Dr. Eric Schansberg: Libertarian Candidate for Congress in Indiana

Economist, Professor, Public Policy Analyst and Author are just a few the titles topping Dr. Eric Schansberg’s resume. Attempting to add US Congressman to that list, Dr. Schansberg is running an impressive campaign in Indiana’s 9th District:

Schansberg has tried a grassroots approach to campaigning, attending all 20 county fairs in the 9th District and just talking to people.


“In the downstate towns we’ve gotten terrific media coverage,” Schansberg said. “I was on vacation in Columbus and about half the people there were at least aware of me.”

A major boon for his campaign came with his inclusion in the first debate last Thursday at WTIU on IU’s Bloomington campus.

In a poll on the Louisville Courier-Journal’s Web site, 31.8 percent of respondents said they thought Schansberg won the debate.

It is refreshing to see Economists such as Dr. Bill Peirce and Dr. Eric Schansberg running for office as Libertarians. I have to wonder how many Economists run under the mega-party banner.

UPDATE: Listen to the debate here.

  1. Wait – I’m really confused here – I know who the libertarian is but who is the Democrat and who is the Republican?

    Other than that, it was a decent debate although I’m a bit shaky on a few points Eric made, one being immigration; but I know that immigration is a debated issue amongst ourselves.

    Overall, I think Eric did pretty damned well.

  2. 1) Absent-minded professor spouting crazy.
    2) Slick politician and a truck driver not saying a thing but studiously avoiding recognition that #1 is there.
    3) Crazily-worded “who won it” poll tainted by a link from HOT.

    I’m not sure anyone “won” the debate. Schansberg did about as well as anyone can do when promoting unpopular ideas and himself in 90-second blurbs.

  3. Brock; at least if he’s pulling low thirties on a ‘who won the debate’ poll that’s an indicator to people that there’s no ‘wasted vote’ syndrome going on.

    In a three-way winner-takes-all race, 33.4 percent is Supreme Leader.

  4. The poll is horrible; Schansberg is the only person you are allowed to vote for if you dont call yourself a republican or democrat.

  5. How is he polling in general? Have they done any polls?

    And Brock, that was an incredible speech! We need more representatives like Ron Paul.

  6. I wathced the debate and have a few observations (for whats its worth).

    I also noticed that the other two candatites avioded Schansberg. Who can blame them? the republicrats have nothing to gain (in their eyes) by responding to Schansberg.

    On the issues themsevles. Schansberg was obviously strong on the economic front and I think the IL voters will notice that (wouldn’t hold my breath though). I also thought he kicked the hell out of the public school system and the no child left behind act. He was probably smart (in a stragetic sense) not to use the word privatization (or however that is spelled).

    However, he was weak on several issues. To begin with he was way to “iffy” on the war in Iraq. He should have siad that was immoral, inneffective, and a waste of the USA time. Instead he gave a luke warm anwser that made it sound like he wasn’t even sure of what to do.

    The global warming issue didn’t help much. He could have at least talked about some free market approaches to the (cont)

  7. (cont) the issue.

    Perhaps the most disapointing stance was the constutional admendment to gay marriage. he would sign it? What the fuck? true he said he wasn’t crazy about it, but that is a shitty stance to take. Yes I know he is in IL and is trying to win some conserative votes, but he gave a chicken shit anwser.

    Oh, by the way. Stupidest fucking poll ever. You should have four choices. Which one you thought one (regardless of you party affliation) and a “no body won” choice.

    I suppose if i lived in IL i would go with schansberg, but he i a “moderate libertarian”. In other words, he is only slighly better than the other canidates.

  8. It is not a poll in any meaningful sense of the word and with less than 300 on line votes in it is too easily manipulated. And if his answer on equal marriage rights for gays is his view, and he’s wishy-washy on the war (as reported in comments) then he’s a Republican in libertarian clothing and doesn’t deserve a support.

  9. I know from experience that inclusion in congressional debates means nothing to campaign success. A third-party candidate can participate in and win as many debates as he or she wants, and even win straw-polls at those debates, have the results published in newspapers, etc., and still net less than 2 percent of the vote in the actual election. The televised nature of this debate makes it a little different than my experience, but still – what percentage of voters watched it?

    And besides… I agree with getreal anyway.

  10. Well, U.A. is only slightly off. I know of one campaign where the debates were all won, one major party candidate was revealed as an empty suit and the other lied about voting for the pay raise, the newspapers gave the Libertarian wall to wall coverage and he got slightly more than 4%. Face it, the voters aren’t ready to vote for Libertarian ideas no matter how visible the congressional campaign is. We need candidates willing to use their resources to advance the ideas for years and years, not dream that they are going to win and then crash and burn when reality intrudes.

  11. How can that be? I thought just as soon as we dumped the paltform and ran “Libertarian” candidates who support an anti-gay marriage amendment, the Iraq war, the “fair” tax, a crackdown on immigration, and other moderately pro-liberty views, we’d become a major party and win elections. Wait, I know the answer! If only we get rid of the pledge and statement of principles, and what’s left of the platform while we are at it, we’ll certainly become a major party.

  12. all change happens instantly, and I am not sure you are aware of this but ROme was built in 11.8 hours, less than even half of a day

  13. How’s the Reform Party doing? They had no radical views to hold them back. They even had plenty of money and media, at the start.

  14. Timing is everything. The American public, when they turn, will turn on a dime. We have to be ready. That means we need candidates with experience running campaigns and speaking and debating, etc. We are not wasting our time.

  15. The Reform party imploded because they bickered internally over small things and everyone wanted the party to go thier way or to just die on the vine. There were 2 camps and neither would give an inch to the other, and they would rather see complete failure than put a unified voice out that agreed with them on 90% of issues.

  16. LOL. What 90% of issues did they agree on? Here are some people associated with the Reform party:

    Ross Perot
    Jesse Ventura
    Donald Trump
    Lenora Fulani (marxist psychology/politics cult)
    John Hagelin (Natural Law/follower of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi)
    Dick Lamm
    Pat Buchanan
    Warren Beatty
    Ralph Nader

    They agree on 90% of issues? Really?

  17. I agree with paulie cannoli, a stripped down LP part is no party at all. Schansbergis a shitty canidate, but slighly less shitty than the repubicrats.

  18. i agree with kcjerith, i was embarrassed by his response to the iraq war. “i don’t want to play monday morning quarterback”. what? watered-down libertarian views are moderate views and moderate views are meaningless.
    get this jackass off the ticket now.

  19. Paulie – Max Linn appears to be running a respectable Reform Party campaign

    Awesome! If the LP Deform Caucus is successful, perhaps in a few years when someone asks “whatever happened to the LP – what are they doing these days?” someone can provide an answer like that.