A message from Radar
Greetings and Salutations my fellow Cellarites!
Today I'm very pleased with the election results. In my very first election, I got nearly 8% of the vote. This is double the number of votes the last Libertarian Candidate got, and 4 times the percentage.
My opponent won the election as usual, but she did so with 58,000 less votes than she got during the last election. She got her normal 83% of the total votes cast in this heavily gerrymandered district.
Since there was no Republican candidate in the race, the Republican vote was split between myself and the whacko AIP Party candidate. He got the majority of this vote since he was the only pro-life (aka anti-choice / anti-woman / anti-freedom / pro-fascism) candidate.
If I could have won the entire election by claiming I was against abortion, I'd prefer to lose. I will never give up my principles. I will always be an honest, hard-working, ethical, reasonable, logical, intelligent, and "modest" candidate. ;)
I learned a lot during my first experience running for congress and I'm confident that I'll do even better next time. In fact, I'm planning on coming in at least 2nd place next time.
To those of you, who supported me, thank you very much.
--
Your Friend in Liberty,
Radar
Libertarian Congressional Candidate
California - District nn
Well, good for you, Radar! Best wishes in your next attempt. At least no one can call you a quitter.
You didn't win, but at least you spent your time, energy and money on something unproductive.
Well done, Radar. Lib candidates here in Missouri only got 2-4% of the vote, so you kicked relative ass.
Libs got about 2% here in Texas.
You didn't win, but at least you spent your time, energy and money on something unproductive.
In what way was it unproductive? Is it your contention that anyone who ever loses a race was unproductive?
I don't subscribe to that defeatist attitude. I have infinitely more respect for someone who tries and fails than the person who never tries and badmouths those who do. I don't like the "If you can't win, you shouldn't even try" camp.
I was very successful in getting the Libertarian message out there, and in getting more votes than libertarian candidates before me and in building name recognition for next time.
Libs got about 2% here in Texas.
The last LP candidate in my district got 2.1% of the vote
Well done, Radar. Lib candidates here in Missouri only got 2-4% of the vote, so you kicked relative ass.
I'll be better prepared, and better funded next time, although the way the LP is going, I may run as an independent.
A good showing indeed. And if it educated you in being politic, even better. Congratulations, and encouragement.
I'm sorry for sounding bitter about it, but it's important to remember that you lost. If in fact you "got the word out", 92% of people decided that it did not represent what they wanted from a government representative.
Through a lot of practice, Libertarians are excellent at digging victory out of every loss. You MUST remember that the bottom line is that, after all this effort, there was no ACTUAL political change. Which is supposed to be the point.
More people voted for you, sure: in an election where they knew the result all along. Politics dictate your total more than you did; winning the leftover protest vote is an exercise in irrelevancy. The L party is still throwing an "oh-fer" in Federal races, 35 years in.
UT's point is inescapable; if any libertarian, big L or small, actually wishes to see libertarian ideas take hold in this or any nation, libertarians must learn how to win. This is going to mean attaining a substantial power base, and not trying to kick out or alienate LP members, but instead to bend every effort to attract many.
I don't think it's a matter of learning how to win, I think it's a matter of having the resources (people, money, connections, etc) to be able to win. The Libertarian message is the best, it's just too expensive to get it out to everyone when you don't take dirty money or sell out your principles like the major parties.
I got the word out to some people. I certainly didn't get it out to most of them. It takes time to build up significant name recognition and respect in a community and it's extremely difficult to do it in a district where people vote on race and your race amounts to 10% of the population.
The only color that REALLY matters though is green. If you've got a lot of money, you can get the votes. If I had $500,000 to spend on the election, I'd have had a good chance at winning.
I'd remark, rather in the fashion of shutting things up like a telescope, that having the resources is learning how to win.
But you don't have $500,000, so this, like everything else, is merely fantasy politics.
Aw damnit, does that mean I'm not getting my cushy appointment? :lol:
Don't let 'em get you down, Radar. I think it takes big cajones to be part of a grassroots movement (and I think that, by dint of its current rate of influence, that's what Libertarianism still is) and try to make an also-ran into a viable third party.
Keep at it. Someone needs to. Otherwise we're just admitting that the status quo will continue forever. I'd like to at least enjoy my fantasy politics for awhile, since it doesn't really hurt anyone.
Besides, the Libs *do* have influence. Our margin of victory here in the Senatorial race was slightly more than 1%. Toss the 2% that the Libertarian candidate got into that mix, and maybe it swings the other way? You never know.
People are becoming more and more accustomed to voting for third parties and are learning that their vote isn't wasted when they vote for third parties, but it IS wasted when they vote for either of the larger parties.
Serious Libertarian candidates are doing better and better. It's only a matter of time before we start getting elected to congress and the Senate and that will happen during my lifetime.
Right, the standard dialogue on whose vote is "wasted" is so skewed, it's 180 degrees wrong.
It's wasted if you're voting against something else and not for what the candidate you vote for actually stands for.;)
Well done Radar! The two majors are showing us nothing to vote for, only stuff to vote against.
It's wasted if you're voting against something else and not for what the candidate you vote for actually stands for.
Right, exactly the way Democrats vote against Republicans, and vice versa, in order to keep the "bad guys" out of office. This is perpetuated by the fact that we only have two choices. So, the solution cannot be: to keep voting for the same two choices.
I don't buy that Dems vote against Reps rather than for Dems and vise versa. You also leave out us Inds. :p
I don't buy that Dems vote against Reps rather than for Dems and vise versa.
Really? You mean the tax-and-spend Liberals aren't going to take our guns away,
and the war-mongering Neo-Cons don't want to replace the Constitution with the Bible?
No, you didn't say that.
And, I didn't say you did.
No, you just inferred I meant that because that the bullshit game you play.:p
No, I didn't infer that's what you meant (exactly the opposite, in fact). I'm sorry you misunderstood my comment.
Would you like me to explain what I meant, or are you content with telling me what I meant, and maybe calling me a few names?
Really? [COLOR="Red"]You mean [/COLOR]the tax-and-spend Liberals aren't going to take our guns away,
and the war-mongering Neo-Cons don't want to replace the Constitution with the Bible?
That's what you wrote. :eyebrow:
I don't buy that Dems vote against Reps rather than for Dems and vise versa.
Really? You mean the tax-and-spend Liberals aren't going to take our guns away,
and the war-mongering Neo-Cons don't want to replace the Constitution with the Bible?
So, I'll go ahead and explain... You said you don't believe that Ds and Rs vote "against" each other, and I jokingly replied with a list of ways that I think they do. I asked if you disagree with those observations. I'm really, really sorry that you misunderstood what I meant. Truly. Very sorry. Either you can believe me, or you can call me a liar. Your choice.