I'm not voting for Holcomb, I'm voting against something far worse. This pissing contest needed to take place in the primary; it didn't. It's over unless you want something far worse. If (for example) you want mayor stinky shoes to become governor stinky shoes and that's going to make the state better because we got rid of Holcomb then I think you are part of the problem and not the solution.
I've asked this before and haven't gotten an answer. Why haven't the Libertarians been allying with conservatives and Republicans overtly, such as in positions like lieutenant governor? One of the paths to electability is to hold a junior office and show that one is capable and consistent. Then use that as a springboard to higher office
It seems that I pretty much only hear about Libertarian candidates when they think that political chaos somehow gives them an opportunity not available to them in more normal times. Instead of jumping right to 'abolish the IRS', 'Legalize it', 'return to the gold standard' and 'drastically cut government via slogan without thought to what, if anything, might be worth saving', why not work toward desired results by showing potential voters small scale change in desired directions, implemented by a thoughtful government heedful of the many disparate concerns of conservatives about too much change to fast getting out of control, can be palatable and good. Think where we could be now if Bush I had made Perot his VP, won his race and installed some Libertarians as cabinet members. For one thing, the movement would be remembered for how it helped stave off the Clinton menace, not for how it enabled it
Are the extreme positions playing to the base, supposedly a Trump flaw? It always seems Libertarians are fighting the last war. Whether you help elect a Democrat governor of Indiana or Democrat POTUS, the result is still the same - all your base belong to them
Edit: Not directed at you, Thor. Just using the post as a springboard to ask the question