Radio home of http://www.Revolutionmarch.com

Featuring the march on DC July 12th with Dr Paul

Live radio and true news without the MSM spin.

LIVE CHAT ROOM to interact with other fellow marchers and Ron Paul supporters.

It seems far more likely that split will reveal itself in depressed Republican voter turnout rather than votes for Barr - something that is already showing up in the primary voting patterns. That would be before McCain became the presumptive nominee, although we still find that 25% of Republicans are voting for what's his face.

Maybe they'll all vote for Barr.

Yes, and my point is that Libertarians have yet to pull in 300K nationwide. Is there some reason to think that FL - or any other swing state - will be within spitting difference, given the realistic historical Libertarian vote? Doubt it seriously.

Doesn't matter how many votes Gore lost by in FL, rather it's how many votes were taken away.

Ummm, Nader got significantly more than 527 votes in Florida - 97,421 by most estimates. Since Libertarians pull in around 0.3 percent of the vote, that's somewhere around 300K nationwide. Sure, it can happen, but I really doubt Barr will give McCain cause to worry.
Posted by Hal | May 12, 2008 | 01:18 pm | Permalink

The 527 votes was the difference between Bush and Gore, not the amount Nader polled. If Nader polled nearly 100,000 in Florida, and most of those voters would ordinarily have voted Dem, then if he hadn't run...

In the comments below, yetanotherjohn asks why Bob Barr as the Libertarian candidate really matters, given the poor performance of Libertarian candidates in the past. Here’s why I think it does

I would add to that list that in past situations where a Libertarian (Cap L) candidate showed up, the split caused by such candidates was far smaller because the right wasn't already looking for someone to better represent their interests.

McCain's biggest frailty, politically speaking is not that he's losing liberal voters. His biggest problem is he's losing conservative voters.

As such and with McCain being the nominee, I submit Barr showing up will create more of a split than he would in situations where there was a real conservative heading the Republican ticket.

Signed,

Democratic Party.

PS Can you get some more Libertarian candidates to run on the state level to take away the crotchety 'get the hell out of life, stop spending my money' angry white man conservative vote from the republicans? That way the we can control both houses with a supermajority. Thanks.

Ummm, Nader got significantly more than 527 votes in Florida - 97,421 by most estimates. Since Libertarians pull in around 0.3 percent of the vote, that's somewhere around 300K nationwide. Sure, it can happen, but I really doubt Barr will give McCain cause to worry.

Simple fact is, that McCain is going to lose in a landslide.

can you please spell out why you think this is especially bad for McCain?

Umm, Florida . . . 2000 . . . Nader . . . 527 votes

If these poll numbers are any indication, it’s all over but the crying for Barry O. as far as the upcoming West Virginia and Kentucky primaries are concerned.
Both states have high populations of working class white Democrats who have not warmed ...

Yea, I'd have to agree. Libertarians haven't broken 1% of the vote since 1980. Libertarians seem to believe they're this huge voting block, but this seems to a fact denied by objective reality.

Still, the more the merrier. I'm sure it'll be great fun to replay Barr's greatest hits at the impeachment trial. Sure that'll go over well with one or two voters.

L G other
2004 0.32 0.38 0.30
2000 0.36 2.75 0.65
1996 0.50 0.71 8.88
1992 0.28 19.27
1988 0.47 0.51
1980 1.06 7.17
1976 1.9
1972 1.8
1968 13.86

You can make a good case that the "other" third party candidates flipped the outcome in 1968 and 1992. You can make less of a case that this happened in 1996 and 2000. In those 40 years, independent candidate Wallace won 46 EV and the libertarian won 1 EV in 1972. No other EV were awarded in the last 40 years to any third party candidate.

The republicans and democrats both failed to win majority popular votes in 1968 and 1992 while third party candidates (not the libertarians by the way) got ~14 and 19% of the popular vote. The GOP won 1968 and the dems in 1992, for a split decision,

in 1996 the non-libertarian third party candidate got ~9% and neither the GOP nor the dems got a majority. THe dems won with an incumbent president. In 2000, the greens got ~3% of the vote, neither major party got a majority and the GOP won.

In all the other contests, one or the other major parties got a majority vote (5 times for the GOP and once in 1976 for the dems with 50.08%).

The libertarians best showing was in 1980 with 1.06% under the Ron Paul banner.

So now given the history, given the 0.32% in 2004, given the poor name recognition of the libertarian candidate, can you please spell out why you think this is especially bad for McCain? And remember that we know there will be a Green candidate and the greens though week pull better than the libertarians, so that needs to be balanced into your analysis.

On the topic of Barr's run, I love the idea of him running, if for nothing other than finally having someone with name recognition running as a Libertarian. I do have worries about what draining votes away from McCain will leave us with in November. I don't like McCain, but I really don't like Obama.

Is he to be the "Little Engine That Could?"

Is he to be the Molly Brown ready to wrest the leadership away from the incompetent officially chosen one?

Tune in tommorrow for chapter ten in the saga of The Election Fiasco of 2008

Now will we find out how many really are "my friends" John.