The Institute for Policy Research at the University of Cincinnati released a poll for the Ohio gubernatorial race, on October 17. Unlike other polls for this race, the new poll asked voters about all 4 candidates. The results, as measured between October 9-14, are: Democratic 52%, Republican 38%, Libertarian 3%, Green 1%, undecided 6%.
This is only the 2nd time in history that the Libertarian Party has run a candidate for Governor of Ohio. The first time, in 1982, the Libertarian polled 1.17%. This year’s election is the first time the Green Party has had a candidate for Governor of Ohio.
Libertarian candidate Bill Peirce (http://peirceforohio.com) is getting screwed over so badly in this election it’s ridiculous. He has impeccable credentials and has run a strong, serious campaign from the get-go. Yet, the media has been downright hostile in excluding and ignoring him. It seems as though they are not just dismissive, but hatefully so.
If most of the public even *knew that Peirce is running* he could easily poll 16-20% or more. His positions are much more mainstream than most LP candidates’, and he is very articulate and charismatic.
What accounts for this antagonism from the media? Is the Ohio political climate just very homogenous? Or, did something happen in the past to turn the media off to Libertarian candidates?
The “news” media are hostile for several reasons, including that most “news” reporters are statists, usually Democrat and/or leftist statists.
Another reason is that paying attention to Libertarians requires some thought, some knowledge, and some work, and all three are relatively foreign to most reporters.
Worse than reporters, though, are (spit, spit) editors, who are just as likely to cut any reference to Libertarians, even if some reporter should slip and mention them.
A fellow I know says, “I can’t be an atheist. I mean, if there is no Hell, what will we do with the editors?”