Brad, thank you for the link. I just finished watching the replay of the debate, and found it most interesting. I thought Sean Haugh did an excellent job. Since I'm not a North Carolina resident, and I'm also naturally biased in Sean's favor, it's really hard for me to evaluate the impact of the debate on the election. But trying to be as objective as possible, here are my guesses/impressions: - Just by participating on an equal basis with Hagan and Tillis, the debate should significantly boost Sean's campaign. It showed that he is a credible, knowledgeable, intelligent, and personable candidate, not some fringe ideologue as our opponents often try to paint Libertarians. As election day nears, the "wasted vote" syndrome regarding third-party candidates typically kicks in, and their poll numbers dwindle as voters reluctantly choose the lesser of two evils between the two major parties. Sean's debate appearance should at the very least mitigate that effect. - Hagan and Tillis were also articulate, and sharply focused on their campaign talking points and appealing to their voter bases. Hagan emphasized all of the government goodies she favored but Tillis opposed, while Tillis concentrated on tying Hagan to Obama's unpopular policies. Tillis several times expressed his agreement with Sean on economic issues. Not having seen him before, I was surprised at how tall Tillis is. That's an advantage in politics, where images matter. My guess is that Tillis expanded his lead among men more than Hagan helped herself with women. - The main area in which Sean differentiated himself from both Hagan and Tillis was in the area of foreign affairs and anti-war sentiment. I can't see him cutting too much into Tillis' hawkish base, but he might attract some dovish Independents and Democrats who are experiencing cognitive dissonance over Hagan's pro-war attitude. Combined with the Elon University online survey data (http://tinyurl.com/kxrtg8m), this looks like another instance in which the LP candidate will hurt the Democrat more than the Republican. That's good, in that I think it's very important to puncture the conventional wisdom that the LP is a "spoiler" for Republicans. For one thing, it helps us separate ourselves from the Republican Party and the view that we are just another flavor of right wingers on the two-dimensional left-right scale. For another thing, it might blunt future Republican dirty tricks and other efforts to keep us off state ballots if they begin to realize that their stereotypes are invalid and that in many cases they could actually benefit from the presence of our candidates. - Overall, the debate solidified Sean's candidacy as a major factor in the election (and by extension the control of the Senate). He'll be getting a lot more earned media between now and the election. Before the debate, the various polls were showing Hagan with a narrowing lead over Tillis. My impression is that her lead has now gotten even narrower or has completely disappeared. It should make for a riveting election night, and a big step forward for Libertarians in North Carolina. Daniel Wiener On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Brad Hessel <bhessel@lpnc.org> wrote:
In case you missed the debate—or just want to see a replay of Sean Haugh, Libertarian for US Senate <https://www.facebook.com/HaughForSenate> giving serious, thoughtful answers to WECT-TV moderator Jon Evans’ questions while the other two mostly recited prepared talking points and traded petty personal accusations—here is the replay:
http://www.wect.com/story/26748355/3-nc-senate-candidates-debating-in-wilmin...
Brad Hessel
Executive Director
execdir@lpnc.org <kpenkowski@lpnc.org>
1-919-846-5227
www.lpnc.org
_______________________________________________ Statechairs mailing list Statechairs@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/statechairs_hq.lp.org
-- *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”* -- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)