Ohio is one of only three states this year with a gubernatorial election, and in which the Democratic and Republican nominees won’t be debating each other. The other such states are Nevada and Tennessee.
However, the Ohio Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Ed FitzGerald, will debate the only other gubernatorial nominee on the ballot, Anita Rios of the Green Party, on October 22. See this story.
I’m afraid Green Anita Rios will only take votes away from Democrat Ed FitzGerald. Somewhat surprised the Democratic Party is allowing their nominee to debate.
John Kasich should be happy and might even take the time to watch this debate if it is televised.
This common idea of “taking votes away” is not a valid concept. Political science research has found that over half the voters are not ideological. Those of us who follow politics closely are almost always ideological, so we don’t realize how different so many millions of people are not. It could very well be that the debate will help FitzGerald.
So you believe, for example, the Libertarian nominee for Governor of Virginia in the 2013 elections did not cause the loss of the GOP nominee as many claim?
I’ll have to admit, most of those claiming such were “conservatives,” and naturally they had to have someone as their “whipping boy.”
Still, I would think, again for example, where a 3rd Party or Independent shares an identical position on more issues with a GOP opponent than he/she does with the Democratic nominee, it would seem common sense would dictate that a voter is not going to vote for someone who holds more views different than he/she.
Would you not agree? Or, have the people doing this research, find these “independent” voters more apt to vote for someone based on personality, looks, etc., and not their ideology which might affect their vote?
There were exist polls for the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial race which are strong, almost incontrovertible evidence, that Sarvis did not change the outcome.
“So you believe, for example, the Libertarian nominee for Governor of Virginia in the 2013 elections did not cause the loss of the GOP nominee as many claim?”
It’s been proven he didn’t. If anything he cost the Democrat votes, though most Sarvis voters wouldn’t have voted otherwise. Cuccinelli didn’t lose because of Sarvis, Cuccinelli lost because of Cuccinelli.
“Cuccinelli didn’t lose because of Sarvis, Cuccinelli lost because of Cuccinelli.”
You might have a point here!
There is no evidence that “3rd” parties take votes away from the legacy parties and in fact there is quite a bit of evidence to support the theory that the legacy parties take votes from “3rd” parties. If you look at polling data you see that “3rd” party candidates tend to under preform. That’s the old party taking votes.