$$ Per vote.

Did anyone get more votes for fewer dollars than Ed. Sec. Kathy Cox? She received 1,239,081 votes (only Oxendine had more) and raised only $230,460.03 as of October 25th (if I’m reading the report correctly). Assuming she spent all her money, that’s about $.19 per vote. Not too shabby.

13 comments

  1. Demonbeck says:

    It’s funny that the Secretary of Public Education got so much for so little, yet our education system can’t do the same. Perhaps those she leads will try to correct problems with effective solutions rather than merely throwing my money at everything.

    I’m just saying …

  2. hankreardan says:

    Every Libertarian. I believe we averaged 10-15 cent per vote.Garrett spent about $12,000 and recieved about 80000 votes . David Chastain spent less and recieved about100,000 votes.

  3. Decaturguy says:

    Sadly, Denise Majette raised only $42,241 (through Oct 31) and got 724,840 votes. That is 5.8 cents per vote. But she could have spent $5.8 million and it would not have made much difference!

  4. Bill Simon says:

    Hank,

    The Libertarian results would be significant if any had won.

    You might look at those $/vote results and try to figure out how much MORE you have to spend to get your message out. I predict it will be quite higher than the cost per vote of whoever won the race a Libertarian was vying for.

  5. hankreardan says:

    Bill
    I understand the math. The great thing was we increased our vote total by over 60% over 4 years ago while spending about the same amount of money.

  6. DougieFresh says:

    The gains by the Libertarians amount to nothing more as noise until you actually have competitive races. A bad rain storm will cost the Republicans and Democrats more voters than will cast ballots for Libertarians.

    This is for good reason. The Libertarians sound good on paper, but sadly they look terrible in person. Legalization of drugs needs to be removed from your platform, as it will forever doom the Libs to around 5 percent.

    I agree that drug prohibition causes more problems than it fixes, but it will never sell as a first step to the average voter. Try selling smaller government, lower taxes, protection from immenent domain, protection from over zealous law enforcement, holding government accountable and protection of our rights, and a strong national defense, then you have a potential winner.

    Parade potheads and hemp wearing peace-at-all-costniks around, and you will be laughed at and never trusted.

  7. StevePerkins says:

    The drug decriminalization thing has always puzzled me. I can’t count how many Republicans have told me the same mantra Dougie just repeated… “Well, of course **I** understand that current policy causes more problems than it solves, but average people are too dumb to understand that.” Same thing with the standard race-, gender-, and gay-baiting tactics… “**I** don’t really have a problem with [insert demographic here], but Joe Sixpack doesn’t see things my way.” It’s an interesting blend, one part lack of principle and one part condescending snobbery toward their own base.

    At the same time, I think Dougie’s right… the LP does need to focus its energy toward mainstream-accessible issues, particularly basic taxation and spending policy, rather than spinning its tires on fringe idealism. However, the thing is that this is EXACTLY what the party has been doing recently. The party’s platform was stripped-down significantly at this year’s national convention, and the slate of candidates in Georgia this year stuck to a mainstream common-sense message and tone (especially David Chastain, who had the most success of all as a result).

    Yeah, I know that reputations take a long time to change, but you’re still making points that were more true 10-20 years ago than they are today. Four or five percent might not exactly have state leaders losing sleep at night… but since we ARE doing a more effective job at addressing mainstream issues, and are doing double the numbers we were just a campaign or two back, it MIGHT be a good idea to get your act together and control spending. Even if third-parties aren’t competitive enough to win statewide elections… if they cause major parties to shift policy in order to shore up a flank, they’re doing their job.

  8. DougieFresh says:

    Steve,

    I very nearly ran for the State House as a Libertarian in 2004 (during my peak anti-pork-barrel-bush period). My plan was not to win as much as teach Libertarians how to run using the skills I picked up as a Republican.

    Sadly, I ran into the petty fiefdom issues with the state party and decided it was not worth my time. Attending meetings back in 2004, there were still the potheads going on and on about if only they could smoke their weed, un um, I mean medical marajuana, yeah, all medical like.

    It is not that I think voters are dumb. I think they will not trust someone coming to them, with no political legitimacy using that as the first issue.

    You do realize that a large protion of American thinks the it is good to have drugs illegal. Look at how popular smoking bans are for someone else’s private property. It is a loser, that is tough to sell to rational people as a priority, and is an even bigger loser to sell to people who have a knee jerk reaction to drugs.

    A good salesman sells the good a customer will buy. Work to enact the parts of your ajenda that will gain you credibility. THEN, when you have earned trust that your ideas work, push the ones that are less popular.

    Finge idealism sounds good in an echo chamber with 12 people, but falls flat in the real world.

    Also, in the age of terrorism, no one will trust the Liberarians with national defense.

  9. StevePerkins says:

    You’re not saying anything I disagree with at all, Dougie. Personally, the main issues that draws me to politics are entitlement spending and the debt that will be passed to my children. I care about dope-smoking about as much as the typical Republican leader REALLY cares about stem cells or school prayer. Politics gets intereresting like that because there are a lot of people under the big tents.

    I’m sorry you had a bad experience in ’04, and since I wasn’t active at the time I can’t speak to internal politics then (although if your goal was admittedly to swoop in and “teach everyone how to run”, I imagine that personalities might clash with any organization). All I can say is that I had a satisfying experience supporting the party this year, and felt good about the organization and tone of the campaign.

  10. DougieFresh says:

    It was not “teach everyone how to run” but more or less, teach the county party how to field candidates. The state party just made it too difficult to obtain information as they were suspicious of “republican moles”.

  11. atlantaman says:

    “I agree that drug prohibition causes more problems than it fixes, but it will never sell as a first step to the average voter.”

    Not trying to be funny, but I’ve always been curious as to where the Libertarians would draw a line on drug prohibition, if they would draw any line at all. For instance would they support selling crack cocaine viles in vending machines?

  12. StevePerkins says:

    Depends on the Libertarian… it’s a political party for crying out loud, not Scientology or something. Personally, I would simply favor a re-examination of sentencing priorities. It makes no sense to me to let violent criminals out on parole earlier and earlier in their sentences, because we have to make room for minor offenders stuck by mandatory sentencing statutes.

    I just think the system has gotten knocked out of whack due to political pandering, I don’t necessarily care about narcotics being legalized. It’s just a silly to paint Georgia Libertarians with that brush as it is to say that all Democrats are socialists or all Republicans homophobic racists.

Comments are closed.