Libertarian Jonathan Dine is running for Senate in Missouri. Libertarians could be Senate spoilers

Democratic hopes of maintaining a razor-thin Senate majority may hinge on an unexpected outside force: Libertarians.

In the battlegrounds of Montana, Arizona and Missouri, polls show the Libertarian nominee poised to siphon a fraction of the vote — a small fraction, but potentially enough to tip the outcome in a cliffhanger. And with the battle for the Senate shaping up to be a coin-flip proposition, no factor — not even fringe candidates with little more than a Libertarian label to propel their campaigns — is too insignificant to dismiss.


Given the small-government mantra of Libertarian voters, Democratic officials see the development as a major boon.

“Ralph Nader in reverse” is how Arizona GOP strategist Jason Rose characterized the 2012 dynamic.

“When candidates bloody each other up, nondescript candidates can become safe harbors,” he said.

Still, senior Republican officials dismiss the impact of Libertarians, particularly in Montana, arguing that the third-party candidates pull a tiny number of disaffected voters about equally from both parties.

Libertarian candidates in these three Senate races — as well as in Indiana — have enormous handicaps: a lack of money, party infrastructure and name ID, to name a few. So they’re clamoring to share the debate stage with their better-known rivals — and Democrats are all too happy to oblige.

In Missouri, Sen.Claire McCaskill has no problem letting Libertarian Jonathan Dine participate in the final debate Thursday; GOP Rep. Todd Akin scoffs at the idea. In an Arizona debate last week, Libertarian nominee Marc Victor went after Republican Rep. Jeff Flake on his signature issue of killing earmarks, aiding Democrat Richard Carmona in the process.

And in Montana, Democratic Sen. Jon Tester even said during his last one-on-one debate with GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg that it was “too bad” that Libertarian candidate Dan Cox wasn’t allowed to participate. On Sunday night, the 36-year-old Cox joined in a debate with the two main candidates, using the forum to attack both men for “nibbling around the edges” and failing to uphold their constitutional oaths of office.

“Rehberg didn’t vote for [the economic stimulus bill], but he did vote to raise the debt ceiling,” Cox said at the debate. “What you’re basically saying is, ‘I’m enabling this spending that I didn’t vote for.’ So either way, it’s two sides of the same coin. One guy is voting for it, the other guy is voting to allow it.”

The effect of these longshot, third-party contenders could be most pronounced in Montana and Arizona, which both have strong Libertarian streaks. And they could very well hurt Republicans more than Democrats.

Because the tea party has seized control of Arizona’s Republican Party and nudged it closer to libertarian conservatism, there’s been little room for independent Libertarian candidates in recent years, said longtime Arizona pollster Bruce Merrill. But he said those Libertarians would tend to take away votes from the Republican candidate more than the Democratic candidate.

Democrats hold a 53 percent to 47 percent advantage in the chamber, so Republicans need to net four seats if Mitt Romney doesn’t win the presidency. But that’s become a tougher feat for the GOP as several key races — such as in Florida, Ohio and New Mexico — have favored Democrats, making states like Montana and Arizona must-wins for the GOP.

In Montana, the Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling showed Tester with a 2-percentage point lead over Rehberg in a poll last week, with Cox pulling 8 percent of the vote. That same poll found 8 percent of Republicans supported Cox, compared to 15 percent of independents and 1 percent of Democrats.

Republicans were quick to dispute the poll, saying it did not properly analyze how voters supporting Cox would be predisposed to vote if he were not on the ballot. Internal GOP polling that tests Cox’s support shows that it is about evenly split between Rehberg and Tester, officials say, though they would not provide the polls. And Tester’s campaign wouldn’t comment on specific polling that tests precisely which camp would be hurt more by Cox.

Still, every vote could matter given Montana’s small electorate. In 2006, when Tester beat GOP incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns by just 3,562 votes, Libertarian Stan Jones won nearly 3 percent of the vote. In the three-way race against Rehberg for his statewide House seat in 2010, Libertarian Mike Fellows won nearly 6 percent of the vote.

In a statement, Tester’s campaign manager, Preston Elliott, said Montana voters were “fed up” with Rehberg’s positions on the Patriot Act, a Real ID plan and federal lands bills — all measures that could alienate small-government voters.

“Some of these voters will support Mr. Cox, but many more will support Jon Tester because of his responsible record,” Elliott said.

Chris Bond, a spokesman for Rehberg, said voters would reject “liberal” Tester and his support of Obama’s policies, “so he’s now been reduced to hoping and praying a third-party candidate can help him cling to power.”

In the Sunday night debate, Rehberg and Tester all but ignored Cox as they squabbled during the 90-minute session. But the Libertarian used every opportunity to paint both men as big-government enablers infringing on the rights of ordinary Montanans.

“We hear all the time that Rehberg is a problem and Tester is a problem,” Cox said. “I’m going to agree with both of them.”

There’s reason to believe that the Libertarian candidates could draw support from the left, too. Some of their views — such as legalizing marijuana — often appeal to younger, college-age voters.

Indeed, the 32-year-old Dine — the Missouri Senate contender who’s a personal trainer from Kansas City — said he has “never met a college kid who I couldn’t convince to vote for me.”

Still, Dine believes he’ll pull support from Akin after the GOP candidate’s infamous comments on rape and abortion. In 2010, Dine won 3 percent of the vote in Republican Roy Blunt’s blowout Senate victory, even though the Libertarian has had a series of legal problems.

Given the unpopularity of both McCaskill and Akin, Dine could see that support grow this year. An Oct. 3 poll by PPP found McCaskill up by 6 percentage points, with Dine pulling 9 percent of the vote. About one-quarter of his support came from self-identified conservatives, his largest bloc of support.

That could be one reason why Akin’s team isn’t keen on Dine participating in the debate Thursday.

“If the Libertarians had fielded a competitive candidate with broad support, that candidate would have been in the debate. They did not,” said Rick Tyler, a senior adviser to Akin. “If McCaskill wants to debate Dine in some venue, I’m sure it could be arranged.”

Even those sympathetic to the Libertarian cause believe it’s difficult for those third-party candidates to gain traction in the polls.

“The reason they can’t draw more support is a lack of financial resources — and lack of institutional ability to get into debates,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul told POLITICO. “It takes money to get that message out.”

Victor, the Libertarian nominee in Arizona, is doing Flake no favors in his dead-heat race against Carmona. In an interview, the attorney and first-time candidate accused Flake, the former director of the conservative Goldwater Institute think tank, of “masquerading” as a limited-government candidate. In Victor’s eyes, there’s little difference between Flake and his Democratic challenger, Carmona, the former U.S. surgeon general.

“[Flake] is a guy who has repeatedly voted to raise the debt ceiling. He voted for wars, which are very expensive economically and in terms of human lives, and he voted for the Patriot Act, an expansion of government that allows snooping on citizens,” said Victor, who called himself part of the Ron Paul Revolution.

“I don’t think Carmona pretends to be a small-government guy. I think Flake pretends to be a small-government guy.”

A spokesman for Flake declined to comment.

One GOP poll that included Victor showed him with 4 percent of the vote — enough to make a difference if the race goes down to the wire.