It was a good night for us in Ga. We had great press. Fox Atlanta had a camera there. The AJC was there.We had over 100 people show up for the election night party.We had one of our best years with press coverage.I just broke out the counties by percentage.We had one county we recieved over 9% for the whole county.
Doug Craig Political Director Ga

Good for Georgia LP. How did Indiana's Rex Bell do (he had 33% in a late October poll)?

GA should be a targeted state in 08.

I was so impressed by Garrett Michael Hayes and the other Libertarian candidates' campaigns and success in Georgia, by the TV ads they made, and by Trevor Southerland's and Doug Craig's effective work, that I have started a monthly donation to the Georgia LP. I agree with Timothy West, lets rally where we do well.

This is great news for the party. I'm a Georgia resident and am very happy about this success. I've heard a lot of resentment towards both the Democrats and Republicans in power in Georgia. I think if we put some more money up and focused on GA in the next election. We would have great success.

The Libertarian vote totals vary widely across different regions of Georgia. The vast majority of LP votes come from Metro Atlanta. Unfortunately, we perform poorly in the rest of the state, which pulls down our overall statewide averages. In 2007, the LP of Georgia will be engaged in a serious effort to build a truly grassroots party across Georgia by developing county and regional affiliates in every corner of the state. If we are successful in 2007, we should be able to significantly boost our non-Metro Atlanta vote totals in 2008 for our statewide candidates.

Hayes (Governor) Vote:

Metro Atlanta: 57,885 (4.75%)
North Georgia: 6,120 (3.39%)
Middle Georgia: 4,151 (3.38%)
Southeast Ga.: 4,656 (2.22%)
Southwest Ga.: 2,957 (2.06%)
East Central Ga.: 2,973 (2.16%)
West Central Ga.: 1,556 (2.13%)

Total votes: 80,298 (3.80%)

The North Metro suburbs produced a solid 5% vote for Hayes.

Here an idea, look at all the States, see which Libertarian candidate got the most votes. And Let us all promote him for President 2008.

A libertarian will never win. It is a waste of time and money. Just send a check to the government for half your income and make sure you put your SS # on the check. At least you can skip doing your tax form this way.

I think the Libertarian Party should concentrate on the States for the 2008 Election. Until Libertarians start winning seats in the House or Senate, it is absolutely pointless to run a Presidential Candidate.

I somewhat agree with "Macintosh Sauce" here: We ought to be focusing STATE house and STATE senate seats, and spend less time trying to get someone elected to a federal office. I wouldn't, however, be opposed to having our party run a Presidential candidate in 2008 if he or she already has some name recognition nationally and can be taken seriously.

I'm happy to see some of the vote totals received by our LP candidates during this election cycle, and that we were able to get media attention and be invited to debates.

Dear lord,

Is that what its come to? I know getting less than 5% of a vote is often where we are at, but can anyone be expected to be that happy about it? Third parties have a high cost - a lot of voters don't want to "throw away" their vote on an impossible candidate; whereas they could be picking the lesser of two evils in a tight race.

So if the Libertarian party isn't going to eternally linger in impotence, or dissolve, then one of two things needs to happen. Either there's got to be a cultural revolution - like that of Rand's height - or we've got to find some way of getting voters results. Being that first former isn't easily controlled, the latter must be the focus. We should pool every volunteer, contribution dollar, and political favors we have into a small number of win-able races.

If the polls indicate someone is going to have a landslide defeat, we shouldn't keep backing them. It would be nice if we could do everything, but we have relatively tiny human and political capital to go around.

Like many I almost didn't even want the Libertarian causing a potential runoff for Sonny (our republican Gov.), I'd rather that contributions from our state focused on the biggest race where we can predict getting at least 50%. Even if we have to start at very low levels, since our philosophy /works/ people will see results and increase their future support.

I think Jason has a good point. Focusing on winnable races is where our money can do the most "damage." Having said that, my question would be, how much support do candidates get from the national party now? With the dollar figures being shown on the candidate tracker, it doesn't look like much money is being raised by even the most visable candidates. Does our national party have any contact with the media, and by contact I mean do they even answer the phone when called ID says "Libertarian Party?" I wonder whether the news (they like stuff about the underdogs) in all would be interested to hear about how we are denied ballot access, or even better, a podium at the debates. If a Libertarian ever got a podium at the presidential debate, our notoriety among likely voters would skyrocket.

I remember reading in the 1970's supporters of private property, free trade, and individual liberty arguing against the formation and support of the Libertarian Party because the result would be a focus on vote totals and acquiring power and office rather than education about the philosophy and economics of freedom.

The comments here reminded me of those views.

How many votes did John Cobin get in his race for Congressman in South Carolina?
How about Loretta Nall's vote for governor in Alabama?

For life and liberty,
David Macko

It is a good thing for our party to be intent on getting seats in government. It also is very good for our party to have people monitoring the motives of everyone that wants seats in government to make sure we keep our ideals.

Government has changed the Reps and Dems from their original platforms from years ago. Should we gain political power we need people within the party to keep us in check and by us, I mean all of us. We cannot let THEM change us.

I was please by the debates I saw online of a few of our candidates. The few I saw stuck to the ideals of freedom without fail from what I could tell and if they didn't they should hear from us. Wanting political power isn't the same as abusing it. Only when it is gained can we tell if it is abused. We must keep our promises.

I'm not a Randian, but I think Ayn Rand had a good point when she said of extremely pro-liberty candidates (she didn't like libertarians) that it was simply too early to run candidates for political office if voters didn't yet see extreme liberty as a viable option. I think it may be a waste of money to spend money on many unviable candidacies so many people are not even aware of the basic arguments which can be made for libertarianism. To me, Advocates for Self-Government type stuff makes more sense. If and when there is a point at which we have really given the public an idea of what libertarianism is and why it is respectable, we could run candidates. Alternatively, why not continue to run in local races, where we have won, and on the state and federal level pour all our donations into one or two appealing candidates? If we did that, and one out of fifteen of those appealing candidates won, we'd have someone in the federal government for the first time ever.

Educating the public has been a topic on these blogs recently with many of us mentioning an ad campaign. It wouldn't have to be, and probably shouldn't be, tied to a candidate. It should be a simple set of topics relating to cutting government spending, lowering taxes, getting out from under big government, "brought to you by the Libertarian Party of the United States of America. Visit LP.org." Something along those lines. Maybe to finance it, the LP can come up with a plan that we can be notified about and contribute to where we'll know what the money is going for and how. I'd be more than willing to contribute to a plan designed to educate people. I'd be surprised if I were alone in that thought.