate.
They are. And replacing them with Democrats. Is pushing the Senate further left what they want? Until it is possible for a Republican candidate to satisfy them and still command a majority of votes, the free starters are just helping elect Democrats. That isn't an editorial statement. It is just a fact
Being a libertarian, I'm not on the "right" or the "left" soooo....
So anything short of libertarian purity is equally bad? There is nothing necessarily wrong with helping to elect Democrats. Just be honest enough to understand that is what you are doing. Does being Libertarian mean refusing to understand the effects of your actions?
Again what do you want? You can't have a libertarian Senator. A majority of the voters won't support one at least no in New Hampshire. So what do you hope to accomplish? Elect a Democrat? The feel smug? What?
The Libertarian didn't cost Ayotte the election. The Republican Liberty Caucus candidate did. He knew exactly what he was doing. It was the sole reason he threw his hat in the ring.
The RLC Free-Stater garnered Republican Trump voters, not Team GayJay lemmings, in his successful effort to oust Ayotte.
I get it John, for you its principals over principles. I guess I'm just smug for not supporting non-libertarians of either major party.
How 'bout those TEAM LP voters who went with Chabot? A candidate who stood for more money for government schoold, more green energy subsidies, and single-payer socialized medicine. Fuck the LP. A real libertarian took out Ayotte, not the Libertarian Party candidate.
What was that you said once about knowing something about a situation before spouting off on it, Johnno?
Day wouldn't have run against Ayotte as a spolier if she didn't support Medicaid expansion. She could've run as the same RINO neocon she is and won reelection but she went too far left. I'd expect the remaining senate RINOs are going to think twice about moving too far to the left up until one loses an election for not doing so. As Ayotte's defeat didn't cost the Republicans the senate I think the message was worth it. Every damn candidate in that senate race, Republican, Democrat and Libertarian was supporting socialized medicine,everyone except the Free-Stater. Kudos to Aaron Day and good riddance to Kelly Ayotte.
"The power to destroy a thing is absolute control over it."
We just need a Libertarian Muad'Dib to mount the Giant Worm of Pot and ride it into Mexicantown for some ass-sex.
Can I volunteer?
For which part of the plan?
Have you passed gom jabbar? Have you drank the water of life? Are you the one whose coming was foretold?
Then yes, but you have to supply your own stilsuit.
I ain't drinking my own urine and sweat. Mexico has good beer: I'll drink that.
Come to think of it, the whole riding-a-sandworm thing seems to come under the category "let's not and say we did."
Drinking our bodily fluids is how we maintain Libertarian Purity!
"There is a certain range of candidates who can win a state wide election. A libertarian candidate does not call into that range."
A big "L" Libertarian/Anarcho-capitaIist can't win. However I think a a small "l" libertarian could win statewide in New Hampshire its just matter of finding the right candidate. Someone like a Rand Paul (except running a competent campaign) could win statewide they just need to pick the right set of issues to run on. Heck if Chris Sununu is able to get more school choice, constitutional carry, cannabis decriminalization, cuts to business taxes, and a Right to Work law passed then I'll put him right in the libertarian category.
Truck terrorism is the new danger.
Time for Smokey and the Bandit Part III - Counter-Terrorist Truckers
Archer could bring back Burt Reynolds and do it!
Instructions:
1. Acquire a truck
2. Drive it into innocent people
3. Prophet
winner
Winner is nice and all, and don't get me wrong: i appreciate it. But i was really hoping that one merited a narrowed gaze.
Well if you wanted one of those, simply drop a niggles.
My niggles are too hard to drop
*insert awesome link*
Is this a marketing campaign for reprint of Car Wars?
Of course you can't kill a machine. Don't you see our mistake?
Sounds like an area for the TSA to expand into.
We need to institute common sense truck controls.
A dwarf doing a booty dance in a kiddie pool.
I don't know what I expected.
You expected this.
Liberals want to unfriend you. I don't blame them.
"Social media sites sued by families of Pulse nightclub victims alleging aid for ISIS"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tw.....ites-isis/
Almost as much a stretch as the hag losing 'cause Russkis!
The families in this lawsuit argue that without Google, Twitter and Facebook, gunman Omar Mateen never would have been inspired to carry out the massacre at the nightclub, CBS News justice reporter Paula Reid reported.
The Silk Road precedent has been set.
Well, since the terrorists get coverage on CBS and CNN, why not sue them?
Just got my copy of Coin Locker Babies by Ryu Murakami. Quite the opening line:
"Just got?" You should have read this years ago!
Agree. My excuse is that I went on a binge of the other Murakami, Haruki, the past few years. Have you read 1Q84?
Is that the one with the awesome Chip Kidd cover?
Teh Googles is my friend and yes, that's the cover!
Had no idea this was the cover of the English version. This was the cover I saw.
OMG The one you saw is horrid! Who the Hell approved that? A random pick from Deviantart would be better.
Female mohels?
The one who passes the sentence should swing the sword.
Day got 17,742 votes. Ayotte lost by 1,018 votes.
It can be true both that Day cost Ayotte the election, and *most* (or at least a bigger fraction than the less than 5% Sorens calculates) of Day's voters were Johnson voters who otherwise would have for Chalbot.
A more likely estimate is that about two-thirds of Day's support come from otherwise-Chalbot and about one-third came from otherwise-Ayotte... which is still enough to let him claim his scalp; but also leaves true the point that most his votes came from splitting the third-party Libertarian vote.
Ayotte's idiotic and caustic "I hate Trump" campaign cost her the election. What a fucking idiot. Good riddance.
The solution to vote splitting is Approval Voting.