if it was decided on votes per dollar...

According to a piece on the C-J website, Hill and Sodrel combined for Indiana’s most expensive congressional race this fall with a combined $4.7 million.

Of that, the Democrats spent $3.6 million ($2.2 from Hill; $1.4 from the DCCC). Sodrel spent $1.1 million with no help from the national party this time.

In 2006, they spent more than $8.2 million. Hill spent $1.8 million while Sodrel spent $2.7 million. The DCCC only spent about $700K while the RNCC spent more than $3 million.

Last time, I spent $25,000; this time, it was $30,000.

crunching some numbers from 11/4

We ended up with exactly 12,000 votes-- after getting 9,920 in 2006. Unfortunately, with 93,000 more voters this time (from 221K to 314K), that translated into a lower percentage: 3.8% this year vs. 4.5% in 2006.

Going into the campaign season, we thought this was a strong possibility: more voters, but a lower percentage-- given the higher voter turnout during presidential elections (especially this year). Beyond that, and to generalize, these voters are characterized by the relative excitement they have for the presidential election and the relative ignorance they have about the down-ticket offices.

As for specific counties, I'm a bit surprised that we received fewer votes in six of the 20 counties. (I thought they'd vote for me again in 2008 if they voted for me in 2006, but perhaps memories are short?) We increased our vote percentage in four counties (Dearborn, Floyd, Ripley and especially Switzerland). Jackson and Brown were still our two best counties. Washington moved up to 3rd. Switzerland, with a significant radio campaign, moved from 18th to 4th. Perry and Spencer became our bottom two. (We got very little media coverage there and didn't purchase much media.)

Many people have asked whether I'm disappointed. Yes and no. I'm not disappointed with the way in which we ran the experiment. We did everything we could given the resources we had. We worked very hard and as far as I know, we worked smart. But of course, we were disappointed in the results. We wanted to win. If not win, then we wanted to hit double-digits and make a far bigger splash. But it is what it is.

Perhaps I turned off a lot of people with one of our TV ads. Perhaps people were somehow more prone to the (lame) "wasted vote" idea. Less media coverage of the race. Only one debate. Far less negativity from the other two. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. We'll never know. But I think the biggest thing, by far, is the limited extent to which people pay attention to politics. As I've often said, we're fortunate to live in a country where we don't need to pay much attention to politics-- and people take advantage of that. The problem, of course, is that we allow all sorts of shenanigans to go on.

What does the future hold for the 9th District, for the Libertarian Party, and for freedom? Stay tuned...

IDS election coverage

Nice coverage in a good overview article from Zina Kumok in the Indiana Daily Student...

A fight between two long-time rivals ended in a landslide Tuesday....

Sodrel conceded the race at about 9 p.m. Tuesday.

“I’m grateful to my family, friends and great volunteers that have supported me in this race,” Sodrel said in a statement. “I have known victory, and I have known defeat. I am at peace with the outcome.”

Hill said in a press release that he was grateful to be chosen again.

“It is with deep and heartfelt gratitude that I thank the people of southern Indiana for allowing me to continue serving in Congress,” Hill said in the statement.

Schansberg, an economics professor at IU-Southeast New Albany, said he thought campaigning in a presidential year made the race more difficult for him. While voters seem worried about the economy, Schansberg said a lack of overwhelming support made him doubt their true concern.

“People say they want change, but they have an economics professor in a time when that kind of expertise would seem to be pretty welcome,” Schansberg said. “It’s odd people don’t vote for that more often.”

Hill’s vote against Congress’ $300 billion bailout, Schansberg said, was a key factor in his victory. Despite getting his issues out there, Schansberg said he expected a higher percentage of support.

“It’s a platform to talk about things that don’t get talked about if I wasn’t in there,” Schansberg said. “I’m not disappointed in the sense we did everything we could do. I am disappointed in the numbers.”...

Schansberg provides post-election comments

November 4, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg provides post-election comments

After the networks declared Baron Hill the winner of the 9^th Congressional District in Indiana, Dr. Eric Schansberg congratulated Rep. Hill on his victory—and thanked Mike Sodrel for running a clean campaign and his willingness to debate.

From the results available at 10:00 (with 77% of precincts reporting), Schansberg had earned 4% of the vote, finishing third to Hill who won with 56% and Sodrel who received 40%. This was the second race for Schansberg. This was the fourth race between Sodrel and Hill—and the third victory for Hill.

Dr. Schansberg commented: “We increased our number of votes by quite a bit. It’s always difficult for a third-party candidate. But it’s especially difficult in presidential election years, when people are excited about the presidential race but often don’t know much about the down-ticket races.”

Dr. Schansberg continued: “The campaign was a platform to talk about things the other candidates could not or would not. And the campaign was an experiment as well. What would happen if a highly-credible candidate worked hard? People say they want change; we wanted to give them that opportunity. We did everything we could do—with the resources we had. Unfortunately, we were still not able to get enough above the radar to make a huge difference in the race. We learned a lot and look forward to using this effort to help build the Libertarian party and to promote freedom—as well as a much smaller and much better federal government.”

some Indiana debates on C-SPAN

Click here for the link...

enjoy! eric

IDS overview of the 9th District race

Everything is good in this article by the IDS' Peter Stevenson except his reference to Hill leaning left on Iraq. If his position is "leaning left", then we'll be in Iraq for a very long time.

Hill has done nothing substantive to get us out of Iraq. Period.

second hour of the debate on Indiana-9 this weekend

Saturday at 8pm

AND

Sunday: the 1st hour will be re-run at 8pm-- with the 2nd hour at 9 pm

wow...the campaign is really catching fire!

Click here to see the news account...

Schansberg announces Election Day plans

October 31, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg announces Election Day plans

On Friday, Dr. Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Congress in Indiana's 9^th District, announced his campaign stops and plans for November 4^th.

Freetown Community Center 6:00 – 6:15 AM

Brownstown Courthouse 6:30 – 7:00 AM

Seymour High School 7:15 – 7:45 AM

North Vernon The Lord's Chapel 8:00 – 8:30 AM

Scottsburg Middle School 9:00 – 9:30 AM

Jeffersonville vote at Wilson Elementary 10:00 AM

Work/Teach IUS 10:30 – 3:00 PM

Campaign throughout So. Indiana 3:00 – 6:00 PM

Starting at 6:00, Eric and his wife will host a party in their home for supporters. Members of the media are welcome to attend as well.

October 31, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Schansberg announces Election Day plans

On Friday, Dr. Eric Schansberg, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Congress in Indiana's 9^th District, announced his campaign stops and plans for November 4^th.

Freetown Community Center 6:00 – 6:15 AM

Brownstown Courthouse 6:30 – 7:00 AM

Seymour High School 7:15 – 7:45 AM

North Vernon The Lord's Chapel 8:00 – 8:30 AM

Scottsburg Middle School 9:00 – 9:30 AM

Jeffersonville vote at Wilson Elementary 10:00 AM

Work/Teach IUS 10:30 – 3:00 PM

Campaign throughout So. Indiana 3:00 – 6:00 PM

Starting at 6:00, Eric and his wife will host a party in their home for supporters. Members of the media are welcome to attend as well.

For more information on the campaign, see: www.SchansbergForCongress.com.

To schedule an interview—whether on Election Night or prior to that—contact Eric at (812) 218-0443, or Melanie Hughes at (502) 432-1930, or send an email to SchansbergForCongress@gmail.com.

END

END

NPR covers our race

I haven't heard this yet, so hopefully they say nice things about me! ;-)

Update: nothing about me. Surprising, since she liked me. But it would have been difficult to fit it into the ping-pong theme. Oh well...

Schansberg to celebrate 5th anniversary of VET’s demise

Schansberg to celebrate 5^th anniversary of VET’s demise

On Saturday, Dr. Eric Schansberg will celebrate the fifth anniversary of the end of “vehicle emission testing” (VET) in Jefferson County, Kentucky in 2003. (Soon afterwards, Clark and Floyd counties in Indiana ended their VET as well.)

The event is a party from 2:00-6:00—with a 3:00 press conference featuring multiple speakers at the home of Donna and Dick Mancini (719 Talon Place, Owl Creek sub-division in Louisville).

Dr. Schansberg did research on the benefits and costs of VET in Jefferson County, published articles on the subject, and testified before the relevant sub-committee of the Kentucky State Senate.

In his research, Dr. Schansberg found that the money, time, and pollution costs of VET were tremendous when the regulation was imposed uniformly on all vehicles. Newer vehicles rarely failed the test—and so, the dollar and time costs of the program were far greater than the modest improvement to the environment.

Dr. Schansberg did not categorically oppose all forms of VET. But he found that the uniform implementation led to inequities and vast inefficiencies. And he noted that the “waiver” provision limited the program’s ability to improve the environment. (Auto owners with failed cars could simply a certain amount of money without improving their car’s performance.)

Dr. Schansberg also argued that annual, stationary testing is prone to abuse (people can rig their cars to get through the test) and necessarily misses out on problem cars (those who didn’t live in the Louisville metro area and were not tested). Instead, he recommended “mobile (emission) testing” which is far cheaper per vehicle and far more effective in catching high-pollution cars.

Press Release: Schansberg offers “voter guide” for 9th District race

Schansberg offers “voter guide” for 9^th District race

On Thursday, Dr. Eric Schansberg offered voters an overview of the key issues in the 9th District’s congressional campaign: “Here are the five key issues where there are significant differences between the candidates.”

On Iraq, Schansberg said, “If you want someone who will continue the status quo in Iraq, you can choose from Hill or Sodrel. If you want someone who will work hard to bring the troops home in the next year, then you can choose Schansberg.”

On “fiscal conservatism”: “If you want someone who is ok for a Democrat, you can choose Hill. If you want someone who is ok for a Republican, you can choose Sodrel. If you want a fiscal conservative, the watchdog groups indicate that I’m your only choice.”

On abortion: “If you’re ‘pro-choice’, you have Hill. If you’re ‘pro-life’, you have me or Sodrel.”

On issues of “economic justice”: “If you want someone who will bring knowledge and zeal to this, you can choose a Christian economist. If you want someone who will largely ignore these issues, you can choose Sodrel. If you want someone who will focus on minor issues and dubious approaches, you have Hill.”

On illegal immigration: “If you want someone who is strong on illegal immigration, you can choose me or Hill. If you want someone who will only focus on border security, you can choose Sodrel.”

Schansberg and Sodrel reply to C-J non-endorsement

Click here to see both.

Here's mine:

The C-J editorialists didn’t interview me. You can understand why. Talking to an economics professor must sound like nails on a chalkboard to them. (They didn’t even return our campaign’s emails. Classy!)

They didn’t mention me in their endorsement of Baron Hill. The best explanation? Legitimate concern that some of my positions would take votes away from their preferred candidate.

Hill is “progressive”? Please… Hill has “courage” on Iraq?! He continually supports our on-going efforts there and devotes NO energy or advertising to ending it. Hill didn’t condemn the DCCC’s nasty ads against Sodrel. In 2006, challenger Hill repeatedly demanded debates; in 2008, incumbent Hill wanted no debates.

Most voters say they want “change”. In the 9^th District, voters have a highly-credible 3^rd-party candidate—the only fiscal conservative in the race. Will they embrace change or choose the status quo?

Don’t waste your vote this time; vote Schansberg for Congress.