Are the Libertarians Getting to Cagle?

Rumor has it that the Cagle camp has done outreach to the LIbertarians. They called and asked for the LIbertarian membership list.

Is the Martin camp on to something with its polling that shows Buckley getting a good percentage of the vote?

UPDATED: I have multiple sources confirming that Cagle was after proprietary political party data from the Libertarians about their members, which they did not give out. Interesting.

25 comments

  1. Chris says:

    If it’s private, behind the scenes outreach, I’m not biting. If he’s not willing to put some of our values on the table publicly, and say ’em like he means ’em, then he’s flat out pandering to keep the LP from splintering the vote and sending Martin to the job.

  2. atlantaman says:

    “then he’s flat out pandering to keep the LP from splintering the vote and sending Martin to the job.”

    If nobody receives more then 50% of the vote then there is a runoff. So other then forcing a runoff and the somewhat unpredictable nature of runoffs, the Libertarian vote is irrelevant. I don’t know if there is any statistical basis to it, but I’ve heard Republican candidates tend to do better in special elections. Maybe it has more to do with challengers fairing better in runoffs and since the last decade has mainly been Republicans as challengers it would appear as if Republicans do better in runoffs.

  3. Jeff Emanuel says:

    RuralDem, it’s a different campaign, IMHO. Not going negative on Reed would be like ignoring the ball sitting of the tee in front of you, and demanding a better pitch to hit.

  4. Dorabill says:

    I like third parties (sometimes). Except for perhaps the socialist party. I’d like them more if “strategic withdrawal” was in their game plan more often. If a major party (preferably Republicans) is willing to take some of their agenda and run with it and they know they don’t have a shot at winning why not pull out? If they’re just trying to make a name for themselves then they should stick around more often (and piss people off) The Libertarians don’t exactly need to do that. Everyone’s heard of them. The other option is showing how much power have and cost themselves more money they could use for future victories. Sonny’s making a good move–I think. Libertarians can make some brownie points and get air time with a partnership with Sonny/withdrawal. (What was the name of that party started by Ross Perot?)

  5. Jack S says:

    Dorabill got me thinking. I’m predisposed to a libertarian perspective and can see their point on a variety of items. I can understand the frustration with perdue. He’s not exactly a champion of tax cuts.

    But cagle is a tax cut champion and just imagine martin as lg. taylor is tolerable but martin is a radical liberal. Way out on the left. If the libertarian candidate forces a runoff with cagle and martin wins think of the consequences!!!!!

  6. atlantaman says:

    “If the libertarian candidate forces a runoff with cagle and martin wins think of the consequences!!!!!”

    Don’t get me wrong I want Cagle to win, but if Martin wins there would be no consequences. The day Martin took office he would be neutered by the Senate just like his compatriot Taylor has been for the last 4 years.

  7. Mad Dog says:

    Atlantaman,

    So the Senate has a ‘right’ greater than the voter’s right?

    Meaning, the Senate determines what it means when a voter casts a ballot?

    A vote for a Republican Lt. Gov. means an active role for that position but a vote for a Democtratic Lt. Gov. means no active role for that position?

  8. atlantaman says:

    “So the Senate has a ‘right’ greater than the voter’s right?”

    You ask that question as if it’s somehow a debatable point. The evidence is Mark Taylor’s last 4 years as L.G. with a Repubulican Senate. I don’t think it means the Senate’s right is somehow greater then the voters, since the Senate runs for election every 2 years and serves at the will of the voters. I guess it’s the right of the Senate to make rules for how their body is run. If you want my honest opinion they need to get rid of the L.G.’s office, it’s a useless position.

    “A vote for a Republican Lt. Gov. means an active role for that position but a vote for a Democtratic Lt. Gov. means no active role for that position?”

    You are somewhat correct about this. A vote for a Dem Lt. Gov. absolutely means no active role for that position. A vote for a Repub. Lt. Gov. means there might be an active role for that position.

  9. RuralDem says:

    Question…..

    If Cagle wins in November, will the Republicans restore the powers of the Lt. Gov? I would hope not…. sure someone’s going to reply with “it’s politics” but no… “it’s hypocrisy”. The Georgia GOP fussed for so long about how bullying and bad the Democrats were and what do they do? The exact same thing.

  10. RuralDem says:

    “If Cagle wins the election what difference does it make to you who the Republicans choose as the leadership of their caucus.”

    Well it’s a disrespect to the office of Lt. Governor. If you’re going to limit the rules for a Democrat and restore them to a Republican (and vice versa) then what’s the point in having the position?

    “You can’t expect a person of one party to head up a body composed of a majority of another party.”

    I expect those in the General Assembly to put forth an effort to better the state (which most of them, in both parties, are doing) instead of playing partisan games on a daily basis.

    Sometimes you have to look at more than the Republican/Democrat viewpoint.

  11. atlantaman says:

    “Well it’s a disrespect to the office of Lt. Governor. If you’re going to limit the rules for a Democrat and restore them to a Republican (and vice versa) then what’s the point in having the position?”

    Couldn’t agree with you more on this point.

    “I expect those in the General Assembly to put forth an effort to better the state (which most of them, in both parties, are doing) instead of playing partisan games on a daily basis.”

    I don’t think anyone is playing partisan games. It’s just the nature of politics. The majority of people put Republicans in office because they feel the Republicans have a better agenda to “better the state.”

    “Sometimes you have to look at more than the Republican/Democrat viewpoint.”

    I think you’re upset because you are a Democrat. What do you expect should happen – if Jim Martin gets elected he should head the Republican caucus? The position was created when the Democrats were 100% in charge and the ultimate in partisan games were being played.

    The Senate and the House are allowed to make their own rules as to how they are run. It’s just the way it is at the state level and the Federal level. The Vice-President is technically the head of the US Senate, but all he really gets is a tie breaking vote – just like our own L.G. LBJ tried to become head of the Democrat Caucus when he left the Senate as Majority Leader to become V.P. (so he could still run the Senate), but his fellow Senator laughed at him.

    If you don’t think the Senate should be allowed to make the rules by which they are governed then I suggest you campaign very hard for Democrat Senators on that very issue and see if the people of Georgia agree with you.

  12. Mad Dog says:

    Atlantaman,

    You might be right about doing away with the position, especially if either party, through Senate majority, can change duties.

    Might be an issue of informal vs. formal power.

    What was the reason for creating this ‘worthless’ Constitutional office?

    (Now it is a point subject to debate, eh?)

    Like the voters are choosing a Constitutional office holder, yes?

    But, the Senate gets to re-intrepret that Constitution for partisan reasons? Yes?

    I don’t think the Senate gets to snub the Constitution every four years.

  13. RuralDem says:

    “I think you’re upset because you are a Democrat. ”

    Nice try but I think if you read most of my other posts I am more independent if anything. I side with Democrats more than Republicans (though not by much). I’m not upset about anything, I just think if they decide to restore the powers of the Lt. Gov if Cagle wins then it’s hypocritical which you agreed with.

  14. atlantaman says:

    “I just think if they decide to restore the powers of the Lt. Gov if Cagle wins then it’s hypocritical which you agreed with.”

    Never agreed with the it being hypocritical, it’s just a matter of which party controls the Senate and who that party wants leading them. You’re looking too far into that matter. I don’t worry about whether they call Duboise Porter the Minority Leader or the Grand Poo Ba.

  15. atlantaman says:

    “Don’t you have to argue that Cheney is a figure head to make your reasoning work to your favor?”

    I’m not sure if that was a joke or not, but Cheney is definitley a figurehead in the Senate – his role in the White House is a far different matter.

  16. atlantaman says:

    “What was the reason for creating this ‘worthless’ Constitutional office?”

    I don’t honestly know why the office was created. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on it. I know the office is not very old, maybe it was created in the 1950’s?

Comments are closed.