MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The 3 Libertarian Senate Candidates Most Likely to Be Called ‘Spoilers’

L.P. contenders in Indiana, Nevada, and Missouri are beating the spread between Democrats and Republicans. Gary Johnson is right behind them.

A man and his (friend's) truck. ||| Matt WelchMatt WelchUnless Oumuamua suddenly returns with some reinforcements, it's looking like none of the 17 Libertarian candidates for the United States Senate will make history by raising the gold flag in a chamber too long dominated by red and blue.

Gary Johnson may have gotten shivved last week with a damning poll that, uh, didn't include his name (see below), but throwing that survey out still leaves the former New Mexico governor averaging 16 percent across five independent polls, compared to 45 percent for Democratic incumbent Martin Heinrich, and 27 percent for Republican Mick Rich. While I am genuinely grateful for Johnson's succinct pitch to millennials—"Young people are getting fucked"—it's looking once again like that message is not the magic key for unlocking electoral victory.

But that doesn't mean there aren't important things at stake today for the party, for the broader political/philosophical tendency it shares a name with, and for the country more generally. (See also Joe Setyon's, "Control of the Senate Could Depend on These 10 Races.") With a Senate that caucuses 51-49 GOP, surging anti-Republican enthusiasm, voters streaming to the polls, yet electoral math that keeps the smart money at or even above that 51-49 split, there is a lot of potential major-party anger ready to be unleashed at any third-party candidate who receives more votes than the gap between Democrats and Republicans.

So here are those 17 Libertarian candidates for U.S. Senate ranked by their own polling average (in nonpartisan surveys) minus the average point spread between the major-party contenders in those same polls. Whenever given the option, I chose results among likely voters rather than registered voters. For your convenience, you can also find projections for each race, the latest poll (when possible; some Libertarian candidates never did get polled, in which case I ranked them here according to the eyeball test), plus other scattered notes of interest.

1) Lucy Brenton, Indiana, +4.2

D Joe Donnelly (incumbent) 43.5%, R Mike Braun 41.8%, Brenton 5.9% (8 polls)

Last poll: Donnelly 45%, Braun 38%, Brenton 5%, other 2%, undecided 9% (Oct. 27-30 Fox News, which one month prior had the percentages at 43-41-6-2-9).

Forecast: "Toss-up," according to eight out of the 10 prognosticators aggregated by Wikipedia's 2018 U.S. Senate elections page, with one "Lean R" and one "Lean D." FiveThirtyEight projects 50.6%-46.9%-2.5%, and the betting markets aggregator Election Betting Odds (run by our own John Stossel and Maxim Lott) gives Donnelly a razor-thin 51%-49% advantage as of this morning.

Democrats over the past week have been advertising Brenton's conservative bona fides to Republican voters, in a bid to split the right-of-center vote. The gamble may be working—Brenton's inclusion in an August Marist College poll reduced Donnelly's lead from six percentage points to three, but that same survey in late October measured the Libertarian effect as a net +1 for the Democrat. The president, for one, is not amused:

2) Tim Hagan, Nevada, +2.8

D Jacky Rosen 44.0%, R Dean Heller (I) 43.2%, Hagan 3.6% (5 polls)

Last poll: Rosen 48%, Heller 45%, Hagan 2%, none of the above (which is on the ballot in Nevada) 4%, undecided 1% (Oct. 24-29 CNN/SSRS, which a month prior had the percentages at 47-43-4-5-1).

Forecast: 8/10 Toss-up, 1 Lean D, 1 Tilt D. FiveThirtyEight classifies it a toss-up, though projects a Rosen squeaker of 49.3%-48.3%, with 2.5% for "others." Election Betting Odds lists 62.5% for Rosen.

3) Japheth Campbell, Missouri, +0.7

D Claire McCaskill (I) 44.3%, R Josh Hawley 43%, Campbell 2%, Green Party's Jo Crain 1.4% (8 polls)

Last poll: McCaskill 47%, Hawley 44%, Campbell 3%, Crain 2%, undecided 4% (Oct. 30-Nov. 1 Marist College, which three months prior had the percentages at 44-40-5-3-8; Marist this cycle has consistently polled third-party candidates higher than any other independent researcher).

Forecast: 8/10 Toss-up, 1 Lean R, 1 Tilt R. FiveThirtyEight has it a toss-up, though projects McCaskill holding on at 49.2%-48.1%, with 2.6% other. Election Betting Odds says Hawley 60%.

Just one last caper before they retired for good. ||| Matt Welch Matt Welch4) Gary Johnson, New Mexico, -2.2

D Martin Heinrich (I) 45.3%, R Mick Rich 26.8%, Johnson 16.3% (6 polls*)

Last poll: Heinrich 47%, Rich 33%, Johnson 11%, undecided 9% (Nov. 1-3 Research Co.).

Forecast: 9/10 Safe D, 1 Likely D. FiveThirtyEight predicts 51.8%-31.6%-14.6%. Election Betting Odds likes Heinrich 96.5%.

* I didn't include in this poll-average the survey that came out last week from Carroll Strategies showing Johnson at just 8 percent. Why? Because Johnson's name had been mistakenly swapped out for that of the previous L.P. nominee for that swap, New Mexico State Land Commissioner Aubrey Dunn. A chastened Carroll Strategies then got right back in the field with Johnson's name, and produced strikingly similar results. Color me skeptical.

Johnson, who entered this race with an idea to win the damn thing outright, is still polling much higher than any Libertarian Senate candidate, and will likely become the fifth L.P. Senate candidate to get double digits at the polls.

5) Neal Dikeman, Texas, -3.4

R Ted Cruz (I) 46.7%, D Beto O'Rourke 42%, Dikeman 1.3% (6 polls)

Last poll: Cruz 50%, O'Rourke 47%, Dikeman 1%, undecided 2% (Oct. 28-30, Emerson College).

Forecast: 6/10 Lean R, Likely R & Toss-up 2. FiveThirtyEight projects 51.7%-46.8%-1.5%. Election Betting Odds says Cruz 77.5%.

6) Rusty Hollen, West Virginia, -3.5

D Joe Manchin (I) 47.5%, R Patrick Morrissey 39%, Hollen 5.3% (4 polls)

Last poll: Manchin 47%, Morrissey 42%, Hollen 3%, undecided 8% (Oct. 28-31, Emerson College).

Forecast: 8/10 Lean D, 1 Tilt D & Likely D. FiveThirtyEight projects 52.5%-45%-2.5%. Election Betting Odds likes Manchin 78.5%.

7) Murray Sabrin, New Jersey, -5.3

D Robert Menendez (I) 48.3%, R Bob Hugin 40.7%, Sabrin 2.3% (3 polls)

Last poll: Menendez 51%, Hugin 39%, Sabrin 3%, other 4%, undecided 1% (Oct. 25-31, Stockton University, which two months prior had the percentages at 45-43-3-5-2).

Forecast: 6/10 Lean D, 3 Likely D, 1 Toss-up. FiveThirtyEight projects 54.2%-42.7%, with 3.1% other. Election Betting Odds prefers Menendez 83.5%.

8) Rick Breckenridge, Montana, -6

D Jon Tester (I) 48.8%, R Matt Rosendale 40.2%, Breckenridge 2.6% (4 polls)

Last poll: Rosendale 49%, Tester 46%, Breckenridge 3% (Nov. 2-4, Change Research).

Forecast: 4/10 Toss-up & Lean D, 2 Lean D. FiveThirtyEight projects 51.1%-46.4%-2.5%. Election Betting Odds says Tester 64%.

Breckenridge went wobbly at the finish line of this one, telling reporters last week that he "endorsed" his Republican opponent, but then explaining to Reason's Brian Doherty that he was not dropping out, and really just meant it on the narrow issue of going after "dark money" in politics. The Montana Libertarian Party then issued an extraordinary statement saying that many party members "feel betrayed by Breckenridge's statement," after which the candidate walked back his initial comments, and now the damned thing is being adjudicated at Snopes.

Whatever; he's still on the ballot, though it's hard to see the shenanigans helping Breckenridge's final numbers.

9) Bruce Jaynes, Ohio, -11

D Sherrod Brown (I) 49%, R Jim Renacci 35%, Jaynes 4%, G Philena Farley 2% (1 poll). Jaynes and Farley are write-in candidates.

Forecast: 7/10 Likely D, 2 Safe D, 1 Lean D. FiveThirtyEight projects 55.7%-44.3%, Election Betting Odds says Brown 88.5%.

10) Jim Schultz, Nebraska, -12ish

R Deb Fischer (I) 54%, D Jane Raybould 39%, Schultz unpolled (1 poll)

Forecast: 9/10 Safe R, 1 Likely R. FiveThirtyEight projects 56%-41.1%-3%; Election Betting Odds has it at Fischer 96.5%.

11) Matt Waters, Virginia, -14

D Tim Kaine (I) 50.7%, R Corey Stewart 32%, Waters 4.7% (3 polls)

Last poll: Kaine 52%, Stewart 36%, Waters 5%, other 0%, undecided 4% (Sept. 4-9, University of Mary Washington/SSRS).

Forecast: 9/10 Safe D, 1 Likely D. FiveThirtyEight projects 56.9%-41.1%-2%; Election Betting Odds likes Kaine 93%.

12) Dale Kerns, Pennsylvania, -14.8

D Bob Casey, Jr. (I) 50%, R Lou Barletta 33.8%, G Neal Gale 1.6%, Kerns 1.4%, (5 polls)

Last poll: Casey 51%, Barletta 44%, Gale 2%, Kerns 1% (Nov. 2-4, Change Research).

Forecast: 6/10 Likely D, 4 Safe D. FiveThirtyEight projects 54.9%-43.4%, 1.7% other. Election Betting Odds says Casey 92%.

13) Danny Bedwell, Mississippi, -15.7

R Roger Wicker (I) 52.7%, D David Baria 34.3%, Bedwell 2.7%, Ref. Shawn O'Hara 2% (3 polls)

Last poll: Wicker 48%, Baria 40%, Bedwell 5%, O'Hara 3% (Nov. 2-4, Change Research).

Forecast: 9/10 Safe R, 1 Likely R. FiveThirtyEight projects 56.8%-41.1%, 2.1% other.

14) Richard Lion, Connecticut, -18ish

D Chris Murphy (I) 56.5%, R Matthew Corey 36.8%, Lion (unpolled), G Jeff Russell & SA Mitch Linck (also unpolled). (6 polls)

Forecast: 9/10 Safe D, 1 Likely D. FiveThirtyEight projects 59.8%-38.4%, 1.8% other.

15) Craig Bowden, Utah, -30.5

R Mitt Romney 57%, D Jenny Wilson 24%, C Tim Aalders 3%, Bowden 2.5%, IA Reed McCandless 2.5% (2 polls)

Forecast: 9/10 Safe R, 1 Likely R. FiveThirtyEight projects 59%-29.6%, with 11.5% other.

16) Nadine Frost, Delaware, -34

D Tom Carper (I) 61%, R Rob Arlett 24%, Frost 3%, G Demetri Theodoropoulos 3% (1 poll)

Forecast: 9/10 Safe D, 1 Likely D. FiveThirtyEight projects 62.1%-35.2%, with 2.7% other.

17) Arvin Vohra, Maryland, -38

D Ben Cardin (I) 56%, R Tony Campbell 17%, I Neal Simon 8%, Vohra 1% (1 poll)

Forecast: 9/10 Safe D, 1 Likely D. FiveThirtyEight projects 65.2%-29.8%, with 5% other.

Bonus video for those who have made it this far down:

Photo Credit: Matt Welch

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Why are Libertarians only spoilers for Republicans? Shouldn't they cause Democrats to lose sometimes too?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians caused Hillary to lose.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Where does Matt say that?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Matt doesn't, but the candidates and parties often do.

    Democrats over the past week have been advertising Brenton's conservative bona fides to Republican voters, in a bid to split the right-of-center vote.
    [...]
    Breckenridge went wobbly at the finish line of this one, telling reporters last week that he "endorsed" his Republican opponent, but then explaining to Reason's Brian Doherty that he was not dropping out, and really just meant it on the narrow issue of going after "dark money" in politics.
  • DiegoF||

    See John look at that Twitter link. Look at those surging early voting numbers, like nothing we've seen before, with the Republicans getting their asses handed to them in every single state.

  • DiegoF||

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Arizona early & absentee vote turnout by group, compared to 2014:
    18-29: +186%
    30-39: +148%
    40-49: +91%
    50-64: +45%
    65+: +40%
    Hispanics: +115%
    Caucasian: +53%
    Unmarried: +92%
    Never voted: +121%
    Dems: +70%
    Repubs: +54%

    John guaranteed a GOP win in this AZ Senate race yesterday.

  • DiegoF||

    John look; those are the ugliest numbers I've ever seen. The very closeness of this race means purple Arizona will arrive sooner or later, but this looks like there will be no reprieve. I am even starting to waver a bit on my Senate confidence, which I never have.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    I think John went to the liquor store to tie one on later.

  • DiegoF||

    I should go to start drinking right now. And later. Anything while we still have privately owned liquor stores in NY!

  • Calidissident||

    Only thing I'd caution is that early vote numbers often don't correlate strongly with the final results - in many cases they just subtract from day-of voters. But yeah, those numbers don't look good for the GOP. I think John was definitely way too confident, though at least his scenario of GOP +4 in the Senate was somewhat plausible if they overperformed the polls a little and the close races broke their way. LC1789 has been convinced that the GOP not just keep the House, but gain seats. That's straight up delusional (the gaining seats part - they have a realistic chance to keep the House).

  • Vince Smith||

    It looks like John was right.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hate to break it to you but early voting numbers dont mean shit. Most states dont accurately release early voting numbers because they dont want to skew elections.

    Hillary was pegged to win partly based on early voting estimates.

    Come on people! Election 2018 was only two years ago and you people forget what happened already.

  • a tandem||

    "Why are Libertarians only spoilers for Republicans? Shouldn't they cause Democrats to lose sometimes too?"

    Because the data show that more of that vote comes from otherwise GOP voters. Same with Greens. with Greens some might stay at home, some might vote GOP, but more would have voted Democrat.

    I vote Libertarian often but never when it is a close election, in which case I vote GOP.

    it should be noted, often too late in cycle to show up on pre lection reporting, but enough to have an effect, that Democrat associated big hitters do give to 527s and other groups supporting the libertarian and even sometimes directly to the candidate, when the election is close enough for them to reap spoiler effect created win.

    Democrats absolutely did give significant money to Bob Sarvis libertarian candidate in Va governor race in 2013. he absolute was a spoiler handing the lection to Democrat mcCaullif. The super pac and the largest 527 advertising on the libertarian's behalf were majority funded by Obama pac big bundler and DNC trustee Joe Liemandt

  • NoVaNick||

    Actually, the analysis I saw showed that Sarvis cost McAulliffe more votes than he did the GOP candidate. McAuliffe was predicted to win by 5 points, and it came down to a few thousand votes.

  • Mr. JD||

    Why indeed...

  • Mesoman||

    Because those who would vote for Libertarians are ideologically closer to Republicans than Democrats.

    Of course, in any race where there are consequences to which of the two major party wins, voting for a Libertarian is irresponsible unless the voter simply can perceive no difference in outcome between the two major party candidates.

  • JFDeplorable||

    In Indiana they did. The final tally was Donnelly 38%, Brenton 4% and Braun 58%.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    D Claire McCaskill (I) 44.3%, R Josh Hawley 43%, Campbell 2%, Green Party's Jo Crain 1.4% (8 polls)

    John says this is a fake poll.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Any poll that shows Lefties ahead before the vote tallies come in is fake.

  • Calidissident||

    For that to be true, wouldn't "Lefties" have to lose every race?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Polls have nothing to do with actual voting results.

    They could but dont.

    The fact that Lefties win some elections is independent of the fakeness of preelection polls.

    A stopped clock is right twice a day.

  • Calidissident||

    Then why single out polls that show Lefties ahead?

    Obviously polls aren't actual results, but they do a better job of estimating what the result will be then throwing darts at a board or partisan wishful thinking. There's middle ground betweeen "Polls are infallible and tell you exactly what will happen" and "Polls are worthless and have no predictive value." But I'm sure you've based your claim on a rigorous statistical evaluation of the data, and not just "Lol polls said Trump would lose in 2016 so they're totally fake," right?

  • ||

    But I'm sure you've based your claim on a rigorous statistical evaluation of the data, and not just "Lol polls said Trump would lose in 2016 so they're totally fake," right?

    Why ever would you think differently?

  • Vince Smith||

    McCaskill got thumped, so it was indeed a fake poll.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    So no Ted Metz, LP for Georgia Governor?

    That's right because Kemp is kicking Abrams ass at the polls.

    I wrote in Ted Metz for Lieutenant Governor and he would have won that position. He should have known that once a black lady ran for Georgia governor as a Democrat that it would be GOP vs Democrat.

    He would have won Lieutenant Governor since it is not a mad contest.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Look at Lefties all over the internet scrambling to save face.

    They know it's gonna be a Democrat bloodbath today.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    If Dems win the House will you go away forever?

    Out of shame?

  • DiegoF||

    You mean "after Dems win the House." And I already asked him that, obviously from a more friendly perspective. The answer is no.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, I know Dems are favored to take the House but they are the inept party. They could still screw it up.

  • a tandem||

    The other party almost always does at midterms, often by huge changes as we saw with Clinton, Obama, etc.

    the turnover of the house is the norm. the real test will be if the Democrats take the Senate

  • DiegoF||

    Those Twitter numbers are awful for Republicans. This is a fiasco. This is going to be far more epic than even my histrionic predictions. This might outdo 2010.

  • a tandem||

    "fiasco" 'epic"??? Unless the Democrats take the Senate, the fiasco is how the Democrats blew it despite a trillion dollars of free media by major news media attacking republicans relentlessly.

    Clinton and Obama lost the House and saw large losses in the house at the midterms,despite having higher approvals than Trump

  • Calidissident||

    I don't think the Dems necessarily blew it if they don't win the Senate. The map was extremely unfavorable. They have several incumbents in solid red states, and Heller was the only blue/purple state Republican senator up for reelection. They have a good chance in Arizona, but even with that they basically need to run the table to gain a majority, or pull off an upset in Texas or Tennessee. If they have a big wave in the House and hold ground or net a seat in the Senate that's a win.

  • ||

    Unless the Democrats take the Senate, the fiasco is how the Democrats blew it despite a trillion dollars of free media by major news media attacking republicans relentlessly.

    ^ This.

    And as I heard someone point out on the radio the other day, a narrow House majority for the Dems is about the worst thing that could happen to them. They'll have to pander to their nuttiest fringe in order to get anything passed, and given the number of Dems running on an explicit "unseat Nancy Pelosi" platform, there is a real chance that Maxine Waters becomes Speaker of the House.

    If that all comes to pass, the Dems are very likely to be re-trounced come 2020.

  • Calidissident||

    If they chose a new leader, I feel like it will be someone younger than Pelosi, not older.

    The thing is, the Democrats aren't going to be able to pass shit by themselves the next two years with Trump as president and a likely GOP controlled Senate. Whatever actually gets through will be negotiated between Democratic leadership, Trump, and the Republican leadership. But you're probably right that there will be pressure on the Dem leaders in the House to pass symbolic bills that have no chance of becoming law (kind of like how it was for the GOP under Obama).

    I think it's way too soon to make any 2020 predictions regardless of the outcome of tonight.

  • ||

    If they chose a new leader, I feel like it will be someone younger than Pelosi, not older.

    I would hope. But they haven't been showing a lot of long-game discipline lately. If not Waters, is there any other Democrat in the House with a high enough profile to be a clear alternative? Will they be able to resist "first Black Woman Speaker?"

    I think it's way too soon to make any 2020 predictions regardless of the outcome of tonight.

    That is perhaps the one thing that can be said without doubt. I should have prefaced my statement with "all things being equal." The next two years are likely to be a contest over which party can alienate more people more quickly.

  • Calidissident||

    Not sure who it would be. My money is still on Pelosi strongarming her way into staying in power. I'm just not sure Waters actually has that sway or grassroots support (I think the perception is amplified by her controversial comments, I don't think she's a big a deal as some on the right seem to think), especially given her age.

  • ||

    My money is still on Pelosi strongarming her way into staying in power.

    I think you're probably right about that, especially if Waters is the alternative, since I agree that Waters is a bigger deal to Republicans than she is to Democrats, and as much of a liability as Pelosi is, I doubt anyone thinks Waters wouldn't be a bigger one. I just feel like it's possible that a rebellion breaks out against Pelosi that results in Waters taking the Speakership.

    Neither one is a good look for the next two years, though. Last I checked Pelosi's approval ratings were still lower than Trump's. The Republicans will have to work hard to make themselves even more unpopular. I'm sure they're up to the task, though . . .

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I should make a bet with you but you would never leave Reason.

    I will just have to win some more and laugh at you when election 2018 is a bloodbath for Lefties.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    It's so cute how there are idiots out there who actually still believe that these polls are accurate and foolproof.

    Like the man said, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

  • darkflame||

    I know right? CNN is saying that nationwide there's a democrat tilt of 14 points for the elections and that Trump has a 35% approval rating, while rasmussen is saying there's a republican tilt of 1 point and Trump is at 49%. One or both have to be wrong, and since Rasmussen correctly predicted how the 2016 popular vote would turn out, I know who I'm guessing is more accurate.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't think either of those is accurate, answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

    Difference between this year and 2016 re: Rasmussen is that their projection in 2016 wasn't really out of line with the average - they had Clinton +2 and the RCP average was Clinton +3. This year they're projecting Republican +1 on the generic ballot while the average is D +7. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP overperformed the average, or kept the House, but winning the overall vote (not that that is a particularly important metric by itself in our system) seems wildly optimistic for them - in the last election the GOP was +1 in the overall House vote (polling average was D +0.6) so that's essentially matching their performance from 2016. That would be a way, way bigger polling error than what happened in 2016, or even 2014.

  • darkflame||

    No, I agree with ya. I could see the GOP overperforming too, but winning overall is probably not in the cards.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties have to put all their hopes and dreams in inaccurate polls.

    Otherwise they would be depressed all the time.

  • Echo Chamber||

    Where's OBL????
    Today is the grand finale. My popcorn is ready

  • DiegoF||

    Given socialism's track record in keeping the grain plentiful, I don't blame you for eating up while you can.

  • darkflame||

    I'm looking forward to these elections coming to a close, if for no other reason than no longer having to deal with all the bs political ads on youtube

  • Calidissident||

    Enjoy it while you can because I give it 6 months before the 2020 election cycle and campaigning begins.

  • NoVaNick||

    It has already started-Bloomberg has basically announced by re-registering as a Dem. And Pocohontas has been making lots of trips to NH.

  • DiegoF||

    Those two will battle over the soul of the Democratic Party; who will it be? Don't let Bloomberg take your firestick LIzzie!

  • Calidissident||

    Bloomberg has delusions of grandeur. He has no shot at winning, he has zero constituency outside of Manhattan.

  • darkflame||

    Dammit. The sad thing is I don't think you're wrong

  • Dillinger||

    Polls are not science.

  • Cosmo Man||

    I live in Missouri, pay attention to politics and didn't even know there was a Libertarian running. So I doubt the poll. The only candidate in Missouri who could make a difference is "none of the above".

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Libertarian social media is awful at promoting local candidates. It's like they don't exist.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    God Bless Iowahawk.

    Somewhat astonished by the number of people who presume if they frogmarched me down to the local library and threw me into a voting booth, I would fill out my ballot as they wish
  • Dillinger||

    funny because true.

  • Jgalt1975||

    Tangentially related to this, I'd be very interested if there's been any study of whether third-party candidates' performance has improved on average in states that have gone to mail-in voting. Traditionally, even seemingly strong third-party candidates' support collapses to nearly nothing at the last minute, with the usual explanation being that voters choke under pressure when they get into the voting booth and revert back to one of the major parties. That crisis "crunch" moment should be dramatically reduced with mail-in voting, so one might expect to see an improvement in third-party candidates' performance.

  • Kivlor||

    I would be surprised if there was a substantial change, because those same people aren't likely to be motivated to vote early. That's usually the die-hard party folks

  • Locris||

    "it's looking like none of the 17 Libertarian candidates for the United States Senate........"
    Won?
    Or ever will?
    Drop the "Libertarian candidate is ahead by___points when Venus is in retrograde and then divided by the average age puppies in American suburban households"

    Run as a major party candidate and govern/vote as a Libertarian
    Otherwise the path is closed an you shall not pass.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online