Will Pennsylvania's Libertarian Senate Candidate Drop Out? 'That's a Hard No.'
Like Arizona's Marc Victor, Erik Gerhardt is a potential spoiler in one of the nation's biggest Senate races. Unlike Victor, he's embracing the role.

Unlike his counterpart in Arizona, Erik Gerhardt says he isn't going anywhere.
Gerhardt is the Libertarian Party candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania, which is likely to be one of the closest and most important races in the country. The same could be said of Arizona's Senate race, which was shaken up on Monday by Libertarian Marc Victor's decision to drop out and endorse the Republican in the race, Blake Masters, seemingly in an effort to throw the key election to the GOP.
Despite that, Gerhardt says there's nothing that would make him drop out of the Pennsylvania race to clear the way for either Democratic candidate and former Lt. Gov. John Fetterman or Republican nominee and reality TV star Mehmet Oz.
"They can't promise me anything that would make me happy enough to do so," Gerhardt tells Reason. "There's no monetary value to the morale that would be lost with either of [those] candidates winning that seat."
"So, yeah, that's a hard no," he added. "That's not happening."
The closeness of the race in Pennsylvania has already inspired one alternative candidate to drop out. Independent candidate Everett Stern ended his write-in campaign last week and endorsed Fetterman.
That sort of zero-sum politicking seems antithetical to the very point of third parties. It makes little sense to spend the time and effort to get on the ballot—in Pennsylvania, Gerhardt needed to get 2,000 signatures to qualify—only to genuflect to one of the two major parties in the week before the election.
But that's exactly what happened in Arizona.
Although Masters' background includes working in the libertarian movement, he has more recently stated that libertarianism "doesn't work" and embraced more authoritarian positions on a variety of issues—particularly on immigration and his promises to get "tough" with China.
Victor's announcement sparked another round of an ongoing fight over the purpose and function of the Libertarian Party. Some prominent libertarians including podcast host Dave Smith (who, like Ron Paul, had previously endorsed Masters outright) defended Victor's decision as a strategic move "in the interest of liberty." Others, like former congressman Justin Amash, condemned it.
Chase Oliver, the Libertarian candidate in the hotly contested Georgia Senate race, wrote on Twitter that "any Libertarian who endorsed Masters should be laughed out of the convention hall." That's a shot at both Victor and Smith, who is widely considered a leading candidate for the party's presidential nomination in 2024.
"If you support endorsing Republicans, you ought to be one," Oliver wrote.
There's little doubt that Victor moved the needle in Arizona, where he was polling well into the double-digits at one point and as high as 8 percent in the past week. As Reason's Brian Doherty reported Monday, Victor's campaign raised over $128,000, which is high for a Libertarian candidate, though most of it came from Democratic-leaning organizations that clearly seemed to believe he would take votes from Masters and help Sen. Mark Kelly (D–Ariz.) win reelection.
In Pennsylvania, Gerhardt is polling less well but the close race between Fetterman and Oz means every vote he gets could be important to the outcome. The Real Clear Politics polling average has Fetterman leading by 1.2 percent despite ongoing concerns about his health and a shaky debate performance last week.
The results could also affect the Libertarian Party's future ballot access—garnering more than 2 percent of the vote would guarantee the party statewide ballot access in 2024.
Rather than running from the role of being a potential spoiler for Fetterman or Oz, Gerhardt is embracing it.
"I say split the divide and take everything that they don't have," Gerhardt, a 37-year-old general contractor and master carpenter, told Reason on Monday. "And I take some stuff they already do have and I bloody both their noses and then I come back harder next time."
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
I thought the party line here was that Libertarian Party candidates were never spoilers? It is so hard to remember what today's doctrine is.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
Ιո 23 ḋауѕ аⅼⅼ tḣе ḋіеѕеⅼ ԝіⅼⅼ ḃе ģοոе аոḋ уоսr еոеrǵу ѕսррⅼу ԝіⅼⅼ ḋіѕареаr ѕο ḋο tḣіѕ rіǵḣt ոоԝ
Ꮩіѕіt............... http://wiresouth.com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (odi-15) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link————————————–>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
The word "spoiling" assumes there was previously something not already rotten to the core. Ask a meaningless question with a built in false assumption, expect to get a meaningless answer.
Is Gerhardt part of the Mises Caucus?
'Cos it's looking like he's part of the Democrat Party Caucus.
And do you fuckers not understand why libertarianism doesn't work?
Republicans are libertarian-lite. They're not quite as far down the road to liberty absolutism as libertarians.
Democrats and the left are anti-liberty, never mind libertarianism. The are for a managed economy AND society.
So why is it that the people who've infected the LP as well as libertarian discourse always seem to err in favor of the Democrats and the left?
good point, i agree.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this article… http://www.Profit97.com
I doubt the Mises Caucus would support one of their candidates dropping out to assist Dr. Oz. As Dr. Oz would be the very type of candidate the group would oppose. Even a lot of Trump supporters were unhappy with Dr. Oz as the nominee.
The Mises Caucus itself was formed to support actual and effective libertarian candidates and to push back against candidates like Gary Johnson or Jo Jorgensen. I can’t see them supporting pulling candidates out of races unless the Republican in question is actually “libertarian-lite” (e.g. Rand Paul, Blake Masters, Thomas Massie).
So I agree that sometimes it is more effective for liberty to support Republican candidates. However, to paraphrase Dave Smith in his debate against Sarwark, a few years back, there should be a line drawn on what candidates we’re willing to support. This isn’t about purity or absolutism. I don’t believe Dr. Oz falls in the “absolutely not” column, but there are Republicans who I would say do fall into that column (e.g. Lindsey Graham).
What is your definition of an actual and effective libertarian candidate? And why do believe that the only purpose of a political party is to run candidates for election? Do you think the Democrats and the Republicans limit themselves to running candidates?
My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I’m a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can’t believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn’t be happier. Heres what I d ..https://www.pay.hiring9.com
"And do you fuckers not understand why libertarianism doesn’t work?"
Libertarianism is the only governing philosophy that does work, as it allows the most room for personal philosophies to interact with one another peacefully. All governments that exist in modern societies have come to realize this which is why they allow what can be perceived as anarchy by not enforcing the majority of laws on the books from the federal to the local. They do still enforce a few laws around property rights, but in a libertarian society this would actually be very different, from a cultural to a functional government level. They also enforce laws to "appease" the moral panic of the moment that they can perceive the majority of the populace as being aware/interested in but as media has been democratized by the information age this is leading to a more hands off approach while at the same time when a major narrative like COVID comes along the chance for more control invokes a knee jerk reaction in the ruling class to come down hard if they are not cognizant of the underlying philosophy of libertarinism that undergirds modern societies.
^^^^^^
How to say 'no, I don't understand why libertarianism doesn't work without saying that you don't understand why libertarianism doesn't work.
But here, let me be plain--
Libertarianism doesn't work because it's abandoned liberty.
The Mises caucus mighrt bring it back, but right now the only libertarians in office are Massie and Paul. And they're smart enough not to associate with the quasi-leftist pile of trash that the LP has become.
Dr. Oz is likely going to be terrible. Fetterman was a moron before his brain broke and he is more of a moron now.
At least Oz isn’t the communist candidate.
Utter nonsense, start to finish.
Republicans are not libertarian-lite. Sure, they occasionally (*used to*) mouth vaguely Libertarianish messages on a couple issues (only). But there was zero follow-through whenever they took power. And they've been getting less Libertarian on even those issues in the last decade, if not longer.
When it comes to actual policy that matters, Democrats and Republicans are nearly indistinguishable. Spending? Bipartisan agreement on spending more money. Foreign wars? Bipartisan agreement.
Sure, there's some meaningless drivel that they use to fool the public that they're meaningfully different, but none of those things are relevant to the actual operation of government.
The Republican party has never supported personal liberty outside the economic realm. Most of the culture war bullshit is a manifestation of a desire to control the private lives of other people. When it comes to the social realm, Republicanism has been the fear that someone, somewhere, is doing something 'morally wrong', and they shouldn't be allowed to do that. Meanwhile, the modern Republican party is abandoning any pretense of defending economic liberty, supporting nonsense like tariffs, trade wars, and industrial policy.
Democrats at least used to be better on non-economic liberty. Then of course they descended into woke scolds, differentiable only from Republicans in the kinds of things that get their panties in a twist.
Both are becoming increasingly autocratic in their leanings, and a real libertarian should want nothing to do with either party. I don't care what Masters former libertarian bonafides are - anyone willing to associate with either major party is no friend of Liberty in any sense.
I'll say in fairness to Gerhardt, Dr. Oz has none of Masters's libertarian background/creditability. Thus it's highly unlikely he would've been able to convince any libertarian candidate worth their salt to support him.
This is the "who is the worst statist race", and most of Fetterman's pronouncements make him the winner on that account. Regarding Dr. Oz, both the worst and the best thing you can say about him is that he's a bit of a chameleon and he'll probably vote with his party most of the time.
So he's working to ensure leftist authoritarianism and you're cheering it on. Not saying he should drop out or people shouldn't vote for him but that is the practical outcome you are enthusiastically endorsing over minuscule or childish utopian differences versus fundamental differences in world outlook on liberty.
Yeah, but I wonder how the staffers here will react if it turns out Gerhardt winds up becoming the spoiler in favor of Mehmet Oz?
"We demand that he drop out of the race and 100% fully endorse Fetterman!!!" - Reason Editors, in response to your question.
Chase Oliver, the Libertarian candidate in the hotly contested Georgia Senate race, wrote on Twitter that "any Libertarian who endorsed Masters should be laughed out of the convention hall."...."If you support endorsing Republicans, you ought to be one," Oliver wrote.
So, what he's saying is that blind tribal loyalty is the right and proper standard for political decision-making. That's an interesting strategy. I'm not exactly sure how you can make the case for voting for a third party under that standard. But, my guess is that this has more to do with internal party rivalries than any "principled stand".
Is Oliver part of the anti-Mises gang? Funny how those anti-Mises folks are so supportive of progressives. Remember when Bill Held endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016? Good times.
By everything I can see, the answer is yeah, he's of the Weld mode.
Republicans infiltrate the LP precisely to stop us from making them ditch bullying girls and shooting blacks over leaves as major platform planks. (https://bit.ly/3QpGuKk)
Right: Republicans infiltrated the LP so that they could spoil senate votes and get democrats elected. That's some real great logic there, crazy dude.
'...only to genuflect to one of the two major parties in the week before the election....' Not the week before. More like five minutes after the first polling takes place after you get on the ballot and then you put God and Country and Constitution first and stop acting like a 'spoiler' brat.
I read this post with a heavy hint of sarcasm and it works from a libertarian perspective, but you need to keep in mind that during the trump presidency and especially during 2020 Democrats destroyed Poes law, so we can no longer tell what is sarcastic and what is genuine. So if you meant that if you care about America you should attempt to stay within the two party system to achieve effective change then please clarify.
Fascism or Communism, please choose one... That is The Kleptocracy menu.
Another day, another article by Boehm attempting to support his progressive overlords. Boehm, how is the “adults back in charge” working out for you? I guess if you love Biden, giving your heart to Fetterman is an easy task.
For me the most frustrating thing about the Libertarian Party is that we seem to be our own worst enemies. To be fair, there is no way that a third party can ever gain enough of a toehold in the two-party system to win. But instead of spending all our efforts to eliminate the two-party election system and replace it with at-large, ranked-choice elections of representatives in every state of the Union, we waste our energy and resources on running (usually outrageously comical) volunteers and monumental internecine battles for control of the Party.
The problem I see with the LP is that there really isn't a unified libertarianism, anymore. You have one camp (probably including a lot of the commenters here) that probably has more in common with the MAGA Republicans than the other camp. And the other camp (including a lot of the staffers here) that probably has more common with progressive Democrats than the other camp. And, to be fair, both camps have a plausible claim to being libertarian and probably think of themselves as such.
Although active members of the party and the rest of us hangers-on may not be unified in terms of strategy, there is – or should be – a very simple unifying principle to focus our efforts. That is, the least amount of government possible interfering as little as possible in the lives, choices, and decisions of the people. It is not possible to stray very far from that theme towards “MAGA Republicans” or “Progressive Democrats” and still call oneself “libertarian.”
Yeah I agree. I would also like to add that a good libertarian should have an individual viewpoint on governing politics, so a unifying view shouldn't necessarily be achievable for the philosophy. The main thing that seems to be lacking to me is that there doesn't appear to be a difference between people having a philosophy that they wish to live by and a unified philosophy to govern a society. To me they should obviously be distinct, which is why I support libertarianism, but don't necessarily agree with any of the decisions people would then legally be allowed to make, which cedes the ground to statists/collectivists that government and governing philosophy should be the arbiter of what is allowable for each individual.
Yeah, if you "have more in common with progressive Democrats," you're super-libertarian! Word!
I would say there's a large camp of libertarians who have little in common with either major party. But to the 'Republicans are libertarians' camp, that looks like Democrats. (And to the left, that looks like Republicans).
You can see how multi-party parliamentary systems like that work out: you get about 10-30% socialists, 5-10% fascists, 10-30% theocrats, a smattering of centrist neocons and neoliberals, and about 1-3% libertarians if you're lucky. Sooner or later (usually sooner), one of the totalitarian parties takes over completely. If you want totalitarian, illiberal government society, that's the way to do it.
The US two-party system (a consequence of WTA voting) is a much better system.
The best way to advance libertarianism in the US would be to eliminate the LP and focus on influencing the two major parties and society as a whole.
"If you want totalitarian, illiberal government society"
Leftists always do
Even if they call themselves "libertarians" to fool the masses.
Although Masters' background includes working in the libertarian movement, he has more recently stated that libertarianism "doesn't work" and embraced more authoritarian positions on a variety of issues—particularly on immigration and his promises to get "tough" with China.
Finally! A true libertarian coming around to Trumpian Republicanism!
Libertarianism worked like a maniac when Gary Johnson walked off with 4 million votes. Ever since then state after state has repealed or modified laws ordering cops to rob or shoot people over plant leaves. We had a reasonable platform in 2016.
pushing Amash as L is lol
>> Fetterman leading by 1.2 percent
so, really down 3.8 when the lies are factored in
And up 30 percent when the undated absentee ballots are counted.
yes! now you're on the trolley
Because not having a date means ... what? If it's a legal vote by a legal voter with clear intent, postmarked before the deadline, where would the fraud be if it wasn't dated correctly?
It's even worse than that. Until very recently, the date didn't even have to be correct. As long as there was some date, they would accept it. It could be your birthdate, it could be 7/4/1776, and they would accept it. But no date, and it gets rejected. So what is the rationale for requiring any date to be on the ballot?
It's funny that, despite all the shit talking about partisan politics, how quickly Libertarians become bitterly partisan. The obvious anger at the Arizona Apostate is pretty interesting.
It seems reasonable to withdraw and endorse a candidate who has made libertarian concessions. This is how you influence policy as a third party.
It doesn't make sense to withdraw when both candidates are twats.
You influence policy by helping voters get rid of the worst looter. Losing is the only thing looters understand.
Cross-endorsement a la New York might make sense, but it's not allowed in most states.
Marc Victor is the Liz Cheney of the Libertarian Party. He’s gone over to (one of) the opposing parties and he should expect to get about as much respect from Libertarians as Cheney gets from Republicans.
For those of you lying about Bill Weld: he should have refrained from giving an opinion on whether he thought Hillary Clinton was better than Trump. It was stupid and disqualifies him from consideration for future nominations. However, he did not drop out and endorse her, and in fact his presence on our ticket probably took more votes from Clinton than from Trump. Not talking about the ticket as whole, just his incremental effect on it.
And this Nick Sarwark quote is always appropriate: “Your tears are delicious and your parties will die.” I'm looking forward to causing a runoff in Georgia, hopefully with the 51st seat at stake.
Well, you’re clearly not a libertarian, you’re just a nasty misanthrope.
Nick speaks truly.
Liz Cheney is a circa 2000 mainstream Republican. The Buchananites/Trumpites have taken over the GOP at the popular level. The old Reaganite coalition is a shell of itself and those who still hold office have had to choose between kissing Trump’s
assring or running without his endorsement and getting primaried by a Trumpite.The Old “New Right” of the Buckley/Goldwater strain ought to bolt for the Libertarians, but I’m afraid they are mostly dead or superannuated. {Can’t namecheck WFBjr without committing sesquipedalianism.}
As a deeply committed libertarian from Democrat controlled Pittsburgh (which hasn't elected a GOP candidate since the 1930s) and Allegheny County (where 42 of 43 judges are Democrats because their party machine controls countywide elections), I'll be voting for Oz.
Just as Jo Jorgenson did to Trump in 2020 (where she gained more votes than Biden's margin of victory in four disputed states), the libertarian candidate for US Senate in PA is trying to help elect a left wing Democrat who has vowed to destroy PA's gas fracking industry (that can provide the energy needs of North America and Europe for the next 50+ years).
The Libertarian candidate from Arizona did the right thing by dropping out of the race and endorsing Blake Masters.
"Deeply committed" is reflected more in one's choices and actions, rather than one's declarations. The evidence is that you're a deeply committed Republican. Nothing illegal or unusual about that, why don't you just go ahead and admit it?
The deeply committed libertarian position on fracking is that the government should not be for or against it. It's the decision of the property owners affected, drilling companies, and consumers deciding whether or not to use natural gas.
The deeply committed libertarian position under the US system is to vote for the party among the top two that is most libertarian, and that is the Republicans. Any other vote means that you are not libertarian, no matter what you pretend to be.
There are few outliers in the Republican party – meaning about two in Congress, a few more at the state level – that I’d consider to be “more libertarian” and I’d consider voting for them. None of them are on my ballot. Other than that, the most that can be said is that they are authoritarian, but perhaps somewhat less than some Democrats on some issues. And worse that some Democrats on some issues.
(Once could concede that right now, it is important from a libertarian point of view for the Republicans to grab one house of Congress, just to rein in Biden. But that will reverse the instant we get to a DeSantis or Trump II administration.)
Anyway, your vote will not be counted as a grudging decision that the Republican is less bad. It’s indistinguishable from any other Republican vote, and will be interpreted by the candidate, his/her handlers, and the media as an enthusiastic endorsement of every single thing Republicans stand for.
And maybe you’re OK with that. IIRC you’re the type of “libertarian” that likes checkpoints, barbed wire, and permits from the authorities just to exist here, and being very stingy with said permits. Oh I forgot….you said you’re only in favor of those things until some deliberately impossible conditions, like eliminating all government social programs, are met. That’s the same as being in favor, period.
Why can't you leftist faggots be honest about your loyalties?
Moon Township here (well, 45 years ago). If I were still in PA, I wouldn't be voting for either of them.
Featherman is also a committed vote to end the Senate filibuster requirement of 60. Galt help America if either major party ever gets control of the Presidency, House and 60 Senate seats.
It happened in this century and the nation didn't spontaneously explode. Removing the filibuster would be disastrous, though. Gerrymandering is already a huge problem. Now imagine the ability to pass extreme legislation hinged on a congressional map.
"...and I bloody both their noses and then I come back harder next time."
The Feds will hold off on the arrest for violent threats until the day before the election.
Sadly the only two real Libertarians in congress will remain as such as no other Libertarians can pull in enough votes to get elected. That's the way it is. The MSM loathes and despises the libertarian movement. They were all too gleeful when Rand Paul was attacked and sent to the hospital with multiple fractured ribs.
Even though I get issues of the Austrian and check out Libertarian websites such as Tom Woods and Mises, I still consider this movement to offer little if any to attract more supporters.
The real problem is the ignorance of the average American voter. The media and public education are responsible for dumbing down Americans to the level their at now.
The Libertarian Party will continue to exist on the fringes.
There aren't any libertarians in Congress. Anyone who points to Rand Paul is just remembering his father and projecting.
Rand Paul is as statist as any other Republican. Getting a permission slip from Mitch McConnell to vote against the GOP when it won't make a difference isn't libertarianism. It's being a lapdog.
If he actially forced concessions from Republicans to secure his vote when it mattered, that would be different. But he's never done that and he never will. He's spineless and Mitch keeps his testcles in a desk drawer.
“That sort of zero-sum politicking seems antithetical to the very point of third parties”
In the US system, there is no point to third parties other than to act as spoilers.
Gerhart is trying to help Fetterman win, that’s all there’s to it. Remember that next time you consider supporting the LP.
There are three independent’s in the PA Senatorial race. Why does (T)Reason only focus on one?
Wassmer Age: 62 Party: Keystone / Independent
Richard L. Weiss Age: 55 Party:
Green Erik Gerhardt Age: 37 Party: Libertarian
There is one candidate that leans left and could siphon off Democratic voters.
There is one candidate that is moderate and could siphon off undecided and moderate voters.
There is one candidate that people think leans right because he is a libertarian, but that may not be true, there are certainly progressives (classic liberals, not woke liberals) in the libertarian party. Yet because more GOP members lean libertarian than progressive member of the Democratic party people assume libertarians will siphon of conservative voters.
In the long run, I doubt any of these people will have an impact on the election outcome.
Don't confuse 'progressives' with 'liberals'. Those are very different ideologies (and the progressives love it when you confuse the two).
An early 20th century Progressive and a New Deal "liberal" are pretty much the same thing. Progressive, since Henry Wallace, has been code for social democrat. Liberal, in its original meaning was a small government person (classical liberal.) I'd vote for one of those, but they are either libertarian or extinct.
It's high time to bring back Libertarians with guts. Anarcho-idjit and girl-bullier infiltraitors have alienated all of the 328% voter increase we earned in 2016.
This piece fails to mention the Libertarian Party split in Pennsylvania, resulting in the forming of the Keystone Party by Libertarians disgusted by the takeover by the Mises Caucus. They are also running a Senate candidate, a guy named Dan Wassmer. I believe he is a better bet; I've seen Gerhardt, and he is not very impressive.