Eric Schansberg, Libertarian Candidate for Indiana’s 9th District, has his website up. It will be interesting to see what role Mr. Schansberg has to play in what looks to be one of the most hotly contested districts in the country. Former Democratic Congressman Baron Hill is challenging incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Sodrel. Enormous amounts of money are flowing to the Republican and Democratic candidates. Mr. Schansberg claims, not without some justification, to be the only fiscal conservative in the campaign:
Given their voting records, my opponents can only offer empty promises of fiscal restraint or a more credible promise to increase taxes or to continue to finance their spending with increasing government debt (and thus, future taxes).
He claims to be the strongest defender of the poor and the middle class, stating that the Republicans exhibit little interest in the poor while the Democratic interest amounts to little more than lip-service since, he contends, their policies work against the interests of the poor.
He is pro-life and pro-adoption, an economics professor and public policy analyst for the past 15 years.
I’ve been told that the website, while operational, will undergo some tweaking. So it’s probably worth keeping an eye on.
In what will be a very close election, Schansberg will hurt Sodrel. Like you ‎said, it will be interesting to watch. If Sodrel loses, expect to see Republicans blaming ‎Schansberg.‎
Wow. Very intresting. I could see him taking votes from both sides. With proper $$$, I could see him winning. In our current two-party system, he has almost no chance. It really is too bad we don’t have runoff voting.
A “pro-life” candidate from the Libertarian Party?
Is the LP even trying these days?
Libertarians typically have a balanced appeal to those who would otherwise go Republican or Democrat – fiscally more in line with traditionally Republican philosophy; socially more in line with the Democrats. “I don’t care what you do as long as you don’t ask me to pay for it.” This year, however, I would say that a libertarian candidate would be more likely to “take” votes from the Republicans because: 1) Democrats are hungrier and less likely to stray; and 2) Republicans have failed to perform fiscally in the way that their libertarian-minded supporters would like (i.e. they’ve spent like drunken sailors.)
Libertarians in theory provide equal appeal to both Republicans and Democrats. But I ‎think Libertarian (Libertrianic?) candidates in general do take more votes from ‎Republicans.‎
Those who are social libertarians sound just like mainstream Democrats when it comes to ‎social policy. On the other hand, those who are fiscal libertarians tend to be fiscally more ‎conservative than mainstream Republicans. Thus, when you have a libertarian who holds ‎both fiscal and social libertarian views, they attract libertarians and fiscal Republicans.‎
As for this race, Republicans, as pointed out in a recent column by Brian Howey, are ‎spending like a majority party. Fiscal conservatives have felt betrayed, but they won’t ‎vote for Democrats because Democrats spent like drunken sailors when they were in ‎power. ‎
Schansberg is pro-life, so conservatives don’t have an excuse not to vote for him.‎
Democrats won’t leave because they are “hungrier,†but because they have no reason to leave. Thus ‎Schansberg can only hurt Sodrel.‎
Regarding the question about “A “pro-life†candidate from the Libertarian Party?” I have found that while “pro-life” doesn’t seem to be the majority view in the Libertarian Party it is a view that I have seen taken by a number of Libertarians for many years. It isn’t really unusual. If a Libertarian concludes that a fetus is a human they would come to that view point quite naturally and logically would extend legal protection to the individual. Libertarians are not anarchists afterall. I couldn’t really term this a willingness to “try anything”.
I think that the prevailing wisdom that Libertarians draw votes from Republicans is most true on local or state races, where the policies affected by the offices sought are mainly fiscal. But this is a Congressional race, and the social issues are more a part of the dialogue, and here Libertarians can draw from Dems.
Same reasons for drawing for either. If the Sodrel is seen as not giving fiscal conservatives what they expect, they could swing to Schansberg. If Hill isn’t addressing Iraq to the satisfaction of anti-war folks on the left, they could swing to Schansberg.
The incumbent always has more at risk in a Congressional race when a Libertarian is present. You don’t get to be more relevant by addressing the other challenger.
Also- Thanks, Paul. You got it right on the divide within Libertarian ranks on abortion. It all has to do with the central question of when life begins, and it leads some Libertarians to be “pro-choice”, others “pro-life”. (I hate these terms, but I think everybody knows what I am saying with them.)