http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/i...s.1120p.110513.v2.final[1].copy.pdf?hpt=po_c1
Most of Sarvis' support came from those identifying as moderate.
20% of voters identified as liberal and 36% conservative. Multiply that by the percentage that voted for Sarvis and 1.4% of all voters identified as liberal and voted for Sarvis, while 1.08% identified as conservative and voted for Sarvis. Due to rounding we can't even be sure of that insignificant .32% difference.
REAL libertarians don't have a knee jerk reaction to the liberal label that fake ones, like grind, do. Libertarians are market liberals and socially liberal. So, I would guess more of the hardcore libertarians who never would vote for either candidate, identified as liberal rather than conservative.
But altogether I think it indicates his effect was likely even but his voters are still difference makers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/2013-elections/exit-polls/
Most of Sarvis' support came from those identifying as moderate.
20% of voters identified as liberal and 36% conservative. Multiply that by the percentage that voted for Sarvis and 1.4% of all voters identified as liberal and voted for Sarvis, while 1.08% identified as conservative and voted for Sarvis. Due to rounding we can't even be sure of that insignificant .32% difference.
REAL libertarians don't have a knee jerk reaction to the liberal label that fake ones, like grind, do. Libertarians are market liberals and socially liberal. So, I would guess more of the hardcore libertarians who never would vote for either candidate, identified as liberal rather than conservative.
But altogether I think it indicates his effect was likely even but his voters are still difference makers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/2013-elections/exit-polls/
