Libertarian Candidate left off La. Senate Race poll...

.

There is a strong group of Ron Paul supporters in Louisiana. We are prime ground for a dark horse Libertarian to outshine the Vitter and Melancon.

Melancon is a much disliked candidate in the area. Vitter has plenty of baggage.

I recommend that Tony visit Houma..... right in the heart of Melancon's congressional district.

how they ascribed all those votes to Tony without resetting the poll. My guess is they noted those votes all rolled in in the last 24 hours and they were also receiving emails asking for his inclusion and maybe indicating they were forced to vote "not sure."

However it went down, it works for me.

Thanks to everyone here on DP.

Now let's see if we can push Tony's numbers up and show support where it is due.

The state being what it is lately, there's no telling exactly where Tony's support will be coming from. Thanks for voting Other.

And not to diminish your comment (because I agree if those are my only two options) but this is a great example where we can "turn the tables" of the lesser of two evils syndrome.

#1 - It is often cited that in a three way race, candidate C, not being an anointed front runner will "take votes" from candidate A or B.

This leads into the fallacy of "lesser of two evils" that since it is a (wrongly) foregone conclusion that either candidate A or B will win, and candidate "B" is evil (or vice versa) that therefore you should not vote for candidate C at all because he has no chance of winning (again wrongfully assumed) and thus we need to vote for the lesser of evils to keep bigger evil from winning. This makes candidate C's non-viability a self fulfilling prophecy through circular reasoning: Assume an outcome. Take action to make the outcome happen. Outcome happens. Declare original prediction correct without regard to your own action having any effect.

#2 - This ignores the fact that an election is not decided generally until votes are actually cast. Therefore it could be said that lesser evil candidate A is really taking votes that would have gone to candidate C had morons not used the completely specious fallacy they call logic posited in #1 above. Thus, candidate A should not be voted for. Why waste your vote on evil, when everyone who would have voted for A out of fear of B can just as easily vote their conscience for candidate C. In either case, candidate B loses but in #2 candidate C - the not evil one, wins.

but no Tony G